Charter Oak Unified School District (PERB 2159E)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DIANE R. BONNER,
Charging Party, 	Case No. LA-CE-5251-E
v . 	PERB Decision No. 2159
CHARTER OAK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	January 27, 2011
Respondent.
Appearance: Diane R. Bonner, on her own behalf.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Miner, Members.
DECISION
MINER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)
on appeal by Diane R. Bonner (Bonner) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of her unfair
practice charge. The charge alleged that the Charter Oak Unified School District violated
section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)' by forcing her into
retirement in retaliation for protected activity. The Board agent determined that the charge was
untimely filed and therefore dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie violation of
EERA.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of Bonner's appeal and the
relevant law. Based on this review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal
letters to be well-reasoned and a correct statement of the law, and therefore adopts them as the
decision of the Board itself.
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
DIANE R. BONNER,
Charging Party,
V.
CHARTER OAK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Case No. LA-CE-5251-E
PERB Decision No. 	2159
January 27, 2011
Appearance: Diane R. Bonner, on her own behalf.
Before Dowdin Calvillo, Chair; McKeag and Miner, Members.
DECISION
MINER, Member: This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board (Board)
on appeal by Diane R. Bonner (Bom1er) of a Board agent's dismissal (attached) of her unfair
practice charge. The charge alleged that the Charter Oak Unified School District violated
section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA)1 by forcing her into
retirement in retaliation for protected activity. The Board agent determined that the charge was
untimely filed and therefore dismissed the charge for failure to state a prima facie violation of
EERA.
The Board has reviewed the dismissal and the record in light of Bom1er' s appeal and the
relevant law. Based on this review, the Board finds the Board agent's warning and dismissal
letters to be well-reasoned and a correct statement of the law, and therefore adopts them as the
decision of the Board itself.
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq.

ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-5251-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member Mckeag joined in this Decision.
N
ORDER
The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA-CE-5251-E is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Chair Dowdin Calvillo and Member McKeag joined in this Decision.
2

ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
December 28, 2009
Diane R. Bonner	Diane R. Bonner
Re: 	Diane R. Bonner v. Charter Oak Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-5251-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Bonner:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 17, 2008, and amended on April 10 and 21, 2009.
Diane R. Bonner (Bonner or Charging Party) alleges that the Charter Oak Unified School
District (District or Respondent) violated section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA or Act) 1 by forcing her into retirement in retaliation for protected
activity.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated December 15, 2009, that
the above-referenced charge did not state a prima facie case. You were advised that, ifthere
were any factual inaccuracies or additional facts that 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 December 30, 2009, the
charge would be dismissed.
On December 23, 2009, you filed with PERB a letter stating: "I believe that the charge as filed
states a prima facie case." In a telephone conversation on or about December 22, 2009, you
informed me that you do not intend to further amend the charge. Therefore, the charge is
hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons set forth in the December 15, 2009 Warning
Letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations,2 Charging Party 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
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 PERB 's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
December 28, 2009
Re: 	Diane R. Bonner v. Charter Oak Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-5251-E
DISMISSAL LETTER
Dear Ms. Bonner:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 17, 2008, and amended on April 10 and 21, 2009.
Diane R. Bonner (Bonner or Charging Party) alleges that the Charter Oak Unified School
District (District or Respondent) violated section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA or Act)' by forcing her into retirement in retaliation for protected
activity.
Charging Party was informed in the attached Warning Letter dated December 15, 2009, 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 that 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 December 30, 2009, the
charge would be dismissed.
On December 23, 2009, you filed with PERB a letter stating: "I believe that the charge as filed
states a prima facie case." In a telephone conversation on or about December 22, 2009, you
informed me that you do not intend to further amend the charge. Therefore, the charge is
hereby dismissed based on the facts and reasons set forth in the December 15, 2009 Warning
Letter.
Right to Appeal
Pursuant to PERB Regulations, "Charging Party 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
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 PERB's Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section
31001 et seq.

LA-CE-5251-E
December 28, 2009
Page 2
this dismissal. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32635, subd. (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 during a regular PERB business day.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $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 which meets the
requirements of PERB 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. (Cal. Code
Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $$ 32090 and
32130.)
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
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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32635, subd. (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 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, $ 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32135, subd. (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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, $ 32132.)
LA-CE-5251-E
December 28, 2009
Page 2
this dismissal. 	(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32635, subd. (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 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 which meets the
requirements of PERB 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. 	(Cal. Code
Regs, tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32090 and
32130.)
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
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. 	(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32635, subd. (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 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32140 for the required
contents.) The document will be considered properly "served" when personally delivered or
deposited in the mail or deposited with a delivery service and properly addressed. A document
may also be concurrently served via facsimile transmission on all parties to the proceeding.
(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32135, subd. (c).)
Extension of Time
A request for an extension of time, in which to file a document with the Board itself, must be
writing and filed with the Board at the previously noted address. A request for an
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. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 32132.)

LA-CE-5251-E
December 28, 2009
Page 3
Final Date
If no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI R. BOGERT
General Counsel
By
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: Margaret A. Chidester, Attorney
LA-CE-5251-E
December 28, 2009
Page 3
Final Date
If
no appeal is filed within the specified time limits, the dismissal will become final when the
time limits have expired.
Sincerely,
TAMI
R.
BOGERT
General Counsel
By
______________
_
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
Attachment
cc: 	Margaret A. Chidester, Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
Los Angeles Regional Office
700 N. Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91203-3219
Telephone: (818) $51-2805
Fax; (818) 551-2820
Diane R. Bonner
Re: 	Diane R. Bonner v. Charter Oak Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-5251-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Bonner:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 17, 2008, and amended on April 10 and 21, 2009.
Diane R. Bonner (Bonner or Charging Party) alleges that the Charter Oak Unified School
District (District or Respondent) violated section 3543.5 of the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA or Act)' by forcing her into retirement in retaliation for protected
activity.
Background
The charge, as amended, provides the following relevant information." Bonner worked as a
teacher in the District until her retirement in June 2007.' On or around December 5, 2006, a
special-needs student, "K.S.," was enrolled in the District and spent instructional time in
Bonner's classroom."
On December 8, 2006, Royal Oak Intermediate School Principal Scott Wollam (Wollam) met
briefly with Bonner and Union representative Jennifer Gutmann (Gutmann) to discuss
EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text of the EERA and
PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 On October 19, 2009, PERB received written materials from the Charging Party that
were not accompanied by proof of service on the Respondent. Materials not served on a
respondent will not be considered by PERB and are not a part of the official record of the
unfair practice charge. (Service Employees International Union, Local 790 (Fanene) (2003)
PERB Decision No. 1513.)
The date of Bonner's retirement was supplied by the District.
*It is unclear from the information in the charge whether Bonner was K.S.' primary
teacher.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 	ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARDLos
Angeles Regional Office
700
N.
Central Ave., Suite 200
Glendale,
CA
91203-3219
Telephone: (818) 551-2805
Fax: (818) 551-2820
December 15, 2009	December 15, 2009
Diane R. Bonner
Re: 	Diane
R.
Bonner
v.
Charter Oak Unified School District
Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-5251-E
WARNING LETTER
Dear Ms. Bonner:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed with the Public Employment Relations
Board (PERB or Board) on September 17, 2008, and amended on April
10
and 21, 2009.
Diane R. Bonner (Bonner or Charging Party) alleges that the Charter Oak Unified School
District (District or Respondent) violated section 3543.5
of
the Educational Employment
Relations Act (EERA or Act) 1 by forcing her into retirement in retaliation for protected
activity.
Background
The charge, as amended, provides the following relevant information.2 Bonner worked as a
teacher in the District until her retirement in June 2007.3 On or around December 5, 2006, a
special-needs student, "K.S.," was enrolled in the District and spent instructional time
in
Bonner's classroom.4
On December 8, 2006, Royal Oak Intermediate School Principal Scott Wollam (Wollam) met
briefly with Bonner and Union representative Jennifer Gutmann (Gutmann) to discuss
1 EERA is codified at Government Code section 3540 et seq. The text
of
the EERA and
PERB's Regulations may be found at www.perb.ca.gov.
2 On October 19, 2009, PERB received written materials from the Charging Party that
were not accompanied by proof of
service on the Respondent.. Materials not served on a
respondent will not be considered by PERB and are not a part
of
the official record
of
the
unfair practice charge. (Service Employees International Union, Local 790 (Fanene) (2003)
Decision No. 1513.)
3 The date
of
Bonner's retirement was supplied by the District.
4 It is unclear from the information in the charge whether Bonner was K.S.' primary
teacher.

LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 2
complaints made against Bonner by district employees and K.S.' nurse, some 28 or 29
complaints in all." It was established on this date that this meeting would be reconvened on
December 1 1, 2006 because Gutmann had a prior commitment.
On December 11, 2006, Bonner and Gutmann met with Wollam and Assistant Principal Laura
May. A memorandum (memo) memorializing the meeting was given to Bonner after the
meeting. The memo recounted incidents involving six staff members, which Bonner notes is a
significant reduction from the 28-29 complaints reported by Wollam on December 8. The
complaints involved Bonner's interactions with staff members, K.S., and other students. The
memo generally advised Bonner to behave in a professional manner with staff and students and
acknowledged that Bonner wanted to be able to discuss the complaints against her with the
individuals who had lodged the complaints. Wollam agreed to arrange meetings with
complainants who were willing to participate.
A series of e-mail communications attached to the charge indicate that although the scheduling
of meetings between Bonner and the complaining staff members was attempted, such meetings
did not actually take place. E-mail communication from Wollam to Assistant Superintendent
Gloria Cortez (Cortez) in mid-December 2006 states Wollam's concerns that Bonner would
engage in retaliation against staff who had complained about her, and recounted other incidents
occurring after the December 1 1 meeting between Bonner, staff and K.S.
On December 18, 2006, an e-mail message from Cortez to Wollam discusses enrollment and
staffing issues for the upcoming semester and notes a plan agreed upon with the District Board
of Education that Wollam would reduce his staff by "2 FTE."
On January 18, 2007, Wollam sent Cortez a memorandum summarizing interactions involving
Wollam, Bonner and staff on that date and on January 17. Bonner met with Wollam on
January 17 to complain about the unprofessional conduct of some staff members, and to
discuss K.S.' upcoming IEP (Individualized Education Plan) meeting. On January 18, a
teacher complained about Bonner to Wollam and mentioned possible harassment charges.
Wollam stated in this memorandum:
In my opinion her [Bonner's] conduct with students, parents and
employees is putting the District in a precarious position
especially since we are dealing with special education students.
On February 2, 2007, Bonner was served with a Notice of Unprofessional Conduct and
Unsatisfactory Performance, which relied on the incidents discussed in the December 11, 2006
Prior to the meeting, Wollam informed Bonner that she could be accompanied at the
meeting by a representative from the union, if Bonner so desired.
Based on other information in the charge, it is assumed that "2 FTE" means two full-
time employees.
LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 2
complaints made against Bonner by district employees and K.S.' nurse, some 28 or 29
complaints in all. 5 It was established on this date that this meeting would be reconvened
on
December
11,
2006 because Gutmann had a prior commitment.
On December 11, 2006, Bonner and Gutmann met with Wollam and Assistant Principal Laura
May. A memorandum (memo) memorializing the meeting was given to Bonner after the
meeting. 	The memo recounted incidents involving six staff members, which Bonner notes is a
significant reduction from the 28-29 complaints reported by Wollam on December
8.
	The
complaints involved Bonner's interactions with staff members, K.S., and other students. 	The
memo generally advised Bonner to behave in a professional manner with staff and students and
acknowledged that Bonner wanted to be able to discuss the complaints against her with the
individuals who had lodged the complaints. 	Wollam agreed to arrange meetings with
complainants who were willing to participate.
A series
of
e-mail communications attached to the charge indicate that although the scheduling
of
meetings between Bonner and the complaining staff members was attempted, such meetings
did not actually take place. E-mail communication from Wollam to Assistant Superintendent
Gloria Cortez (Cortez) in mid-December 2006 states Wollam's concerns that Bonner would
engage in retaliation against staff who had c0mplained about her, and recounted other incidents
occurring after the December
11
meeting between Bonner, staff and K.S.
On December 18, 2006, an e-mail message from Cortez to Wollam discusses enrollment and
staffing issues for the upcoming semester and notes a plan agreed upon with the District Board
of
Education that Wollam would reduce his staff by "2 FTE."6
On January 18, 2007, Wollam sent Cortez a memorandum summarizing interactions involving
Wollam, Bonner and staff on that date and on January
17.
	Bonner met with Wollam on
January 17 to complain about the unprofessional conduct
of
some staff members, and to
discuss K.S.' upcoming IEP (Individualized Education Plan) meeting. On January 18, a
teacher complained about Bonner to Wollam and mentioned possible harassment charges.
Wollam stated in this memorandum:
In my opinion her [Bonner's] conduct with students, parents and
employees is putting the District in a precarious position
especially since we are dealing with special education students.
On February 2, 2007, Bonner was served with a Notice of Unprofessional Conduct and
Unsatisfactory Performance, which relied on the incidents discussed in the December 11, 2006
5 Prior to the meeting, Wollam informed Bonner that she could be accompanied at the
meeting by a representative from the union, if Bonner so desired.
6 Based on other information in the charge, it is assumed that "2 FTE" means two full-
time employees.

LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 3
meeting and those recounted in the January 18, 2007 memo from Wollam to Cortez, as well as
earlier incidents going back as far as 2005. The Notice was placed in Bonner's personnel file
and noted that, if she did not correct her behavior, the District could seek her dismissal.
The amended charges filed in April 2009 provide numerous statements by Bonner's fellow
employees, including teachers, school psychologists, nurses, and instructional assistants, that
discount the information presented by the District in Bonner's Notice of Unprofessional
Conduct. These employees reportedly had personal knowledge of the events listed as grounds
for discipline by their presence at these various events. These employees many times note that
they were never contacted by the District during the District's investigation of Bonner's
alleged misconduct. The employee statements provided by Bonner demonstrate the
employees' beliefs that Bonner at no time acted in the unprofessional manner as accused by the
District."
Bonner alleges that the actions taken against her by the District were motivated by the
District's need to reduce staff, and not by her alleged misconduct, as evidenced by the
December 18, 2006 e-mail communication from Cortez to Wollam referencing enrollment
figures and the need to reduce staff by two full-time employees."
For the reasons to follow, the information in the charge does not demonstrate a prima facie
violation of EERA.
Discussion: Statute of Limitations
EERA section 3541.5(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.) A charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the
charge is timely filed. (Tehachapi Unified School District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024;
State of California (Department of Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
The amended charges also included several newsletters and newspaper articles either
authored by or referencing Bonner, as well as a 2004-2005 performance evaluation and several
letters of recommendation regarding Bonner.
Bonner states that she did not learn of this e-mail communication until March 2008,
after her testimony before the California Commission for Teacher Credentialing.
"Although the underlying theory of Bonner's charge is retaliation, this document
addresses only the threshold issue of whether the charge was timely filed. If an amended
charge is filed that corrects the deficiency explained below, a subsequent PERB document will
address the retaliation allegations of the charge.
LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 3
meeting and those recounted in the January 18, 2007 memo from Wollam
to
Cortez, as well as
earlier incidents going back as far as 2005. The Notice was placed in Bonner's personnel file
and noted that,
if
she did not correct her behavior, the District could seek her dismissal.
The amended charges filed in April 2009 provide numerous statements by Bonner's fellow
employees, including teachers, school psychologists, nurses, and instructional assistants, that
discount the information presented by the District in Bonner's Notice
of
Unprofessional
Conduct. These employees reportedly had personal knowledge
of
the events listed as grounds
for discipline
by
their presence at these various events. These employees many.times note that
they were never contacted by the District during the District's investigation
of
Bonner's
alleged misconduct. The employee statements provided by Bonner demonstrate the
employees' beliefs that Bonner at no time acted in the unprofessional manner as accused by the
District.7
Bonner alleges that the actions taken against her by the District were motivated by the
District's need to reduce staff, and not by her alleged misconduct, as evidenced by the
December 18, 2006 e-mail communication from Cortez to Wollam referencing enrollment
figures and the need to reduce staff by two full-time employees. 8
For the reasons to follow, the information in the charge does not demonstrate a prima facie
violation
of
EERA.
Discussion: 	Statute
of
Limitations9
EERA section 3541.5(a)(l) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to "any
charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing
of
the charge." The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should
have known,
of
the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District
(1996) PERB Decision No. 1177.) A charging party bears the burden
of
demonstrating that the
charge is timely filed. 	(Tehachapi Unified School District ( 1993) PERB Decision No. I 024;
State
of
California (Department
of
Insurance) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
7 The amended charges also included several newsletters and newspaper articles either
authored by or referencing Bonner, as well as a 2004-2005 performance evaluation and several
letters of recommendation regarding Bonner.
8 Bonner states that she did not learn
of
this e-mail communication until March 2008,
after her testimony before the California Commission for Teacher Credentialing.
9 Although the underlying theory of Bonner's charge is retaliation, this document
addresses only the threshold issue of whether the charge was timely filed. 	If an amended
charge is filed that corrects the deficiency explained below, a subsequent PERB document will
address the retaliation allegations of the charge.

LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 4
The conduct underlying this charge occurred, at the latest, in February 2007 when Bonner was
served with the Notice of Unprofessional Conduct. The charge was not filed until September
2008, more than 19 months after the conduct that Bonner alleges was a violation of the Act.
This is well beyond the six-month period for filing an unfair practice charge under EERA, and
therefore the charge is untimely.
Bonner states that in March 2008, information provided by the District confirmed her "long-
held suspicions" about the District being motivated by a need to reduce staff rather than to help
her improve professionally when it issued the Notice of Unprofessional Conduct. However,
even if Bonner's theory of the District's motivation is assumed correct, the statute of
limitations begins to run when a charging party discovers the conduct that constitutes the
alleged unfair practice, not when a charging party discovers the legal significance of that
conduct. (Trustees of the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 2038-H;
Compton Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2016; emphasis supplied.)
Similarly, although Bonner asserts that she was unaware of PERB's existence until June 2008,
lack of knowledge about PERB and the laws it enforces does not toll the six-months limitations
period. (Orange Unified Education Association, CTA (Rossmann, et al.) (1999) PERB
Decision No. 1307; Val Verde Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Twyman) (1998) PERB
Decision No. 1257.) Therefore, the charge was not timely filed and must be dismissed. 10
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, Charging Party may 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 an authorized agent of 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 an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before December 30, 2009, 12
It is noted that the charge would still not be timely filed if, based on a theory of
constructive discharge, the conduct giving rise to the unfair practice charge is considered the
date of Bonner's retirement at the end of June 2007.
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make "a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to formal hearing." (Ibid.)
12 A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. (PERB Regulation 32135.)
LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 4
The conduct underlying this charge occurred, at the latest, in February 2007 when Bonner was
served with the Notice
of
Unprofessional Conduct. The charge was not filed until September
2008, more than
19
months after the conduct that Bonner alleges was a violation
of
the Act.
This is well beyond the six-month period for filing an unfair practice charge under EERA, and
therefore the charge is untimely.
Bonner states that in March 2008, information provided by the District confirmed her "long-
held suspicions" about the District being motivated by a need to reduce staff rather than to help
her improve professionally when it issued the Notice
of
Unprofessional Conduct. However,
even
if
Bonner's theory
of
the District's motivation is assumed correct, the statute
of
limitations begins
to
run when a charging party discovers the conduct that constitutes the
alleged unfair practice, not when a charging party discovers the legal significance
of
that
conduct. 	(Trustees
of
the California State University (2009) PERB Decision No. 2038-H;
Compton Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2016; emphasis supplied.)
Similarly, although Bonner asserts that she was unaware
of
PERB's existence until June 2008,
lack
of
knowledge about PERB and the laws it enforces does not toll the six-months limitations
period. (Orange Unified Education Association, CTA (Rossmann, et al.) (1999) PERB
Decision No. 1307; Val Verde Teachers Association, CTAINEA (Twyman) (1998) PERB
Decision No. 1257.) Therefore, the charge was not timely filed and must be dismissed.
10
For these reasons the charge, as presently written, does not state a prima facie case.
11
If
there
are any factual inaccuracies in this letter or additional facts that would correct the deficiencies
explained above, Charging Party may 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 an authorized agent
of
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
an amended charge or withdrawal is not filed on or before December 30, 2009,
12
1 It is noted that the charge would still not be timely filed if, based on a theory
of
constructive discharge, the conduct giving rise to the unfair practice charge is considered the
date of Bonner's retirement at the end
of
June 2007.
11
"In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
explained that a prima facie case is established where the Board agent is able to make
"a
determination that the facts as alleged in the charge state a legal cause of action and that the
charging party is capable of providing admissible evidence in support of the allegations.
Consequently, where the investigation results in receipt of conflicting allegations of fact or
contrary theories of law, fair proceedings, if not due process, demand that a complaint be
issued and the matter be sent to fonnal hearing." (Ibid.)
In Eastside Union School District (1984) PERB Decision No. 466, the Board
12
A document is "filed" on the date the document is actually received by PERB,
including if transmitted via facsimile. 	(PERB Regulation 32135.)

LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 5
PERB will dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above
telephone number.
Sincerely,
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
VR
LA-CE-5251-E
December 15, 2009
Page 5
PERB will dismiss your charge. If you have any questions, please call me at the above
telephone number.
Sincerely,
Valerie Pike Racho
Regional Attorney
VR