Decision 2342E – Coachella Valley Unified School District

Both the record of hearing and charging party’s unfair practice charge, as amended, support his contention that his reports concerned teacher (co-worker) misconduct, not student misconduct, during standardized testing. We conclude that charging party’s conduct in reporting cheating by teachers is not protected conduct under EERA. PERB’s jurisdiction is limited to the determination of unfair practices arising under EERA and the other public sector labor statutes which we administer. Whistleblowing in California K-12 public schools is protected under section 44100 et seq., of the Education Code. It is well established under PERB precedent that we do not have jurisdiction to enforce the Whistleblower Act or pure Education Code violations. Charging party’s reporting of alleged cheating by teachers did not seek to enforce employee workplace rights or rights stated in the CBA. Thus, it is not protected under EERA.

Charging party’s reporting of alleged cheating by teachers did not seek to enforce employee workplace rights or rights stated in the CBA. Thus, it is not protected under EERA.

Both the record of hearing and charging party’s unfair practice charge, as amended, support his contention that his reports concerned teacher (co-worker) misconduct, not student misconduct, during standardized testing. We conclude that charging party’s conduct in reporting cheating by teachers is not protected conduct under EERA. PERB’s jurisdiction is limited to the determination of unfair practices arising under EERA and the other public sector labor statutes which we administer. Whistleblowing in California K-12 public schools is protected under section 44100 et seq., of the Education Code. It is well established under PERB precedent that we do not have jurisdiction to enforce the Whistleblower Act or pure Education Code violations. Charging party’s reporting of alleged cheating by teachers did not seek to enforce employee workplace rights or rights stated in the CBA. Thus, it is not protected under EERA.

Although charging party proved a prima facie case for retaliation, the District established its affirmative defense that it both had alternative, non-retaliatory reasons for its involuntary transfers of charging party and acted because of those reasons.

The Board may remand a case to the ALJ for the purpose of taking further evidence should it deem such action necessary. We find no compelling reason for remanding this case for the taking of further evidence.