Visalia Unified School District (PERB 2806EA)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 83,
Charging Party,
v.
VISALIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-2979-E
PERB Decision No. 2806a
June 20, 2024
Appearances: Alex Leenson, Attorney, for California School Employees Association,
Chapter 83; Lozano Smith by Gabriela D. Flowers and Allison B. Hernandez,
Attorneys, for Visalia Unified School District.
Before Banks, Chair; Krantz and Paulson, Members.
DECISION
PAULSON, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on remand from the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate
District. In Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806, the Board
concluded that the Visalia Unified School District violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA) by terminating its employee Gladys Ramirez in retaliation for her
protected activities.1 Among other remedies, we ordered the District to rescind
Ramirez’s termination and offer her reinstatement to her former position or, if that
position no longer existed, to a substantially similar position. The Board also ordered
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

2
the District to make Ramirez whole for any financial losses suffered as a result of her
termination, including backpay.
After the District appealed, the Court of Appeal reviewed the Board’s decision.
Preliminarily, the court found that even though Ramirez had been unsuccessful in
seeking to reverse her termination under the Education Code, neither res judicata nor
collateral estoppel prevented the Board from determining the ultimate issue before it:
whether the District terminated Ramirez in retaliation for her protected activities.
(Visalia Unified School District v. Public Employment Relations Board (2024)
98 Cal.App.5th 844, 861-862.) Turning to the merits, the court first affirmed that an
employee’s service as a union officer is protected activity under EERA sections 3543
and 3543.5. (Id. at pp. 863-870.) The court then upheld the Board’s findings that the
District evinced unlawful motivation through its exaggerated justifications for
terminating Ramirez (though the court found only three main exaggerations, rejecting
a fourth that the Board had found), inadequate investigation of Ramirez’s alleged
misconduct, union animosity, and temporal proximity between Ramirez’s protected
activities and her placement on leave. The court set aside the Board’s findings with
respect to the District’s alleged disproportionate punishment and disparate treatment
of Ramirez, concluding that they were not supported by substantial evidence.
However, the court concluded that the District proved its affirmative defense
that it would have terminated Ramirez even absent her protected activities.
Accordingly, the court directed the Board to modify its decision consistent with the
court’s opinion and dismiss the complaint against the District.

3
In accordance with the Court of Appeal’s direction, we hereby VACATE our
remedial order in Visalia Unified School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2806, as
well as the following portions of our Discussion: the first sentence of the final
paragraph of section II.D.2.a and all of sections II.D.3, II.D.4, II.E, III, and IV. The
remainder of the decision is undisturbed.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge and complaint in Case No. SA-CE-2979-E are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Chair Banks and Member Krantz joined in this Decision.