Decision 1585H – Regents of the University of California

LA-CE-748-H

Decision Date: January 15, 2004

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 28
Perc Index: 62

Decision Headnotes

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.06000 – Meritorious or Satisfactory Work Record; Prior Promotion or Wage Increase

Fact that charges in the termination notice are unsubstantiated does not by itself establish the required nexus.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.07000 – No reason or Inconsistent Reasons Given; Shifting Justifications

Fact that charges in the termination notice are unsubstantiated does not by itself establish the required nexus.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.14000 – Other/In General

Fact that charges in the termination notice are unsubstantiated does not by itself establish the required nexus.

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

Charging party must provide a clear and concise statement of facts; submitting a charge with 300 pages of attachments does not meet this standard. In the warning letter, Board agent should advise charging party of deficiencies, however, burden is still upon charging party to provide clear and concise statement of facts.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
1100.02000 – Investigation of Charge

Charging party must provide a clear and concise statement of facts; submitting a charge with 300 pages of attachments does not meet this standard. In the warning letter, Board agent should advise charging party of deficiencies, however, burden is still upon charging party to provide clear and concise statement of facts.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

Board adopts rule set forth in Romano v. Rockwell (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, that where discrimination is alleged under HEERA, statute of limitations is triggered by effective date of termination, not the notice of termination; Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Decision No. 1327-H is overruled.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.02000 – Amended Charge or Complaint; Withdrawal of Charge; Relation Back Doctrine

Board adopts rule set forth in Romano v. Rockwell (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, that where discrimination is alleged under HEERA, statute of limitations is triggered by effective date of termination, not the notice of termination; Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Decision No. 1327-H is overruled.

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

Board adopts rule set forth in Romano v. Rockwell (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, that where discrimination is alleged under HEERA, statute of limitations is triggered by effective date of termination, not the notice of termination; Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Decision No. 1327-H is overruled.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.04000 – Continuing Violation

Board adopts rule set forth in Romano v. Rockwell (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, that where discrimination is alleged under HEERA, statute of limitations is triggered by effective date of termination, not the notice of termination; Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Decision No. 1327-H is overruled.