Decision 1995H – Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)

SF-CE-753-H

Decision Date: December 19, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 33
Perc Index: 25

Decision Headnotes

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

University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.

503.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS
503.07000 – Discharge; Layoffs; Constructive Discharge; Rejection During Probation

Employee was laid off when his position was eliminated as part of university-wide staff reductions. University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.12000 – Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats

Unlawful animus may be imputed to high management officials where, even innocently, they rely on inaccurate and biased information of lower level officials. In this case, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, where decision maker had no knowledge of supervisors’ animus and never consulted them regarding layoff decision.


504.14000 – Other/In General

Unlawful animus may be imputed to high management officials where, even innocently, they rely on inaccurate and biased information of lower level officials. In this case, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, where decision maker had no knowledge of supervisors’ animus and never consulted them regarding layoff decision.

No items found

University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.12000 – Lack of Knowledge of Protected Activity

University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.13000 – Other

Layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation.