Decision 2124E – Los Angeles Unified School District
Decision Date: August 4, 2010
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The Board upheld a dismissal by an administrative law judge of a complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in which the charging party alleged the District violated EERA by not selecting him for a technical services coordinator position in retaliation for his protected activities.
Disposition: The Board held the charging party failed to establish a nexus between his protected conduct and the District’s refusal to hire him for the position. Accordingly, the Board found the charging party failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination.
Perc Vol: 34
Perc Index: 118
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
In order to establish a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights.
503.01000 – In General
Evidence of adverse action is required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal. In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee.
504.14000 – Other/In General
Although the timing of the employer’s actions in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor, it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Consequently, in order to establish a nexus, the charging party must demonstrate one or more of the following additional factors is present: (1) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee; (2) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee; (3) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions; (4) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct; (5) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists; or (7) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive.