Decision 1735S – State of California (Department of Transportation)

LA-CE-625-S

Decision Date: January 19, 2005

Decision Type: PERB Decision

Description:  Chen alleged the state retaliated against her by issuing an expectations memorandum for her protected conduct.

Disposition:  The Board dismissed the charge.  The expectations memorandum was not an adverse action because it merely clarified Chen’s job duties.  Assuming that the memo was an adverse action, Chen also did not demonstrate nexus.

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 55

Decision Headnotes

101.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; APPLICABILITY OF AND CONFLICTS WITH OTHER STATUTES
101.01000 – In General

The Board lacks jurisdiction over the United States and California Constitutions, and various sections of the California Government Code unless these violation of those provisions also allege independent violations of the Dills Act.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.03000 – Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations

Under a theory of retaliation, the Expectations Memorandum did not comprise adverse action since it was merely a clarification of her job duties and not disciplinary in nature.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.15000 – Other

Under a theory of retaliation, the Expectations Memorandum did not comprise adverse action since it was merely a clarification of her job duties and not disciplinary in nature.

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

Chen did not state facts showing the nexus between her protected conduct and, assuming that it is adverse action, the Expectations Memorandum.

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

As the charge was filed July 13, 2004, the allegation regarding the November 28, 2003 warning letter was untimely.