Decision 1743E – Los Angeles County Office of Education
LA-CE-4394-E
Decision Date: January 26, 2005
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Cummings alleged that COE discriminated against him by issuing unfavorable employee appraisals, reprimands and a performance improvement plan because of his protected conduct.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge for not providing a clear and concise statement of the facts as required by PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5). Although Cummings was advised of this in a warning letter, he did not file an amended charge.
Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 60
Decision Headnotes
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Although close in time, the Board found no other evidence of nexus between the performance appraisals/reprimands and Cummings’ protected conduct. With regard to his placement on a performance improvement plan (PIP), the Board found the adverse action not to be sufficiently close in time to the protected activity. There were no other facts alleged to demonstrate a nexus between the protected activity and the PIP.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
The charge did not provide a clear and concise statement of the facts as required by PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) that would state a prima facie case of discrimination. The Board agent advised Cummings of this in the warning letter but Cummings did not file an amended charge.
1107.01000 – Exceptions; Responses to Exceptions; Standing; Extensions of Time/Late Filing/Waiver
The Board found Cummings’ appeal to be timely under PERB Regulation 32130(c), the Board’s version of the “mailbox rule.”
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
Under PERB Regulation 32635(b), Cummings did not show good cause to present new evidence on appeal. The evidence predated the warning letter and so was known to Cummings before filing the appeal. In addition, Cummings was advised of the deficiencies in his charge but did not file an amended charge.
1107.20000 – Other
Under PERB Regulation 32635(b), Cummings did not show good cause to present new evidence on appeal. The evidence predated the warning letter and so was known to Cummings before filing the appeal. In addition, Cummings was advised of the deficiencies in his charge but did not file an amended charge.
1503.02000 – Regulations Considered (By Number)
The charge did not provide a clear and concise statement of the facts as required by PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) that would state a prima facie case of discrimination. The Board agent advised Cummings of this in the warning letter but Cummings did not file an amended charge. The Board found Cummings’ appeal to be timely under PERB Regulation 32130(c), the Board’s version of the “mailbox rule.” Under PERB Regulation 32635(b), Cummings did not show good cause to present new evidence on appeal. The evidence predated the warning letter and so was known to Cummings before filing the appeal. In addition, Cummings was advised of the deficiencies in his charge but did not file an amended charge.