Fremont Unified School District (PERB 1571E)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

DIANE M. KAISER,
Charging Party, Case No. SF-CE-2251-E
Vv. PERB Decision No. 1571
FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, December 24, 2003
Respondent.

Appearances: Diane M. Kaiser, on her own behalf; Liebert Cassidy Whitmore by Stacy L.
Saetta, Attorney, for Fremont Unified School District.

Before Baker, Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION

BAKER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB
or Board) on appeal by Diane M. Kaiser (Kaiser) of a Board agent’s dismissal (attached) of her
unfair practice charge. The charge alleged that the Fremont Unified School District (District)
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) ' by twice reassigning Kaiser to
teach a different grade level.

The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case including the original and
amended unfair practice charge, the warning and dismissal letters, Kaiser’s appeal and the
District’s response to the appeal. The Board finds the dismissal letter to be free from
prejudicial error and adopts it as the decision of the Board itself subject to the following

discussion.

'EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise noted,
all statutory references are to the Government Code.

DISCUSSION
Although Kaiser presented her charge as a failure to follow the contract, the Board
agent analyzed the charge under a theory
of
discrimination. The Board agent found that the
majority
of
the charge was untimely, noting that only allegations
of
unfair practices which
occurred on or after September 4, 2001 are timely. On this basis, the Board agent dismissed
the allegations pertaining to conduct between October 2000 and August 2001.
The Board agent found only one allegation timely; the allegation that on March 26,
2002, the District discriminated against Kaiser when it assigned her to teach second grade for
the 2002-2003 school year. The Board agent acknowledged that Kaiser engaged in protected
activity by meeting with Principal Ed Tucker in a "Level I Complaint Meeting" and filing a
grievance over the reassignment for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board agent noted,
however, that the charge did not provide any facts which provide a nexus between the
protected activity and the March 26, 2002 reassignment.2 The Board agent, therefore,
dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie case.
On appeal to the Board, Kaiser continues to allege various contractual violations
relating to the reassignment for the 2001-2002 school year. Her appeal does not address the
timeliness
of
the allegations related to this first reassignment at all. She does not attempt to
cure the nexus deficiency with regard to the second reassignment, which constitutes her only
timely allegation presented to the Board agent. Finally, she alleges for the first time on appeal
that in February 2002, the District refused the Department
of
Fair Employment and Housing's
2The dismissal letter contains an incorrect date at page 5, line 5. The date May 26,
2002 should be corrected to March 26, 2002. This error did not impact the Board agent's
dismissal.
2

(DFEH) request to mediate issues in violation
of
its obligation to meet and confer in good faith
pursuant to EERA section 3543.5(c)3.
The Board agent properly identified the September 4, 2001, cut-off date for timely
allegations and properly dismissed all the untimely allegations pertaining to conduct between
October 2000 and August 2001.
For the timely allegation
of
the March 26, 2002, grade level reassignment, the Board
agent correctly found there was not a sufficient nexus between the protected activity and the
reassignment established in Kaiser's charge. On appeal, Kaiser only reiterates her arguments
regarding contractual violations and does nothing to cure the nexus defect identified in
both
the
warning and dismissal letters.
In response to Kaiser's appeal, the District argues that the allegations in the charge
must be deferred to the grievance machinery contained in the parties' collective bargaining
agreement.
	If
the District is correct and the charge is deferrable, the Board would be without
jurisdiction to address the merits
of
the charge. EERA section 3541.5 provides, in pertinent
part, that the Board shall not:
Issue a complaint against conduct also prohibited by the
provisions
of
the agreement between the parties until the
grievance machinery
of
the agreement,
if
it exists and covers the
matter at issue, has been exhausted, either by settlement or
binding arbitration.
3EERA section 3543.S(c) states, in pertinent part:
It shall be unlawful for a public school employer to do any
of
the
following:
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and negotiate in good faith with an
exclusive representative.
3

The parties' collective bargaining agreement does not contain an applicable "non-
discrimination" clause. It does, however, contain a section on reassignments. Article
11
of
the
parties' collective bargaining agreement has both procedural and substantive components. For
purposes
of
the second reassignment
of
Kaiser, the Board need focus only on the substantive
provisions. Section 11.16.1
of
the agreement provides that reassignments are to be based on
"instructional need and unit member preference" and "shall be made on an equitable basis."
Read in a most favorable light, Kaiser's unfair practice charge alleges the reassignment was
made in retaliation for her exercise
of
protected activity. Based on the Board's precedent, this
language is insufficient to require deferral
of
this charge.
In Los Angeles Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 860, the Board
made it clear that the exercise
of
PERB' s jurisdiction is not precluded unless the alleged unfair
practice is arguably prohibited by the parties' agreement. Accordingly, it is not sufficient for
the agreement to merely cover or discuss the matter; the conduct alleged to be an unfair
practice must be prohibited. (Fremont Union High School District (1993) PERB Order
No. Ad-248.) Although the grievance/arbitration machinery could potentially cover the
reassignment issue, it is clear that the discrimination alleged in the unfair practice charge is not
"arguably prohibited" by the parties' agreement. Without an applicable "non-discrimination"
clause, the Board's precedent holds that this type of case is not deferrable. The merits
of
the
charge were, therefore, properly reviewed by the Board agent, and the Board agent's decision
on the merits was correct.
Finally, Kaiser attempts to offer for the first time on appeal an allegation that in
February 2002, the District refused the DFEH's request to mediate issues in violation
of
its
obligation to meet and confer in good faith. A charging party may not, without good cause,
4

present new evidence or new allegations on appeal. (PERB Regulation 32635(b
)4;
Peralta
Community College District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1418; Regents
of
the University
of
California (1998) PERB Decision No. 1271-H.) No good cause having been shown for
Kaiser's failure to raise this claim before the Board agent, the Board will not address the merits
of
this new allegation.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-2251-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.
4PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et s~q. PERB Regulation 32635 states, in pertinent part:
(b) Unless good cause is shown, a charging party may not
present on appeal new charge allegations or new supporting
evidence.
5

ff
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 322-3198
Fax: (916) 327-6377
May 30, 2002
Diane M. Kaiser
4572 Gertrude Drive
Fremont, CA 94536
Re: Diane M. Kaiser v. Fremont Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-2251-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
GRAY DA VIS, Governor
Dear Ms. Kaiser:
The above-referenced unfair practíce charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March 4, 2002. Your charge alleges that the Fremont Unified
School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by
discriminating against you for engaging in protected activity.
I indicated in the attached letter dated April 22, 2002, that the above-referenced charge did not
state a prima facie case. You were advised that if there were any factual inaccuracies or
addítional facts which would correct the deficiencies explained in that letter, you should amend
the charge. You were further advised that unless you amended the charge to state a prima facie
case or withdrew it prior to May 6, 2002, the charge would be dismissed. On May 6, 2002,
you filed an amended unfair practice charge.
As amended, your charge makes the following factual allegations. You are employed as a
teacher by the District at Grimmer ElementarySchool. During the 2000-2001 school year, you
were assigned to teach grade 3.
The District's currículum included the Packard Grant/Open Court Language Arts Program.
Teachers in grades were required to utilize this reading program. Maureen Smith, a
teacher, was designated as the "Literacy Coach" the Open Court reading program at
Grimmer Elementary SchooL In or about early October 2000, Ms. Smith placed a memo in
each teacher's mailbox requesting informatíon on their progress through the reading program.
When you did not respond to Ms. Smith's second memo, Principal Ed Tucker sent you a memo
dírecting you to respond by October 6, 2000.
On October 27, 2000, you met with Mr. Tucker to discuss your evaluation goals for the 2000-
2001 school year. During the meeting, Mr. Tucker threatened to assign you to a grade level
which did not utilize the Packard Grant/Open Court Reading Program, if you did not fully
1 EERA is codified at Govemment Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CE-2251-E
May 30, 2002
Page 2
(
implement the reading program. On one occasion, Mr. Tucker observed you utilizing a
publication that was not from Open Court. Mr. Tucker said he would be discussing the
teachers' progress in the program with Ms. Smith.
Bev Chernoff, District Coordinator
of
the Packard Grant/Open Court Language Arts Program,
explained in a letter to Greg Bonaccorsi, President
of
the Fremont Unified District Teachers
Association and Peg Tracey, Executive Director, dated November 7, 2000, that the Packard
Foundation required schools to provide certain information to evaluate the Open Court reading
program. She stated that the literacy coach was to assist teachers in achieving the goals
of
the
grant program and collect information utilized by the Packard Foundation. The information
collected by the literacy coach was not provided to the site principal, was not utilized for
teacher evaluations and the literacy coach was not an evaluator.
On January 18, 2001, Mr. Tucker "fraudulently authored Teacher Comments on [your] first
evaluation." The charge does not describe Mr. Tucker's comments or explain why they are
fraudulent. There is no indication that your evaluation included comments concerning your
progress in the Open Court reading program.
On March 14, 2001, you requested a "Level I Complaint Meeting" with Mr. Tucker. During
the meeting, you raised concerns about Mr. Tucker's interference with your professional
relationships with your students and their parents, your responsibility to evaluate your students,
repeated interruption
of
your classroom lessons, infringing on your preparation periods and his
unprofessional attitude toward you. Mr. Bonaccorsi attended the meeting as your union
representative.
On March 30, 2001, Mr. Tucker made an impromptu 60 minute formal observation
of
your
class. Your charge alleges that Mr. Tucker "seriously misrepresented the lesson observed in
[your] second evaluation." The charge does not describe any misrepresentation in your second
evaluation.
On April 2, 2001, Mr. Tucker handed you a memo dated March 30, 2001 which stated that
your grade level assignment for the 2001-2002 school year had been changed from grade 3 to
grade 4/5. The memo stated that the change was required because you had not been providing
your students with the skills they needed for reading. Your charge alleges that Mr. Tucker had
never observed you teaching the Open Court reading program.
You informed both the Association and Mr. Tucker that you did not agree with the assignment
to teach grade 4/
5.
You allege that Mr. Tucker sexually harassed you on numerous occasions. On April 2, 2001,
you requested that Mr. Tucker cease his abusive behavior. You also notified the Association
of Mr. Tucker's conduct.
On April 23, 2001, the Association filed a grievance on your behalf challenging your
assignment to teach grade 4/5. You and Mr. Bonaccorsi attended a Level I grievance meeting

SF-CE-2251-E
May 30, 2002
Page 3
with Mr. Tucker on May 18, 2001. At the meeting you provided Mr. Tucker with two
evaluation forms which included your corrections. Mr. Tucker denied your Level I grievance
on May 25, 2001.
You appealed your grievance to Level II before Cheryl Bushmire, Director
of
Certificated
Personnel. Following knee surgery, Mr. Tucker was unavailable to participate in the Level II
grievance meeting throughout the summer.
In June 2001, Douglas Gephart, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources, "violated the
confidentiality
of
the May 18, 2001 Level I grievance meeting" when he obtained the corrected
evaluation forms you gave to Mr. Tucker. Mr. Gephart threatened you with criminal charges,
claiming you had altered your evaluations.
On August 28, 2001, two days before you were to report to work, you sent a letter to
Ms. Bushmire which stated in part:
Due to the delay in the Level II Grievance proceedings, as Ed
Tucker, site administrator
of
Grimmer Elementary School, was
unavailable throughout the summer, the difficulty
of
Greg
Bonaccorsi and myself coordinating our communications due to
vacations, meetings, etc., and the pending start
of
the 2001-2002
school year, I am submitting this memo to you.
You requested that Ms. Bushmire maintain your grade 3 teaching assignment until your
grievance was resolved.
You allege that Ms. Bushmire ignored your request and failed to timely schedule a Level II
grievance meeting prior to the start
of
the 2001-2002 school year.
You reported for work at the beginning
of
the 2001-2002 school year. You were absent from
work September 6, 2001 to April
1,
2002, due to illness or injury.
On March 26, 2002, Mr. Tucker assigned you to teach grade 2 for the 2002-2003 school year.
Article
11
of
the CBA states, in pertinent part:
11.10
...
Unit members may be assigned to teach within their
credentialing. A principal shall discuss any unit member's
assignment with him/her upon request. Subsequently, upon
request, the principal shall reduce the reason(s) for the
assignment to writing.
11.11 	Elementary teachers will know the school and grade level
to which they have been tentatively assigned by April 1.

SF-CE-2251-E
May 30, 2002
Page 4
(
11.16 Each principal shall notify his/her staff by March 1 that
they may submit by March
15
up to three (3) preferences for
work assignment(s) within the site. The principal shall consider
these stated preferences before changing work assignments
of
unit members within the site.
11.16
.1
	Assignments are to be based on instructional need and
unit member preference. These determinations are to be made
with unit members' input. Assignments shall be made on an
equitable basis. Upon request, the principal shall discuss the
assignment with the teacher.
Based on the facts stated above, your charge does not state a prima facie case
of
discrimination.
As discussed in the attached letter, EERA section 3541.S(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a
complaint with respect to "any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more
than six months prior to the filing
of
the charge." The six-month limitations period begins to
run once the charging party knows, or should have known,
of
the conduct underlying the
charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The
charging party bears the burden
of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. 	(Tehachapi
Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State
of
California (Department
of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
As I previously explained in my April 22, 2002 letter, your charge was filed on March 4, 2002.
PERB may only consider unfair practices which occurred within six months prior to the filing
of
an unfair practice charge. The statute
of
limitations in your case began to run on
September 4, 2001. Thus, only allegations
of
unfair practices which occurred on or after
September 4, 2001 are timely filed. 	Accordingly, the conduct you described which occurred
between October 2000 and August 2001 is untimely and these allegations are hereby
dismissed.
One allegation falls within the limitations period. You allege that on March 26, 2002, the
District discriminated against you when it assigned you to teach grade 2 for the 2002-2003
schoo 1 year.
As previously discussed, to demonstrate a prima facie case
of
discrimination, a charging party
must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had
knowledge
of
the exercise
of
those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to
impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with,
restrained or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified
School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210; Carlsbad Unified School District (1979)
PERB Decision No. 89.)

SF-CE-2251-E
May 30, 2002
Page 5
You demonstrated that you engaged in protected activity on March 14, 2001 when you
requested a "Level I Complaint Meeting" with Mr. Tucker. You also participated in protected
activity on March 23, 2001 when you filed a grievance challenging your assignment to teach
grade 4/5 for the 2001-2002 school year. However, the charge does not provide facts which
demonstrate a connection or nexus between your protected activity and the May 26, 2002
assignment to teach grade 2. The facts do not establish that the District departed from the
procedures when it made the 2002-2003 teaching assignment. Thus, this allegation fails to
state a prima facie case and is dismissed.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 you may obtain a review
of
this dismissal
of
the charge
byfiling an appeal to the Board itself within twenty (20) calendar days after service
of
this
dismissal. (Regulation 32635(a).) Any document filed with the Board must contain the case
name and number, and the original and five (5) copies
of
all documents must be provided to
the Board.
A document is considered "filed" when actually received before the close
of
business (5 p.m.)
on the last day set for filing or when mailed by certified or Express United States mail, as
shown on the postal receipt or postmark, or delivered to a common carrier promising overnight
delivery, as shown on the carrier's receipt, not later than the last day set for filing.
(Regulations 32135(a) and 32130.)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the
close
of
business on the last day for filing together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
which meets the requirements
of
Regulation 32135(d), provided the filing party also places the
original, together with the required number
of
copies and proof
of
service, in the U.S. mail.
(Regulations 32135(b), (c) and (d); see also Regulations 32090 and 32130.)
The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
If
you file a timely appeal
of
the refusal to issue a complaint, any other party may file with the
Board an original and five copies
of
a statement in opposition within twenty (20) calendar days
following the date of service of the appeal. (Regulation 32635(b ).)
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SF-CE-2251-E
May
30, 2002
Page 6
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to
theproceeding, and a
"proof
of
service" must accompany each copy
of
a document served
upon
a
party
or
filed with the Board itself. (See Regulation 32140 for the required contents
and
a
sample form.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered
,or
deposited in the first-class mail, postage paid and properly addressed. A document filed by
facsimile transmission may be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to
the proceeding. (Regulation 32135(c).)
Extension
of
Time
A request for an extension
of
time, in which to file a document with the Board itself,
must
be
in writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an extension
must
be
filed at least three (3) calendar days before the expiration
of
the time required for
filing the document. The request must indicate good cause for and,
if
known, the position
of
each other party regarding the extension, and shall
be
accompanied
by proof
of
service
of
the
request upon each party. (Regulation 32132.)
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final
when
the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
ROBERT THOMPSON
General Counsel
Attachment
cc: Stacey L. Saetta

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Strcet
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916)327-8385
Fax: (916)327-6377
April 22, 2002
Diane M. Kaiser
4572 Gertrude Drive
Fremont, CA 94536
Re: Diane M. Kaiser v. Fremont Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. SF-CE-2251-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Kaiser:
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on March 4, 2002. Y our charge alleges that the Fremont Unified
School District violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by
discriminating against you for engaging in protected activity.
Your charge states in its entirety:
Fremont Unified School Districf has violated my employment
contract during my employment with them. The violations
occurred under Article/s 6, 8, 9, 1 O, 28, 29, and Board Policy
4119 and AR 4119 of my F.U.S.D. employment contract. I will
be submitting an amended charge. Attachment/s:~ A, B, C, D, E,
F, G, H.
Attached to the charge are copies of correspondence that you wrote to various union and
District officials which appear to concern a gríevance, claims of harassment and medica!
verification of absence.
On March 7, 2002, I called you and spoke you about your charge. You stated that had
additional information and intended to file an amended charge. I explained that you needed to
include in your amended charge a detailed statement describing the conduct which you allege
demonstrates that the District discriminated against you for engaging in protected actívity. To
date, I have not received an amended charge or any further information. As filed, your charge
fails to state a prima facie case.
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) states that a charge must contain a "clear and concise statement
of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice." A charging party must allege
r EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Toe text of the EERA and
the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.

SF-CE-2251-E
April 22, 2002
Page 2
the "who, what, when, where and how"
of
an unfair practice. 	Legal conclusions are
insufficient to demonstrate a violation
of
EERA. 	(State
of
California (Department
of
Food and
Agriculture) (1994) PERB Decision No. 1071-S; United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale)
(1992) PERB Decision No. 944; Charter Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision
No. 873, fn. 6.)
Furthermore, allegations
of
unfair labor practices under the EERA are covered by a six-month
statute oflimitations. EERA section 3541.S(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint
with respect to "any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six
months prior to the filing
of
the charge." The limitations period begins to run once the
charging party knows, or should have known,
of
the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan
Joint Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The charging
party
bears
the burden
of
demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. 	(Tehachapi Unified School District
(1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State
of
California (Department ofinsurance) (1997) PERB
Decision No. 1197-S.)
Your charge was filed on March 4, 2002. The statutory limitations period began to
run
six
months prior to the filing
of
the charge on September 4, 2001. Thus, only alleged unfair
practices which occurred on or after September 4, 2001 are timely filed. 	Your charge does not
provide dates or describe conduct which occurred within the statutory limitations period. 	Your
charge will be considered untimely filed unless you allege facts which demonstrate unlawful
conduct occurred within the six months prior to the filing
of
your charge.
Assuming your charge is timely filed, to demonstrate a prima facie case
of
discrimination in
violation
of
EERA section 3543.S(a), a charging party must show that: 	(1) the employee
exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge
of
the exercise
of
those rights;
and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened
to
discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employees because
of
the
exercise
of
those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210(Novato); Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89.)
Although the timing
of
the employer's adverse action in close temporal proximity to
theemployee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264), it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or
"nexus" between the adverse action and the protected conduct. (Moreland Elementary School
District (1982) PERB Decision No. 227.) Facts establishing one or more
of
the following
additional factors must also be present: (1) the employer's disparate treatment
of
the employee
(State
of
California (Department of Transportation) (1984) PERB Decision No. 459-S); (2) the
employer's departure from established procedures and standards when dealing with the
employee (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104.); (3) the
employer's inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions (State
of
California
(Department of Parks and Recreation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 328-S; (4) the employer's
cursory investigation of the employee's misconduct; ( 5) the employer's failure to offer the
employee justification at the time it took action or the offering of exaggerated, vague, or
ambiguous reasons; (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Cupertino Union

SF-CE-2251-E
April 22, 2002
Page 3
(
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento School
District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264.)
Evidence
of
adverse action is also required to support a claim
of
discrimination or reprisal
under the Novato standard. (Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision
No. 689.) In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective
test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions
of
the employee. (Ibid.) In a later decision,
the Board further explained that:
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. 	[Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB
Decision No. 864; emphasis added; footnote omitted.]
As filed, the charge fails to provide a clear statement
of
your protected activity and when that
activity occurred; when and how the District was aware
of
your protected activity; the specific
adverse action taken again you by the District and when that action was taken; and facts
demonstrating a nexus or connection between your protected activity and the adverse action.
Accordingly, your charge fails to state a prima facie case
of
discrimination and must bedismissed.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case.
	Ifthere
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, please amend the charge. The amended charge should be prepared on a
standard PERB unfair practice charge form, clearly labeled First Amended Charge, contain all
the facts and allegations you wish to make, and be signed under penalty
of
perjury by the
charging party. The amended charge must have the case number written on the top right hand
comer
of
the charge form. 	The amended charge must be served on the respondent's
representative and the original proof
of
service must be filed with PERB.	
If
I do not receive an
amended charge or withdrawal from you before May 6, 2002, I shall dismiss your charge.	
If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Bwf!?!+
Regional Attorney