Decision 1529E – Oakland Unified School District
SF-CE-2283-E
Decision Date: June 20, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: OEA alleged that the District discriminated and retaliated against Robinson for his protected conduct. The Board agent found no nexus between Robinson’s protected conduct and the District’s decision to place him on administrative leave. The District’s act was allegedly related to two letters of complaint about Robinson. OEA requested copies of the letters but was unable to obtain them from the district or the Board agent.
Disposition: The Board found sufficient nexus to establish a prima facie case. The letters constituted the District’s affirmative defense and should not have been the basis for the partial dismissal. The Board remanded the case for issuance of an amended complaint.
Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 91
Decision Headnotes
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
Employee memo to school principal complaining about unresolved committee issues involving teacher morale and teacher recommendations is protected activity.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Once OEA stated a prima facie case of discrimination, the District’s defense that it would have placed Robinson on administrative leave regardless of his protected conduct is information that should be considered during the Board’s hearing process. Allegations comprising a defense to discrimination by the school district are properly considered during the Board’s hearing process, not during a consideration of whether sufficient evidence has been produced by the union to state a prima facie case.
502.01000 – In General
Employee memo to school principal complaining about unresolved committee issues involving teacher morale and teacher recommendations is protected activity.
503.01000 – In General
Involuntary administrative leave is a form of adverse action.
503.14000 – Involuntary Leaves
Involuntary administrative leave is a form of adverse action.
504.02000 – Disparate Treatment
An employer’s disparate treatment of an employee is shown where in an argument between two District employees, only one is subsequently placed on administrative leave.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Temporal proximity is shown when an employee sends two memoranda containing teacher complaints to the school principal and is placed on administrative leave four days later.
504.07000 – No reason or Inconsistent Reasons Given; Shifting Justifications
That the District did not offer the employee justification for placing him on administrative leave pending an investigation until a later time, and never informed him of the results of the investigation, is evidence of unlawful motivation.
505.03000 – Misconduct
Once OEA stated a prima facie case of discrimination, the District’s defense that it would have placed Robinson on administrative leave regardless of his protected conduct is information that should be considered during the Board’s hearing process.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
Temporal proximity is shown when an employee sends two memoranda containing teacher complaints to the school principal and is placed on administrative leave four days later. An employer’s disparate treatment of an employee is shown where, in an argument between two District employees, only one is subsequently placed on administrative leave. That the District did not offer the employee justification for placing him on administrative leave pending an investigation until a later time and never informed him of the results of the investigation, is evidence of nexus.
1105.03000 – Burden of Proof; Weight of Evidence; Presumptions and Inferences; Affirmative Defenses
Allegations comprising a defense to discrimination by the school district are properly considered during the Board’s hearing process, not during a consideration of whether sufficient evidence has been produced by the union to state a prima facie case.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
A late filing of a response that is not served on the charging party will not be considered by the Board in evaluating charging party’s appeal.
1109.01000 – In General
PERB Regulation 32635(b) precludes a charging party from presenting new evidence on appeal unless there is good cause. Good cause may be present in a situation where charging party fails to rebut an issue in its amended charge because: (1) Charging Party unsuccessfully requested evidence cited in the warning letter before filing an amended charge; (2) the amended charge offered an alternative view of the events sufficient to show a nexus; and, (3) Charging Party reasonably believed it did not have to contradict the respondent’s defense because the warning letter did not address the administrative leave issue and it comprised an affirmative defense to a prima facie case.
1503.03000 – Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
PERB Regulation 32635(b) precludes a charging party from presenting new evidence on appeal unless there is good cause. Good cause may be present in a situation where OEA fails to rebut an issue in its amended charge because: (1) OEA unsuccessfully requested evidence cited in the warning letter before filing an amended charge; (2) the amended charge offered an alternative view of the events sufficient to show a nexus; and, (3) OEA reasonably believed it did not have to contradict the respondent’s defense because the warning letter did not address the administrative leave issue and it comprised an affirmative defense to a prima facie case.