State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) (PERB 1690S)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
KEVIN J. REDDINGTON,
Charging Party, 	Case No. SA-CE-1435-S
v . 	PERB Decision No. 1690-S
September 17, 2004
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ( DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY & FIRE PROTECTION),
Respondent.
Appearance: Kevin J. Reddington, on his own behalf.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Kevin J. Reddington (Reddington) of a Board agent's dismissal
(attached) of his unfair practice charge.
Reddington had filed an unfair practice charge against the State of California
(Department of Forestry & Fire Protection) (State) alleging a violation of the Ralph C. Dills
Act (Dills Act) section 3519(a) by the State's actions in terminating his employment, taking
other adverse actions against him, and creating a hostile work environment.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the initial and amended
unfair practice charge, warning and dismissal letters and Reddington's appeal. The Board
finds the warning and dismissal letters to be without prejudicial error and adopts them as the
decision of the Board itself, subject to the discussion below.
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
KEVIN J. REDDINGTON,
Charging Party,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ( DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY & FIRE PROTECTION),
Res ondent.
Case No. SA-CE-1435-S
PERB Decision No. 	1690-S
September 	17, 	2004
Appearance: Kevin J. Reddington, on his own behalf.
Before Duncan, Chairman; Whitehead and Neima, Members.
DECISION
DUNCAN, Chairman: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on appeal by Kevin J. Reddington (Reddington) of a Board agent's dismissal
( attached) of his unfair practice charge.
Reddington had filed an unfair practice charge against the State of California
(Department of Forestry & Fire Protection) (State) alleging a violation of the Ralph C. Dills
Act (Dills Act) section 3519(a)1 by the State's actions in terminating his employment, taking
other adverse actions against him, and creating a hostile work environment.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, including the initial and amended
unfair practice charge, warning and dismissal letters and Reddington's appeal. The Board
finds the warning and dismissal letters to be without prejudicial error and adopts them as the
decision of the Board itself, subject to the discussion below.
1The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512, et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

DISCUSSION
To demonstrate a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show
that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (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 the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264 (North Sacramento)), 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
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento.)
22
DISCUSSION
To demonstrate a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show
that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (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 the
employee's protected conduct is an important factor (North Sacramento School District (1982)
PERB Decision No. 264 (North Sacramento)), 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
Elementary School District) (1986) PERB Decision No. 572.); or (7) any other facts which
might demonstrate the employer's unlawful motive. (Novato; North Sacramento.)

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; fn. omitted.]
The Board agent advised Reddington that to meet this test under the Novato standard he
would need to include more than just a statement that there was a "premeditated conspiracy"
against him. The Board agent advised that he must show protected conduct, that the employer
knew of the conduct and that there was a nexus between the protected conduct and any
adverse actions. Although Reddington filed an amended claim he did not include evidence of
protected conduct prior to events he believed were adverse actions nor did his charges contain
evidence that the employer knew of any protected activity or evidence of a nexus between
adverse actions and protected conduct.
We believe that Reddington has failed to state a prima facie case and the case must be
dismissed.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-1435-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.
33
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; fn. omitted.]
The Board agent advised Reddington that to meet this test under the Novato standard he
would need to include more than just a statement that there was a "premeditated conspiracy"
against him. The Board agent advised that he must show protected conduct, that the employer
knew of the conduct and that there was a nexus between the protected conduct and any
adverse actions. Although Reddington filed an amended claim he did not include evidence of
protected conduct prior to events he believed were adverse actions nor did his charges contain
evidence that the employer knew of any protected activity or evidence of a nexus between
adverse actions and protected conduct.
We believe that Reddington has failed to state a prima facie case and the case must be
dismissed.
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. SA-CE-1435-S is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEA VE TO AMEND.
Members Whitehead and Neima joined in this Decision.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax: (916) 327-6377
August 2, 2004
Kevin J. Reddington
Re: 	Kevin J. Reddington v. State of California (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1435-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Reddington:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 21, 2004. You allege that the State of California (Department
of Forestry & Fire Protection) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)" by dismissing you
from your employment without cause, taking other false adverse actions against you, and
creating a hostile work environment.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated July 8, 2004, that the above-referenced charge did
not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there were any factual inaccuracies or
additional 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 July 16, 2004, the charge would be dismissed. On July 13,
2004, we discussed your charge and my letter by telephone. Your request for additional time
in which to amend the charge was granted, and a First Amended Unfair Practice Charge was
timely filed on July 27, 2004.
The allegations of your original charge were summarized in my earlier letter as follows:
Your charge includes the following information and allegations.
You have been employed by the California Department of
Forestry & Fire Protection (State or Department) as an office
technician since March 26, 2000. You allege that certain named
managers in the Department created a hostile work environment;
made false adverse actions against you on January 9, 2002,
August 22, 2002, and September 8, 2003; abused their power to
the detriment of your well being; and used their power to
"fraudulently and wrongfully" dismissing you from employment.
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at w
(~_
=S=T=A=T=E=O=F=C=A=L=IF=O=RN=I=A=====·================--r ·:oLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
5649 Monte Corita Circle
Citrus Heights, CA 95621
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	OLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BQARD
PER.B
Sacramento Regional Office
103118thStreet
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax: (916) 327-6377
August 2, 2004
Kevin J. Reddington
Re: 	Kevin J. Reddington v. State of California (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1435-S
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Reddington:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 21, 2004. You allege that the State of California (Department
of Forestry & Fire Protection) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by dismissing you
from your employment without cause, taking other false adverse actions against you, and
creating a hostile work environment.
I indicated to you in my attached letter dated July 8, 2004, that the above-referenced charge did
not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, if there were any factual inaccuracies or
additional 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 July 16, 2004, the charge would be dismissed. On July 13,
2004, we discussed your charge and my letter by telephone. Your request for additional time
in which to amend the charge was granted, and a First Amended Unfair Practice Charge was
timely filed on July 27, 2004.
The allegations of your original charge were summarized in my earlier letter as follows:
Your charge includes the following information and allegations.
You have been employed by the California Department of
Forestry & Fire Protection (State or Department) as an office
technician since March 26, 2000. You allege that certain named
managers in the Department created a hostile work environment;
made false adverse actions against you on January 9, 2002,
August 22, 2002, and September 8, 2003; abused their power to
the detriment of your well being; and used their power to
"fraudulently and wrongfully" dismissing you from employment.
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.	ww.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-1435-S
August 2, 2004
Page 2
You also reference the denial of your request for voluntary
transfer on March 20, 2003, and an incident on January 13, 2004,
where you contacted the California Highway Patrol and were
yelled at "for no justified reason" by two of the managers. In
February 2004, you were first placed on administrative leave and
hen dismissed on February 22 based on "contrived and false
allegations" contained in a memo written on January 14, 2004.
Finally, you indicate it is your belief that there was a
"premeditated conspiracy" by the named managers to give you
bad reports, create a hostile work environment, set you up for
failure, and dismiss you from employment.
Your amended charge does not add any additional facts to the charge. The only changes made
in the amended charge involve the insertion of the comment "Protected Conduct" in brackets
next to the paragraphs regarding the denial of your request for transfer in March 2003 and the
January 2004 incident where you contacted the California Highway Patrol (CHP). From our
telephone conversation of July 13, 2004, it is my understanding that you called the CHP
because the two named managers were in your cubicle, yelling at you and preventing you from
leaving the cubicle.
Discussion
In my July 13 letter, I reviewed the standards for finding a violation of Dills Act section
3519(a) and concluded, in relevant part, that
Your charge does not allege evidence of protected conduct that
preceded any of the adverse actions, nor evidence of employer
knowledge of such conduct, nor evidence that would demonstrate
the necessary connection or "nexus" between any of the adverse
actions and the protected conduct. Thus, while the charge does
allege evidence of adverse action, the charge fails to allege a
prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Dills Act.
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, inter alia, that an unfair practice charge include a
"clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice."
Thus, the charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of
an unfair practice. (State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB
Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
No. 944.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter
Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873.)
Thus, labeling certain conduct as "Protected Conduct" is not sufficient to establish that it is
such under applicable precedent. In this case, you are apparently alleging that the protected
conduct that preceded and motivated the subsequent adverse action was your request for a
(
SA-CE-1435-S
August 2, 2004
Page 2
You also reference the denial of your request for voluntary
transfer on March 20, 2003, and an incident on January 13, 2004,
where you contacted the California Highway Patrol and were
yelled at "for no justified reason" by two of the managers. In
February 2004, you were first placed on administrative leave and
then dismissed on February 22 based on "contrived and false
allegations" contained ina memo written on January 14, 2004.
Finally, you indicate it is your belief that there was a
"premeditated conspiracy" by the named managers to give you
bad reports, create a hostile work environment, set you up for
failure, and dismiss you from employment.
Your amended charge does not add any additional facts to the charge. The only changes made
in the amended charge involve the insertion of the comment "Protected Conduct" in brackets
next to the paragraphs regarding the denial of your request for transfer in March 2003 and the
January 2004 incident where you contacted the California Highway Patrol (CHP). From our
telephone conversation of July 13, 2004, it is my understanding that you called the CHP
because the two named managers were in your cubicle, yelling at you and preventing you from
leaving the cubicle.
Discussion
In my July 13 letter, I reviewed the standards for finding a violation of Dills Act section
3519(a) and concluded, in relevant part, that
Your charge does not allege evidence of protected conduct that
preceded any of the adverse actions, nor evidence of employer
knowledge of such conduct, nor evidence that would demonstrate
the necessary connection or "nexus" between any of the adverse
actions and the protected conduct. Thus, while the charge does
allege evidence of adverse action, the charge fails to allege a
prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Dills Act.
PERB Regulation 32615(a)(5) requires, inter alia, that an unfair practic'e charge include a
"clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged.to constitute an unfair practice."
Thus, the charging party's burden includes alleging the "who, what, when, where and how" of
an unfair practice. (State of California (Department of Food and Agriculture) (1994) PERB
Decision No. 1071-S, citing United Teachers-Los Angeles (Ragsdale) (1992) PERB Decision
No. 944.) Mere legal conclusions are not sufficient to state a prima facie case. (Ibid.; Charter
Oak Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 873.).
Thus, labeling certain conduct as "Protected Conduct" is not sufficient to establish that it is
such under applicable precedent. In this case, you are apparently alleging that the protected
conduct that preceded and motivated the subsequent adverse action was your request for a

SA-CE-1435-S
August 2, 2004
Page 3
voluntary transfer in March 2003 and your calling the CHP in January 2004. These assertions
are insufficient to support a prima facie finding of a violation for the following reasons.
First, case law does not support finding that a request for a transfer constitutes protected
conduct any more than, for example, would a request by an employee for a vacation day, or an
employee's application for a promotion, or a request to work overtime.
Second, the incident with the CHP is not described in sufficient detail to support finding that
you were engaged in the exercise of any right guaranteed by the Dills Act. Further, even
assuming this incident constituted protected activity, it would stand as the only such evidence,
and the charge still fails to establish that the subsequent termination was motivated by the
incident. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210; North Sacramento
School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 264.)
Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons set forth above, as well as
those contained in my July 8, 2004 letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations," you may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
iling 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. (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
PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
(
SA-CE-1435-S
August 2, 2004
Page 3
voluntary transfer in March 2003 and your calling the CHP in January 2004. These assertions
are insufficient to support a prima facie finding of a violation for the following reasons.
First, case law does not support finding that a request for a transfer constitutes protected
conduct any more than, for example, would a request by an employee for a vacation day, or an
employee's application for a promotion, or a request to work overtime.
Second, the incident with the CHP is not described in sufficient detail to support finding that
you were engaged in the exercise of any right guaranteed by the Dills Act. Further, even
assuming this incident constituted protected activity, it would stand as the only such evidence,
and the charge still fails to establish that the subsequent termination was motivated by the
incident. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210; North Sacramento
School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 264.)
Therefore, I am dismissing the charge based on the facts and reasons set forth above, as well as
those contained in my July 8, 2004 letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 you may obtain a review of this dismissal of the charge by
filing 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. (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 958,14-4174
FAX: (916) 327-7960
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

SA-CE-1435-S
August 2, 2004
Page 4
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).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, 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
By
Les Chisholm
Regional Director
Attachment
cc: Nalda Keller
(
"-.--.
SA-CE-1435-S
August 2, 2004
Page 4
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).)
Service
All documents authorized to be filed herein must also be "served" upon all parties to the
proceeding, 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
By
Les Chisholm
Regional Director
Attachment·
cc: Naida Keller

OLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 8, 2004
Kevin J. Reddington
Re: 	Kevin J. Reddington v. State of California (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1435-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Reddington:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 21, 2004. You allege that the State of California (Department
of Forestry & Fire Protection) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)' by dismissing you
from your employment without cause, taking other false adverse actions against you, and
creating a hostile work environment.
Your charge includes the following information and allegations. You have been employed by
the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (State or Department) as an office
technician since March 26, 2000. You allege that certain named managers in the Department
created a hostile work environment; made false adverse actions against you on January 9,
2002, August 22, 2002, and September 8, 2003; abused their power to the detriment of your
well being; and used their power to "fraudulently and wrongfully" dismissing you from
employment.
You also reference the denial of your request for voluntary transfer on March 20, 2003, and an
incident on January 13, 2004, where you contacted the California Highway Patrol and were
yelled at "for no justified reason" by two of the managers. In February 2004, you were first
placed on administrative leave and then dismissed on February 22 based on "contrived and
false allegations" contained in a memo written on January 14, 2004.
Finally, you indicate it is your belief that there was a "premeditated conspiracy" by the named
managers to give you bad reports, create a hostile work environment, set you up for failure,
and dismiss you from employment.
The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at w
STA'fE OF CALIFORNIA 	(-~======-=======--r ,OLD
5649 Monte Corita Circle
Citrus Heights, CA 95621
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
PER.B
Sacramento Regional Office
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-4174
Telephone: (916) 327-8383
Fax: (916) 327-6377
July 8, 2004
Kevin J. Reddington
Re: 	Kevin J. Reddington v. State of California (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1435-S
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Reddington:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on June 21, 2004. You allege that the State of California (Department
of Forestry & Fire Protection) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)1 by dismissing you
from your employment without cause, taking other false adverse actions against you, and
creating a hostile work environment.
Your charge includes the following information and allegations. You have been employed by
the California Department ofF01;estry & Fire Protection (State or Department) as an office
technician since March 26, 2000. You allege that certain named managers in the Department
created a hostile work environment; made false adverse actions against you on January 9,
2002, August 22, 2002, and September 8, 2003; abused their power to the detriment of your
well being; and used their power to "fraudulently and wrongfully" dismissing you from
employment.
You also reference the denial of your request for voluntary transfer on March 20, 2003, and an
incident on January 13, 2004, where you contacted the California Highway Patrol and were
yelled at "for no justified reason" by two of the managers. In February 2004, you were first
placed on administrative leave and then dismissed on February 22 based on "contrived and
false allegations" contained in a memo written on January 14, 2004.
Finally, you indicate it is your belief that there was a "premeditated conspiracy" by the named
managers to give you bad reports, create a hostile work environment, set you up for failure,
and dismiss you from employment.
1 The Dills Act is codified at Government Code section 3512 et seq. The text of the
Dills Act and the Board's Regulations may be found on the Internet at www.perb.ca.gov.	ww.perb.ca.gov.

SA-CE-1435-S
July 8, 2004
Page 2
Discussion
To demonstrate a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (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 the
employee'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
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.)
Your charge does not allege evidence of protected conduct that preceded any of the adverse
actions, nor evidence of employer knowledge of such conduct, nor evidence that would
demonstrate the necessary connection or "nexus" between any of the adverse actions and the
protected conduct. Thus, while the charge does allege evidence of adverse action, the charge
fails to allege a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Dills Act.
In addition, Dills Act section 3514.5(a)(1) 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 statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense which may be raised by the respondent. (Long Beach Community College
District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564.) If raised as an affirmative defense, charging party
bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified
School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.) In this case, the alleged adverse actions taken
SA-CE-1435-S
July 8, 2004
Page2
Discussion
To demonstrate a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that:
(1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (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 the
employee'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
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.)
Your charge does not allege evidence of protected conduct that preceded any of the adverse
actions, nor evidence of employer knowledge of such conduct, nor evidence that would
demonstrate the necessary connection or "nexus" between any of the adverse actions and the
protected conduct. Thus, while the charge does allege evidence of adverse action, the charge
fails to allege a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the Dills Act.
In addition, Dills Act section 3514.5(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with
respect to "ahy 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. (GavilanJoint
Community College District (1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) The statute of limitations is an
affirmative defense which may be raised by the respondent. (Long Beach Community College
District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1564.) If raised as an affirmative defense, charging party
bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed. (cf. Tehachapi Unified
School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State of California (Department of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.) In this case, the alleged adverse actions taken

SA-CE-1435-S
July 8, 2004
Page 3
in January and August 2002, and March and September 2003, would be subject to dismissal as
untimely.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. If there
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
corner 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 July 16, 2004, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Les Chisholm
Regional Director
L-
SA-CE-1435-S
July 8, 2004
Page 3
in January and August 2002, and March and September 2003, would be subject to dismissal as
untimely.
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case. If there
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 July 16, 2004, I shall dismiss your charge. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
Les Chisholm
Regional Director