Decision 1930E – Los Angeles Unified School District

LA-CE-4878-E

Decision Date: November 28, 2007

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 10

Decision Headnotes

501.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

Based on the Board’s finding that a teacher failed to demonstrate a nexus between his protected activity and the school district’s adverse actions, the Board did not address whether or not the District would have taken the same actions absent the teacher’s protected activity. No evidence that a teacher’s request that a school administrator be investigated for fraud was union activity or otherwise protected conduct. No doubt that charging party exercised rights under EERA, both by engaging in union activities and by filing his unfair practice charge.

502.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; PERSONS PROTECTED
502.01000 – In General

No evidence that a teacher’s request that a school administrator be investigated for fraud was union activity or otherwise protected conduct.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.01000 – In General

The central question before the Board was whether a teacher’s conference memorandum, another memorandum, a notice of unsatisfactory acts and a notice of suspension were adverse actions by the school district because of a teacher’s protected activity.

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

Teacher suffered adverse action in the notice of unsatisfactory acts and suspension and in receiving two memoranda. Two memoranda to charging party, although not disciplinary in themselves, threatened disciplinary action , and a reasonable person would find them to have an adverse impact on the charging party’s employment.