Decision 2235E – Santa Ana Unified School District

LA-CE-5286-E

Decision Date: February 7, 2012

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 36
Perc Index: 119

Decision Headnotes

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.03000 – Departure from Past Practices or Procedures

Statement in notice of unsatisfactory teacher performance that “Should additional unsatisfactory performance report(s) be submitted…you may be released from employment as a Substitute Teacher” did not mean that employee would be discharged only if he received another unsatisfactory report, where nothing in report indicated that employee could not be terminated for conduct other than the receipt of a second unsatisfactory report.

504.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS
504.07000 – No reason or Inconsistent Reasons Given; Shifting Justifications

No inference of unlawful motivation may be drawn from notice that failed to provide any reasons for decision to terminate substitute teacher’s employment; evidence did not establish employer gave inconsistent justifications for its actions. Failure to include a reason for removal of employee did not support inference of unlawful motive in the absence of evidence that employer was required by law, policy, or past practice to give employee a specific reason.

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.03000 – Misconduct

Record established that employer made decision regarding substitute employee’s employment based upon the fact that he falsified his timecard and that other employees had similarly been terminated for timecard falsification. Thus, employer established that it would have terminated employee’s employment even if he had not engaged in protected activity.

505.00000 – EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES
505.11000 – Legitimate Business Purpose/Business Necessity

Record established that employer made decision regarding substitute employee’s employment based upon the fact that he falsified his timecard and that other employees had similarly been terminated for timecard falsification. Thus, employer established that it would have terminated employee’s employment even if he had not engaged in protected activity.