Decision 1403S – State of California (Department of Youth Authority)

SA-CE-1201-S

Decision Date: September 12, 2000

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 24
Perc Index: 31146

Decision Headnotes

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation

Employee's filing of an unfair practice charge and her appeals from various negative personnel actions constitute sufficient evidence to support a finding she engaged in protected activity.

300.00000 – UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
300.09000 – Participation in Board Process

Employee's filing of an unfair practice charge and her appeals from various negative personnel actions constitute sufficient evidence to support a finding she engaged in protected activity.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.03000 – Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations

Adverse actions found because teacher being investigated for allegedly being "discourteous in your treatment" of assigned students would reasonably consider such action as having an adverse impact on his/her employment; likewise, any teacher required to obtain permission from a peer for the requisition of her classroom supplies would reasonably consider such action to be demeaning and have an adverse impact on his/her employment; also, a reasonable person would consider a performance report that included substandard ratings for "relationships with people" and "analyzing situations and materials" to have an adverse impact on his/her employment.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.02000 – Disparate Treatment

No showing of disparate treatment of the employee, because choice of the investigatory level was made by the IAU. Given employee's litigious background, prior adverse actions, and multiple complaints to various high level CYA administrators, it is reasonable that the IAU would want to assure itself that the investigation was conducted by trained professionals, rather than the local part-time investigators. Weak showing of inadequate investigation prior to initiating the IAU investigation, supports, to some extent, an inference of unlawful motivation. No credible evidence with regard to any (1) inconsistent explanations of the employer's action or (2) departure(s) from established procedures or standards. After balancing the competing interests of the employer and the rights of the employee, the Board found little, if any, evidence that such conflicts between employee and her supervisors were the result of her protected activities.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.03000 – Departure from Past Practices or Procedures

No showing of disparate treatment of the employee, because choice of the investigatory level was made by the IAU. Given employee's litigious background, prior adverse actions, and multiple complaints to various high level CYA administrators, it is reasonable that the IAU would want to assure itself that the investigation was conducted by trained professionals, rather than the local part-time investigators. Weak showing of inadequate investigation prior to initiating the IAU investigation, supports, to some extent, an inference of unlawful motivation. No credible evidence with regard to any (1) inconsistent explanations of the employer's action or (2) departure(s) from established procedures or standards. After balancing the competing interests of the employer and the rights of the employee, the Board found little, if any, evidence that such conflicts between employee and her supervisors were the result of her protected activities.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.08000 – Cursory Investigation

No showing of disparate treatment of the employee, because choice of the investigatory level was made by the IAU. Given employee's litigious background, prior adverse actions, and multiple complaints to various high level CYA administrators, it is reasonable that the IAU would want to assure itself that the investigation was conducted by trained professionals, rather than the local part-time investigators. Weak showing of inadequate investigation prior to initiating the IAU investigation, supports, to some extent, an inference of unlawful motivation. No credible evidence with regard to any (1) inconsistent explanations of the employer's action or (2) departure(s) from established procedures or standards. After balancing the competing interests of the employer and the rights of the employee, the Board found little, if any, evidence that such conflicts between employee and her supervisors were the result of her protected activities.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

When employee was ranked seventh on promotional list was date she was clearly informed of her failure to be selected for the position; p. 27, proposed dec. Statute is not triggered by memo to charging party indicating she would be investigated for possible adverse action. Statute starts running when employee met with investigators and learned specifics of charge; p. 29, proposed dec.