Decision 1539M – City of Folsom

SA-CE-54-M

Decision Date: June 26, 2003

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 27
Perc Index: 99

Decision Headnotes

200.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE? (SEE 502 AND 1309)
200.01000 – In General

As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.

502.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; PERSONS PROTECTED
502.01000 – In General

As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.01000 – In General

Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.15000 – Other

Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case

Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.03000 – Standing

As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver

As Siroky had not worked for the City of Folsom since 1998 but worked for the State of California at the time the alleged protected activity and adverse action occurred (2002), he is not a “public employee” under MMBA sections 3501(c), (d) and 3506 for purposes of this charge.

1404.00000 – GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT/ INTERPRETATION
1404.01000 – In General

Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action.