Decision 1702E – Berkeley Unified School District
SF-CE-2350-E
Decision Date: November 5, 2004
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Lavan claimed the district discriminated against her by issuing a letter of reprimand for engaging in protected activity.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge because Lavan failed to show a nexus between the adverse action and the protected conduct. The adverse action occurred before the protected conduct and the district’s conduct did not violate the CBA.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 5
Decision Headnotes
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Lavan did not state a prima facie case of discrimination since the alleged adverse action occurred before the protected activity. Lavan did not provide evidence of nexus; the District followed the proper procedures for issuing a letter of reprimand and did not engage in other conduct showing unlawful motive.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Lavan did not state a prima facie case of discrimination since the alleged adverse action occurred before the protected activity.
504.14000 – Other/In General
Lavan did not state a prima facie case of discrimination since the alleged adverse action occurred before the protected activity. Lavan did not provide evidence of nexus; the District followed the proper procedures for issuing a letter of reprimand and did not engage in other conduct showing unlawful motive.
505.03000 – Misconduct
This matter can be distinguished from Moosa v. SPB (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 1379, in which a professor was demoted for failure to provide a teaching plan ordered by a supervisor. The supervisor’s directive violated the collective bargaining agreement. In this case, the order for Lavan to take an anger management class did not violate the collective bargaining agreement.