Decision 2459E – Claremont Unified School District
LA-CE-5811-E; LA-CE-5894-E; LA-CE-5914-E
Decision Date: October 27, 2015
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: In three separate unfair practice charges later consolidated, Lukkarila alleged that the District violated EERA by retaliating against him for engaging in protected activity and interfering with his protected rights.
Disposition: The Board affirmed the proposed decision. Two of the three exceptions failed to comply with PERB regulations governing appeals. The remaining exception did not challenge any factual findings or legal conclusions made by the ALJ, but introduced a new allegation. With respect to the new allegation, charging party failed to meet the requirements of an unalleged violation.
Perc Vol: 40
Perc Index: 88
Decision Headnotes
1107.04000 – Unalleged Violations
No unalleged violation where employer had no notice of a need to defend, the unalleged violation was not fully litigated, and where charging party had ample opportunity to move to amend the complaint prior to hearing, but did not.
1105.02000 – Background Evidence and Matters Not Alleged
No unalleged violation where employer had no notice of a need to defend, the unalleged violation was not fully litigated, and where charging party had ample opportunity to move to amend the complaint prior to hearing, but did not.
503.01000 – In General
Continuation of administrative leave not adverse action where there was no explicit or implicit understanding as to if or when charging party would return to active status.
503.14000 – Involuntary Leaves
Continuation of administrative leave not adverse action where there was no explicit or implicit understanding as to if or when charging party would return to active status.