Decision 1048E – Los Rios Community College District (Deglow)

The employer's disparaging remarks about the charging party was not interference with the charging party's exercise of protected rights; p. 4, warning letter.

Adverse action is required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal under the Novato standard. In determining whether an adverse action occurred, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely on the subjective reactions of the employee; p. 3, warning letter. The employer's disparaging remarks about the charging party in the presence of another employee is not an adverse action; p. 3, warning letter.

The employer's disparaging remarks about the charging party in the presence of another employee is not an adverse action; p. 3, warning letter.

The employer's continued refusal to correct the hire date is not active conduct which revives the timeliness of the charge. Even evidence of contemporaneous conduct which is indicative of an animus on the part of the employer toward the charging party cannot revive a charge based on conduct which occurred prior to the six-month limitation period; p. 4, dismissal letter.

The Board declined to consider the charging party's supplemental brief which was filed after the filing deadline; p. 22, fn. 2.