Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB A456E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
CARMEN FRITSCH-GARCIA,
Charging Party,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-6202-E
PERB Order No. Ad-456
November 29, 2017
Appearances: Carmen Fritsch-Garcia, on her own behalf.
Before Gregersen, Chair; Banks and Winslow, Members.
DECISION
WINSLOW, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on Carmen Fritsch-Garcia’s (Fritsch-Garcia) appeal from an administrative
determination by the Board’s Appeals Assistant. The Appeals Assistant denied as untimely
Fritsch-Garcia’s request for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of her unfair practice
charge.
Based on our review of Fritsch-Garcia’s appeal and the entire record in this matter, we
deny the appeal and affirm the administrative determination.
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2017, Fritsch-Garcia filed the unfair practice charge in this matter,
alleging that the Los Angeles Unified School District (District) violated the Educational

________________________
Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by retaliating against her for reporting “unlawful
conduct” by agents of the District.
On June 6, 2017, PERB’s Office of the General Counsel sent Fritsch-Garcia a warning
letter informing her that the charge did not state a prima facie case. Fritsch-Garcia was given
until June 20, 2017, to file an amended charge.
On July 12, 2017, having received no amended charge and no response to a July 3,
2017 voicemail message, the Office of the General Counsel dismissed the charge. The
dismissal letter explained the deadline for appealing the dismissal to the Board, as well as for
obtaining an extension of the deadline.
On August 7, 2017, Fritsch-Garcia electronically filed a letter requesting a 20-day
extension to file her appeal. The letter stated that the extension was “necessary . . . for
charging party’s excused inability to obtain essential information/documents, or other material
evidence despite diligent efforts.” No other information was included.
On August 10, 2017, the Appeals Assistant issued the administrative determination,
which explained that under PERB Regulation 32132, the deadline for any re`quest for
extension was August 4, 2017, three days before the deadline to file an appeal of the dismissal
of the charge.
On August 21, 2017, Fritsch-Garcia filed an appeal of the administrative determination.
DISCUSSION
The appeal does not dispute that Fritsch-Garcia’s request for an extension was
untimely. “A request for an extension of time within which to file any document with the
Board itself shall be in writing and shall be filed . . . at least three days before the expiration of
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
2

________________________
the time required for filing.” (PERB Regulation 32132, subd. (a).) Fritsch-Garcia’s appeal of
the July 12, 2017 dismissal of her unfair practice charge was due on August 7, 2017. (See
PERB Regulations 32635, subd. (a); 32130, subds. (b) and (c).) Therefore, the Appeals
Assistant correctly determined that Fritsch-Garcia’s August 7, 2017 request for an extension of
time to file the appeal was untimely.
Late filings may be excused “in the discretion of the Board for good cause only.”
(PERB Regulation 32136.)2 This requires an affirmative showing of good cause for the late
filing, as well as the absence of prejudice to the opposing party. (Bellflower Unified School
District (2017) PERB Order No. Ad-447, pp. 4-5.) “Whatever the reason(s) for the late filing,
the moving party must provide a ‘reasonable and credible’ explanation for its untimely filing
or show that it at least made a conscientious effort to comply with the deadline.” (Id. at p. 4.)
Fritsch-Garcia has not established good cause for the late filing of her extension
request. Neither her request, nor her appeal of the administrative determination denying her
request set forth any reason for the late filing or that she made any effort to comply with the
deadline. Therefore, we decline to excuse the late filing.
Even if we were to excuse the late filing, we would deny the request for an extension.
As with excusing a late filing, an extension of time may be granted “for good cause only.”
(PERB Regulation 32132, subd. (a).) Fritsch-Garcia’s request for an extension refers to her
inability to obtain “essential information/documents, or other material evidence.” Absent from
this request is any explanation of what information she seeks, how she will be able to obtain it
in the amount of time requested, or how she would be able to demonstrate good cause for
2 This includes late-filed extension requests. (Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection
District (2012) PERB Order No. Ad-394-M, p. 5; Service Employees International Union
Local 1000 (Isom) (2008) PERB Order No. Ad-375-S, p. 2.)
3

including “new charge allegations or new supporting evidence” on appeal. (See PERB
Regulation 32635, subd. (b).) Therefore, we would deny the request for an extension.
ORDER
The Appeals Assistant’s denial of Carmen Fritsch-Garcia’s request for an extension of
time to file an appeal of the dismissal of her unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-6202-E
is AFFIRMED.
Chair Gregersen and Member Banks joined in this decision.
4