Decision 0845H – California State University, Fresno

Inaccurate preparation of probationary employee's evaluation reports was a departure from established procedures; p. 14. Discussion of employee's status on probation at management meetings was a departure from established procedures; p. 14.

Proximity of time exists where rejection from probation occurred six days after employee testified at a PERB formal hearing; p. 12.

Inconsistent or contradictory explanations evident in employer's evaluation of probationary employees; p. 13.

Inadequate investigation of probationary employee where investigation confined to last 30 days of employment and completed in a hurried nature; p. 14.

Employee who testifies at a PERB formal hearing engages in protected activity; p. 10.

Charging party must prove: (1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer had knowledge of such protected activity; and (3) adverse action was taken against the employee as a result of such protected activity; pp. 9-10.

Rejected from probation six days after testimony at a PERB formal hearing, inconsistencies in employer's actions, departure from established procedures, and inadequacies of the investigation of employee's performance support finding of a prima facie case of discrimination; p. 14. No operational justification where employer relied on prior employment history and failed to present credible evidence; pp. 15-16, 18.

Employee's rejection from probation constitutes adverse action; p. 10.

No operational necessity defense where there was inconsistent testimony and employer failed to meet the most minimum of standards in documenting employee's performance throughout probationary period; p. 18.

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.

Board reinstated probationary employee based on finding that employer unlawfully rejected employee from probation; p. 19.