All notes for Subtopic 505.13000 – Other

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2683E San Diego Unified School District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
In analyzing “mixed motive” case, Board affirmed ALJ’s finding that school district established its affirmative defense that it would have proposed to reassign teacher to another school and assigned her to a “do nothing” position whether or not she had participated in protected activities. There was sufficient evidence that the school district was at least partially motivated by unlawful animus to find that the teacher’s protected activity contributed to the school district’s actions. However, the evidence demonstrated that the “unprecedented nature and volume” of parent and student complaints about the teacher’s work performance was the predominant motivation for the transfer and assignment to the “do nothing” position, thereby leading the Board to conclude that teacher’s protected conduct was not a but-for cause of the school district’s adverse actions. more or view all topics or full text.
11/20/19
2683E San Diego Unified School District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
In analyzing “mixed motive” case, Board affirmed ALJ’s finding that school district established its affirmative defense that it would have proposed to reassign teacher to another school and assigned her to a “do nothing” position whether or not she had participated in protected activities. There was sufficient evidence that the school district was at least partially motivated by unlawful animus to find that the teacher’s protected activity contributed to the school district’s actions. However, the evidence demonstrated that the “unprecedented nature and volume” of parent and student complaints about the teacher’s work performance was the predominant motivation for the transfer and assignment to the “do nothing” position, thereby leading the Board to conclude that teacher’s protected conduct was not a but-for cause of the school district’s adverse actions. more or view all topics or full text.
11/20/19
2634E San Diego Unified School District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
In analyzing “mixed motive” case, Board affirmed ALJ’s finding that school district established its affirmative defense that it would have taken adverse actions against teacher whether or not she had participated in protected activities. There was sufficient evidence of procedural irregularities by the school district to find that teacher’s protected activity contributed to the school district’s actions. However, there was also sufficient evidence that the school district had other, stronger motivations, thereby leading Board to conclude that teacher’s protected conduct was not a but-for cause of the school district’s actions. more or view all topics or full text.
4315603/22/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Even when an employer has a managerial, statutory, or contractual right to take an employment action, its decision to act cannot be based on an unlawful motive, intent, or purpose. (County of Lassen (2018) PERB Decision No. 2612-M, p. 6; Berkeley Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1538, pp. 4-5.) (p. 13) more or view all topics or full text.
4314502/27/19
2458E Jurupa Unified School District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
The District’s removal of negative evaluations and warning letter from charging party’s personnel files did not cure those adverse actions, because it was not an honestly given retraction. The District did not remove the challenged documents until several months after it issued them, and was not made in a manner that completely nullified the coercive effects of the earlier action. Although the District notified charging party that the offending documents would be removed from District files, the District then replaced the retracted documents with a new adverse action, viz., notification of a consecutive annual evaluation. The fact that a District official stated that the investigation has revealed no evidence of a violation of policy also fails the required factor that the retraction be unambiguous and specific in nature to the coercive conduct. Moreover, these documents were removed only after charging party filed a complaint with the District over her evaluations and following discussions with the union’s attorney. This fact, coupled with the fact that the District imposed a new adverse action and insisted that it engaged in no wrongdoing, suggests that the District was motivated solely by a desire to avoid further litigation over the issue, rather than by a sincere effort to retract a coercive statement or action. more or view all topics or full text.
407510/23/15
2161M City of Alhambra
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Employer proved it would have rejected employee on probation despite his protected activity based on the employee’s inability to get along with his supervisor and co-workers, and his apparent unwillingness to perform the required amount of work. more or view all topics or full text.
353602/08/11
1995H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation. more or view all topics or full text.
332512/19/08
1994M City of Modesto
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Employer had knowledge of employee’s protected activity of appealing his proposed suspension when two employees who prepared final notice of suspension for department head’s signature, but not department head himself, knew of employee’s appeal. more or view all topics or full text.
332412/19/08
1971M City of Torrance
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Employer failed to establish it would have taken adverse actions against union president in the absence of president’s protected activity because adverse actions were not necessary to enforce the presidential release time MOU. more or view all topics or full text.
3212608/21/08
1970H Trustees of the California State University
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Employer may rebut inference of unlawful motive by showing it would have taken the same action had the employee not engaged in protected activity. While employer had legitimate reasons for modifying job description and ranking applicant last among four candidates, employer failed to establish that it would have taken these same actions had applicant not engaged in protected activity when he held the position as a temporary appointee. more or view all topics or full text.
3211807/18/08
1576E Peralta Community College District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
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
1401E Riverside County Office Teachers Association (Mc Alpine, et al.)
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Charge alleging that an employee felt intimidated by statement made by union president, where charge was refuted by employee, failed to present facts demonstrating the Association interfered with or threatened bargaining unit members; pp. 4-5, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
243114408/31/00
1313S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Employer's strict application of contract provision cannot be considered discrimination. more or view all topics or full text.
233005501/29/99
1298E Mountain Empire Unified School District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
In order to demonstrate business necessity, the employer must show that it would have made the decision to transfer the employee in spite of his protected activity; demonstrating the reasonableness of its attempts to mitigate the effects of the adverse action is insufficient; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text.
233001110/30/98
1222E Los Angeles Community College District (Mrvichin)
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
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
1201S State of California (Department of Corrections)
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Charge failed to establish prima facie case of discrimination or reprisal based on denial of employee's merit salary adjustment because it did not allege facts establishing a nexus between the adverse action and the protected conduct; p. 4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
212810706/02/97
1032S California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho)
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Respondent cannot use a conflict of interest which is the creation of its own unlawful act to avoid accountability for the retaliatory effects of its discrimination. more or view all topics or full text.
182502901/06/94
0965E Livingston Union School District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
District's decision not to reelect probationary teachers, because District's quest for teaching excellence was pretextual; p. 5; pp. 34-35, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text.
172402212/10/92
0910H California State University, San Francisco
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
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
0845H California State University, Fresno
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Improper for ALJ and employer to rely on employee's employment history, known by employer prior to employment, as a basis for rejection during probation; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text.
142119310/04/90
0786E McFarland Unified School District
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Despite fact that Ed. Code does not require reason for district's decision not to relect probationary teacher, district may not do so for discriminatory reason; pp. 9-10. (Affirmed, McFarland USD v. PERB/McFarland Teachers Assn. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 166, review denied.) more or view all topics or full text.
142103401/03/90
0291E Modesto City Schools
505.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; Other
Employer does not violate the Act by disciplining employees for participation in unprotected conduct unless discipline is motivated by anti-union animus; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text.
71409003/08/83