Claremont Unified School District (PERB 2459E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DAVE LUKKARILA,
Charging Party,
v.
CLAREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case Nos. LA-CE-5811-E
LA-CE-5894-E
LA-CE-5914-E
PERB Decision No. 2459
October 27, 2015
Appearances: Dave. Lukkarila, on his own behalf; Fagen, Freidman & Fulfrost by
Brian D. Bock and Milton E. Foster III, Attorneys, for Claremont Unified School District.
Before Huguenin, Winslow and Gregersen, Members.
DECISION
GREGERSEN, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by Dave Lukkarila (Lukkarila) to a proposed decision
(attached) by an administrative law judge (ALJ). Three separate unfair practices charges were
initially filed by Lukkarila. PERB' s Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint in Case
No. LA-CE-5811-E, alleging that the Claremont Unified School District (District) violated
section 3543.5(a) of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by retaliating against
Lukkarila for engaging in protected activity. The Office of the General Counsel issued a
complaint in Case No. LA-CE-5894-E, alleging that the District violated section 3543.S(a) of
EERA by retaliating against Lukkarila for engaging in protected activity. The Office of the
General Counsel issued a complaint in Case No. LA-CE-5914-E, alleging that the District
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

violated section 3543.S(a) of the EERA by interfering with Lukkarila's protected rights. The
three cases were consolidated for the PERB formal hearing.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this matter and finds the proposed decision
well-reasoned, adequately supported by the record and in accordance with applicable law.
Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the proposed decision as the decision of the Board itself
subject to the discussion of Lukkarila's exceptions below.
DISCUSSION
In his statement of exceptions, Lukkarila sets forth three exceptions. In his first
exception, Lukkarila claims that the ALJ erroneously analyzed the facts contained in Case
No. LA-CE-5894-E, solely under the discrimination standard. Lukkarila states that the same
facts satisfied not only the requirements for a prima facie discrimination violation, but also the
requirements for a prima facie interference violation.
The Office of the General Counsel issued a complaint in this case alleging a single
discrimination allegation. No interference allegation was alleged. Therefore, to constitute a
source of liability for the District, any interference claim must meet the requirements for an
unalleged violation.
The case was litigated as a discrimination case and Lukkarila did not attempt to amend
the complaint either prior to or during the hearing to assert a separate and independent
interference allegation.2 The charge, complaint, hearing, and briefs3 that were filed by the
parties only address the claim that the District unlawfully retaliated against Lukkarila, in
2 Pursuant to PERB Regulation 32648, the charging party may move to amend the
complaint by oral motion on the record. In ruling on such a motion, the ALJ should consider
prejudice to the respondent, among other factors. (PERB Reg. 32648.) (PERB regs. are
codified at Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 8, § 31001 e.t seq.)
3 Lukkarila did not file a post-hearing brief.
2

violation of EERA section 3543.S(a). In the proposed decision, the ALJ found that Lukkarila
failed to establish a prima facie discrimination violation.
PERB has the authority to review unalleged violations when the following criteria are
met: (1) adequate notice and opportunity to defend has been provided to respondent; (2) the acts
are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course of
conduct; (3) the unalleged violation has been fully litigated; and (4) the parties have had the
opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue. (County of Riverside (2010) PERB
Decision No. 2097-M (Riverside); Fresno County Superior Court (2008) PERB Decision
No. 1942-C.) The unalleged violation must also have occurred within the applicable statute of
limitations period. (Riverside.)
We find no compelling reason to entertain an unalleged violation that the District
interfered against Lukkarila in this case. There was no notice to the District of a need to defend
and the unalleged violation was not fully litigated. Moreover, Lukkarila had ample opportunity
to move to amend the complaint prior to hearing, but did not. Therefore, in the absence of
clearly articulated rationale in support of the requirements for consideration of the unalleged
violation, we decline to make any findings as to _an interference allegation.
Of the remaining two exceptions, neither contain any reference to the evidence in the
record relied upon or properly identify the grounds for the exceptions. Rather, Lukkarila's
remaining exceptions provide single conclusory statements followed by possible remedies for
the Board to order.
PERB Regulation 32300 requires the party filing exceptions to a proposed decision to
include: (1) a statement of the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which each
exception is taken; (2) identify the page or part of the decision to which each exception is
taken; (3) designate the portions of the record relied upon; and (4) state the grounds for each
3

exception. (PERB Reg. 32300(a)(l)-(4).) Additionally, an exception not specifically urged
shall be waived, pursuant to subdivision (c) of the same regulation.
Compliance with the regulation is required to afford the respondent and the Board an
adequate opportunity to address the issues raised. (Temecula Valley Unified School District
(1990) PERB Decision No. 836, pp. 2-3; see also San Diego Community College District
(1983) PERB Decision No. 368.) Failure to comply with PERB Regulation 32300 may result
in dismissal of the matter without review of the merits of excepting party's claims. (See
Los Angeles Unified School District (Mindel) (1989) PERB Decision No. 785; California State
Employees Association (O'Connell) (1989) PERB Decision No. 726-H.) We do so here, with
respect to Lukkarila' s second and third exceptions. Because the second and third exceptions
fail to comply with PERB Regulation 32300, we decline to review Lukkarila's assertions
contained therein.
ORDER
The complaint and unfair practice charge in Case Nos: LA-CE-5811-E,
LA-CE-5894-E, and LA-CE-5914-E are hereby DISMISSED.
Members Huguenin and Winslow joined in this Decision.
4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DAVE LUKKARILA,
Charging Party,
V.
CLAREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Res ondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NOS. LA-CE-5811-E
LA-CE-5894-E
LA-CE-5914-E
PROPOSED DECISION
(January 28, 2015)
Appearances: Dave Lukkarila, on his own behalf; Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost by Milton E.
Foster III, Attorney, for Claremont Unified School District.
Before Kent Morizawa, Administrative Law Judge.
In these three consolidated cases, a public school employee claims that his employer
violated the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by retaliating against him for
engaging in protected activity and interfering with his right to communicate with bargaining
unit members. The employer denies any violation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 17, 2013, Dave Lukkarila (Lukkarila) filed the unfair practice charge in Case
Number LA-CE-5811-E with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board)
against the Claremont Unified School District (District). On November 8, 2013, Lukkarila
. filed an amended unfair practice charge.
On Febrnary 4, and April 8, 2014, Lukkarila filed the unfair practice charges in Case
Numbers LA-CE-5894-E and LA-CE-5914-E, respectively.
1 BERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. Unless otherwise
indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

On May 5, 2014, the PERB Office of the General Counsel (General Counsel) issued a
complaint in Case Number LA-CE-5894-E alleging that the District violated EERA section
3543.5, subdivision (a), when it retaliated against Lukkarila for engaging in protected activity
by continuing his placement on paid administrative leave.
On May 9, 2014, the General Counsel issued a complaint in Case Number LA-CE-
5811-E alleging that the District violated EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a), when it
retaliated against Lukkarila for engaging in protected activity by investigating him with regard
to testing irregularities. All other allegations were dismissed.2 No timely appeal of the partial
dismissal was filed.
The parties did not participate in an informal settlement conference in Case Numbers
LA-CE-5811 	and LA-CE-5894-E, and the two matters were consolidated and set for hearing.
On May 27, 2014, the District filed answers to the PERB complaints in Case Numbers
LA-CE-5811-E and LA-CE-5894-E denying any violation ofEERA and setting forth its
affirmative defenses.
On July 7, 2014 the General Counsel issued a complaint in Case Number LA-CE-5914-
E alleging that the District interfered with Lukkarila's rights under EERA in violation of
EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a), when it directed him not to contact bargaining unit
employees while on paid administrative leave.
The parties did not participate in an informal settlement conference in Case Number
LA-CE-5914-E, and the matter was consolidated for hearing with Case Numbers LA-CE-5811-
E and LA-CE-5894-E.
2The dismissed allegations concerned the District's failure to investigate two testing
irregularity reports filed by Lukkarila and its choice of legal counsel.
2

On July 25, 2014, the District filed an answer to the PERB complaint in Case Number
LA-CE-5914-E denying any violation of EERA and setting forth its affirmative defenses.
PERB held a formal hearing on September 3'0, October 1, October 29, October 30, and
November 4, 2014. The matter was submitted for decision when post-hearing briefs were filed
on January 16, 2015.3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties
Lukkarila is an employee within the meaning ofEERA section 3540.1, subdivision G).
At all relevant times, he was employed by the District as a social sciences teacher at Claremont
High School (CHS).
The District is a public school employer within the meaning of EERA section 3540.1,
subdivision (k). Jim Elsasser (Elsasser) is the Superintendent and assumed his duties on July
1, 2012. He convenes a cabinet meeting on a weekly basis to discuss issues pertaining to the
District. Kevin Ward (Ward) is the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and a
member of the cabinet. His duties include serving as the District's complaint officer in charge
of fielding, investigating, and responding to complaints from constituents. Bonnie Bell (Bell)
is the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services and also a member of the cabinet. Her
duties include serving as the District's testing coordinator and overseeing the implementation
of testing throughout the District.
Claremont Faculty Association
At all relevant times, the Claremont Faculty Association (CFA) was the exclusive
representative of a bargaining unit of certificated employees in the District. The evidence and
3 Lukkarila did not file a post-hearing brief.
3

testimony at hearing referenced a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between CFA and
the District. However, neither party introduced the CBA into evidence.
Case Number LA-CE-5811-E
Lukkarila's Safety Complaints and Grievances
On February 28, 2012, Lukkarila filed a Williams complaint with the District pursuant
to Education Code section 35186.4 Although the complaint itself is not in evidence, there is no
dispute that it dealt with unsafe conditions at CHS caused by persistent water intrusion and
leakage into classroom buildings. Lukkarila filed this complaint at the behest of his
colleagues, who were also experiencing the negative impact of water intrusion and leakage into
their classrooms.
On March 1, 2012, Lukkarila filed a complaint with the Claremont Police Department
(CPD) alleging that the District was retaliating against him for voicing concerns about ongoing
problems stemming from water intrusion and leakage. The day after filing his complaint, a
CPD officer met Lukkarila on campus, and Lukkarila escorted the officer around campus to
show him water damage around the site. The officer took photographs of the water damage
and also interviewed Steven Patterson (Patterson), an assistant principal at CHS. The officer
eventually issued a police report.5
On March 20, 2012, Lukkarila filed two grievances with Brett O'Connor (O'Connor),
the principal of CHS. The first alleged that the District failed to remedy ongoing problems,
such as mold and water damage, stemming from persistent water intrusion and leakage in
4 This Education Code section is colloquially referred to as "the Williams Act" and
allows individuals to file complaints against a school district regarding, among other things,
deficiencies related to instructional materials and 'facilities conditions that pose a threat to the
health and safety of students or staff.
5 The police report was not introduced into evidence.
4

numerous buildings on the CHS campus. Attached to this grievance were photographs taken
by Lukkarila that documented the ongoing problems. The second grievance alleged that
O'Connor and other administrators retaliated against Lukkarila after a February 3, 2012
meeting where he made known his intent to file a Williams complaint and a safety grievance.
At about the same time Lukkarila filed his March 20, 2012 grievances, he also filed a
complaint with the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)
regarding water intrusion and leakage on the CHS campus.6 Lukkarila testified that although
he had the option to file the complaint anonymously, he opted not to do so since he had a1ready
filed prior safety grievances and complaints against the District.
Beginning in April 2012, Cal/OSHA conducted several inspections of the CHS campus.
On at least one inspection in April 2012, O'Connor accompanied a Cal/OSHA inspector as he
inspected the campus.
On April 3, 2012, O'Connor denied both of Lukkarila's March 20, 2012 grievances.
On April 16, 2012, Lukkarila appealed O'Connor's denial to Gloria Johnston (Johnston), who
at the time was serving as the District's Interim Superintendent.
On May 2, 2012, Ward sent Lukkarila a report regarding Lukkarila's Williams
complaint. The report acknowledged receipt of the complaint and stated that the District
conducted a detailed survey of CHS on April 7, 2012. Following the survey, the District began
taking action to remedy problem areas, including removing mold and making any necessary
repairs to structures.
On May 12, 2012, Johnston denied the appeals ofLukkarila's March 20, 2012
gnevances.
6 The record is unclear as to the exact date when Lukkarila filed his complaint with
Cal/OSHA, but he did so prior to April 2012.
5

On May 30, 2012, Lukkarila filed a grievance with O'Connor alleging that the District
failed to take adequate measures to remediate damage caused by water intrusion and leakage.
The grievance follows an informal conference with O'Connor held on April 30, 2012, and
alleges that the District failed to comply with the recommendations set forth in the reports
generated by its own inspectors.
On June 14, 2012, O'Connor denied Lukkarila's May 30, 2012 grievance. On June 27,
2012, Lukkarila appealed the denial to Johnston. Elsasser denied the appeal on July 12, 2012.
On September 20, 2012, Cal/OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty,
which found that the District had not effectively corrected water intrusion or leakage into the
classrooms at CHS and that moist or wet ceiling tiles had the potential to grow mold and
expose employees to health hazards associated with mold. The District was ordered to pay
fines, correct the violations, and post notice of the violations at CHS.
STAR Testing Investigation
In April and May 2012, the District conducted testing under the Standardized Testing
and Reporting program (STAR testing),7 during which time Lukkarila was serving as a proctor.
There were several changes to the testing system at CHS in 2012. In prior years, each
classroom had two proctors. However, that year there was only one proctor per classroom. In
addition, teachers did not receive a copy of the Directions for Administration (DFA), which is
a booklet from the State that contains guidelines and protocols for administering the test. In
that year, CHS also switched to a system whereby test booklets followed students and moved
from room-to-room instead of remaining in a single location. Lukkarila testified that these
changes made it more challenging to proctor the exam than in prior years.
7 STAR testing is a state testing program that has since been repealed.
6

On May 10, 2012, the California Department of Education (CDE) notified Bell that a
student in the District had posted a photograph of STAR testing materials to a social media
website. The CDE directed Bell to conduct an investigation, which should include the
interview of students and faculty, and file an irregularity report. Bell in turn contacted
O'Connor and directed him to investigate the irregularity. She testified that it is typical for an
investigation regarding testing irregularities to be conducted at the site level, and the manner in
which the investigation is conducted will be determined by the site depending on the
circumstances.
The photograph at issue was a close-up of the front cover of a testing booklet.
O'Connor was able to identify the student who took the photograph from information
contained on the social media website where the photograph was posted. Based on the
photograph's date stamp and an annotation on the test booklet that read, "LUK," O'Connor
inferred that the photograph was taken during a time period in which Lukkarila was proctoring
the STAR test. O'Connor interviewed several students as part of his investigation, including
the student who took the photograph.
O'Connor testified that the student who took the photograph admitted to doing so
during his interview. The other students who were interviewed gave O'Connor information
regarding the conditions in Lukkarila's classroom at the time when the student took the
photograph. Eight students were interviewed in total, including the student who took the
photograph, and each student completed a student incident report. Based on all the evidence .
gathered, O'Connor determined that the student took the photograph at a time when Lukkarila
was proctoring the STAR test. O'Connor submitted the results of his investigation to Bell,
including a copy of all the student incident reports, on May 14, 2012.
7

At some point in time, O'Connor interviewed Lukkarila.8 Lukkarila attended the
interview with then-CFA President Joe Tonan (Tonan). At the meeting, Lukkarila demanded
to know the name of the student who took the photograph and to see the student incident
reports and the photograph at issue. After his requests were denied, Lukkarila and Tonan
ended the meeting and requested that they be provided the information. At this point, Bell
stepped in to lead the investigation.
Lukkarila and Tonan met with Bell on May 21, 2012. At that meeting, Bell did not
make available the student incident reports or the photograph of the test booklet. Lukkarila
reiterated his request for these documents and also requested to interview O'Connor, Patterson,
and other administrators who conducted the investigation, but his requests were ignored.
Following the May meeting with Bell, Lukkarila and Tonan continued to request to see the
student incident reports and the photograph of the test booklets.
On May 29, 2012, Lukkarila emailed Bell requesting a status update on the
investigation into the alleged testing irregularity. In this email, he references his prior
grievances and safety complaints relating to water intrusion at the CHS campus. Also on
May 29, 2012, Bell submitted an irregularity report to the CDE. The report stated that the
student admitted to taking the photograph of the testing booklet and posting it online, and that
the student was disciplined. The report also stated that the teacher of the class did not
implement provisions of the DFA, that the security breach was documented and shared with
the employee, and that steps were put in place so it does not happen again. Bell testified that
she did not give Lukkarila an opportunity to review the irregularity report prior to submitting it
to the CDE, which is her nonnal practice.
8 The record is unclear whether this interview took place before or after O'Connor's
May 14, 2012 email to Bell.
8

On June 4, 2012, Bell responded to Lukkarila's May 29 email by stating that her
investigation into the testing irregularity was closed, and she could not comment on the other
issues raised in Lukkarila's email because they were outside her purview. Lukkarila responded
by again requesting a copy of the report and a picture of the photograph at issue.
On June 13, 2012, Bell sent Lukkarila a copy of the irregularity report, a copy of the
photograph at issue, and a memorandum to Lukkarila titled, "STAR Irregularity Report." This
was the first time Lukkarila received any of this information. The memorandum summarized
the District's investigation and findings, and reminded Lukkarila of the need to comply with
the guidelines set forth by the State, District, and site for administering the STAR exam. The
memorandum also stated that a picture being taken in class could have the adverse effect of
invalidating scores from the students in the classroom or the entire CHS campus, which Bell
testified was information relayed to her by the CDE. Bell testified that the memorandum was
not disciplinary in nature and was meant to provide Lukkarila with guidance. Ward confirmed
that Lukkarila did not receive any discipline as a result of the student posting the photograph of
the test booklet.
On July 26, 2012, Lukkarila filed a grievance with Ward alleging that the investigation
into testing irregularities was in retaliation for filing safety complaints and grievances. The
record does not contain the District's response or any further correspondence regarding this
gnevance.
Case Numbers LA-CE-5894-E and LA-CE-5914-E
On February 6, 2013, Lukk:arila sent an email to O'Connor stating, "Please let this letter
serve [as] notice that I would like to file a Level I grievance." The basis of the grievance was
alleged retaliation against Lukkarila for his prior grievance activity. On the same date,
Lukkarila sent an email to Anita Arora, an assistant principal at CHS, stating, "Please consider
9

this letter notice that I would like to meet in order to notify you I would like to file a Level I
grievance notification." The basis of the grievance was alleged interference with Lukkarila' s
ability to communicate with bargaining unit members, including CFA President David
Chamberlain (Chamberlain). The record does not contain the District's responses or any
further correspondence regarding these grievances.
On March 4, 2013, Lukkarila sent an email to Elsasser requesting personal necessity
leave in order to attend a PERB hearing where he was representing his wife in an unfair
· practice proceeding. Elsasser responded that the request had been forwarded to Ward's
attention. Ward testified that Lukkarila's request fit within the requirements for personal
necessity leave under the CBA and was granted.
On March 21, 2013, Lukkarila sent an email to O'Connor requesting permission to
conduct a "lunch-time lecture examining public goods versus private goods." The lecture
would be open to anyone interested, including students~ staff, parents, and alumni. Lukkarila
indicated that he intended to discuss issues related to his prior safety complaints. On the same
day, O'Connor informed Lukkarila that his request was forwarded to Ward.
On Friday March 22, 2013, Chamberlain and Kara Evans (Evans), a CFA executive
board member, submitted a petition to Elsasser signed by 48 staff members at CHS. The
petition alleged a number of concerns regarding the work environment at CHS, such as anxiety
about attending staff meetings and harassment at the hands of a coworker, and requested that
the District "act definitively to remedy the condition of a hostile and stressful work
environment at Claremont High School." Although the petition does not name Lukkarila as a
source of the alleged hostile and stressful environment, Chamberlain and Evans informed
Elsasser that the petition was meant to address Lukkarila' s conduct.

Elsasser testified that in the weeks prior to receiving the petition, he had received
reports from O'Connor and others regarding Lukkarila's behavior that were consistent with
what was described in the petition. Elsasser met with Ward the same day he received the
petition. Given the prior reports about Lukkarila' s conduct and the number of petitioners who
signed the petition, Elsasser made the determination to put Lukkarila on paid administrative
leave while the District investigated the allegations in the petition. Elsasser testified that
placing an employee on paid administrative leave while conducting an investigation is standard
protocol, especially when workplace safety is implicated. Elsasser met with O'Connor and
June Hilton, an assistant principal at CHS, to infonn them that Lukkarila was going to be
placed on paid administrative leave.
On the following Monday, March 25, 2013, Ward and Mike Bateman, the District's
Assistant Superintendent of Student Services, went to CHS to notify Lukkarila of his
placement on paid administrative leave. Jim Munsey (Munsey), a CHS librarian, attended the
meeting with Lukkarila. Munsey is not a union representative and was summoned when
Lukkarila's first choice for representative, Chamberlain, was not available to attend the
meeting. The meeting took place in the Science Room, which has large windows opening up
to a corridor where passersby can see into the room.
At the meeting, Lukkarila was notified of the petition, but not presented with a copy of
it or given the names of the individuals who signed it. Lukkarila was handed a notice placing
him on_paid administrative leave "effective immediately and until further notice." The notice
contained the following directive:
You are also directed not to contact, question, confront, or
otherwise have any contact (in person, via phone or via
email/electronic means) with any District employees, students, or
parents. You shall direct any and all questions or needs to
[Ward]. You may contact your union president, David
Chamberlain, or his designee, if needed.
11

Ward testified that this directive is given to all employees when they are placed on paid
administrative leave. Although Elsasser and Ward were aware that Chamberlain was one of
the individuals who signed the petition, they did not modify the directive to name another CFA
contact person because they believed the situation would be handled internally by the union.
After placing Lukkarila on paid administrative leave, the District hired an outside firm
to investigate the allegations in the petition. Although investigations are typically handed by
the Human Resources Department, Ward testified that the District hired a third party because
the large number of witnesses made it impractical for the Human Resources Department to
conduct the investigation itself. There was at least one prior instance where an outside
investigative firm was retained to conduct an investigation into alleged employee misconduct.
On July 29, 2013, Lukkarila filed a grievance with Elsasser stating, "Please consider
this letter notification that I initiate the grievance procedure, referenced in the collective
bargaining agreement, Article VIL" The grievance alleges that the District's counsel, Brian
Bock (Bock), retaliated against Lukkarila for engaging in protected activity. On August 1,
2013, Ward acknowledged receipt of the grievance on the District's behalf. The record does
not contain more of the District's responses or any further correspondence regarding this
gnevance.
On August 1, 2013, the District's outside investigator contacted Lukkarila to schedule
an investigatory interview in connection with the investigation into the allegations in the
petition. Lukkarila was the last witness to be interviewed, and it was the District's intent to
have the investigation completed prior to the start of the 2013-2014 school year. On August 7,
2013, another investigator contacted Lukkarila to schedule the investigatory interview.
Lukkarila was unavailable for an investigatory interview before the 2013-2014 school year
12

started. However, because this time period was not part of the contractual year, he had no
obligation to make himself available.
On August 21, 2013, Ward sent Lukkarila a letter stating the District could not
conclude its investigation without interviewing Lukkarila, and on that basis the District was
continuing his paid administrative leave into the 2013-2014 school year.
ISSUES
1. 	Are the allegations in Case Numbers LA-CE-5811-E and LA-CE-5914-E barred
by the statute of limitations?
2. 	Should Lukkarila' s unalleged violation regarding his initial placement on paid
administrative leave be considered?
3. 	Did the District retaliate against Lukkarila for engaging in protected activity
when it investigated him for STAR testing irregularities?
4. 	Did the District retaliate against Lukkarila for engaging in protected activity
when it continued his paid administrative leave into the 2013-2014 school year?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Statute of Limitations
EERA section 3541.5, subdivision (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." Generally, 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.) However,
under the doctrine of statutory tolling, the statute oflimitations is suspended during the time
the same issue is pursued to exhaustion using a grievance procedure that ends in binding
arbitration. (Los Angeles Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 894; Sacramento
13

City Unified School District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1461.) The statutory tolling doctrine
only applies where the grievance and the charge raise the same issue. (Peralta Community
College District (2001) PERB Decision No. 1462.)
Despite the District's assertion to the contrary, at hearing the respondent bears the
burden of demonstrating that the charge was filed outside the six-month limitations period and
that the tolling exception does not apply. (Los Angeles Unified School District (2014) PERB
Decision No. 2359.)
Case Number LA-CE-5811-E
The District initiated its investigation into the STAR testing irregularities on May 10,
2012, after being contacted by the CDE. Lukk:arila became aware of the investigation shortly
thereafter when O'Connor started interviewing students from his classroom, but he did not file
his unfair practice charge until a year later. Under normal circumstances; this would make the
charge untimely. However, Lukk:arila's filed a grievance on July 26, 2012, alleging that the
investigation constituted retaliation for protected activity, which is the same issue in this case.
The CBA between CFA and the District includes a grievance process that ends in binding
arbitration.9 Therefore, Lukk:arila's grievance had the effect of suspending the statute of
limitations after running :for two months.
The District did not provide any evidence regarding when (if ever) Lukkarila's
grievance was resolved. Without this information, it cannot be determined whether
Lukkarila's charge is 1mtimely or not. Accordingly, the District did not meet its burden to
establish that the charge is untimely, and a decision will be reached on the merits.
9 Although the CBA is not in evidence, the evidenced introduced by the parties'
references the CBA's arbitration provisions. Even assuming the CBA did not contain binding
arbitration, it would be the District's burden to establish this as part of its affirmative defense,
which it did not do.
14

Case Number LA-CE-5914-E
Lukkarila received the directive at issue on March 25, 2013, but did not file his unfair
practice charge until over a year later on April 8, 2014. Unlike Case Number LA-CE-5811-E,
the record does not contain any evidence that Lukkarila filed a grievance challenging the
directive. Although he filed a grievance on July 29, 2013, the issue raised there is not the same
as in this case. The July 29, 2013 grievance alleges that Bock gave him an improper directive
and does not reference the March 25, 2013 directive, which was issued by Ward. Accordingly,
the July 29, 2013 grievance does not meet the requirements to suspend the statute of
limitations. No other exception to the statute oflimitations applies, and case number LA-CE-
5914-E is dismissed as untimely.
Unalleged Violation
At the hearing, Lukkarila presented evidence and made argument in support of his
claim that his initial placement on administrative leave in March 2013 was in retaliation for
engaging in protected activity. However, none of the complaints at issue here include this
conduct by the District as a basis for retaliation. Therefore, to constitute a source of liability
for the District, this claim must meet the requirements for an unalleged violation.
The Board has the authority to review unalleged violations when the following criteria
are met: (l) adequate notice and opportunity to defend has been provided to respondent; (2) the
acts are intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint and are part of the same course
of conduct; (3) the unalleged violation has been fully litigated; and (4) the parties have had the
opportunity to examine and be cross-examined on the issue. (Counry of Riverside (2010)
PERB Decision No. 2097-M; Fresno Counry Superior Court (2008) PERB Decision No. 1942-
C.) The unalleged violation must also have occurred within the applicable statute of
limitations period. ( Counry of Riverside (2010) PERB Decision No. 2097-M.)
15

The District's March 2013 decision to place Luk:karila on paid administrative leave is
directly referenced in case numbers LA-CE-5894-E and LA-CE-5914-E, and the parties had
ample opportunity to litigate the circumstances surrounding the District's decision. However,
the charges in both of those cases were filed six months after March 2013, and no exception to
the statute of limitations applies that would make the claim regarding Luk:karila's initial
placement on leave timely. Therefore, the unalleged violation cannot be considered as part of
the complaint in case numbers LA-CE-5894-E or LA-CE-5914-E.
The charge in case number LA-CE-5811-E was filed within six months of March 2013.
However, the claim that the District retaliated against Luk:karila by placing him on paid
administrative leave is not intimately related to the subject matter of the complaint in that case
or part of the same course of conduct. Neither the charge nor the complaint mentions
Luk:karila's placement on leave in March 2013. Both focus on the circumstances surrounding
the District's investigation into testing irregularities, which occurred a year before the
District's decision to place Luk:karila on leave and played no role in that decision. Therefore,
the unalleged violation cannot be considered as part of the complaint in case number LA-CE-
5811-E.
Based on the above, the unalleged violation that the District retaliated against Luk:karila
by placing him on leave in March 2013 will not be considered as part of this proceeding.
Retaliation
To demonstrate that an employer discriminated or retaliated against an employee in
violation of EERA section 3543,5, subdivision (a), the charging party must show that: (1) the
employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of
those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer
took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982)
16

PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato).) In determining whether evidence of adverse action is
established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of
the employee. (Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689.) 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 Unffied School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864; emphasis added; footnote
omitted.)
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 (City of Torrance (2008) PERB Decision
No. 1971-M; Coast Community College District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1560); (5) the
employer's failure to offer the employee justification at the time it took action (Oakland
Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1529) or the offering of exaggerated,
17

vague, or ambiguous reasons (McFarland Unified School District (1990) PERB Decision No.
786); (6) employer animosity towards union activists (Jurupa Community Services District
(2007) PERB Decision No. 1920-M; Cupertino Union Elementary School District (1986)
PERB Decision No. 572); or (7) any other facts that might demonstrat~ the employer's
unlawful motive (North Sacramento School District, supra, PERB Decision No. 264; Novato,
supra, PERB Decision No. 210).
Case Number LA-CE-5811-E
Lukkarila engaged in protected activity when he filed two grievances on March 20,
2012,1° (Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) PERB Decision No. 2244; San Bernardino
City Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1270.), and the Williams complaint on
February 28, 2012. (See Los Angeles Unified School District (1995) PERB Decision No. 1129
[reporting safety issues constituted protected activity]; Los Angeles Unified School District
(1992) PERB Decision No. 957 [same].) The March 1, 2012 complaint to CPD and the March
2012 complaint to Cal/OSHA also constituted protected activity. (See Oakdale Union
Elementary School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1246 [reporting safety issues to a third
party can constitute participation in the activities of an employee organization and be protected
under EERA where that report is consistent with the CBA and an extension of attempts to
resolve safety issues through the union and employer.])
Initiating an investigatory interview for misconduct constitutes an adverse action.
( County of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2090-M; State of California (Department of
Youth Authority) (2000) PERB Decision No. 1403-S.) This is so even if the investigation does
10 The grievances filed on May 30 and July 26, 2012 cannot serve as a basis for
Lukkarila' s claim of retaliation because they occurred after Bell initiated the STAR testing
investigation in April 2012. (See Regents of the University of California (UC Davis Medical
Center) (2013) PERB Decision No. 2314-H [to establish prima facie case of retaliation, the
protected activity must precede the adverse action.])
18

not ultimately result in discipline. (California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) (1994)
PERB Decision No. 1032-S.) Therefore, Bell took adverse action against Lukkarila when she
initiated the investigation into the STAR testing irregularity in Lukkarila's classroom.
However, the record does not establish that Bell had knowledge ofLukkarila's
protected activity at the time she initiated the investigation into the STAR testing irregularity.
Although Bell testified that she was aware ofLukkarila's grievances and safety complaints,
Lukkarila did not establish when she became aware ofLukkarila's protected activity. The May
29, 2012 email from Lukkarila to Bell references Lukkarila's protected activities, but it was
sent after Bell had already initiated her investigation earlier that month. The record does not
contain any evidence that Bell was notified of Lukkarila' s grievances or safety complaints
prior to init~ating her investigation. In addition, it is also unlikely that Bell would have
received notice ofLukkarila's protected activity independently during the course of her normal
duties since those duties do not include the need to review grievances and safety complaints.
Although Bell became more familiar with these issues while attending Elsasser's weekly
cabinet meetings, these meetings did not occur until at least July 2012, after her investigation
was already concluded. 11
Because it was not established that Bell knew ofLukkarila's protected activity at the
time she initiated the investigation, Lukkarila did not establish a prima facie case for
retaliation.
Case Number LA-CE-5894-E
Lukkarila engaged in protected activity when he filed grievances on February 6 and
July 29, 2013. Representing his wife in an unfair practice proceeding in February and March
11 The record does not indicate whether Elsasser' s predecessor conducted weekly
meetings.
19

2013 also constituted protected activity. (See Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation
District (2011) PERB Decision No. 2209-M [assisting in prosecution of PERB charge is
protected activity.]) Lukkarila's request on March 21, 2013, to conduct a lunchtime meeting
was an attempt to communicate with CHS staff about his safety complaints and grievances,
and is also protected activity in and of itself. (See City & County of San Francisco (2011)
PERB Decision No. 2207-M [employee complaints impacting employees generally are
considered protected activity].)
Elsasser and Ward were aware that Lukkarila filed grievances on February 6 and July
28, 2013. They were also aware that he was representing his wife in an unfair practice
proceeding and that he had requested to conduct a lunchtime lecture.
Although placing an employee on involuntary paid administrative leave is an adverse
action (San Mateo County Community College District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1980;
Oakland Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1529.), Lukkarila's initial
placement on paid administrative leave is not at iss.ue in the complaint. Rather, the alleged
adverse action is the District's decision to continue his paid administrative leave into the 2013-
2014 school year. This decision could serve as a second adverse action were the District to
change the terms of the existing administrative leave so as to constitute a new adverse action.
(See Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (2009) PERB Decision No. 2066-M
[change in employment status determinative in finding adverse action].) However, the District
did not do so when it continued Lukkarila' s leave.
When the District initially placed Lukkarila on paid administrative leave in March
2013, it stated that his leave would continue "until further notice." There was no explicit or
implicit understanding that Lukkarila would return to active status in time for the 2013-2014
school year. The District made clear that Lukkarila's leave would continue until the third party
20

investigators concluded their investigation. Upon realizing that the investigation would not be
completed by the end of the summer of 2013, Ward sent Lukkarila the August 21, 2013 letter
notifying him that his paid administrative leave would continue into the following school year.
Ward's letter did not add any additional restrictions or terms to Lukkarila's leave and simply
served as an update regarding the District's investigation and Lukkarila's leave status. Under
these circumstances, the continuation ofLukkarila's leave does not constitute a new and
distinct adverse action. It is simply a continuation of the initial adverse action that occurred on
March 25, 2013.
Because it was not established that the District took any adverse action against
Lukkarila when it continued his paid administrative leave into the 2013-2014 school year,
Lukkarila did not establish a prima facie case for discrimination.
PROPOSED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions oflaw and the entire record
in this matter, the complaint and lmderlying unfair practice charge in Case Nos.
LA-CE-5811-E, LA-CE-5894-E, and LA-CE-5914-E, are hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed
Decision and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the
Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this
Decision. The Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board
Attention: Appeals Assistant
1031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
E-FILE: PERBe-file.Appeals@perb.ca.gov
21

In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by
page citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such
exceptions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB
business day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,§
11020, subd. (a).) A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile
transmission before the close of business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet
or received by electronic mail before the close of business, which meets the requirements of
PERB Regulation 32135, subdivision (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. (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c), and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090, 32091
and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served
on a party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32300, 32305, 32140,
and 32135, subd. (c).)
22