| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2588E |
Los Angeles Unified School District
1503.03000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; REGULATIONS; Regulations Considered (By Number) (Continued)
In accordance with PERB Reg. 32207, the parties may submit a stipulated factual record in lieu of a hearing. In such case, the stipulated facts shall be deemed undisputed. (p. 2.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 63 | 10/17/18 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To demonstrate that an employer has discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of Dills Act section 3519, subdivision (a), the charging party must show: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (p. 12) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
300.17000: UNFAIR PRACTICE ISSUES; PROTECTED ACTIVITIES; Other
The right to engage in union activity during nonwork time is protected activity. (p. 13) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
504.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Union Activity of Discriminatee
Union presented specific evidence of supervisor’s hostility towards employee’s union activity, namely her embittered response to employee during a discussion regarding after-hours union duties. (p. 15) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
504.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Union Activity of Discriminatee
Because it can be difficult to “show the true character” of an employer’s motivations, PERB has routinely relied on evidence of prior unfair practices, including events occurring before the six-month statute of limitations or outside the “four corners” of the charge, to determine whether a respondent acted for an unlawful motive. (p. 17) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
504.05000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Union Activity of Discriminatee
The Board will ascribe significant weight to evidence of prior demonstrations of antipathy towards union activists in attempting to identify the true motivation for an adverse action. (p. 17) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
504.07000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; No reason or Inconsistent Reasons Given; Shifting Justifications
Inconsistent or contradictory justifications for an employer’s actions may support an inference of unlawful motive. (p. 15) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
1107.04000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Unalleged Violations
The Board may consider previously unalleged protected activities under the same test that it uses for unalleged violations: (1) charging party has provided defendant with adequate notice and opportunity to defend; (2) the acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of conduct; (3) the parties have fully litigated the unalleged violation(s); and (4) the parties have had the opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue(s). (pp. 16-17) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
1405.01000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; In General
Under California law, a party may be collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue if: (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General
In mixed motive cases where an employer’s action is animated both by discriminatory and nondiscriminatory reasons, the Board uses a “but for” test to determine whether the employer would have taken the same action regardless of its improper motivation. Once a charging party establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to show by a preponderance of evidence that it would have taken the adverse action regardless of the employee’s protected activity. To prevail on its affirmative defense, the employer must establish that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for taking the adverse action and that the reason proffered was, in fact, the employer’s reason for taking the adverse action. (p. 20) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2637S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
505.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES; In General
The Boar will bar an employer from meeting its burden of proof when its stated reason for taking the adverse action was discovered through an investigation that itself was tainted by unlawful motive. (p. 20) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 0758E |
California School Employees Association (Petrich)
1103.10000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; COMPLAINT; Default or Failure to Appear/Failure to Prosecute
Complaint dismissed where charging party failed to appear at formal hearing and failed to show cause when given opportunity to do so; p. 3, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. |
09/11/89 | ||
| 2642M |
City of Sacramento
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
In determining whether an employer’s action is adverse, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, pp. 24-25.) “The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer’s action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” (Id. at p. 25, quoting Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864, pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2642M |
City of Sacramento
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
In determining whether an employer’s action is adverse, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, pp. 24-25.) “The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer’s action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” (Id. at p. 25, quoting Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864, pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2642M |
City of Sacramento
503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General
An employer action can constitute adverse action absent discipline and even absent any threat of discipline. (See, e.g., County of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2090-M, pp. 28, 30 [action need not specifically threaten discipline if it otherwise has an adverse impact on the employee’s employment]; State of California (Department of Youth Authority) (2000) PERB Decision No. 1403-S, pp. 32-33 [adverse action found where employer demeaned employee by issuing a substandard rating for “relationships with people,” and by imposing a documented requirement that a fellow employee had to review budget requests].) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2642M |
City of Sacramento
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
While Board considers all relevant facts and circumstances in assessing an employer’s motivation, Board has identified the following factors as being the most common means of establishing a discriminatory motive, intent, or purpose: (1) timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor; (2) the employer’s disparate treatment of the employee; (3) the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the employee; (4) the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions; (5) the employer’s cursory investigation of the employee’s misconduct; (6) the employer’s failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague or ambiguous reasons; (7) employer animosity towards union activists; and (8) any other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. (Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2629-M, pp. 9-10; County of Yolo (2009) PERB Decision No. 2020-M, pp. 12-13; Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 6-7.) more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2642M |
City of Sacramento
504.14000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Other/In General
While some of the employer’s allegedly adverse actions were in close temporal proximity to employee’s protected activity, timing alone is not determinative. (Adelanto Elementary School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2630, p. 9.) The record as a whole does not lead PERB to conclude that employer conducted investigatory interview of employee, delayed processing employee’s supplemental employment application, or lost employee’s Departmental personnel files because he engaged in protected activity. No evidence introduced suggesting employer was motivated by protected activity, where asserted adverse actions were mistakes or caused by breakdown in communication. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2591Mb |
County of Riverside
1107.10000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES;PROCEDURES BEFORE THE BOARD; Request for Reconsideration
County filed a request to accept a late-filed opposition to a request for reconsideration of a precedential decision filed by union pursuant to PERB Regulation 32136, which allows a late filing to be excused “in the discretion of the Board for good cause only.” County also filed its proposed late-filed opposition. Board was not required to decide if County demonstrated good cause for its requested late filing, as consideration of County’s late-filed arguments would not affect the outcome of Board’s reconsideration decision. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 118 | 01/04/19 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
401.09000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, EMPLOYER CONDUCT AFFECTING ORGANIZING, UNION ACCESS; SOLICITATION, AND OTHER UNION RIGHTS; Mail Systems
Concerns that public employers’ email systems are taxpayer-financed or that allowing employees to send intra-agency emails gives other employee recipients the false impression their employer endorses the email’s content do not constitute “special circumstances” justifying restrictions on employees’ right to engage in protected speech via their employer’s email system. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General
An employer does not commit unlawful interference when it investigates an employee based upon a facially valid complaint of misconduct, even if the alleged misconduct occurs during the employee’s exercise of arguably protected activity, provided that (i) the nature of the complaint legitimately calls into question whether the employee conduct was protected, and (ii) if the employer acquires information indicating that the alleged conduct was protected, the employer immediately ceases the investigation and notifies all affected employees regarding its outcome. Once the employer has sufficient information to determine that the employee’s conduct did not lose its protected status, continuing the investigation is an unfair practice. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General
Unlawful interference where employer initiates investigation, and corresponding threat of discipline, based solely upon an employee’s email, not after receipt of a facially valid third-party complaint, without taking any time to factually investigate whether the email constituted protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
402.01000: EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING EMPLOYEES; In General
In balancing the competing interests, interference with employee rights outweighs the employer’s proffered business justifications where the employer compounds its error by never informing the employee that it had concluded its investigation and would not impose discipline, thus leaving the employee in an uncertain state and further chilling his protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights protected by EERA; (2) the employer knew of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the adverse action because of the employee’s exercise of those protected rights. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Where an employer’s words or actions reveal that the employer took adverse action against an employee in response to his or her protected activity, such conduct serves as direct evidence of an unlawful motive connecting the protected activity and adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E |
Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
501.02000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; Burden of Proof; Evidence
Where an employer’s words or actions reveal that the employer took adverse action against an employee in response to his or her protected activity, such conduct serves as direct evidence of an unlawful motive connecting the protected activity and adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. |
43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
Notice Regarding Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) at PERB
For information about use of AI in PERB filings, see Atwater Elementary Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Garcia) (2025) PERB Decision No. 2995-E and our FAQ.
