Rocklin Unified School District (PERB 2939E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
ROCKLIN TEACHERS PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Charging Party,
v.
ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. SA-CE-3136-E
PERB Decision No. 2939
January 28, 2025
Appearances: California Teachers Association by Brian Schmidt, Attorney, for Rocklin
Teachers Professional Association; Lozano Smith by Michelle Cannon and Sinead
McDonough, Attorneys, for Rocklin Unified School District.
Before Banks, Chair; Krantz, Paulson, and Krausse, Members.
DECISION
BANKS, Chair: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB) on Respondent Rocklin Unified School District’s exceptions to a proposed
decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ). The complaint alleged that the District
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) by unilaterally changing
the District’s administrative regulations (AR) without affording Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association (RTPA) adequate advance notice and opportunity to
bargain.1 At issue are the District’s revisions to AR 5020 (Parents Rights and
Responsibilities) and AR 5145.3 (Nondiscrimination/Harassment), which establish a
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Undesignated
statutory citations are to the Government Code.

2
new policy that requires RTPA bargaining unit employees to notify parents and
guardians of students’ transgender or gender nonconforming status, including their
gender identity, non-legal name, and pronoun usage.
For the reasons described herein, we find that the District committed an unfair
practice when it: (1) amended AR 5020 and AR 5145.3 without first giving RTPA
notice and the opportunity to bargain over the policy change; and (2) premised its
agreement to bargain effects and implementation of the policy on changes that violate
the California Constitution and state law, thereby engaging in a per se violation of its
duty to bargain effects in good faith.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. 	The Parties
The District is a public school employer within the meaning of EERA section
3540.1, subdivision (k). RTPA is an employee organization within the meaning of
EERA section 3540.1, subdivision (d) and the exclusive representative of an
appropriate unit of certificated employees within the meaning of EERA section 3540.1,
subdivision (e). The RTPA bargaining unit includes, among other classifications,
classroom teachers, who teach Kindergarten through Grade 12 (classroom teacher or
teacher) and guidance counselors.
A. Classroom Teacher Job Duties
Classroom Teachers in the District are expected to perform all the standard
duties of educators in California. Per the District’s Classroom Teacher K-12 job
description, their typical job duties are to:
• 	“Provide a learning environment that allows for individual
differences and respect for the dignity and worth of each
student.

3
• 	“Identify, prescribe, and select materials; meet the
instructional needs of assigned students.
• 	“Establish standards of student performance which can be
quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated.
• 	“Assist specialists in the identification, assessment, and
resolution of special student problems.
• 	“Administer group tests in accordance with district or school
testing programs. Utilize the results of the testing program
for identifying student needs and provide appropriate
instructional activities.
• 	“Develop goals and prepare and implement specific
objectives for class according to Board Policies and
Administrative Regulations. Goals are to be consistent with
the philosophy of goals for the district.
• 	“Develop and implement lesson plans which are consistent
with district policy and guidelines.
• 	“Develop knowledge and skills essential to effectively teach
students in the grade assigned.
• 	“Participate in the development and implementation of
district and school curriculum.
• 	“Attend district workshops and college classes to keep
up-to-date on changing methods and procedures.
• 	“Attend required meetings called by administrators or grade
level chairmen.
• 	“Maintain a behavioral climate in the classroom conducive
to learning.
• 	“Communicate with students and parents on the
educational and social progress of the student; interpret the
school program to parents and students.
• 	“Adhere to the California Education Code, Title V, and carry
out Board Policies and Administrative Procedures.

4
• 	“Abide by professional ethics standards established by
Board Policy.
• 	“Demonstrate mutual respect and dignity.
• 	“Work cooperatively with the entire school staff to promote
effective student learning experiences.
• 	“Plan and coordinate the work of teacher aides, teacher
assistants, and para professionals.
• 	“Maintain punctuality for all prescribed functions.
• 	“Prepare required forms, maintain accurate pupil academic
records, attendance records, and cumulative student
progress and achievement records and reports.
• 	“Maintain functional learning environments, including
orderliness of equipment and materials assigned to the
classroom.
• 	“Exercise supervision and care over books, supplies, and
equipment; instruct pupils in the proper use and
preservation of school property; and maintain records which
establish student accountability for assigned school
property.
• 	“Assume the responsibility for the safety and welfare of
students.
• 	“Assume the responsibility for the safety and welfare of
students whenever a danger is observed on or about the
campus.
• 	“Be responsible for immediate interior and exterior
supervision during passing periods, recess, before and
after school.
• 	“Be accountable for supervision as assigned by the
principal/designee.
• 	“Actively participate in extra curricular activities.
• 	“Supervise pupils in extra curricular activities as designated
by the administrator.

5
• 	“Share in sponsorship of student activities.
• 	“Participate cooperatively in the development of the school
and grade level budgets.”
B. Guidance Counselor Job Duties
The District also employs Guidance Counselors, “whose primary objective is the
application of scientific principles of learning and behavior to improve school-related
problems and to facilitate the learning and development of children” in the District. Per
the District job description, a Guidance Counselor:
• 	“Advises students, parents, and guardians for the purpose
of providing information of students’ academic progress.
• 	“Coordinates with teachers, resource specialists and/or
community (e.g., courts, child protective services, etc.) for
the purpose of providing requested information, gaining
needed information, and/or making recommendations.
• 	“Counsels students, parents, and guardians for the purpose
of enhancing student success in school.
• 	“Monitors student records for the purpose of developing
plans and/or providing information regarding students’
goals.
• 	“Prepares documentation (e.g., observations, progress,
contacts with parents, teachers, outside professionals, etc.)
for the purpose of providing written support, developing
recommendations and/or conveying information.
• 	“Presents information on various topics (e.g., behavior
management, etc.) for the purpose of providing information
to assist in decision making.
• 	“Schedules student classes for the purpose of securing
appropriate placement and meeting their promotion
requirements.
• 	“Consults with parents, school and community resources,
and students in helping to develop the best educational
programs for children.

6
• 	“Coordinates Student Assistance Program.
• 	“Chairs/attends Student Study Team meetings.
• 	“Participates in planning, executing, and assessing
programs of education and re-education for pupils.
• 	“Assists in developing the best possible learning programs
for all children and in evaluating the product of the
educational effort.
• 	“Provides appropriate consultive services to assist school
staff members to better understand behavior and learning
patterns of children and to apply these understandings in
promoting an improved climate for learning.
• 	“Provides and coordinate staff in service training programs.
• 	“Provides individual and group counseling as needed.
• 	“Develops a master schedule and completes scheduling of
all students.
• 	“Registers and schedules all incoming new students.
• 	“Explains to parents the assessments and procedures for
placement of a child into special education programs.
• 	“Provides career and vocational counseling.
• 	“Coordinates student assessment programs.
• 	“Coordinates Peer Helper Program.
• 	“Administers various proficiency tests for the purpose of
assisting in determining student’s placement and/or
eligibility for potential course of study.
• 	“Assists other personnel as may be required for the
purpose of supporting them in the completion of their work
activities.
• 	“Participates in various extra curricular school and/or
community activities for the purpose of providing
supervision and/or representing school at such events.

7
• 	“Supervises assigned programs (e.g., peer counseling,
special education, Student Assistance Program, etc.) for
the purpose of monitoring performance and achieving
overall curriculum objectives.
• 	“[Completes o]ther duties as assigned.”
II. 	Relevant District Administrative Regulations
The District is governed by policies and regulations established by the District
Board of Trustees and the California Education Code. Prior to the 2023-24 school
year, the District had a policy prohibiting discrimination against transgender and
gender nonconforming students. The policy provided, among other things, that
students must be called by the name and pronoun of their choice, and that they must
be given access to sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity. It
also provided that a student’s transgender or gender nonconforming status was
private information and could not be disclosed to others (including students’ parents or
guardians) without the student’s prior written consent.
Specifically, prior to September 6, 2023, the District’s “nondiscrimination/
harassment” policy, AR 5145.3, stated:
“Gender identity of a student means the student’s
gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior as
determined from the student's internal sense, whether or
not that gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior is
different from that traditionally associated with the student’s
physiology or assigned sex at birth.
“Gender expression means a student’s gender-related
appearance and behavior, whether stereotypically
associated with the student's assigned sex at birth.
(Education Code 210.7)
“Gender transition refers to the process in which a student
changes from living and identifying as the sex assigned to

8
the student at birth to living and identifying as the sex that
corresponds to the student’s gender identity.
“Gender [ ] nonconforming student means a student whose
gender expression differs from stereotypical expectations.
“Transgender student means a student whose gender
identity is different from the gender assigned at birth.
“The district prohibits acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical
aggression, intimidation, or hostility that are based on sex,
gender identity, or gender expression, or that have the
purpose or effect of producing a negative impact on the
student's academic performance or of creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment,
regardless of whether the acts are sexual in nature.
Examples of the types of conduct which are prohibited in
the district and which may constitute gender-based
harassment include, but are not limited to:
“1. Refusing to address a student by a name and the
pronouns consistent with the student's gender identity
“2. Disciplining or disparaging a student or excluding the
student from participating in activities, for behavior or
appearance that is consistent with the student’s gender
identity or that does not conform to stereotypical notions of
masculinity or femininity, as applicable
“3. Blocking a student’s entry to the restroom that
corresponds to the student's gender identity
“4. Taunting a student because the student participates in
an athletic activity more typically favored by a student of the
other sex
“5. Revealing a student’s transgender status to individuals
who do not have a legitimate need for the information,
without the student’s consent
“6. Using gender-specific slurs

9
“7. Physically assaulting a student motivated by hostility
toward the student because of the student's gender, gender
identity, or gender expression[.]”
Under this policy, disclosure of a student’s transgender status was grounds for
the student to file a complaint of discrimination and/or harassment. AR 5145.3 also
recognized that a “student’s transgender or gender nonconforming status” is “the
student’s private information” and prohibited the District from disclosing that
information to others without the student’s prior written consent. The only exceptions
to receiving the student’s written consent prior to disclosure were “when the disclosure
[was] otherwise required by law or when the district ha[d] compelling evidence that
disclosure [was] necessary to preserve the student’s physical or mental well-being.”
AR 5145.3 also included a section titled “Enforcement of District Policy.” That
section required the Superintendent or their designee to take “appropriate disciplinary
action against . . . employees . . . determined to have engaged in wrongdoing in
violation of district policy . . . .”
AR 5020 included a section titled “Parent Rights and Responsibilities.” That
section described the rights of parents and guardians and outlined the procedures by
which they could exercise those rights. AR 5020 gave parents and guardians the right
to, among other things, observe instructional activities, meet with their child’s teacher,
volunteer their time and resources to benefit schools, be notified of their child’s
absences from school, and “have a school environment for their child that is safe and
supportive of learning.”

10
III. 	Changes to the Administrative Regulations
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Trustees (District Board)
elected to represent five geographic areas.2 At a meeting on August 9, 2023, a
Trustee suggested that the District Board form a subcommittee to investigate the issue
of parents’ rights, but did not specifically refer to transgender or gender nonconforming
students. Although the matter did not appear on the agenda, and the District Board did
not take formal action at the August meeting, the District Board formed a
subcommittee consisting of two Trustees, including Trustee Julie Leavens-Hupp. Less
than one month later, on September 4, 2023, the District posted the agenda for the
next District Board meeting, scheduled for September 6, 2023. That agenda contained
a proposed resolution to amend AR 5020 and AR 5145.3.
The subcommittee’s proposed amendments constituted a parental notification
policy requiring certain District employees to inform parents and guardians of students’
transgender or gender nonconforming status. The proposed amendment to AR 5020
added a new paragraph to that section, giving parents and guardians the right:
“To be notified within three (3) school days when their child
requests to be identified as a gender other than the child’s
biological sex or gender; requests to use a name that
differs from their legal name (other than a commonly
recognized nickname) or to use pronouns that do not align
with the child’s biological sex or gender; requests access to
sex-segregated school programs and activities, or
2 In resolving whether to take administrative notice of matters not in the record,
PERB normally follows the California Evidence Code’s provisions regarding judicial
notice. (Santa Clara County Superior Court (2014) PERB Decision No. 2394-C, p. 16.)
Here, we take administrative notice of the District Board’s structure pursuant to
Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h). (< https://www.rocklinusd.org/School-
Board/index.html>.)

11
bathrooms or changing facilities that do not align with the
child’s biological sex or gender. Notification shall be made
by the classroom teacher, counselor, or site administrator.
Such notification shall only be delayed up to 48 hours to
fulfill mandated reporter requirements when a staff member
in conjunction with the site administrator determines based
on credible evidence that such notification may result in
substantial jeopardy to the child’s safety.”
The subcommittee’s proposed amendment to AR 5145.3 revised that section to
qualify students’ right to privacy. Specifically, the proposed amendment revised
AR 5145.3 to state:
“Right to privacy: A student’s transgender or gender [ ]
nonconforming status is the student’s private information
with the exception of parental notification, and the district
shall only disclose the information to others with the
student’s prior written consent, except when the disclosure
is otherwise required by law or when the district has
compelling evidence that disclosure is necessary to
preserve the student’s physical or mental well-being. In any
case, the district shall only allow disclosure of a student’s
personally identifiable information to employees with a
legitimate educational interest as determined by the district
pursuant to 34 CFR 99.31. Any district employee to whom a
student’s transgender or gender [ ] nonconforming status is
disclosed shall keep the student’s information confidential
to all other persons except the student and their parent(s).
When disclosure of a student’s gender identity is made to a
district employee by a student, the employee shall seek the
student’s permission to notify the compliance officer. If the
student refuses to give permission, the employee shall
keep the student’s information confidential, unless the
employee is required to disclose or report the student’s
information pursuant to this administrative regulation, and
shall inform the student that honoring the student’s request
may limit the district's ability to meet the student’s needs
related to the student’s status as a transgender or gender []
[ ] nonconforming student. If the student permits the

12
employee to notify the compliance officer, the employee
shall do so within three school days.
“As appropriate given the student’s need for support, the
compliance officer may discuss with the student any need
to disclose the student's transgender or gender-
nonconformity status or gender identity or gender
expression to the student's parents/guardians and/or
others, including other students, teacher(s), or other adults
on campus. The district shall offer support services, such
as counseling, to students who wish to inform their
parents/guardians of their status and desire assistance in
doing so.”
(Additions underlined.)
RTPA learned of the proposed amendments when the District publicly posted
the District Board meeting agenda on September 4, 2023. That day, Superintendent
Roger Stock called RTPA President Travis Mougeotte to tell him he should “probably
look at the Board docs when they’re made public.”
The same day the agenda was posted, RTPA wrote the District to inform it that
the proposed amendments to AR 5020 and 5145.3 were unlawful and to demand the
District withdraw the resolution. Alternatively, RTPA demanded to bargain the effects
and impacts of the policy change on unit members if the District refused to withdraw
the resolution. The next day, on September 5, RTPA reiterated its request and
demand to bargain by sending a letter directly to the District Board members. Neither
the District nor the Board members responded prior to the next day’s District Board
meeting.
Attendance at the September 6, 2023 District Board meeting was “exceptionally
higher” than was typical and, because of the large number of public comments about
the proposed policy, the meeting lasted until the early hours of the morning on

13
September 7. Teachers and counselors, among others, spoke at the meeting, with the
majority of speakers opposing the changes to the policies. Nevertheless, the District
Board passed the resolution amending AR 5020 and AR 5145.3.
IV. 	RTPA’s Unfair Practice Charge and Subsequent Communications Between the
Parties
On September 8, 2023, RTPA filed an unfair practice charge with PERB
alleging that the District violated EERA when it failed to bargain before adopting the
parental notification policy.
On September 8, 2023, Associate Superintendent Tony Limoges responded to
RTPA’s September 4 letter and the unfair practice charge. Limoges stated that the
District intended to bargain the impacts and effects of the policy changes and offered
dates that the District representatives were available to negotiate.
RTPA’s lead negotiator Emily Thomas acknowledged receipt of Limoges’ e-mail
on September 11, 2023, and RTPA’s counsel responded substantively on September
20, 2023. In the September 20 letter, RTPA asserted that:
“[t]he Association demanded to bargain the effects of this
policy before it was adopted, but the District nonetheless
rushed to adopt the policy on September 6, 2023 before
any bargaining could take place. Now that this policy has
been unlawfully passed, the District must restore the status
quo by rescinding the policy entirely before the Association
will agree to bargain its effects. Bargaining after the fact
would put the Association at a disadvantage, would enable
the District to benefit from its unlawful unilateral change,
and does not comply with the duty to bargain under the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA).”
The District responded on October 6, 2023, refusing to rescind the policy and
stating that only the policy’s effects were negotiable. RTPA responded on October 12,

14
2023, reiterating its demand that the District rescind the policy and asserting that both
the decision to adopt the policy and the effects of the policy were negotiable. In that
correspondence, RTPA asserted that “it was not reasonably comprehended that, as
part of their official duties, unit members would be required to engage in conduct
which the State of California has said violates state law.” RTPA further explained that
it would “not acquiesce to the District’s unilateral change by engaging in bargaining
over its effects,” and would “not agree to new job duties that would require unit
members to violate the law and unreasonably expose them to liability.” Accordingly,
RTPA demanded that the District rescind the policy and “refrain from adopting any
similar policy without an agreement with the Association.” The District declined to do
so, and the parties therefore never engaged in effects negotiations.
Subsequent to that exchange, the District informed RTPA that it will not actively
implement the parental notification policies until the instant unfair practice charge has
been resolved; the District Board has not, however, taken formal action to suspend the
policies. Indeed, the policies published on the District’s website reflect the
amendments without any disclaimer.
V. 	California Department of Education Investigation and Subsequent Order
As the parties’ dispute over the District notification policy was unfolding, the
California Department of Education (CDE) was simultaneously investigating the
District’s policy. The CDE investigation was based on the September 7, 2023
complaint filed by a Placer County educator alleging that the District had engaged in
unlawful discrimination by enacting an inequitable policy that was discriminatory in
nature towards marginalized students. On February 1, 2024, the CDE issued a report
following its investigation, concluding that the District’s new parental rights policy was

15
an unlawful breach of Education Code section 220.3 The report stated that the addition
of paragraph 21 to AR 5020:
“on its face singles out and is directed exclusively toward
one group of students based on that group’s legally
protected characteristics of identifying with or expressing a
gender other than that identified at birth. And the
application of that policy adversely impacts those students.
Finally, [AR 5020’s amendment] does not expressly or
implicitly provide any educational or school administrative
purpose justifying either form of discrimination.”
As a result, the CDE ordered the District to take corrective action. The CDE
ordered:
“Within 5 school days of receipt of this Investigation Report:
“1. The Superintendent or the Superintendent’s designee
must inform all school personnel subject to [AR 5020’s
amendment to paragraph 21] in writing that the CDE has
determined the policy is inconsistent with E[ducation]
C[ode] Section 220 and for this reason the mandatory
notification requirements set forth in P-21 may not be
implemented.
“2. The Superintendent or the Superintendent’s designee
must provide written notification to all students within the
District that the mandatory notification requirements of P-21
will not be implemented.
“Within 10 school days of receipt of this Investigation
Report:
“3. The Superintendent or the Superintendent’s designee
must provide CDE’s [Education Equity Uniform Complaint
3 The ALJ granted RTPA’s motion to take administrative notice of CDE’s
February 1, 2024 report, as the report was an official act of the executive department
of the State of California. The District did not file exceptions to that determination.

16
Procedures Office] with evidence of compliance with these
corrective actions, which must include copies of the writings
referred to in 1 and 2 above.”
The District refused to comply with this order. Instead, at its February 7, 2024
District Board meeting, the District Board decided to seek reconsideration of the
CDE’s order. The CDE issued a decision denying the District’s request for
reconsideration on March 27, 2024, finding that the District’s policies unlawfully
discriminated against students on the basis of gender identity and expression. The
District refused to rescind the policies or to carry out the corrective actions, and in
response, the CDE filed a petition for writ of mandate to enforce its order. (Petn. for
Writ of Mandate Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, California Department of
Education v. Rocklin Unified School District, No. S-CV-0052605, Super. Ct. Placer,
April 10, 2024.) That case is currently stayed.4
VI. 	External Law Relevant to the District’s New Policies
The District’s changes to its parental rights and nondiscrimination/harassment
policies, and RTPA’s unfair practice charge related to the change in policy, did not
4 On July 16, 2024, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California (Chino Valley Unified School District et. al. v. Gavin
Newsom et. al., Case No. 2-24-CV-01941-DJC-JDA) to block the implementation of
AB 1955, which was enacted on July 15, 2024 and specifically prohibits school
districts from passing policies substantially similar to the District’s policy. (See post at
p. 22.) Although the CDE reserves the right to proceed with its writ petition on state
and or federal legal grounds, the parties jointly stipulated to, and the judge in
California Department of Education v. Rocklin Unified School District granted, a stay of
the hearing on CDE’s writ petition. Order to Stay or Continue Hearing Date for Petition
for Writ of Mandate, California Department of Education v. Rocklin Unified School
District, No. S-CV-0052605, Super. Ct. Placer, April 10, 2024.) As of the issuance of
this decision, the CDE matter remains stayed.

17
take place in a legal vacuum. While it is unnecessary to exhaustively survey all
aspects of the law relevant to the District’s new policies, we briefly summarize the
most pertinent legal developments.
A. Attorney General’s Suit Against Chino Valley and January 11, 2024 Legal
Alert
In August 2023, Attorney General Rob Bonta opened a civil rights investigation
into policy changes at Chino Valley Unified School District (CUSD) that are akin to the
District’s policy changes. The Attorney General subsequently filed suit against CUSD,
and on January 11, 2024, the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino
issued a preliminary injunction blocking CUSD from enforcing its policy changes. That
matter is currently on appeal.5
Also on January 11, 2024, the Attorney General issued a statewide legal alert
to all school boards concerning “forced disclosure policies” in order to:
“remind all school boards that forced gender identity
disclosure policies—which target transgender and gender
nonconforming students by mandating that school
personnel disclose a student’s gender identity or gender
nonconformity to a parent or guardian without the student’s
express consent—violate state law.”
(Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students (2024) California Attorney
General Legal Alert OAG-2024-02 (Legal Alert), p. 1.)6
5 Concurrently with its exceptions, the District asked us to take administrative
notice of CUSD’s policies, as the District claims those policies are substantively
different from its policies. The ALJ had already taken judicial notice of these policies,
meaning there is no need for us to do so again. We note the minor policy differences
the District points out but do not find them relevant to any issue before us.
6 The ALJ took administrative notice of the January 11, 2024 Legal Alert and
the District filed no exceptions. Therefore, the Legal Alert is part of the record in the

18
instant case. Moreover, administrative notice is appropriate because the Legal Alert is
an official act of the executive department of a state. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd.
(c).)
The Attorney General’s alert concerned policies that:
“require schools to inform parents and guardians, with
minimal exceptions, whenever a student requests to use a
name or pronoun different from that on their birth certificate
or official records, even when the student does not consent.
Such policies also require notification if a student requests
to use facilities or participate in school programs that do not
align with their sex or gender on official records, and
tracking and recording of requests made by transgender
and gender nonconforming youth. Some districts’ policies
require such disclosures even when revealing the student’s
gender identity or gender nonconformity to their parents
could put them at risk of physical, emotional, or
psychological harm.”
(Legal Alert, supra, p. 1.)
In that legal alert, the Attorney General informed school boards that these
policies are illegal because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the California
Constitution, statutory prohibitions on discrimination, and students’ constitutional right
to privacy, as follows.
i. 	Equal Protection
The Attorney General advised that parental notification policies like the District’s
are unlawful because they violate the state Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by
expressly discriminating against students based on gender identity. As the bulletin
explained:
“Because gender identity is an aspect of gender,
transgender or gender nonconforming individuals constitute
a protected class under California’s equal protection clause.

19
As a result, any policy that singles out transgender and
gender nonconforming students for disfavorable treatment
vis-à-vis cisgender students is invalid unless it survives
strict scrutiny. (See Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc.
v. Super. Ct. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 527, 564; Taking Offense v.
State (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 696, 722-723, review on other
grounds granted Nov. 10, 2021, S270535; see also
O’Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1465
[fundamental right of equal access to public education,
warranting strict scrutiny of legislative and executive action
that is alleged to infringe on that right]; Civ. Code, § 51,
subd. (e)(5); Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (r)(2); Ed. Code,
§ 210.7 [all defining ‘[s]ex’ to include a person’s ‘gender
identity and gender expression’].) . . . [P]olicies which by
their operative language specifically target transgender and
gender nonconforming students, on their face, discriminate
on the basis of sex. (See Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5
Cal.3d 1, 17; Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658,
674.)
(Legal Alert, supra, pp. 1-2.)
The bulletin further advised that such policies could not survive strict scrutiny
because they are not supported by a compelling government interest and are not
narrowly tailored or necessary to any non-discriminatory government interest. The
bulletin emphasized that:
“local school districts . . . have a duty of care to protect, and
a compelling interest in protecting, all students, including
transgender and gender nonconforming students, from
emotional, psychological, and physical harm, including from
a parent.”
(Legal Alert, supra, p. 2.)
The bulletin concluded that, “policies that do not create any exception for
children who may face emotional, physical, or psychological abuse at home as a result

20
of the school’s disclosure to parents or family cannot satisfy the narrow tailoring
prong.” (Legal Alert, supra, p. 2, internal citations omitted.)
ii. 	Statutory Prohibitions on Discrimination Based on Gender, Gender
Expression, and Gender Identity
The Attorney General’s bulletin also informed school boards that parental
notification policies violate express statutory commands not to discriminate on the
basis of gender identity and gender expression found in Education Code section 220
and Government Code section 11135, subdivisions (a) and (c). As the Attorney
General explained:
“A law that categorically ‘presum[es]’ the need for forced
disclosures for one group but not another ‘reflect[s] . . .
unexamined role stereotypes,’ plainly betraying a ‘statute . .
. discriminatory on its face.’ (Arp v. Workers’ Comp.
Appeals Bd. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 395, 406–407.) Forced outing
policies target one group, and ‘that group alone’ for
discriminatory treatment, which violates state
antidiscrimination law. (Isbister v. Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz,
Inc. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 72, 89 [Unruh Act]; see also Koire v.
Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35 [Unruh Act
violation because ‘[sex]-based . . . differential treatment is
precisely the type of practice prohibited’]; Bangerter v.
Orem City Corp. (10th Cir. 1995) 46 F.3d 1491, 1500
[where policy ‘facially single[s] out’ group and ‘appl[ies]
different rules to them,’ it directly reveals ‘discriminatory
intent and purpose’].)”
(Legal Alert, supra, p. 3.)
The bulletin concluded that, “singling out transgender and gender
nonconforming students shows that ‘the decisionmaker . . . selected . . . a particular
course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects
upon an identifiable group.’” (Legal Alert, supra, p. 3, internal citations omitted.)

21
iii. 	Right to Privacy
The bulletin also explained that minors, as well as adults, have a right to privacy
under the California Constitution that includes a protected privacy interest in their
sexual orientation or gender identity. (Legal Alert, supra, p. 2, citing e.g., Pettus
v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 444–445 [describing “sexual orientation and
conduct” as legally protected privacy interest]; Powell v. Schriver (2d Cir. 1999) 175
F.3d 107, 111–112 [transgender identity is an excruciatingly “private and intimate”
detail about oneself protected by the right to privacy].) The Attorney General explained
that where, as here, there is:
“‘an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal
autonomy’—such as the most basic expression of gender
identity—there must be a compelling government interest
‘to overcome the vital privacy interest,’ and there must not
be less restrictive alternatives.”
(Legal Alert, supra, p. 4, internal citations omitted.)
The Attorney General determined that there is no compelling government
interest for parental notification policies that “overrides the privacy invasion, and there
are a number of less restrictive alternatives to address any parental interest.” (Legal
Alert, supra, p. 4.) Moreover, the Attorney General clarified, “a student’s disclosure of
their gender identity to persons of their choosing at school does not negate their
reasonable expectation of privacy in their gender identity generally.” (Ibid.)
For these reasons, the bulletin made clear that that parental notification policies
violate the state Constitution and multiple state laws “by singling out transgender and
gender nonconforming students for different, adverse treatment that puts them at risk
of harm.” (Legal Alert, supra, p. 4.)

22
The District Board received the Attorney General’s legal alert, and there is no
dispute that the District’s policy falls into the category of requiring “disclosures even
when revealing the student’s gender identity or gender nonconformity to their parents
could put them at risk of physical, emotional, or psychological harm.” However, at the
hearing, District Trustee Leavens-Hupp testified that the Attorney General’s legal alert
is just “his opinion.”
B. The SAFETY Act
In addition to the California Constitution and preexisting state law, on July 15,
2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1955, the Support
Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act (SAFETY Act).7 The SAFETY
Act specifically prohibits school districts from passing policies substantially similar to
the District’s policy. (Ed. Code, §§ 217, 220.1, 220.3, 220.5) Furthermore, the
SAFETY Act explicitly states that although the provisions themselves are new, the
central provisions found in Education Code sections 220.3, subdivision (a) and 220.5,
subdivision (a) do not constitute a change in, but rather are declaratory of, existing
law. (Ed. Code, §§ 220.3, subd. (b), 220.5, subd. (b).)
Pursuant to the SAFETY Act, public school districts are prohibited from
enacting or enforcing:
“any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that would
require an employee or a contractor to disclose any
information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender
identity, or gender expression to any other person without
7 Because Chino Valley Unified School District et. al v. Gavin Newsom et al.,
Case No. 2-24-CV-01941-DJC-JDA, is still pending and AB 1955 has not been
enjoined, the SAFETY Act took effect as scheduled on January 1, 2025.

23
the pupil’s consent, unless otherwise required by state or
federal law.”
(Ed. Code, § 220.5, subd. (a).)
Under the SAFETY Act:
“[a]ny policy, regulation, guidance, directive, or other action
of a school district, . . . or a member of the governing board
of a school district . . . that is inconsistent with subdivision
(a) is invalid and shall not have any force or effect.”
(Ed. Code, § 220.5, subd. (c).)
Furthermore, the SAFETY Act states that school district employees “shall not
be required to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender
identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent unless
otherwise required by state or federal law.” (Ed. Code, § 220.3, subd. (a).)
Additionally, the SAFETY Act expressly prohibits local educational agencies
from retaliating or taking adverse action against an employee because an employee
supported a student in exercising specific rights outlined in the law; performed the
employee’s work activities in a manner consistent with the recommendations or
employer obligations set forth in the law; or provided instruction to students consistent
with current content standards, curriculum framework, and instructional materials
adopted by the State Board of Education, including instruction complying with other
statutory and legal requirements. (Ed. Code, § 220.1.)
DISCUSSION
When resolving exceptions to a proposed decision, PERB applies a de novo
standard of review. (City of San Ramon (2018) PERB Decision No. 2571-M, p. 5.)

24
However, PERB need not address issues that the proposed decision has adequately
addressed or that would not impact the outcome. (Ibid.)
In Parts I and II, we conclude that RTPA established a prima facie case that the
District violated its duty to bargain in good faith over its decision to adopt the parental
notification policy and the effects of its decision. Part III explains the remedies
warranted in these circumstances, given that the District’s policy is unlawful under the
California Constitution and the Education Code.
I. 	Decision Bargaining Claim
A unilateral change to a matter within the scope of representation is a per se
violation of the respondent’s duty to bargain in good faith. (Stockton Unified School
District (1980) PERB Decision No. 143, p. 22.) Because a unilateral change has an
inherently destabilizing and detrimental effect upon the parties’ bargaining
relationship, it is unlawful irrespective of intent. (City of Montebello (2016) PERB
Decision No. 2491-M, p. 10; County of Riverside (2014) PERB Decision No. 2360-M,
p. 18.)
To establish a prima facie case that a respondent employer made an unlawful
unilateral change, a charging party union that exclusively represents a bargaining unit
must prove: (1) the employer changed or deviated from the status quo; (2) the change
or deviation concerned a matter within the scope of representation; (3) the change or
deviation had a generalized effect or continuing impact on represented employees’
terms or conditions of employment; and (4) the employer reached its decision without
first providing adequate advance notice of the proposed change to the union and
bargaining in good faith over the decision, at the union’s request, until the parties

25
reached an agreement or a lawful impasse. (Bellflower Unified School District (2021)
PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 9.)
A. Change in Status Quo
There are three primary means of establishing that an employer changed or
deviated from the status quo: (1) a deviation from a written agreement or written
policy; (2) a change in established past practice; or (3) a newly created policy or
application or enforcement of existing policy in a new way. (Bellflower Unified School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 2796, p. 10.) An employer’s duty to bargain over
change in policy does not turn on whether policy was contained in a collective
bargaining agreement. (See, e.g., Oakland Unified School District (2023) PERB
Decision No. 2875, p. 13 (Oakland); citing Alameda County Management Employees
Assn. v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 325, 345.)
Here, there can be no question that the District’s amendments to AR 5020 and
AR 5145.3 constitute a newly created policy. Under AR 5020, for the first time,
classroom teachers and counselors are required to participate in notifying parents
within three school days when their child indicates their transgender or gender
nonconforming status at school. This is a quintessential example of a change in policy
and/or newly created policy where there was none before.
Similarly, the amendment to AR 5145.3 requires certificated employees to
participate in notifying parents of a student’s transgender or gender nonconforming
status without first obtaining the student’s consent. This differs from the District’s
previous policy, which required the employee to obtain the student’s consent to
disclose their status to anyone, and to keep the student’s information confidential.
While there were exceptions to an employee’s duty to disclose the student’s status—

26
when otherwise required by law or when the District had compelling evidence that
disclosure was necessary to preserve the student’s physical or mental well-being—the
general rule was that employees were required to keep the student’s status private,
including from the student’s parents. The amendments to AR 5020 and AR 5145.3
combine to flip the previous policy on its head, by mandating employees participate in
disclosure to parents over the student’s objections without exception.
The District argues that the transgender parental notification policy has not
been implemented—and by implication argues that it has not altered the status quo—
because it has not instructed school site administrators to discipline certificated
employees who fail to comply with AR 5020’s parental notification requirements.
However, this argument is without merit.
Under PERB precedent, “[a] change in policy occurs on the date a firm decision
is made even if the decision is not scheduled to take effect immediately, or even if it is
never implemented.” (City of Milpitas (2015) PERB Decision No. 2443-M, pp. 15-16.)
Thus, the operative employer action here is not whether the parental notification policy
has been implemented or whether it has been used to discipline employees, but
whether the District reached a firm decision to add to or change the District’s parental
notification policies. (City of Sacramento (2013) PERB Decision No. 2351-M, p. 27.)
Here, the District reached a firm decision to change its parental notification
policies when the District Board adopted the amendments to AR 5020 and AR 5145.3.
As discussed below, this materially changed employee job duties and discipline
standards. Therefore, RTPA has established the first element of the test for decisional
bargaining.

27
B. Scope of Representation
Precedent establishes a framework for evaluating whether a topic is a
mandatory bargaining subject even when EERA does not specifically list the topic as
falling within the scope of representation. (San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public
Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850, 857-858 (San Mateo); Regents of
the University of California (2021) PERB Decision No. 2783-H, pp. 23-25; Anaheim
Union High School District (1981) PERB Decision No. 177, pp. 4-5 (Anaheim).) Under
this “Anaheim framework,” a non-enumerated issue falls within the scope of
representation if: (1) it is logically and reasonably related to wages, hours, or an
enumerated term and condition of employment (i.e., it involves the employment
relationship); (2) the subject is of such concern to management and employees that
conflict is likely to occur, and the mediatory influence of collective negotiations is the
appropriate means of resolving the conflict; and (3) the employer’s obligation to
negotiate would not significantly abridge its freedom to exercise those managerial
prerogatives (including matters of fundamental policy) essential to the achievement of
the employer’s mission. (San Mateo, supra, 33 Cal.3d 850, 857-858; Regents of the
University of California, supra, pp. 23-25; State of California (Department of
Transportation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 361-S, pp. 10–11; Anaheim, supra,
pp. 4-5.)
It is appropriate to either apply each element of the Anaheim test or to apply
subject-specific standards that implement the overall scope of representation test set
out in Anaheim, thereby “obviating the need to ‘reinvent the wheel.’” (West
Valley-Mission Community College District (2024) PERB Decision No. 2917, p. 16;
The Accelerated Schools (2023) PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 15.) We first analyze the

28
District’s amendments to AR 5020 and AR 5145.3 using the subject-specific standard
for employee job duties, a subject that normally falls within the scope of
representation. Thereafter, in the alternative, we apply the Anaheim standard “from
scratch,” without reference to any subject-specific standard. Under either of these
analyses, the District had a duty to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain.
Changes to job duties, workload, qualifications, or performance standards
generally fall within the scope of representation. (State of California (California
Correctional Health Care Services) (2022) PERB Decision No. 2823-S, pp. 10-12
(Correctional Health Care Services); County of Santa Clara (2022) PERB Decision
No. 2820-M, p. 7; County of Sacramento (2020) PERB Decision No. 2745-M, p. 17.) A
charging party can prove that new job duties or assignments materially deviated from
the status quo by showing they are not “reasonably comprehended” within the
employees’ prior duties or assignments. (Correctional Health Care Services, supra,
pp. 10-11; Cerritos Community College District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2819,
pp. 30-31 (Cerritos), pp. 30-31.) “Reasonably comprehended” is an objective standard
that refers to what a reasonable employee would comprehend based on all relevant
circumstances, including, but not limited to, past practice, training, and job
descriptions. (Correctional Health Care Services, supra, pp. 10, 17-20; County of
Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2820-M, p. 7.)
Here, prior to the adoption of the new policy, teachers and counselors were
permitted to disclose a student’s transgender or gender nonconforming identity without
the student’s consent only “when required by law or to preserve the student’s physical
or mental well being.” This previous policy was directly in line with employees’ existing
understanding of their job duties, which included following state law and guidance.

29
Indeed, per their job descriptions, the District explicitly requires teachers to “adhere to
the California Education Code.” Yet, for all the reasons set forth ante at pages 16-23,
the District’s parental notification policy forced teachers to violate state law and
guidance.
Teachers would reasonably see that as a change in duties, and, indeed, fear
consequences from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC). The
CTC has the authority to revoke or suspend a teacher’s credential, in which case the
educator could not teach and would be unemployable in their profession. Additionally,
we credit Mougeotte’s testimony that teachers would reasonably see being forced to
disclose students’ private information to their parents, over their objection, as a
significant change in job duties because it forces them to break the trust formed with
their students. Previously, teachers would only breach a student’s privacy when
“required by law” or “to preserve the student’s physical or mental well-being.” Now,
every teacher could be forced to involve themselves in a student’s private affairs
notwithstanding state law, even in the presence of “credible evidence that such
notification may result in substantial jeopardy to the child’s safety.”
The District’s revisions to AR 5020 and AR 5145.3 thus directly conflict with the
District’s prior policy, with state law and guidance, and with employees’ reasonable
prior understanding of their job functions. The District is therefore mistaken when it
claims there was no significant change because teachers’ job description states that
they are expected to “[c]ommunicate with students and parents on the educational and
social progress of the student,” and the reporting requirements in the new policy are
allegedly similar to reporting a student’s negative behavior or poor academic
performance against the student’s will. Those parts of the job description do not bear

30
the new meanings the District attempts to ascribe, especially given that “catchall
language” in a job description does not obviate the need to examine the specific duty
in question. (County of Santa Clara (2023) PERB Decision No. 2876-M, p. 22 [judicial
appeal pending on unrelated grounds], citing Rio Hondo Community College District
(1982) PERB Decision No. 279, pp. 17-18.) Nothing in the existing job descriptions for
teachers or counselors could be reasonably comprehended to indicate that they may
be required to divulge confidential student information regarding their transgender or
gender nonconforming status, and particularly not in a way that violates state law and
guidance. Indeed, the parental notification policy directly contradicts the District’s
previous directive regarding notification of a student’s transgender or gender
nonconforming status. The change is therefore outside what a reasonable teacher or
counselor would have previously expected to fall within their purview.
Although other District policies require certificated employees to communicate
with parents or guardians regarding academic performance, behavioral problems, and
matters posing a threat to student health or safety, as discussed above, the parental
notification requirements in AR 5020 and AR 5145.3 are a significant departure from
existing parental communication mandates. A student’s gender identity or expression
is not a recognized metric of academic progress, and notification of students’ choice of
nicknames and pronouns, or other gender nonconforming conduct, exceeds
reasonable expectations regarding the scope of preexisting parental notification
policies.
The District’s policy therefore was not “reasonably comprehended” within
employees’ prior assignments. As such, the change to teachers’ and counselors’ job
duties is within the scope of representation.

31
In the alternative, even if we were to “reinvent the wheel” by applying the
Anaheim framework from scratch, we would reach the same conclusion. As to
Anaheim’s first prong, for the reasons noted at pages 25-26, ante, the parental
notification policy is logically and reasonably related to certificated employees’ terms
and conditions of employment. Second, requiring employees to notify parents
regarding students’ transgender and gender nonconforming status is of such concern
to management and employees that conflict is likely to occur. This is evidenced by the
unfair practice charge currently before us (and by others like it that have already been
resolved or are currently pending at other PERB divisions), as well as by employees’
participation during the District Board’s public meeting on the subject.
As to the third prong, there was no exigency that required the District to adopt
the parental notification policy without providing notice and an opportunity to bargain
to RTPA. Moreover, requiring an employer to bargain is a low burden because an
employer need not agree with a union’s proposals and has the right to implement
lawful proposals after bargaining in good faith and reaching an impasse. (Oakland,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2875, pp. 15-16.) Nor can the parental notification policy
fairly be termed “essential to the achievement of the District’s mission” within the
meaning of Anaheim, supra, PERB Decision No. 177, p. 5. Indeed, not only is the
policy illegal, but it relates to a matter that hardly lies at the core educational mission
of a school district.
For all these reasons, RTPA has established that the District’s changes to AR
5145.3 and AR 5020 concerned matters within the scope of representation, thereby
satisfying the second element of its prima facie case.

32
C. Generalized Effect or Continuing Impact
A charging party satisfies this element of the test for a unilateral change
requiring decisional bargaining if the challenged decision or action alters a term or
condition of employment on a prospective basis or if the respondent asserts a
non-existent right to continue or repeat the action in the future. (West Contra Costa
Unified School District (2023) PERB Decision No. 2881, pp. 15-16.) Here, because the
revisions to AR 5020 and AR 5145.3 alter employees’ job duties going forward, the
District’s decision has a continuing impact on terms and conditions of employment.
D. Notice and Meaningful Opportunity for Negotiations
EERA section 3543.2, subdivision (a)(2), requires a public school employer to
“give reasonable written notice to the exclusive representative of the public school
employer’s intent to make any change to matters within the scope of representation of
the employees represented by the exclusive representative . . .” An employer’s
unexcused failure to provide an exclusive representative with adequate notice and an
opportunity to bargain is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith if the
decision itself falls within the scope of representation, or if the decision has reasonably
foreseeable effects on terms or conditions of employment. (The Accelerated Schools,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2855, p. 13, citing Regents of the University of California,
supra, PERB Decision No. 2783-H, p. 18; Trustees of the California State University
(2012) PERB Decision No. 2287-H, p. 20.) The form and amount of notice that is
“reasonable” necessarily varies under the circumstances of each case. (City of
Sacramento, supra, PERB Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 29-30.)
Generally, a public meeting agenda for the employer’s governing body does not
provide sufficient notice unless the employer provides such documentation to a union

33
official in a manner reasonably calculated to draw attention to a specific item and with
adequate time for good faith negotiations. (Oakland, supra, PERB Decision No. 2875,
p. 21; Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1689-H,
adopting proposed decision at p. 45; Victor Valley Union High School District (1986)
PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 5-6 & fn. 6 (Victor Valley).) Regardless of what form
notice takes, the employer must provide notice sufficiently in advance of a firm
decision to alter matters within the scope of representation, or before implementation
of a non-negotiable decision having negotiable effects, to allow the representative time
to decide whether to request information, demand bargaining, consult its members,
acquiesce to the change, or take other action. (City of Sacramento, supra, PERB
Decision No. 2351-M, pp. 29-30; Victor Valley, supra, p. 5.)
Here, RTPA learned of the proposed amendments to AR 5020 and AR 5145.3
at the same time as the general public, i.e., when the District posted the draft
amendments to its website on September 4, 2023, two business days before the
District Board meeting itself. Superintendent Stock called RTPA President Mougeotte
on September 4, 2023, to tell him he should “probably look at the Board docs when
they’re made public.” However, two days’ notice could not possibly suffice for RTPA to
decide whether to request information, demand bargaining, consult its members, and
then bargain in good faith. Accordingly, RTPA established the fourth element.
Moreover, because the District Board failed to provide notice and meaningful
opportunity for negotiations prior to adopting the new policy, RTPA had no duty to
demand to bargain over the decision. (West Covina Unified School District (1993)
PERB Decision No. 973, pp. 13-14 (West Covina).)

34
For the foregoing reasons, RTPA established a prima facie case that the
District failed to afford it adequate notice and opportunity to bargain before adopting
the parental notification policy.
Absent a valid defense, the District has committed a per se violation of its duty
to meet and negotiate under EERA. In its exceptions, the District argues that it has not
yet implemented the policy because it has not yet disciplined teachers or counselors
for failing to comply. However, as discussed at page 26, ante, a change in policy
occurs on the date a firm decision is made even if the decision is not scheduled to
take effect immediately, or even if it is never implemented. (City of Milpitas, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2443-M, pp. 15-16.) As such, this argument is no defense to the
District’s adoption of the new policy without providing notice to RTPA.
Finally, while the District has not raised a waiver defense, no such defense is
cognizable here. As noted above, where an employer fails to provide adequate
advance notice to allow good faith negotiations, the union has no duty to demand to
bargain over the decision and the employer cannot prove that the absence of such a
demand constitutes a waiver. (West Covina, supra, PERB Decision No. 973,
pp. 13-14; Victor Valley, supra, PERB Decision No. 565, pp. 5-6.)
II. 	Effects Bargaining Claim
In the alternative, even if the District had not been obligated to bargain over its
decision to adopt the parental notification policy, it was obligated to bargain the effects
of its decision with RTPA.
Even when an employer has no obligation to bargain over a particular decision,
it nonetheless must provide notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith over any
reasonably foreseeable effects the decision may have on matters within the scope of

35
representation. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2680-M, pp. 11-12.)
A failure or refusal to bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable change is equally as
harmful as a failure to bargain over a negotiable change, as it disrupts and
destabilizes employer-employee relations by creating an imbalance in the power
between management and employee organizations. (County of Santa Clara (2013)
PERB Decision No. 2321-M, pp. 22-24.)
Here, no party has asked us to review the ALJ’s conclusion that the District was
required to bargain effects of its adoption of the parental notification policy. Nor does
the District claim that its effects bargaining duty is limited under the partial exception
set forth in Compton Community College District (1989) PERB Decision No. 720,
pp. 14-15. Rather, the sole issue in dispute is whether the District committed a per se
violation of its effects bargaining duty because its offer to bargain effects was
predicated on an illegal policy, meaning RTPA was correct that it need not engage in
the effects bargaining process unless and until the District rescinded the policy. The
District, in contrast, argues that RTPA’s refusal to bargain unless the District rescinded
the policy means that the District no longer has an obligation to bargain effects. For
the following reasons, RTPA has the better argument.
As discussed above, the District’s parental notification policy violates the
California Constitution and multiple state laws, including the SAFETY Act, by singling
out transgender and gender nonconforming students for different, adverse treatment
that puts them at risk of harm. (See ante, at pp. 16-23.) Thus, compliance with the
parental notification policy would require certificated employees to engage in conduct
that the State of California has said violates state law. (See ante, at pp. 16-23.)
Because “illegal subjects involve matters prohibited by external law or public policy,”

36
they “may not be negotiated or included in a collective bargaining agreement, even if
the parties were to agree to do so.” (City of San Jose (2013) PERB Decision
No. 2341-M, p. 44.)
Given that the parental notification policy is illegal, any proposals the District
could make regarding implementation would be illegal. Taking such an illegal position
is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith. (City of San Jose, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2341-M, pp. 43-44; Berkeley Unified School District (2012) PERB
Decision No. 2268, pp. 9-15.) In these unusual circumstances, therefore, even though
the District was willing to bargain effects, it premised its offer to bargain on an illegal
position that constituted bad faith bargaining. By the same token, RTPA lawfully
refused to bargain unless the District first rescinded its illegal policy. In other words, it
is impossible to bargain in good faith over the effects of an unlawful policy. For these
reasons, we find in the alternative that the District violated its obligation to bargain in
good faith over negotiable effects.
III. 	Remedy
PERB remedies for failure to bargain in good faith include directing the
respondent to cease and desist from further unlawful conduct; post a notice;
reimburse increased bargaining costs that the other party more likely than not incurred
because of a violation; provide information; rescind unlawfully imposed terms; and
make employees whole. (City of Glendale (2020) PERB Decision No. 2694-M,
pp. 71-78; City of Palo Alto (2019) PERB Decision No. 2664, pp. 5-10 & fn. 6; City of
San Ramon, supra, PERB Decision No. 2571-M, pp. 17-18.)
Typically, PERB remedies also include directing the respondent to begin or
resume bargaining in good faith and to return to a prior bargaining position. (City of

37
Glendale, supra, PERB Decision No. 2694-M, pp. 71-78; City of Palo Alto, supra,
PERB Decision No. 2664, pp. 5-10 & fn. 6; City of San Ramon, supra, PERB Decision
No. 2571-M, pp. 17-18.) Here, as discussed ante, the District Board’s September 6,
2023 decision to adopt the amendments to AR 5020 and 5145.3 is non-negotiable
because those amendments are unlawful under state law. The District’s demand that
RTPA bargain over the effects of a non-negotiable decision is similarly unlawful, and
we will not order the parties to bargain over the effects of the unlawful decision.
Accordingly, the District must rescind its parental notification policy and comply with
the additional requirements in PERB’s remedial order.
ORDER
Upon the foregoing and the entire record in the case, the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) finds that Rocklin Unified School District violated the
Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), Government Code section 3540 et
seq., by unilaterally amending Administrative Regulations 5020 and 5145.3.
Pursuant to section 3541.3, subdivisions (i) and (k) and 3541.5 of the
Government Code, it hereby is ORDERED that the District, its governing board, and
its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith with
Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (RTPA) regarding matters within the scope
of representation.
2. 	Unilaterally changing policies within the scope of
representation without providing RTPA adequate notice and opportunity to bargain in
good faith.

38
3. 	Interfering with the rights of bargaining unit employees to
be represented by RTPA; and
4. 	Denying RTPA its right to represent bargaining unit
employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1. 	Rescind the amendments to Administrative Regulations
5020 and 5145.3 adopted on September 6, 2023.
2. 	Within 10 workdays after this decision is no longer subject
to appeal, post at all work locations where notices to bargaining unit employees are
posted, copies of the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be
signed by an authorized agent of the District, indicating that it will comply with the
terms of this Order. The District shall maintain such posting for a period of 30
consecutive workdays, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the Notice is not
reduced in size, altered, defaced, or covered with any other material. In addition to the
physical posting, the Notice shall also be posted by electronic means used by the
District to communicate with bargaining unit employees.8
8 Either party may ask PERB’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to alter or
extend the posting period, require further notice methods, or otherwise supplement or
adjust this Order to ensure adequate notice. Upon receipt of such a request, OGC
shall solicit input from all parties and, if warranted, provide amended instructions to
ensure adequate notice.

39
3. 	Notify OGC of the actions the District has taken to follow
this Order by providing written reports as directed by OGC and concurrently serving
such reports on RTPA.
Members Krantz, Paulson, and Krausse joined in this Decision.

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SA-CE-3136-E, Rocklin Teachers
Professional Association v. Rocklin Unified School District, in which all parties had the
right to participate, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) found that Rocklin
Unified School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA),
Government Code section 3540 et seq., by unilaterally amending Administrative
Regulations 5020 and 5145.3.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice, and we
will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Failing and refusing to meet and negotiate in good faith with
Rocklin Teachers Professional Association (RTPA) regarding matters within the scope
of representation.
2. 	Unilaterally changing policies within the scope of representation
without providing RTPA adequate notice and opportunity to bargain in good faith.
3. 	Interfering with the rights of bargaining unit employees to be
represented by RTPA; and
4. 	Denying RTPA its right to represent bargaining unit employees.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF EERA:
1. 	Rescind the amendments to Administrative Regulations 5020 and
5145.3 adopted on September 6, 2023.
Dated: _____________________ 	ROCKLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By: _________________________________
Authorized Agent
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST 30
CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.