Decision 1930E – Los Angeles Unified School District
Decision Date: November 28, 2007
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 10
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.
502.01000 – In General
No evidence that a teacher’s request that a school administrator be investigated for fraud was union activity or otherwise protected conduct.
503.01000 – 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.
503.03000 – 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.