Decision 2995E – Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia)
SA-CO-682-E
Decision Date: December 15, 2025
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: Charging Party Christina Garcia appealed the dismissal by the Office of the General Counsel’s (OGC) dismissal of her unfair practice charge. Garcia’s unfair practice charge, as amended, alleged that Respondent Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (AETA) violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by breaching its duty of fair representation. Garcia also alleged that AETA engaged in age discrimination and retaliated against her. OGC determined that Garcia’s charge failed to state a prima facie case and that not all of her allegations were timely. OGC dismissed her charge and Garcia appealed.
Disposition: The Board affirmed OGC’s dismissal, issuing a precedential decision because Garcia fabricated all of the legal citations in her appeal. The fabricated legal authorities were created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that Garcia used to draft her appeal. The Board therefore issued the decision to resolve the instant matter, but also as a warning that no charge, appeal, response, reply or any other filing before PERB should contain any citations or statements of law, whether provided by AI or any other source, which are fabricated. The Board declined to issue monetary sanctions, but held that inclusion of fabricated cases or statements of law, before any division of PERB, will warrant serious consequences, such as striking the filing from the record, dismissal of the charge, or monetary sanctions. Further, the Board held that even if Garcia had not relied on nonexistent cases and fabricated statements of law, her case must be dismissed because she failed to establish a prima facie case.
Perc Vol: 50
Perc Index: 99
Decision Headnotes
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
No charge, appeal, response, reply or any other filing before PERB should contain any citations or statements of law, whether provided by AI or any other source, which are fabricated. Inclusion of fabricated cases or statements of law, before any division of PERB, will warrant serious consequences, such as striking the filing from the record, dismissal of the charge, or monetary sanctions.
1205.04000 – Attorneys Fees and Costs
The Board will consider issuing monetary sanctions in future cases where parties, including self represented parties, submit filings that include citations to nonexistent case law or unsupported legal principles. The Board has authority to issue monetary and non-monetary sanctions in such circumstances, including but not limited to awarding the opposing party or parties reasonable attorney fees for the time and resources spent responding to Garcia’s bad faith appeal. (Palomar Health (2024) PERB Decision No. 2895-M, p. 67 [sanctions proper if a party’s claim, defense, motion, or other action or tactic was without arguable merit and pursued in bad faith]; Los Rios Community College District and Los Rios College Federation of Teachers, Local 2279 (2018) PERB Decision No. 2614, pp. 4-6 [discussing monetary and non-monetary litigation sanctions]; City of Alhambra (2009) PERB Decision No. 2037 M, pp. 2-4 [explaining basis for award of attorney fees and litigation costs]; see also, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11455.30(a).)
1100.05000 – Dismissal of Charge; Appeal
Extensive reliance on nonexistent PERB case law violates PERB Regulation 32635(a) and justifies striking a party’s appeal entirely.
1205.04000 – Attorneys Fees and Costs
To determine whether a claim, defense, motion, or other action is frivolous, the Board examines whether it is so manifestly erroneous that no prudent representative would have filed or maintained it. (Palomar Health, supra, PERB Decision No. 2895-M, p. 67.) To determine whether a party acted with subjective bad faith, we examine whether the party’s conduct was dilatory, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process, and we may infer such intent from circumstantial evidence. (Ibid.) It is bad faith conduct if a party or representative fails to verify AI generated citations.
1205.01000 – In General
Had an attorney representative relied on fabricated case law, the Board would have been more inclined to issue sanctions even in this initial case, and indeed will likely not hesitate to do so in any future cases. It is a fundamental duty of attorneys to read the legal authorities they cite in order to determine that the authorities exist and stand for the propositions for which they are cited. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 1-1, 1-3.)