Decision 0401E – Inglewood Unified School District
LA-CE-1562
Decision Date: August 29, 1984
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 8
Perc Index: 15154
Decision Headnotes
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
Charge dismissed as untimely where charging parties knew for nearly a year prior to filing about alleged change in sick leave verification requirements. Period of limitations commences to run when charging party knew or should have known of the disputed conduct; p. 32.
300.17000 – Other
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 sufficent moment to establish that they were a motivating factor of discriminatory termination; pp. 42, 46, proposed dec.
602.03000 – Change In Policy
Absent some evidence of contrary intent or established practice, district did not repudiate argument when it based employee's discharge on excessive absences and failure to verify illness; p. 38, prop. dec. As union failed to show district refused to go to arbitration or engaged in conduct which could be construed as a repudiation of grievance polices or practices, Board dismissed allegation that district failed to process grievance; p. 41, proposed dec.
503.07000 – Discharge; Layoffs; Constructive Discharge; Rejection During Probation
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.
504.14000 – 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.
400.01000 – In General; Standards
Since personnel actions taken against employee found to be nondiscriminatory, there is no finding that these actions interfered with any of employee's protected rights; pp. 46-47, proposed dec.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Under the Novato rule, the charging party alleging discrimination has the burden of showing that the protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take adverse personnel action; p. 42, proposed dec.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
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.