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.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 55
Decision Headnotes
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.
503.03000 – 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.
503.15000 – 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.
504.14000 – 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.
1101.01000 – In General
As the charge was filed July 13, 2004, the allegation regarding the November 28, 2003 warning letter was untimely.