Decision 1743E – Los Angeles County Office of Education

LA-CE-4394-E

Decision Date: January 26, 2005

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 29
Perc Index: 60

Decision Headnotes

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
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.

1100.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; CHARGE
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.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
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.”

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
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.

1107.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD
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.

1503.00000 – MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS
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.