Decision 1552E – Los Angeles Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495
LA-CE-4355-E
Decision Date: October 21, 2003
Decision Type: PERB Decision
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495 * * *
Description: Bailey alleged discrimination by the District. She claims a hostile work environment forced her to transfer to a lower paying job due to her complaints about her supervisor.
Disposition: The Board did not accept Bailey’s amended charge because it contained procedural defects: was untimely and not served on the District. The Board found that Bailey’s complaints to her supervisor about a subordinate were not protected conduct. The Board found that the complaints were not specifically described. The complaint appeared to be undertaken on her own behalf, as opposed to bringing an issue concerning employees generally, a factor which would confer protected status.
Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 7
Decision Headnotes
300.04000 – Individual/Concerted/Activities/Self-Representation
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495, where the Board held charging party need not allege facts demonstrating conduct or speech is a logical continuation of group activity, if acts can be reasonably characterized as representing oneself in employment relations. * * *
Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.
300.06000 – Demands for Change in Working Conditions
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495, where the Board held charging party need not allege facts demonstrating conduct or speech is a logical continuation of group activity, if acts can be reasonably characterized as representing oneself in employment relations. * * *
Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495, where the Board held charging party need not allege facts demonstrating conduct or speech is a logical continuation of group activity, if acts can be reasonably characterized as representing oneself in employment relations. * * *
Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.
502.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495, where the Board held charging party need not allege facts demonstrating conduct or speech is a logical continuation of group activity, if acts can be reasonably characterized as representing oneself in employment relations. * * *
Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *
Bailey failed to provide specifics supporting her charge regarding her complaints about a subordinate and about her supervisor as required by PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and so there is insufficient information to determine whether she engaged in protected conduct.
1100.04000 – Amendments
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *
The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *
Bailey failed to provide specifics supporting her charge regarding her complaints about a subordinate and about her supervisor as required by PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and so there is insufficient information to determine whether she engaged in protected conduct. The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *
The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.
1107.20000 – Other
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *
The Board declined to consider Bailey’s amended charge because, inter alia, it did not list the District on the proof of service and because it was filed several days late.
1109.01000 – In General
* * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *
Bailey has not shown good cause to present issues in the amended charge, which was not served on the District and was not timely filed, in her appeal. Bailey also raised unspecified complaints against her supervisor for events that occurred from November 2000 to October 2001. Since she did not describe the nature of these complaints nor justify why they were raised for the first time on appeal, she did not show good cause to present these allegations at this time.