Los Angeles Unified School District (Woods) (PERB A228E)

STATE 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
VINCENT 	DARRYL 	WOODS,
Charging 	Party,
V.
LOS 	ANGELES 	UNIFIED 	SCHOOL 	DISTRICT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
____________________ )
Case 	No. 	LA-CE-2908
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad-228
January 	7, 	1992
Appearances: 	Vincent 	Darryl 	Woods, 	on 	his 	own 	behalf;
Rochelle 	J. 	Montgomery, 	Staff 	Counsel, 	for 	Los 	Angeles 	Unified
School 	District.
Before 	Hesse, 	Chairperson; 	Camilli 	and 	Carlyle, 	Members.
DECISION
CARLYLE, 	Member: 	This 	case 	is 	before 	the 	Public 	Employment
Relations 	Board 	(PERB 	or 	Board) 	on 	appeal 	by 	Vincent 	Darryl
Woods 	(Woods) 	of 	the 	PERB 	appeals 	assistant 1 s 	rejection 	of 	his
exceptions 	to 	the 	proposed 	decision 	of 	a 	PERB 	administrative 	law
judge 	(ALJ) 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	the 	appeal 	was 	not 	timely 	filed.
Woods 	claims 	that 	the 	appeal 	was 	filed 	late 	because 	of 	his
disability 	and 	poor 	health. 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below,
we 	deny 	Woods 1 	appeal.
Woods 	filed 	an 	unfair 	practice 	charge 	against 	the
Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District 	(District). 	After 	a 	hearing,
the 	original 	proposed 	decision 	dismissed 	the 	complaint, 	which
alleged 	the 	District 	unlawfully 	discriminated 	and 	retaliated
against 	Woods 	in 	violation 	of 	section 	3543.S(a) 	of 	the

Educational 	Employment 	Relations 	Act 	(EERA). 1 In 	Los 	Angeles
Unified 	School 	District 	(1991) 	PERB 	Decision 	No. 	874, 	the 	Board
remanded 	the 	case 	for 	further 	hearing. 	Pursuant 	to 	the 	Board's
decision, 	the 	hearing was 	reopened 	for 	further 	testimony. 	The
ALJ, 	in 	the 	proposed 	decision 	at 	issue 	herein, 	once 	again
concluded 	that 	the 	evidence 	failed 	to 	establish 	a 	prima 	facie
case 	of 	a 	violation 	of 	EERA 	section 	3543.S(a) 	and, 	therefore,
dismissed 	the 	complaint.
The 	ALJ 	issued 	his 	decision 	on 	September 	30, 	1991. 2
Pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	32300, 3 Woods 	had 	20 	days 	following
1EERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3540 	et 	seq.
Section 	3543.5 	states, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
It 	shall 	be 	unlawful 	for 	a 	public 	school
employer 	to 	do 	any 	of 	the 	following:
(a) 	Impose 	or 	threaten 	to 	impose 	reprisals
on 	employees, 	to 	discriminate 	or 	threaten 	to
discriminate 	against 	employees, 	or 	otherwise
to 	interfere 	with, 	restrain, 	or 	coerce
employees 	because 	of 	their 	exercise 	of 	rights
guaranteed 	by 	this 	chapter. 	For 	purposes 	of
this 	subdivision, 	"employee" 	includes 	an
applicant 	for 	employment 	or 	reemployment.
2Unless 	otherwise 	stated, 	all 	dates 	refer 	to 	1991.
3PERB 	Regulations 	are 	codified 	at 	California 	Code 	of
Regulations, 	title 	8, 	section 	31001 	et 	seq. 	Regulation 	32300
states, 	in 	pertinent 	part:
A party 	may 	file 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	an
original 	and 	five 	copies 	of 	a 	statement
of 	exceptions 	to 	a 	Board 	agent 1 s 	proposed
decision 	issued 	pursuant 	to 	section 	32215,
and 	supporting 	brief, 	within 	20 	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the
decision 	or 	as 	provided 	in 	section 	32310.
The 	statement 	of 	exceptions 	and 	briefs
shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	itself 	in 	the
headquarters 	office. 	Service 	and 	proof 	of
2

the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	decision 	to 	file 	his 	exceptions.
Woods' 	exceptions 	were 	due 	to 	be 	filed 	with 	the 	Board 	no 	later
than 	October 	25. 	Woods 	sent 	his 	exceptions 	by 	regular 	mail, 	with
a 	postmark 	of 	October 	28. 	The 	exceptions 	were 	received 	at 	PERB 1 s
headquarters 	office 	on 	November 	4. 	Additionally, 	no 	proof 	of
service 	accompanied 	the 	exceptions.
service 	of 	the 	statement 	and 	brief 	pursuant
to 	section 	32140 	are 	required.
Woods' 	appeal 	states 	that, 	due 	to 	his 	disability 	and 	poor
health, 	his 	exceptions 	were 	filed 	"only 	a 	few 	days 	after 	the 	due
date. 11 	Pursuant 	to 	PERB 	Regulation 	32136, 4 the 	Board 	may 	excuse
a 	late 	filing 	for 	good 	cause 	only. 	The 	Board 	has 	held 	that 	a
late 	filing 	without 	adequate 	explanation 	does 	not 	constitute
good 	cause. 	(Los 	Angeles 	Community 	College 	District 	(1991) 	PERB
Decision 	No. 	908, 	p. 	7; 	Ventura 	Unified 	School 	District 	(1989)
PERB 	Decision 	No. 	757.) 	Woods 	did 	not 	provide 	any 	documentation
regarding 	the 	nature 	of 	his 	disability 	or 	health 	concerns, 	nor
did 	he 	request 	an 	extension 	of 	time. 	Further, 	Woods 	has
previously 	been 	before 	this 	Board 	and 	has 	been 	made 	aware
of 	PERB 1 s 	regulations 	concerning 	the 	filing 	of 	exceptions.
(Los 	Angeles 	Unified 	School 	District, 	supra, 	PERB 	Decision
No. 	908.) 	This 	failure 	to 	comply with 	PERB 1 s 	regulations 	renders
Woods' 	appeal 	fatally 	defective.
4PERB 	Regulation 	32136 	provides:
A late 	filing 	may 	be 	excused 	in 	the
discretion 	of 	the 	Board 	for 	good 	cause 	only.
A late 	filing 	which 	has 	been 	excused 	becomes
a 	timely 	filing 	under 	these 	regulations.
3

ORDER
Woods'
	appeal 	of
	the
	appeals
	assistant's
	rejection
	of
	its
untimely
	filed
	exceptions
	is
	hereby
	DENIED.
Chairperson
	Hesse
	and
	Member
	Camilli 	joined
	in
	this
	Decision.
4