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 or Deviation from Written Agreement or 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.