Decision 1946E – San Mateo County Office of Education
SF-CE-2638-E
Decision Date: February 29, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 48
Decision Headnotes
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
The central dispute surrounds whether or not the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support the allegation that his employer’s reprimand was issued because of his protected conduct and thereby retaliation. Although the charging party established that his reprimand was issued close in time to his protected activity, he failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate other evidence of a nexus between his protected activity and the reprimand. The Board rejected an argument for disparate treatment when the charging party failed to present evidence about similarly situated employees. Charging party and another employee were not similarly situated employees as the other employee’s situation involved a grievance about rude behavior via a process that had not concluded, and the charging party’s situation involved discipline for behavior which was determined to have occurred.
503.01000 – In General
The central dispute surrounds whether or not the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support the allegation that his employer’s reprimand was issued because of his protected conduct and thereby retaliation. Although the charging party established that his reprimand was issued close in time to his protected activity, he failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate other evidence of a nexus between his protected activity and the reprimand. The Board rejected an argument for disparate treatment when the charging party failed to present evidence about similarly situated employees. Charging party and another employee were not similarly situated employees as the other employee’s situation involved a grievance about rude behavior via a process that had not concluded, and the charging party’s situation involved discipline for behavior which was determined to have occurred.
503.03000 – Warning Letters, Reprimands, Evaluations
The central dispute surrounds whether or not the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support the allegation that his employer’s reprimand was issued because of his protected conduct and thereby retaliation.
504.02000 – Disparate Treatment
The Board rejected an argument for disparate treatment when the charging party failed to present evidence about similarly situated employees. Charging party and another employee were not similarly situated employees as the other employee’s situation involved a grievance about rude behavior via a process that had not concluded, and the charging party’s situation involved discipline for behavior which was determined to have occurred.
504.04000 – Timing of Action
Although the charging party established that his reprimand was issued close in time to his protected activity, he failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate other evidence of a nexus between his protected activity and the reprimand.
504.01000 – Prior Employer Unfair Practices; Prior History of Confrontation/Strife/Discord
The central dispute surrounds whether or not the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support the allegation that his employer’s reprimand was issued because of his protected conduct and thereby retaliation.
1100.01000 – In General/Prima Facie Case
The central dispute surrounds whether or not the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support the allegation that his employer’s reprimand was issued because of his protected conduct and thereby retaliation. Although a charging party’s facts will be taken as true at this stage of review, a charge must still contain a “clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice” in accordance with PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and San Juan Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 12.
1100.08000 – Pleading Requirements
Although a charging party’s facts will be taken as true at this stage of review, a charge must still contain a “clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice” in accordance with PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) and San Juan Unified School District (1977) EERB Decision No. 12.