All notes for Subtopic 504.14000 – Other/In General

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2635Ma * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Santa Monica
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
While PERB considers all relevant facts and circumstances in assessing an employer’s motivation, we have identified the following factors as being the most common means of establishing a discriminatory motive through circumstantial evidence: (1) timing of the employer’s adverse action in relation to the employee’s protected conduct; (2) disparate treatment; (3) departure from established procedures and standards; (4) an inadequate investigation; (5) a punishment that is disproportionate based on the relevant circumstances; (6) failure to offer a contemporaneous justification, or offering exaggerated, questionable, inconsistent, contradictory, vague, or ambiguous reasons; (7) employer animosity towards union activists; and (8) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. (See, e.g., City of Sacramento (2019) PERB Decision No. 2642-M, p. 21; San Joaquin Delta Community College District (1982) PERB Decision No. 261, pp. 5-9.) more or view all topics or full text.
01/22/20
2635Ma * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Santa Monica
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
“To establish the final element of the prima facie case, the charging party must show that the employee’s protected activity was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision to impose the adverse action.” (Omnitrans (2010) PERB Decision No. 2121-M, p. 9.) PERB considers direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination. (Id. at p. 10.) Direct evidence is rarely attainable, and in any event, there is no hierarchy between direct and circumstantial evidence, as PERB considers all evidence for its persuasive value. (Id. at pp. 9-10; Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 20, fn. 13.) more or view all topics or full text.
01/22/20
2634E San Diego Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
In applying the Novato standard (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210), we often compare the employer’s proffered reasons with the parties’ evidence regarding any alleged wrongdoing “to determine if the employer exaggerated or otherwise mischaracterized what occurred, thereby evidencing an unlawful motivation.” (Adelanto Elementary School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2630, p. 11.) more or view all topics or full text.
4315603/22/19
2632M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
District’s high-ranking labor relations officials repeatedly and expressly relied on the distinction between represented and unrepresented employees as the basis for determining eligibility for employment benefits. These statements provide direct evidence of motive and, indeed, of facially or inherently discriminatory conduct sufficient to support a discrimination allegation. more or view all topics or full text.
4315003/07/19
2622E Cabrillo Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
When an employer initiates an investigation into an employee’s conduct prior to any knowledge of the employee’s protected activity and follows its customary practices in the investigation, it is difficult to demonstrate pretext, absent other factors raising an inference of unlawful motivation. However, retaliation may be shown if the employer alters its investigation practices or related employment decision in response to any intervening protected activity. (p. 7.) The District began its investigation before it learned of the employee’s protected activity and the evidence shows the protected activity did not influence the conduct or result of its investigation. (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text.
4312602/04/19
2642M City of Sacramento
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
While Board considers all relevant facts and circumstances in assessing an employer’s motivation, Board has identified the following factors as being the most common means of establishing a discriminatory motive, intent, or purpose: (1) timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor; (2) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee; (3) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee; (4) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions; (5) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct; (6) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague or ambiguous reasons; (7) employer animosity towards union activists; and (8) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. (Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2629-M, pp. 9-10; County of Yolo (2009) PERB Decision No. 2020-M, pp. 12-13; Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text.
4317905/01/19
2642M City of Sacramento
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
While some of the employer’s allegedly adverse actions were in close temporal proximity to employee’s protected activity, timing alone is not determinative. (Adelanto Elementary School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2630, p. 9.) The record as a whole does not lead PERB to conclude that employer conducted investigatory interview of employee, delayed processing employee’s supplemental employment application, or lost employee’s Departmental personnel files because he engaged in protected activity. No evidence introduced suggesting employer was motivated by protected activity, where asserted adverse actions were mistakes or caused by breakdown in communication. more or view all topics or full text.
4317905/01/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Under Novato, a charging party may prove unlawful motive, intent, or purpose through direct or circumstantial evidence, including evidence which tends to show that an employer’s proffered justification for its action was not its true motive or purpose. (Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210, p. 6.) Circumstantial evidence, including evidence under one or more of the nexus factors borrowed from Wright Line and other private-sector authority, can be equally as probative as direct evidence. (Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 20, fn. 13.) “[D]irect proof of motivation is rarely possible, since motivation is a state of mind which may be known only to the actor. Thus . . . unlawful motive can be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the record as a whole.” (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, p. 6.) (p. 9) more or view all topics or full text.
4314502/27/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
PERB generally analyzes allegations of employer reprisal and discrimination under two lines of cases, which can be distinguished primarily by the manner in which they permit the charging party to prove nexus. (City of Yuba City (2018) PERB Decision No. 2603-M, p. 10.) Under Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416, 423-424, a charging party may establish “discrimination in its simplest form” via evidence of “employer conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, such that the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence.” (Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 14 (LA Superior Court).) In the absence of evidence sufficient to trigger the Campbell standard, PERB applies the Novato analysis of nexus factors. (LA Superior Court, supra, PERB Decision No. 2566-C, pp. 14-15.) (p. 8) more or view all topics or full text.
4314502/27/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Novato factors apply where adverse action was not discriminatory on its face. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, p. 6.) (p. 9) more or view all topics or full text.
4314502/27/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
While PERB considers all relevant facts and circumstances in assessing an employer’s motivation, PERB has identified the following factors as being the most common means of establishing a discriminatory motive, intent, or purpose: (1) timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor; (2) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee; (3) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee; (4) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions; (5) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct; (6) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague or ambiguous reasons; (7) employer animosity towards union activists; and (8) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. (County of Yolo (2009) PERB Decision No. 2020-M, pp. 12-13; Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 6-7.) (pp. 9-10) more or view all topics or full text.
4314502/27/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
When an adverse action advances a management interest—e.g., eliminating opposition to a management objective affecting the terms and conditions of employment—this fact may indicate the adverse action was motivated by the employer’s desire to further that interest. (See County of Yolo (2009) PERB Decision No. 2020-M, p. 13 [the nexus analysis may consider “any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive”].) (p. 11) more or view all topics or full text.
4314502/27/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Context is always relevant in assessing motive. (p. 11, citing proposed decision, at p. 30.) Here, employer’s managerial concerns about employee were directly related to the very matters employee had raised during course of collective bargaining negotiations. more or view all topics or full text.
4314502/27/19
2630E Adelanto Elementary School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Unlawful motive is the required nexus between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse action. more or view all topics or full text.
4314703/01/19
2591M County of Riverside
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Where employer states that it disciplined employee as a result of employee statements, there is no question as to motivation and PERB’s task is to determine whether the statements were statutorily-protected. more or view all topics or full text.
436610/23/18
2584E * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * California Virtual Academies
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Employer’s statement that telephone call to employee “is not going to go well” and that employee would need to be convinced that “this is serious and not retribution for something else” appeared to be an instance of protesting too much, suggesting an unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text.
435409/21/18
2566C Los Angeles County Superior Court
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Direct evidence is not necessarily stronger or more persuasive than circumstantial evidence. more or view all topics or full text.
43106/12/18
2563E Napa Valley Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
The Board has found direct evidence of motive when an employer announces that it is taking or has taken an adverse action because of or in response to an employee’s protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
4215405/25/18
2450E Jurupa Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
District official’s hostility toward employees who filed public complaint is demonstrated by her animus toward the attorney representing the employees. more or view all topics or full text.
404608/31/15
2458E Jurupa Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Discriminatory motivation may be shown when District official’s evaluation comments indicate similar performance shortcomings both before and after she engaged in protected activity, yet the ratings that the official gave her dropped precipitously after her protected conduct. It is reasonable to infer that the District would not have ordered charging party to participate in consecutive performance evaluations in the absence of the District official’s hostility towards charging party’s protected conduct. Removing an evaluation from charging party’s file after investigating her complaint did not retroactively diminish its substantial compliance with Education Code section 44664 for that school year. more or view all topics or full text.
407510/23/15
2453E Cabrillo Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Along with suspicious timing, facts establishing one or more of the following factors must also be present for a prima facie case: (1) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee (2) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee; (3) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions; (4) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct; (5) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists or employees engaged in protected conduct; or (7) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. Unlawful motive is the specific nexus required in the establishment of a prima facie case of retaliation. Direct proof of motivation is rarely possible, since motivation is a state of mind which may be known only to the actor. Thus unlawful motive can be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the record as a whole. To assist with assessing circumstantial evidence of unlawful motive, PERB has developed a set of “nexus” factors. Although the timing of the employer’s action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected activity is an important factor, it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary nexus between the employer’s action and the protected activity. Where the employer’s motive is the central issue, the fact finder must often rely heavily on circumstantial evidence and inferences. Only rarely will there be probative direct evidence of the employer's motivation. Lack of evidence regarding an independent investigation by the District prior to its taking adverse action against charging party suggests that the District’s justification was pretextual. The District has not described how it conducted a thorough investigation of charging party’s academic credentials in the two days between charging party’s November 4, 2012, e-mail and the District’s November 6, 2012 adverse action. In addition, the undated evidence that was first submitted to PERB by the District in its March 6, 2013, position statement is arguably “after the fact,” and therefore unconvincing justification for its November 6, 2012, adverse action. As such, it supports an inference of unlawful motive as an attempt to legitimize later its earlier decision to impose adverse action. We conclude, therefore, that charging party has sufficiently alleged that the District’s motive for placing him on involuntary, paid administrative leave, withdrawing its tentative offer of employment for Spring 2013 and foreclosing the possibility of future employment with the District, was charging party’s protected conduct and not the District’s concerns about charging party’s qualifications and or his alleged failure to document or disclose prior employment. more or view all topics or full text.
405709/17/15
2391H Trustees of the California State University (East Bay)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charging Party failed to establish any factual or legal basis to attribute to the decision-makers any bias that may have been harbored by any of their subordinates, let alone that any subordinates harbored bias based on Charging Party’s grievance activities. For these reasons, Charging Party failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation or discrimination on the basis of his protected activities. more or view all topics or full text.
393909/02/14
2381E Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Unlawful motive is “the specific nexus required in the establishment of a prima facie case” of retaliation. “[D]irect proof of motivation is rarely possible, since motivation is a state of mind which may be known only to the actor. Thus . . . unlawful motive can be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the record as a whole.” (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210). more or view all topics or full text.
391206/27/14
2411E Berkeley Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Although an employer’s managerial prerogative to raise performance and professional misconduct issues with employees is beyond doubt, an inference of unlawful motivation is created when such issues are raised in immediate response to the exercise of statutory rights; in such a case, the threat of adverse action becomes closely enmeshed with the protected activity “to a point not well tolerated by the statutory scheme.” more or view all topics or full text.
399802/19/15
2283E Jurupa Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Unlawful motive is the specific nexus required in the establishment of a prima facie case. Unlawful motive can be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the record as a whole. PERB has developed and applies a set of “nexus” factors in determining whether a charging party has alleged a prima facie case of retaliation. Although suspicious timing of the employer’s adverse action in proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 264 (North Sacramento)), it does not, without more, demonstrate nexus between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more of the following additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee (State of California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104); (3) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S); (4) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct (City of Torrance (2008) PERB Decision No. 1971-M; Coast Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1560); (5) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action (Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1529) or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons (McFarland Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 786); (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Jurupa Community Services District (2007) PERB Decision No. 1920-M; Cupertino Union Elementary School District (1986) PERB Decision No. 572); or (7) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. (North Sacramento; Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210.) more or view all topics or full text.
08/21/12
2350M County of Orange
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
In asserting that charging party was given insubstantial assignments depriving him of the opportunity to promote to a classification that would not be subject to a layoff, charging party failed to establish nexus between the protected activities of participating in the grievance process and seeking the assistance of the exclusive representative and the adverse action of being laid off; the assignments and failure to promote were made necessary by charging party’s prior misconduct for dishonesty, for which he was suspended for six months, and were not motivated by an unlawful purpose. more or view all topics or full text.
3810012/23/13
2231M Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Where adverse action, the elimination of the Union Time Bank, occurred when a grievance was denied at Step III, the proximity in timing establishes evidence of unlawful motivation for purposes of satisfying the nexus element of the prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation. more or view all topics or full text.
3611101/20/12
2207M City and County of San Francisco
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case; charging party’s burden was not met where he alleged that his negative performance evaluation was “disparate hostile and deceptive treatment unlike or inconsistent with that imposed on any other staff” without providing a factual basis for this statement. more or view all topics or full text.
366010/05/11
2241E Lake Elsinore Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
School Districts expressed reasons for non-reelecting probationary teacher because of his lack of support for co-teaching model does not constitute direct evidence of unlawful motivation. more or view all topics or full text.
3612902/27/12
2184M County of Riverside
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Under the subordinate bias theory, a supervisor’s unlawful motive may be imputed to the decisionmaker when: (1) the supervisor’s recommendation, evaluation, or report was motivated by the employee’s protected activity; (2) the supervisor intended for his or her conduct to result in an adverse action; and (3) the supervisor’s conduct caused the decisionmaker to take adverse action against the employee. While closeness in time between protected activity and supervisor’s recommendation supported an inference of unlawful motive, evidence failed to establish any other factors that would support such an inference. more or view all topics or full text.
36206/07/11
2174M County of Contra Costa
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charge failed to establish that decision to eliminate part-time public health nurse positions and lay off charging party was part of a “strategically orchestrated” plan to terminate charging party’s employment, where charge failed to establish that person or persons responsible for terminating interdepartmental contract and recommending budget cuts had any knowledge of charging party’s protected activity in filing grievances against her supervisor or acting as union steward. While it is conceivable that employees in the personnel department had knowledge of employee’s protected activities, charge failed to allege facts demonstrating any of the established “nexus” factors and therefore failed to alleged any facts that would support a finding that the decision to hire two full-time employees, the elimination of all part-time positions, or the denial of charging party’s request to fill in temporarily for another employee were motivated by employee’s protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
356703/25/11
2161M City of Alhambra
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Employee established a prima facie case of retaliation when: (1) he was rejected on probation the same day he made complaints in a staff meeting; and (2) the employer did not investigate allegations that the employee did not get along with his supervisor and co-workers, and had returned from the job site early on two days. The employer’s statement to the employee that he was being rejected on probation because he “no longer fit into the organization” did not support an inference of unlawful motive because the employer was not required by law, policy, or past practice to give a specific reason for rejecting an employee on probation. more or view all topics or full text.
353602/08/11
2140H Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charge failed to allege facts establishing that a supervisor’s critical comments about an employee’s work performance were motivated by the employee’s filing of a grievance and unfair practice charge. Charge also failed to establish that the employer settled grievances without the grievant’s consent because the grievant had filed other grievances and an unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text.
3416511/02/10
2129E Sacramento City Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
School district’s exaggeration of the facts surrounding a substitute teacher’s late arrival for an assignment indicates that the incident was a pretext for removing the teacher’s name from the active substitute list because of his protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
3413409/03/10
2124E Los Angeles Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Although the timing of the employer’s actions in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor, it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Consequently, in order to establish a nexus, the charging party must demonstrate one or more of the following additional factors is present: (1) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee; (2) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee; (3) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions; (4) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct; (5) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists; or (7) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text.
3411808/04/10
2121M Omnitrans
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Admittedly taking adverse action against an employee because of the employee’s protected activity provides direct evidence of the employer’s unlawful motivation and is sufficient in itself to establish the required nexus between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse action. Prima facie case of retaliation established when employer fired employee in part for absences on days when employee was conducting union business. more or view all topics or full text.
3411006/25/10
2058M San Bernardino County Public Defender
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Timing alone is insufficient to establish a nexus between protected activity and adverse action. Though the charge established timing, it failed to allege additional facts showing the required nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
3314809/03/09
1983M Menlo Park Fire Protection District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
3215810/28/08
2063E Los Banos Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charging party failed to establish a causal connection between the grievances and complaints he filed and the school district’s decision to terminate him. Accordingly, the charge fails to state a prima facie case that the District dismissed charging party in retaliation for having engaged in protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
3316109/25/09
2019E Escondido Union Elementary School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Burden of proof is on union to demonstrate unlawful motivation for adverse action. Union failed to establish that criticisms contained in a written reprimand concerning his conduct at a staff meeting and for moving a co-worker’s tools were exaggerated or embellished. Absent evidence casting suspicion on the employer, reliance on direct supervisors’ reports for disciplinary actions is not evidence of unlawful motivation. No unlawful motivation can be found based on discipline for acts cited in previous disciplinary memos, given employer’s progressive disciplinary system. Disciplinary notice and suspension merely carried out earlier recommendations consistent with progressive discipline policy. more or view all topics or full text.
337404/30/09
1995H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Unlawful animus may be imputed to high management officials where, even innocently, they rely on inaccurate and biased information of lower level officials. In this case, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, where decision maker had no knowledge of supervisors’ animus and never consulted them regarding layoff decision. more or view all topics or full text.
332512/19/08
1993E Baker Valley Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Nexus established by timing of employer’s decision to nonrenew teacher and giving of vague or ambiguous reasons for nonrenewal. Employer did not depart from past practices or procedures by offering teacher resignation in lieu of nonrenewal without providing written notice of nonrenewal. District superintendent’s alleged refusal to discuss employment concerns of two bargaining unit members with union president did not establish union animus. more or view all topics or full text.
332312/19/08
1994M City of Modesto
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
No nexus between employee’s appeal of proposed suspension and employer’s imposition of five-day suspension when employees who knew of appeal and prepared final notice of suspension for department head’s signature were unaware that notice of suspension purported to suspend employee for two days, with three days held in abeyance. more or view all topics or full text.
332412/19/08
1986E Rio School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Timing alone is insufficient to establish a nexus between protected activity and adverse action. Though the charge established timing, it failed to allege additional facts showing the required nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
33811/21/08
1980E San Mateo County Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Even if four and one-half month lapse between employee’s protected activity and employer’s adverse action is sufficient to establish timing, the charge failed to allege additional facts showing the required nexus between the protected activity and the adverse action. more or view all topics or full text.
3215310/17/08
1977M City of Long Beach
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Retaliation charge properly dismissed for failure to establish a nexus between protected activity and adverse action. more or view all topics or full text.
3214009/16/08
1970H Trustees of the California State University
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Modifying job description to make former temporary holder of position less competitive as an applicant for permanent position and appointing a selection committee where two out of four members were biased against the applicant supported inference of unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text.
3211807/18/08
1838M Sacramento Municipal Utility District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
To establish a prima facie case for discrimination in violation of MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Although the timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor, it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
3011705/10/06
1920M Jurupa Community Services District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
A supervisor accused an employee of being "insubordinate" and having a "bad attitude" when the employee insisted on filing a grievance. These phrases have been seen as evidence of an employer's anti-union animus and as pretext for its anti-union actions. more or view all topics or full text.
3113608/10/07
1924E San Leandro Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination, the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
3115010/01/07
1893E Lodi Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Protected activity followed by adverse action is not sufficient without nexus to establish a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action to show unfair practice. If adverse action is based on other conduct of charging party and not protected activity burden has not been met. more or view all topics or full text.
317603/20/07
1853H Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination, the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
3015508/29/06
1805E Compton Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Protected activity followed by adverse action is not sufficient without nexus to establish a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action to show unfair practice. If adverse action is based on other conduct of charging party and not protected activity burden has not been met. more or view all topics or full text.
305001/05/06
1787E Los Angeles Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
There was no evidence of nexus to support a finding of retaliation against Thomas. The District’s conduct did not support the element of unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text.
301212/08/05
1791E Los Angeles Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Kahn did not demonstrate a nexus between the District’s conduct and any protected activity. While Kahn alleges that his refusal to hand over his log book was protected, refusal to comply with a supervisor’s directive, under these circumstances, is not protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
303212/29/05
1746E Los Angeles Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
No evidence of nexus was provided to show that the audit or notice of recommended discipline were a result of Fykes filing unfair practice charges. The Board distinguished this case from Woodland Joint Unified School District (1987) PERB Decision No. 628. more or view all topics or full text.
297002/01/05
1762S State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
The charge did not allege a prima facie case of retaliation since PERB does not enforce whistleblower statutes, the charge did not allege facts showing the State’s improper motive, the dates or nature of her alleged union activity, and the State’s knowledge of her steward training. more or view all topics or full text.
2912104/15/05
1732H Trustees of the California State University
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Board found no retaliation where charging party voluntarily resigned and decision not to rehire was not based on prior protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
294812/27/04
1707M Alameda County Medical Center
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
The Board found that Flenoy failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination. Although it is clear that Flenoy engaged in protected activity and the County was aware of her activity, Flenoy failed to show a nexus between the adverse actions and her protected conduct more or view all topics or full text.
291111/16/04
1702E Berkeley Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Lavan did not state a prima facie case of discrimination since the alleged adverse action occurred before the protected activity. Lavan did not provide evidence of nexus; the District followed the proper procedures for issuing a letter of reprimand and did not engage in other conduct showing unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text.
29511/05/04
1590H Regents of the University of California (Davis)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Management’s statement that they laid off employees because of the employees’ complaints constitutes direct evidence of unlawful intent. Where there is direct evidence of unlawful intent, it is unnecessary for the Board to determine the existence, or lack thereof, of circumstantial evidence more or view all topics or full text.
286701/26/04
1576E Peralta Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Board finds that evidence of a written reprimand occurring before the protected activity occurs cannot be used as evidence of animus towards a charging party to show a nexus between protected activity and an adverse action in a discrimination charge. more or view all topics or full text.
284412/31/03
1671E Fullerton Elementary School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Protected activity followed by adverse action is not sufficient without nexus to establish a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action to show unfair practice. If adverse action is based on other conduct of charging party and not protected activity burden has not been met. more or view all topics or full text.
2821607/28/04
1557E Chula Vista Elementary School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Where charging party had no evidence that adverse actions were taken in response to protected activity, charge was properly dismissed for failure to establish the required nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
281411/20/03
1585H Regents of the University of California
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Fact that charges in the termination notice are unsubstantiated does not by itself establish the required nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
286201/15/04
1524M County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Nexus demonstrated by decision to discipline employee for bad attitude because the attitude had been provoked by supervisors retaliatory investigation of employee; proposed dec., p. 29. more or view all topics or full text.
277405/14/03
1480S State of California (Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
No prima facie case of employer discrimination shown where charging party failed to present allegations demonstrating nexus between actions by named individuals and alleged protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
263306305/02/02
1520E Contra Costa Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
PERB has long recognized that direct evidence of discriminatory intent – the proverbial “smoking gun” – is rarely possible. Accordingly, the Board has held that circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent may be sufficient to establish the required nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
276905/08/03
1532E Los Angeles Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charge alleged that District was satisfied with employee’s performance up to employee’s departure. Afterwards, District’s only contact with employee was in employee’s position as union representative. District’s refusal to re-hire employee because employee’s District reference was inadequate is circumstantial evidence that District was motivated by anti-union animus. more or view all topics or full text.
279206/23/03
1489E Golden Plains Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Where supervisor did not return association representative’s call, District’s lack of responsiveness could also be evidence of a general anti-union animus. more or view all topics or full text.
263309807/08/02
1409H Trustees of the California State University
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Unlawful motivation is essential to charging party’s case. In the absence of direct evidence, an inference of unlawful motivation may be drawn from the record as a whole, as supported by circumstantial evidence; p. 17, proposed dec. Any of a number of circumstances may justify an inference of unlawful motivation on the part of the employer. Once an inference is made, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish that it would have taken the action complained of, regardless of the employee’s protected activities; p. 17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
243116309/27/00
1373S State of California (Department of Corrections)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
The charge fails to demonstrate the necessary "nexus" factors; although some evidence of timing can be inferred, it is extremely weak. The charge mentions no specific activities that occurred in close temporal proximity to the recuperating overpayments. more or view all topics or full text.
243105802/28/00
1314H Regents of the University of California (Coalition of University Employees)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charge fails to state a prima facie case for violation of HEERA section 3571(a) where charge fails to allege any facts demonstrating that employee's protected activity motivated the University's conduct; p. 5, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
233005602/01/99
1299S State of California (Department of Industrial Relations)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Since direct proof of unlawful motivation is not often present, the Board reviewed the record as a whole to determine if the inference of unlawful motive should be drawn; pp. 10-11. The temporal proximity of employee's protected conduct with the State's actions and the fact that the performance deficiencies memorandum and employee's second probationary report made specific reference to the employee's contact with the union representative supports the inference of unlawful motivation by the State; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
233001211/02/98
1292S State of California (Department of Corrections)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Dismissal appropriate because there was no evidence to support an inference of unlawful motivation on the employer's part. more or view all topics or full text.
222917510/21/98
1246E Oakdale Union Elementary School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Where employer takes adverse action in direct response to employee's protected activity, Board finds nexus without resort to circumstantial indicia of unlawful motivation; p. 19. more or view all topics or full text.
222904701/28/98
1248E Alisal Union Elementary School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Where District issued disciplinary memorandum in direct response to protected activity, Board finds it unnecessary to resort to circumstantial indicia of unlawful motivation; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
222904901/28/98
1232E Chula Vista Elementary School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Single indication of unlawful motivation insufficient to support prima facie case for discrimination violation; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
222901211/19/97
1191E Bakersfield City School District (Guerra)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
No prima facie case where charge does not allege any connection between protected conduct and discrimination; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
212807104/03/97
1185E Healdsburg Union High School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Animus of administrators can be imputed to school Board where information relied on by Board came from administrators and Board, like administrators misidentified documents; p. 52, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
212805502/24/97
1035H Regents of the University of California (University of California Los Angeles)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charging party failed to establish that the University's refusal to take his grievance to arbitration was unlawfully motivated; p. 4, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
182504002/03/94
1032S California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Adverse conduct based on unsubstantial allegations may raise an inference of unlawful motivation; p. 13. more or view all topics or full text.
182502901/06/94
1028H Regents of the University of California (Cutshall)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
It is unnecessary to decide whether the alleged theft was the true motivation for charging party's termination or to choose among various other possible motivations for the termination. The only question is whether the true motivation was because of charging party's protected conduct; p. 22, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
182502512/09/93
0971E Los Angeles Unified School District (Wyler)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
There was no connection between charging party's protected activity and the adverse action; therefore the allegations fail to satisfy the nexus requirement established by Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210. more or view all topics or full text.
172404102/08/93
0957E Los Angeles Unified School District (Kaady)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Circumstantial evidence may establish required employer animus. Factors considered may include timing, disparate treatment, failure to follow usual procedures, a pattern of union animus and/or shifting justifications for the action taken and the cursory investigation thereof; pp. 20-21, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
172400011/18/92
0910H California State University, San Francisco
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Board upheld ALJ's determination of no violation of HEERA section 3571(a), where insufficient evidence of nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
152217811/18/91
0879E San Diego Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Accusation of negligent conduct without more is not enough to show employer's action was done because of employee's protected activity; pp. 3-4, Dismissal Letter. more or view all topics or full text.
152208805/21/91
0869H California State University, Hayward (Dees)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
The totality of the circumstance suggests a hostile attitude from which an unlawful motive may be drawn from the record as a whole; p. 24, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
152205102/25/91
0864E Newark Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
An inference of unlawful motive may be drawn from the record as a whole; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text.
152202301/14/91
0838E Yolo County Superintendent of Schools
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Motive may be shown by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence involving factors other than those enumerated in Novato. more or view all topics or full text.
142118009/17/90
0628E Woodland Joint Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Refusing to reveal names of complaining parents not indicative of animus where employer took no action based on those complaints. more or view all topics or full text.
111812106/30/87
0617E Los Angeles Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Dismissal appropriate where charging party set forth no facts linking exercise of protected rights to District's transfer of undesirable employee to charging party's department. more or view all topics or full text.
111807203/27/87
1945E Journey Charter School * * * VACATED by Journey Charter School (2009) PERB Decision No. 1945a
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
The Board found there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that a charter school was unlawfully motivated to discriminate against three teachers because of their participation in protected union organization activities. One of the factors that can be used to establish nexus is employer animosity towards a union activist. A charter school was aware of the teachers’ union organizing effort, but there is no evidence that it ever tried to frustrate, thwart or discourage their attempt. The Board found that a charter school did not to renew teachers’ contracts due to the contents of a letter they distributed rather than the teachers’ attempt at union organization. There was insufficient evidence to show a charter school was unlawfully motivated to discriminate against three teachers because of their expressed intent to form and join a union. Accordingly, the Board concluded the Association did not sustain its burden of proof that the charter school discriminated or retaliated against three teachers for their participation in protected activity. The decision not to renew three teachers’ contracts followed closely after the teachers’ second meeting with an Association representative in which they voted to become part of the District’s faculty bargaining unit. However, timing alone, without more, does not demonstrate the necessary nexus between the protected act and the adverse action. Nexus can be proven by evidence of the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions. However, the record is devoid of evidence that a charter school’s justification for its action was inconsistent or contradictory. A charter school did not give a clear reason to teachers for its non-renewal of their contracts. Nevertheless, the totality of the circumstances indicated that a charter school did not renew the teachers’ contracts because they distributed a letter. The Board was unable to draw a reasonable inference of unlawful motivation based solely on the proximity of the charter school’s action and its failure to give the teachers a clear justification for their decision. more or view all topics or full text.
324502/28/08
1707Ma Alameda County Medical Center
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
The remaining new evidence does not convince the Board that Flenoy has shown nexus between her protected activity and termination. more or view all topics or full text.
297202/04/05
1735S State of California (Department of Transportation)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Chen did not state facts showing the nexus between her protected conduct and, assuming that it is adverse action, the Expectations Memorandum. more or view all topics or full text.
295501/19/05
1222E Los Angeles Community College District (Mrvichin)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Nexus is not demonstrated by District failure to provide notice of appearance, failure to provide Level II response and denied grievance at Levels I and II; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
212816210/01/97
0401E Inglewood Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
No violation where there was no evidence that adverse personnel actions taken against employee were motivated by employees exercise of protected rights; there was no protected activity of sufficient moment to establish that they were a motivating factor of discriminatory termination; pp. 42, 46, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
81515408/29/84
0328S State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Discipline based on unsubstantial allegations or on mere technical violations of employer work rules may raise inference of unlawful motivation. more or view all topics or full text.
71421107/29/83
0319H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association, Chapter 41)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
No linking of unlawful motive by one supervisor who knew of protected activity to decision-maker who did not. more or view all topics or full text.
71417706/10/83
0299H Regents of the University of California (University of California San Diego)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Under Novato test, charging party demonstrated motive by the timing, respondent's documentation of his activities coupled with respondent's failure to show charging party or counsel him regarding the recorded incidents; p. 14. more or view all topics or full text.
71411803/30/83
0272E Rio Hondo Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
No nexus where District's decision made prior to employee's allegedly protected activity; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
71402812/28/82
0261E San Joaquin Delta Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Employer's unsubstantiated allegations for discipline imposed is evidence of its unlawful motivation; p. 7. more or view all topics or full text.
71401111/30/82
0251E Coast Community College District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Employer's knowledge of employee's protected activity is not enough to establish nexus. more or view all topics or full text.
61323710/15/82
0210E Novato Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Proximity of time between employer's action to transfer employee and and employee's vocal participation in grievance representation, along with the maintenance of a secret file on employee's union activities and the disparity in employee's evaluations, sufficient to prove unlawful motive; pp. 20-21. Violation of Education Code 44031 is evidence of improper motive. more or view all topics or full text.
61311404/30/82
0104E Santa Clara Unified School District
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Differing motivation of two District agents who both participated in discrimination does not warrant dismissal of charge; Board will consider motivations compositely and drain reasonable inferences therefrom; pp. 14-15. more or view all topics or full text.
31012409/26/79
1354H Regents of the University of California (Bawal, et al.)
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
Charging parties established some, but not all, elements of a prima facie case of retaliation. They engaged in protected activities, including the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) campaign, and University management had at least general knowledge of those activities. Also, the University departed from the established Personnel Policies for Staff (PPSM) layoff procedures. However, charging parties failed to establish an inference that the layoffs were unlawfully motivated. Retaliatory failure to rehire is not established by an adverse impact theory (higher percentage of UPTE members laid off than percentage of UPTE members in unit) because actual unlawful motivation required. Also, no unlawful motive established because rehire decisions were not made by a single decisionmaker, but rather by separate decisionmakers in each unit, there was no evidence to support an inference of bias by any of those decisionmakers. No basis to infer unlawful motivation with regard to issuance of evaluation, since management acted in response to the facts it possessed at that time. The evaluation process continued independent of the protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
233017309/30/99