Decision 2309E – Jurupa Unified School District
LA-CE-5517-E
Decision Date: March 8, 2013
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: ALJ ruled that the Jurupa Unified School District (District) retaliated against charging party for participating in protected activity by terminating her employment.
Disposition: Board affirmed ALJ’s proposed decision and remedy which ordered that the District rescind a letter informing charging party she had been terminated.
Perc Vol: 37
Perc Index: 183
Decision Headnotes
200.01000 – In General
Placement of an employee on a 39-month re-employment list pursuant to Education Code section 44978.1 does not constitute a separation from service. An employee on the 39-month re-employment list remains an employee of the school district throughout the 39-month period. Reaffirming Santa Ana Educators Association (Felicijan & Hetman) (2009) PERB Decision No. 2008.
503.01000 – In General
A reasonable person would consider a notice sent by a school district notifying him or her that they have been terminated to be an adverse action, when in fact, they remained District employees on a 39-month re-employment list pursuant to Education Code section 44978.1.
504.12000 – Employer Statements or Conduct; Threats
A retraction of a prior coercive statement which did not address the coercive aspects of the prior statement and was not tendered within a few days, at most, of the prior coercive statement was both inadequate and untimely, and thus not made in a manner that completely nullified the coercive effects of the earlier statement.
504.13000 – Unusually Harsh Treatment
A retraction of a prior coercive statement which did not address the coercive aspects of the prior statement and was not tendered within a few days, at most, of the prior coercive statement was both inadequate and untimely, and thus not made in a manner that completely nullified the coercive effects of the earlier statement.
505.01000 – In General
A retraction of a prior coercive statement which did not address the coercive aspects of the prior statement and was not tendered within a few days, at most, of the prior coercive statement was both inadequate and untimely, and thus not made in a manner that completely nullified the coercive effects of the earlier statement.