Decision 0858H – Regents of the University of California (Smith)

To demonstrate retaliation, a charging party must show that (1) the employee exercised statutory rights; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights; Warning letter, p. 2.

Charging party alleged no facts to show that the employer's conduct was intended to be retaliatory; p. 2, warning letter.

The timing of the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee's protected conduct is an important factor, but it does not, without more, demonstrate a violation of the EERA; Charging party failed to establish a close temporal proximity between the alleged discriminatory conduct and the charging party's contract with the Ombudsman; Warning letter, p. 2.

Charge dismissed as untimely filed; termination and harassment preceding filing of charge occurred over 16 months before charge filed; p. 2, warning letter. Period not extended by later events and information that neither constituted or revealed additional adverse actions; p. 2, dismissal letter. Requirement that a complaint shall not issue based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge is jurisdictional and cannot be waived; p. 1, warning letter.

Charging party alleged no facts to show that the employer's conduct was intended to be retaliatory; p. 2, warning letter.

The six-month statute of limitations is not tolled under HEERA by the pursuit of a grievance concerning the same dispute; pp. 1-2, warning letter. HEERA does not provide for tolling of statute of limitations during the period that a grievance is pursued; p. 1. dismissal letter.