Decision 1375E – Pomona Unified School District
LA-CE-3967
Decision Date: February 28, 2000
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: District appealed ALJ’s proposed decision which found that District had violated EERA by retaliating against a teacher for her protected activity.
Disposition: Reversed. Insufficient evidence of retaliation shown.
Perc Vol: 24
Perc Index: 31060
Decision Headnotes
300.15000 – Speech
Charging party's letters were uncomplimentary to employer and expressed belief that she had been wronged but did not lose their protection as "opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice" as to cause "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." (Rancho Santiago Community College District (1986) PERB Decision No. 602.)
505.03000 – Misconduct
Charging party's letters were uncomplimentary to employer and expressed belief that she had been wronged but did not lose their protection as "opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice" as to cause "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." (Rancho Santiago Community College District (1986) PERB Decision No. 602.)
505.11000 – Legitimate Business Purpose/Business Necessity
The preponderance of the evidence also shows that the employee would have been refused summer school employment regardless of any protected activity, because the District had a policy against selecting temporary and/or emergency credentialed teachers. Even assuming the burden of proof shifted to the District, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the employee would have been refused a contract for the math/science position regardless of any protected activity, because the District's credentialing specialist determined that she did not qualify for the position. Termination letter citing Charging party's actions as unprofessional and which finds charging party's out bursts, intimidating letters, and demands to meet does not provide evidence of nexus. Passing reference to union falls far short of furnishing evidence that employee's union contacts (or her attempts to represent herself) were the District's true motive for terminating her employment.