Los Angeles Unified School District (PERB 0550E)

2 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

MYRTLE E. COSME,
Charging Party, Case No. LA-CE-2200
Ve PERB Decision No. 550

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

December 17, 1985

Respondent.

Renee meet Net Neat? Set Sl Stl Sent Mat ease? Manel

Appearances: Myrtle E. Cosme, on her own behalf.

Before Hesse, Chairperson; Jaeger, Morgenstern, Burt and Porter,
Members.

DECISION
This case is before the Public Employment Relations Board
on appeal by charging party of the Board agent's dismissal,
attached hereto, of her charge alleging that the Los Angeles
Unified School District violated the Educational Employment
Relations Act (Gov. Code sec. 3540 et seq.).

We have reviewed the dismissal and finding it free from
prejudicial error, adopt it as the Decision of the Board itself.
ORDER

The unfair practice charge in Case No. LA~CE-2200 is

DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

By the BOARD.

STA
TE
OF CAUFORNIA	
GEORGE DEUl<MEJIAN, Governor
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
LOS
ANGELES REGIONAL OFFICE
3470 WILSHIRE BLVD.,
SUITE
1001
LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 	90010
(213) 736-3127
·-~-	
.
c.,ln•oi>•''"
.
August 	27,
	1985
Myrtle
	Cosme
RE:
	LA-CE-2200,
	Myrtle
	Cosme
	v.
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
School
	District,
	DISMISSAL
	OF
	UNFAIR 	PRACTICE
	CHARGE
Dear
	Ms.
	Cosme:
The
	above-referenced
	charge
	filed
	on
	June 	21,
	1985
	all~ges
	that
you
	are
	being
	harrassed
	and
	discriminated 	against
	by
	the
	Los
Angeles
	Unified 	School
	District
	because
	you
	filed
	a
	lawsuit
	in
federal 	court
	claiming
	racial
	discrimination
	by
	District
employees.
	It
	is
	alleged
	that 	this
	conduct
	constitutes
	a
violation
	of
	section
	3543.S
	of
	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(EERA,).
I
	indicated 	to
	you
	in
	my
	attached
	letter
	dated
	August
	13,
	1985
that 	certain 	allegations
	contained 	in 	the 	charge 	did 	not
	state
a
	prima
	facie 	case.
	You
	were
	advised
	that
	if
	there
	were 	any
factual 	inaccuracies
	or
	additional 	facts
	which 	would
	correct
the
	deficiencies
	explained 	in
	that
	letter,
	you
	should
	amend
	the
charge
	accorJingly.
	You
	were
	further
	advised 	tha~
	unless
	you
amended
	these
	allegations
	to
	state
	a
	prima
	facie 	case, 	or
withdrew
	them
	prior
	to
	August 	26, 	1985,
	they
	would 	be
	dismissed.
On
	August 	26,
	1985 	you
	filed
	by
	mail
	a
	first
	amended
	charge 	in
response 	to
	my
	letter
	of
	August 	13, 	1985.
	Later
	the·
same
	day
you
	filed
	in 	person
	a
	signed 	proof 	of 	service
	showing
	that
	the
first
	amended
	charge
	had 	been
	served
	on
	the
	District,
	and 	one
copy
	of
	my
	August 	13,
	1985
	letter
	with 	your
	notes 	of 	correction
written
	in 	the 	margins.
	It
	is 	unclear
	from
	the 	proof 	of
service
	whether
	you
	served
	this 	latter
	document 	on
	the
District,
	or 	whether
	you
	intended
	it
	to
	be
	part 	of 	the
	first
amended
	charge, 	since 	only
	one 	copy
	was
	fi
	d
	with 	our
	office.
However,
	I
	have 	read 	the
	document
	in conjunction 	with 	the
	first
amended
	charge,
	and
	it
	is 	therefore 	attached 	to 	this 	letter
	and
considered 	part 	of 	the
	first
	amended
	charge.
The
	first
	amended
	charge 	alleges 	that 	the 	"discrimination
	and
retaliation" 	against
	you
	increased 	after
	you
	filed 	the
	first

August
	27,
	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page
	2
amended
	racial
	discrimination
	complaint 	in
	federal
	court
	on
	May
8,
	1985.
	You
	state 	that
	your
	supervisor
	has
	been'"writing
	you
up"
	since
	that
	date.
	However,
	the
	exhibits
	attached 	to 	the
first
	amended
	charge
	are 	nearly
	all
	copies
	of
	material 	written
by 	you 	and
	previously
	submitted
	to
	me
	with 	your
	letters
	of 	July
1,
	2, 	8,
	9,
	15,
	22
	and
	29,
	and
	August
	1
	and
	5, 	1985.
	They
	are
mainly
	complaints
	about
	the
	actions
	of
	your
	aides,
	the
	other
teachers
	and
	your
	supervisor.
	They 	do
	not
	reflect
	"write
	ups"
by
	your
	supervisor,
	nor
	do
	they
	indicate 	that
	such
	write
	ups
began
	after
	May
	8,
	1985.
	Also,
	previous 	information 	supplied
by
	you
	indicates
	that
	there
	have 	been
	unsatisfactory
evaluations
	and
	write
	ups
	before
	that
	date,
	for 	instance
	in
September
	1982
	when
	it
	was
	recommended
	that
	you 	be
administratively 	transferred
	to 	another
	children's
	center.
Thus,
	the
	first
	amended
	charge
	does
	not
	show
	that
	the
	alleged
harrassment
	has
	changed
	since
	May
	8,
	1985,
	or
	that
	there
	is
	a
connection
	between
	the
	May
	8,
	1985
	first
	amended
	complaint
filed
	in 	federal 	court
	and
	the
	actions
	of 	your
	aides,
	the
	other
teachers
	and
	your
	supervisor.
Pursuant 	to 	Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
	regulation
section
	32635
	(California
	Administrative
	Code,
	title
	8,
	part
III),
	you
	may
	appeal
	the
	refusal
	to 	issue
	a
	complaint
(dismissal) 	to 	the
	Board
	its~lf.
Right 	to
	Appeal
You 	may
	obtain
	a
	review 	of
	this
	dismissal 	of 	the
	charge
	by
filing
	an
	appe~l 	to 	the
	Soard
	itself
	within
	twenty
	(20)
calendar
	days
	after
	service
	of
	this
	dismissal 	(section
32635(a).
	To
	be
	timely
	filed,
	the
	original
	and
	five
	(5)
	copies
of
	such 	appeal
	must 	be
	actually
	received
	by
	the
	Board
	itself
before 	the 	close
	of 	business
	(5:00 	p.m.)
	on
	September
	16,
	1985,
or 	sent
	by
	telegraph 	or
	certified
	United
	States
	mail 	postmarked
not
	later
	than
	September 	16,
	1985
	(section
	32135).
	The
	Board's
address
	is: 
Public
	Employment
	Relations
	Board
1031
	18th
	Street
Sacramento,
	CA
	95814 
may
	If
	you
	file
	a
	timely 	appeal 	of 	the 	refusal,
	any
	other 	party
file
	with 	the
	Board 	an
	original
	and
	five
	(5)
	copies 	of
	a
statement 	in 	opposition 	within 	twenty
	(20)
	calendar
	days
following 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	appeal 	(section 	32635(b)).

August
	27, 	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page	
3
Service
be	be
	also
documents
	authorized 	to
	filed
	herein
	must
All the 	proceeding,
	and
	a
	"proof 	of"served"
	upon
	all
	parties
	to
service"
	must
	accompany
	each
	copy
	of
	a
	document
	served
	upon
	a
(See
	section
	32140
	for
party
	or
	filed
	with 	the
	Board
	itself.
the 	required 	contents
	and
	a
	sample 	form.)
	The
	documents
	will
be
	considered 	properly
	"served"
	when
	personally 	delivered
	or
deposited
	in 	the
	first-class
	mail 	postage
	paid
	and
	properly
addressed.
Extension 	of
	Time
time
	a
request
	for
	an
	extension
	of 	in
	which
	to
	file
	document
A
	the
Board
	itself
	must
	be
	in 	writing
	and
	filed
	with
with 	the
Board
	at
	the
	previously
	noted
	address.
	A
	request
	for
	an
three
	(3)
	calendar
	days
	beforeextension
	must
	be
	filed 	at 	least
the
	expiration
	of 	the
	time
	required 	for
	filing
	the
	document.
the
	position
	of 	each	cause
	for
The
	request
	must
	indicate
	good
other 	party
	regarding 	the 	extension
	and
	shall
	be 	accompanied
	by
32132).
proof
	of
	service
	of 	request
	upon
	each
	party 	(section
	the
Final
	Date
the
	the
	If
	no
	appeal
	is 	filed
	within 	specified
	time
	limits,
dismissal 	will
	become
	final
	when
	the
	time
	limits
	have
	expired.
Very
	truly
	yours,
Dennis
	Sullivan
General 	Counsel
Barbara
	T.
	Stuart
Regional 	Attorney
Esq.
	cc:
	Richard
	N.
	Fisher,
Attachment
BTS:djm

GEORG:: DEUKlAE.JIAN,
Ga--.no,
BOARD	PUSUC 	EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
LOS ANGELES
REGIONAL
Or'FICE
3.(70 WILSHIR: oLVO.,
SUITE
1c,;1
LOS
ANGElES,
CAUFORNI~	
S:-:•:no
(213)
7J6-Ji27
,
August
	13,
	1985
Myrtle
	Cosme
v.
	Re:
	LA-CE-2200,
	Mvrtle
	Cosi:rre
	Los
	Angeles
Unified
	School
	District
Dear
	Ms.
	Cosme:
alleges
The
	charae
	1985
above-referenced 	filed
	on
	June
	21,
	that
you
	are
	being 	harrassed
	a;1
	discriminated
	against
	by
	the
	Los
filed
	a
	lawsuit
	inAngeles
	Unified 	School
	District
	because
	you
federal 	court
	claiming
	racial
	discrimination	
by	
District
employe~s.
	It
	is
	alle3ed
	that 	this
	conduct
	co~stitutes
	a
violation
	of 	section
	35~3.5
	of 	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations	
Act
	(EEF.A) •
Facts
letters
	ray
	In
	addition 	to 	the 	charge, 	office
	has 	received
	your
information
	on
	July 	1,
	2, 	8, 	9, 	15,
	22
containing
	additional
and
	29,
	and
	August
	1 	a~d
	5, 	1985.
	These
	letters
	pertain
	to 	the
aides 	with
	whom
	you
	work
	and
	conduct 	of
	other
	teachers 	teacher
the
	to 	the
	letters
	attached 	to
	charqe 	as 	e~hibi~s.
similar
Angeles
	Unified
None
	of
	these
	letters
	were
	served
	on
	the
	Los
School
	District
	and
	therefore 	are
	not
	part
	of 	the 	charge.
	The
information
	contained 	in 	these
	letters
	has, 	ho~ever, 	been
considered
·in	
my	
investigation. 
the
You
	alleged 	in
have
	the 	following
	facts 	materials 	filed
with
	this 	office
	and
	in 	our
	conversation 	of
	July
	24, 	1985.
	You
the
	District
have 	been
	a
	children's 	center
	teacher
	employed 	by
since 	1978.
	In 	Februarv 	1982,
	you
	filed
	racial
	discrimination
complaints 	against 	the 	District-with 	the
	California
	Department
(DFEH)
	and
	the 	federal
	Equal
of 	Fair
	Eraployment 	and 	Eousing
1982,Employ~ent
	Co:c:::nission 	(EEOC).
	In
	December
Opportunity Case
	Closure
	from
	the
	DFEH
	stating
you
	received
	a
	Notice	
oE
that 	the
	EEOC
	would 	be
	responsible 	for 	the 	investigation
	and
settlementevaluation 	of 	the
	serits
	of 	your 	complaint.
	An 	EEOC

August 	13,
	1985
L;.-CE-2200
Page
	2
~ould
agreement
	20,
	you
	dated 	April
	1982
	provided
	that
	be
transferred
	from
	the
	~arvin
	Avenue
	Children's
	Center 	to
	the
Toluca
	Lake
	Children's
	Center.
	However,
	this
	di~
	not
	settle
supervisor 	harrassed
	you.	
A	
second
your
	claim
	because 	your
	new
EEOC
	settlement
	agreement
	dated
	August 	31,
	1982
	provided
	that
there
	would
	be
	an
	interim conference/evaluation 	to 	provide
	you
with
	a 	surru11ary
	of
	various 	conferences
	held 	in
	the
	past,
	areas
that
	required
	inprovement,
	and
	recommendations
	that
	would
	be
consistent
	with
	your
	upcosing
	Stull
	evaluation.
	On
	September
9,
	1982 	you 	were
	given
	an
	unsatisfactory
	performance
	report
incidents
	back
	to
	1980.
	The
	report
	recommended
which
	covered
that
	you
	be
	administratively 	transferred 	to 	another 	center
	and
in
	October
	1982
	you 	were
	administratively
	transferred
	to 	the
Armitas
	Childrens'
	Center.
case
On
	12, 	your
	October
	1984
	the
	EEOC
	closed 	without 	taking
action
	but
	provided
	you
	a
	right
	to
	sue
	letter.
	On
	January 	11,
you
	filed
	a
	complaint 	for
	employment
	discricination;
1985
slander,
	libel
	and
	fraud 	with
	a
	pendant
	state
	clais
	in
	United
co~9laint
States
	Court.
	You
	filed
	a
	first
	amended
	in
District
that
	matter
	on
	May
	8,
	1985.
racial
	The
	charge
	alleges 	that
	the
	discrimination
	and
filed.
have
	increased
	after 	this 	last
	case
	~as
retaliationSpecifically,
	other 	teachers
	and
	teachers 	aides
	have 	been
you 	and
	insulting
	you,
	and 	your
breaking
	agreements 	with
1984-85
	Stull
	evaluation
	was
	affected	
as	
discuss2d
	infra.
Reflections
	have 	been
	sade
	on
	your
	supervision
	a~d 	you
	were
de:-iie:d
	the	
riyl:t	
as
	a
	supervisor 	to 	write 	notes 	aboct 	other
e2ployees'
	misconduct.
regarding
	You
	provided 	the 	folloHing
	history 	the
In
	1982
	when
	you 	were
	at
	Marvin
	Avenue
"harrassment"~-
few
	white 	teachers 	in
	a
Children's
	Center
	you 	were 	one
	of 	the
teachers- 	After 	theschool 	of 	predominately 	black
	and
	hispanic
EEOC
	settlement
	agreement 	of 	April
	1982 you
	did 	not 	experience
any
	substantial 	racial 	discrimination
	at
	Toluca
	La~e
	Children's
You
	were
Center
	which 	had 	more
	white
	students
	and
	teachers.
Children's
U?set
	when 	were
	transferred 	to 	the 	Armitas
	you
Center 	in
	October
	1982 	which 	has 	mainly 	white 	and
	hispanic
students
	because
	you
	are 	the 	only 	white 	and
	only 	four-hour
teacher~
	The
	other 	four 	teachers,
	who
	are
	all
	full-time, 	are
black
	and
	his9anic. 	Additionally,
	most
	substitutes
	and
	aides
a~e 	black
	and
	hispanic.
for
E?en 	so, 	there
	was 	no
	racial 	discrimination 	your
	first
	year
at
	Armitas 	Children's 	Center 	while 	Miss Woodset 	~as 	the

At.!gust
	13,
	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page	
3
new
	supervisor.
	Then
	in
	Septe~ber
	1983
	a
	instructional
	aide
named
	Mrs.
	Bernardo
	was
	assigned 	to
	your
	supervision.
	You
state
	that
	she
	was
	uncooperative
	and
	pushy.
	When
	you
supervisor
	since
	June
	1983,
conplained
	about
	her
	to
	your
	new
Ms.
	Willoughby, 	she
	sided
	with
	the 	aide
	who
	was
	Philippine.
Mrs.
When
	the
	three
	of
	you
	reached 	agreements
	about
	duties,
Bernardo 	broke
	the
	agree2ents.
	Finally,
	after
	six
	months
	she
was
	transferred
	out
	of 	your
	room.
named
	At
	that
	time
	an
	hispanic 	aide
	Emma
	Felix
	whom
	you
describe 	as 	aggressive
	and
	overbearing
	was
	assigned
	to
	you
	and
n'.Jt
	heed 	your
	complaints 	about 	her.
	She
Ms.
	Willoughby
	did
Ms.
transferred
	you
	in
	July
	1934
	to
	a
	different
	classroom
	when
Felix 	lied
	about
	an
	incident. 
during
You
	had 	no
	problems
	in 	the
	new
	classroom
	the
	SQrnmer
	of
1984.
	Ms.
	Willoughby
	transferred
	you
	to 	another 	classroom
	in
teacher
	named
September
	1984
	where 	you
	w~rked
	with
	a
	black
Bettye.
	There
	were	
no	
substantial
	problems
	in
	this
	classroo~
things 	her
except 	Bettye 	acted
	like
	s~e
	was
	the
	boss
	and
	did
way
	even 	though
	you 	had
	equal
	~tatus.
	own
the
In
	1985
	to
	March 	you 	were
	transferred
	back
	first
	classroom
to
	work
	with
	Emma
	Felix
	again.
	She 	and
	two
	other
	aides
	named
(hispanic)
	and
	Lynette
	Bickham
	{black)
	would
	not
Martha 	Borquez
cooperate
	with
	you
	and
	Ms.
	Willoughby 	allowed 	them 	to
	give
	you
attached
a
	time" 	as 	described 	in 	the
	letters
	to 	the
"hard
You
	believe
	it
charge
	and
	other
	letters
	sent 	to
	this 	office.
lawsuit
	was
	beca~se
	you 	had
	filea
	the
	federal 	in
	Jan~ary
	1985
of
	the
and
	amended
	complaint
	in
	May
	1985.
	However,
	at
	the
	end
semester
	Ms.
	Felix
	was
	assigned 	to
	work
	with 	you 	only
	one-half
daily
	and
	during
	that
	time
	there
	was
	generally
	no
	problemhour
with
	her$ 
work
	teacher
June 	1985 	you 	were
	assigned 	to
	with 	an
	his?anic
In
named
	Delores
	Landeros 	with
	whom
	you
	are
	supposed 	to
	have
	equal
tried 	to
status.
	There
	was
	no
	proble~
	at
	first.
	However, 	she 
make
change
	the 	children's
	progra~ 	in
	a
	manner
	which
	would
	your
criticizing
	you 	in
job
	more
	difficult.
	Further,
	she 	has 	been
writing
	which 	you
	claim 	she
	is 	unqualified 	to 	do.
	In
accused
	you
	of 	sleeping
	on
	the 	job 	on
particular,
	she 	has
several 	occasions.
	Due
	to
	her
	reports
	and
	those 	of 	others
	you
required 	to 	subsit 	to
	a
	doctor's 	examination.are
	being 
had
	On 	May
	10, 	1985,
	when 	Ms.
	Willoughby 	waited 	until 	the
	last
day 	to 	give
	you 	your
	Stull 	evaluation, 	she
	stated 	that
	it
	was

August
	13,
	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page
	4
next
	not
	complete
	an~
	that
	you 	would 	be
	reevaluated	
yiar. 	This
is
	a
	deviation
	fro~ 	the
	normal
	practice
	of
	an
	evalJation
	every
was
other 	year.
	The
	evaluation
	stated 	that
	your
	perfor~a~ce
satisfactory
	but
	you
	believe
	this
	was
	done
	because
	of 	the
court
	case.
	You
	believe
	that
	Ms.
	Willoughby
	intends
	to
pending
wait
	until
	the 	case
	is
	closed
	and
	then
	give
	you 	an
	evaluation
stating
	your
	perEorrna~ce
	is
	unsatisfactory
	because
	you
	cannot
is
	nice
	but
control
	your
	aides.
	You
	state
	that
	Ms.
	Willoughby
cooperative
	with
	the
	downtown
	District
	administration
	who
suggested
	that
	she
	take
	steps 	against
	you.
for
	In
	Summer
	1984
	you
	were
	the 	building
	representative 	the
United 	Teachers-Los
	Angeles
	(UTLA),
	the 	exclusive
representative
	of
	your
	bargaining
	unit.
	There
	was
	little
in 	the
	en?loyee
	organization
	at
	Armitas
	Children's
	interest
Center
	on
	the
	part
	of
	Ms.
	Willoughby
	or 	the
	teachers.
	In
	the
chair,	election
	to
	determine
	duty-free
	time
	for 	the 	chapter 	the
unit
	voted
	against
	such
	free
	time.
on
	your
	UTLA
	has
	recently
	filed
	one
	grievance 	behalf 	regarding
an
	"unplausible"
	letter
	from
	an
	"unqualified" 	parent
	concerning
which
	Ms.
	Willoughby
	said
	she
	would
	place 	in
your 	performanceyour
	personnel
	file.
	The
	first
	step 	of
	the 	grievance 	procedure
has
	been
	set
	for
	August 	1985.
	You
	have
	not
	filed	
cny	
other
grievances. 
Employer's
	No
	Nexus
	Between
	Prote'.:ted
	Activities
	and
	Conduct
3543.S(a),
	To
	Establish
	a
	violation
	of
	EERA
	sectio7	
charging
that
	(1)
	an 	employee 	has
	exercised 	eights
	under
party
	must
	show
the
	EERA,
	(2)
	the
	employer
	had 	knowledge
	of 	the 	exercise 	of
(3)
	the
	employer 	imposed
	or 	threcte~ed 	to
those
	rights,
	and
impose
	reprisals,
	discriGinated
	or 	threatened 	to 	discriminate,
or 	otherwise
	interfered
	with,
	restrained
	or ~oerced 	the
employee 	because 	of 	the 	exercise 	of 	those
	rights.
	Novato
Unified
	School
	District
	(1982)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	210;
	Carlsbad
Unified
	School
	District
	(1979}
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	89.
by
	Assuming 	you 	engaged
	in 	protected
	activities 	filing 	the
comolaint
	and 	amended
	discrimination 	comolaints 	in 	federal
cou~t 	in 	January
	and
	May
	1985,
	the 	charg~
	nevertheless
	fails
	to

August
	13,
	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page
	5
EE?~;.
	pd.ma
	of
	state
	a
	facie
	case	
0=	
a
	violation
	the	
l	
This
is
	because
	there
	is
	no
	s~o~ing
	that
	the 	employer's
	ac~ions
occurred
	in
	reprisal
	~2cause
	you
	filed
	the
	lawsuit.
have 	had
	facts
	you
	The
	you
	provided
	s~o~
	that
	pro~le~s 	with
your
	co-workers
	since
	at 	least
	1980 	and
	at
	three
	different
children's 	centers.
	You
	state
	that
	it
	is
	because
	you 	were
	a
minority
	white
	teacher
	at
	schools
	employing
	predo~ina=ely 	black
and
	hispanic 	teachers
	anc
	aiaes.
	The
	respondent
	states 	that
	it
is
	because
	you
	are
	an
	ine~fective 	supervisor.
	According
	to
your
	information,
	the
	projle2s
	co8e
	and
	go
	depending
	~pon
	whom
problems
you
	working 	with
	and
	s~pervising.
	The
	recurring	are
are
	that 	certain
	teachers	
and	
aides
	are 	aggressive,
	07erbearing
assume
	control
	of 	the 	classroom
	when
	you
	are
	nominally
	in
and
charge.
	Other
	teachers
	and
	aides
	criticize
	you
	and 	your
supervisor
	normally
	sides
	Hith
	their
	version 	of
	i~cidents.
	You
and
state
	the
	situation
	has
	worsened
	again
	recectly
	that
1	
of
	There
	is
	a
	qu2st.ion 	whether
	the
	filing
	your
lawsuit
	is
	conduct
	prot~c~ed
	by
	the
	EERA
	since
	it
	ap?ears
	that
pursuing
	an
	in~ividual
you
	are
	simply
	an
	indivi~ual
	employee
remedy
	for 	alleged 	perso~al
	racial 	discrimination.
based
	on
	:a~e,
	color, 	religion,
	sex
	or
	national
Discrimination
origin,
	standing 	alone,
	is
	not
	inherently
	destructive
	of
J:1bilee
	::1fq.
	Co.
	(1973) 	202
	~;LRB
	272,
employees'
	EERA
	rights
..
82
	LRRM
	1482,
	aff
1 d
	sub
	:-:o~.
	Steelworkers 	v.
	NLRB
	(D.C.
	Cir.
1974)
	504
	F.2d 	271,
	87
	L?..?..:'.·i
	"3168.
protected
	However,
	a
	disc:i~ination
	complaint
may
	be
instances
	where
	the
	e=--?loyee
	is
	seeking
	to
	enfor:-ce
	in
contractual 	provisions 	p:o~ibiting 	discrimination. 	Interboro
Inc. 	(1966) 	137
	NLRB
	1295,
	61 	LRP11
	1537;
	King
Contractors,
Soopers,
	Inc.
	(1976) 	222
	:;:GR.3
	1011,
	91 	LRR
...
M
1292.
	Trcis
situation
	may
	not
	be
	present 	in 	the
	instant
	case 	because
	when
ttat
	the
you
	filed
	the
	1982
	co~?lai~ts
	you
	did 	not
	know a~d
collective 	bargaining 	co~tract
	between
	the
	District
	UTLA
contained
	a
	discr:inination 	provision.
	Viewing
	the
	1935
	lawsuit
as
	an
	extension 	of 	the 	or-isinal
	action,
	it
	could 	be 	concluded
that
	you
	lacked 	the 	requ~site 	intent 	to 	enforce 	the 	contractual
provisions
	so
	that
	the 	cases 	cited
	above 	would 	no~
	a~?ly.

August
	13,
	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page	
6
theory
	that
	because 	of 	the
	lawsuit.
	The
	is
	your
	supervisor,
Ms.
	Willoughby,
	is
	under
	instructions
	from
	district
headquarters
	to
	make
	work
	difficult
	for
	you.
	She
	therefore
declines 	to
	correct
	the
	misbehavior
	of 	the
	other 	teachers
	and
aides
	and
	does 	not
	support
	you.
a
	The
	facts
	of 	the 	case
	co
	not 	support
	retaliation
	theory
because 	the
	alleged
	harrassment
	has
	continued 	for
	several 	years
increased 	in
and
	has
	not 	appreciably
	changed
	in
	kind
	or
intensity
	during 	the 	period
	after
	the
	lawsuit
	and
	amendment
letters
	and
	papers 	submitted
	show
	only
	the
were
	filed.
	Your
same
	continuing	
proble □
s	
as
	you
	relocated
	from
	the
	Marvin
Avenue
	Children's
	Center
	to
	Toluca
	Lake
	Childrents
	Center
	to
Center.
	For
	this
	reason
	the
	charge
	lacks
Armitas
	Children's
facts
	showing
	a
	nexus 	between
	the 	protected
	conduct
	and
	the
actions.
	The
	charge
	must
	be
	dismissed.	employer's
Ooportunity 	to
	Amend
presently
	For
	reasons
	as
	the
	stated
	above,
	the 	charge
	written
does
	not
	state
	a
	prirr.a
	facie 	violation
	of 	the
	EE?.A.
	If
	you
which
	would
feel 	that 	there
	are
	facts
	or
	legal
	arguments
require
	different
	conclusion,
	an
	amended
	charge 	should
	be
prepared
	on
	a
	standard	
P2RB	
unfair 	practice
	charse
	form
	clearly
labeled
	First
	Amended
	Charge, 	should
	contain
	all
	the
allegations
	you 	wish
	to
	nake
	and 	be
	signed
	under
	penalty 	of
the
perjury.
	amended
	charge
	must
	be
	served
	on
	respondent
	The
must
	be
	filed
	with
	PERB.
	If
and
	th2
	original
	proof 	of
	service
araended
	charge 	or 	withdrawal
	f~om
	you	
hy
I 	rlo
	not 	receivP
	an
August
	26,
	1985,
	I
	shall
	dismiss
	your
	charge.
	If
	you 	have 	any
questions 	regarding
	how
	to 	proceed, 	please
	call
	seat
	(213)
736-3127.
Sincerely,.
Barbara
	T.
	Stuart
Regional 	Attorney
BTS:djm

STATE
OF ·CALIFORNIA 	GEORGE DEUKJ.\EjlAN, G<:,verr.or
BOARD	PU8LIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELAT!O:
ll~5
ANGELES
REGIONAL
OFF!CE
J-!7'.; ','lllS:-iL~E 6LVQ., SUITE 1001
L',S A,'~G!:L::5,
C;..UFC?NIA
	90010
'212,
736-3177
/
August
	13,
	1985
Myrtle
	Cosme
Los
	Re:
..
	LA-CE-2200, 	Mv:rtle
	Cosme
	v. 	Angeles
Unified
	School
	District
Dear
	Ms.
	Cosme:
alleges
The
	above-referenced
	charge
	filed
	on
	June
	21,
	1985
	that
you
	are
	being
	harrassed
	and
	discriminated
	against	
by 	the
	Los
filed
	a
	lawsuit
	in
Angeles
	Unified
	School
	District
	because
	you
federal 	court
	claiming
	racial
	discrimination 	by	
District
employees.
	It
	is
	alleged
	that 	this
	conduct
	constitutes
	a
violation 	of 	section
	3543.5
	of
	the 	Educational
	Employment
Relations
	Act
	(EERA).
Facts 
has
	In
	addition 	to 	the 	charge,
	my
	office
	received
	your
	letters
additional
	information
	on
	July 	1,
	2, 	8, 	9, 	15,
	22
containing
and
	29,
	and 	August
	1
	and
	5,
	1985. 	These
letters
	pertain
	to
	the
teacher 	aides 	with
	whom
	you
	work
conauct 	of 	other 	teachers
	and
similar
	to 	the
	letters
	attached
	~o
	the 	charge 	as 	exhibit.s.
letters
	we=2
	served
	o~
	the
	Los
	Angeles
	Unified
None
	of 	thesa
School
	District
	and
	therefore 	are
	not
	part
	of 	the 	charge.
	The
information 	contained
	in
	these
	letters
	has,
	however, 	been
considered
	·in
	my
	investigation.
in
	You
	ha,,e
	alleged 	the
	following
	facts 	the
	materials
	filed
with
	this
	office
	and
	in 	our
	conversation
	of 	July 	24, 	1985.
	You
employed
	by
	the
	District
have 	been
	a
	children's
	center 	teacher
since
	1978. 	In 	February 	1982, 	you
	filed 	racial
	discrimination
District
	with 	the
	California
	Department
complaints 	against 	the Equal
of 	Fair
	Employment 	and 	Housing
	(DFEH)
	and
	the 	federal
Employment 	Opportu..~ity 	Commission 	(EEOC).
	In
	December 	1982,
you
	receivea
	a
	Notice 	of
	Case
	Closure
	from
	the
	DFEH
	stating
that
	the
	EEOC
	would 	be
	responsible 	for 	the
	investigation
	and
settlementevaluation 	of 	the 	werits 	of 	your 	complaint.
	An 	EEOC

August
	13,
	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page
	2
be
aqree~ent
	20, 	would
	dated 	April
	1982
	provided
	that
	you
transferred
	from
	the
	Marvin
	Avenue
	Children•s 	Center 	to
	the
Toluca
	Lake
	Children's
	Ce~ter.
	However,
	this
	did
	not
	settle
your
	new
	supervisor 	harrassed
	you.	
A	
secondyour
	claim
	because
EEOC
	settlement
	agreement
	dated
	August
	3l,
	1982
	provided
	that
you
there
	would 	be 	an
	interi8
	conference/evaluation
	to
	provide
with
	a
	summary
	of 	various 	conferences
	held
	in
	the
	past, 	areas
improvement,
	and
	recommendations
	that
	would
	be
that
	required
consistent
	with
	your 	upco~ing
	Stull
	evaluation.
	On
	September
report
9, 	1982
	you
	were
	given
	an
	unsatisfactory
	performance
which
	covered
	incidents
	back
	to
	1980.
	The
	report
	recommended
administratively 	transferred
	to 	another 	center
	and
that
	you 	be
in
	October
	1982	
you	
were
	administratively
	transferred
	to
	th.e
,'I
ncey And
.i';~A.r._
..
i.eas	
Childrens
1
r~
	'l,;z,?'
I	.	
..::z;.,
	~.~.f~-	
p·/4.,c/r1h:-	
Cent:er	
1.
	J/
C/4	
ru
	..	
7
3&M
~'j/	
r~
	I
case
	On
	October 	12,
	1984
	the
	EEOC
	closed
	your
	without 	taking
action
	but 	provided
	you
	a
	right
	to
	sue
	letter.
	On
	January 	11,
1985
	you
	filed
	a
	complaint 	for
	employment
	discrimination-,
slander,
	libel
	and
	fraud
	with
	a
	pendant
	state
	claim
	in
	United
cowplaint
States
	Court.
	You
	filed
	a
	first
	amended
	in
District
that
	matter
	on
	May
	8,
	1985. 
and
The
	charge
	alleges
	that:
	the
	racial
	discrimination
filed.
	have
	increased
	after 	this 	last
	case
	was
retaliation
Specifically,
	other 	teachers
	and
	teachers 	aides
	have 	been
wi~h 	you 	and
	insulting.you,
	and 	your
breaking 	agreements
1984-85
	Stull
	evaluation
	was
	affected
	as
	discussed
	infra.
have 	been 	nade
	on
	your
	supervision
	and
	you
	were
Reflections
denied 	the
	right
	as
	a
	supervisor 	to 	write 	notes
	abc,L:t
	other
employees' 	misconduct.
regarding
	You
	provided 	the 	follo~ir.g
	history 	the
"harrassment"	
_
	In
	1982
	w:ien
	you
	were
	at
	Marvin
	Avenue	
.11.
I
	one
	of 	the
	few
	white 	teachers
	in
	a 	#
Children
	s
	Center
	you
	,,_,.ere
school
	of
	predominately 	black
	.r.a
	hjsp~nis
	teachers.
	After
	th
EEOC
	settlement
agreement 	of 	April
	1982
	you
	did 	not 	experience
any
	substantial 	racial 	discrimination at
	Toluca
	Lake	
Childre
and
	teachers.
	You 	•sr.cJ.e	
/J
Center
	which 	had
	more 	,;.;hite
	students
-	• 	• I 5
which 	has 	mainly 	white 	and	
hispanic
	C
students	
l:,,i;;;;
	JIG	
you
	are 	the 	only 	white 	and
	only 	four-hour	
.S
1
teacher.
	The
	other 	four 	teachel:'s,
	who
	are
	all
	full-time,
	are	
,::::
black
	and
	hispanic. 	Additionally,
	most
	substitutes
	and
	aides
are 	black
	and
	hispanic.
μ
J.-
{tr~
.1
4
,,,,/1~
e.
j.,~~t;e:}
·
n's~~
_
~ I'~,
1{1p;,,......r'/
for
	Even 	so, 	there
	rlas 	no
	racial 	discrimination 	your
	first
	year
at
	~Children's
	Ce~
ter 	while 	Miss,
Wo-cids-e~
was 	the
fyn, I f") /-a__,	
wrri-r-;;;11-
I

,
At.:gust
	13,
	1985
L.;-CE-2200
Page	
3
..
	T'
	. 	S
	,_
	.	
1983
s:.1oerv1sor.
	nen 	1n
	ep1..esoer
	a~	
kE:-@!!us':1n~
..
al	
aiae-
r.2.~ed
	Mrs.
	Bernardo
	was
	assigned 	to
	your 	SJ.'f)QcTi
@ie?h-
___
You
s'.:ate
	that
	she
	was
	uncooperative
	and
	pushy.
	When	
yq~,{	
---
-
since
	~983,
<=:ompl-:iined
	~bout
	her	
~~	
you~
	new
	s~:Yt~9£
	~7'
Ms.
	Willougnby,
	she
	siaed
	with
	the~
	was
	Phil1pp1no.
the
	three
	of
	you
	reached 	agreements 	about
	duties,
	Mrs.
½hen
Bernardo 	broke
	the
	agreements.
	Finally,
	after
	stx
	mo~~P~\she
was
	transferred
	out 	of
	your
	room.
	_	
cappr.--o#/
+a~~
aide
	named
	you
At
	that
	time
	an
	hispanic
	Emma
	Felix
	whom
describe
	as
	aggressive
	and
	overbearing
	was
	assigned
	to
	you
	and
not
	heed
	your
	complaints 	about
	her.
	She
Ms.
	Willoughby
	did
Ms.
transferred
	you
	in
	July
	1984
	to
	a
	different
	classroom
	when
Felix
	lied
	about
	an
	incident. 
the
You
	in
	during
had
	no
	problems
	the
	new
	classroom
	Surr~ec
	of
Willoughby
	transferred
	you
	to 	another
	classroom
	in
1984
..
	Ms.
September
	1984 	where 	you 	worked
	with
	a
	black 	teacher
	na,"Tted
in
	this
	classroom
Bettye.
	There
	were
	no
	substantial
	problems
except 	Bettye 	acted
	like
	she
	was
	the
	boss
	and
	did 	things 	her	
r~-
,-.
·
...
n
	even 	though
	youA
;:,.~
	equal
	status.	
way	
1
.1n
~
ff"-')	
n
o
y~
J-
Ql.
~
~
for~	
fi,D
theIn
	you
	to
March 	1985 	were
	t=-ansferred
	back
	first
	classroo
to
	work
	with
	Emma
	Felix
	again.
	She 	and	
~
other 	aides	
;=
.
tc:::::S iclcLE:m	
(black)
	Would
	no:t
Martha 	Borquez
	(hispanic)	
:.nit
	F:rype
'-
r	
cooperate
	with
	you 	and
	M.s.
	Willoughby
	allowea
	them
	to 	give
	you
i	
~h:~~_,~da~!m~:h::
	f:~~~~;e;e~~	
~~et;~~t~~;i~~~ac~~~
	~~11~~e	
it
11
'	
Janu3.ry 	1985
we::	
because
	you 	had
	filed
	the
	federal 	lawsuit 	in
J
end
and
	amended
	complaint 	in
	May
	1985.
	However,
	at	
thEi	
of 	the
one-half	
you 	only	
'
semester
	Ms.
	Felix
	was
	assigned
	to
	work
	with
semester Ms. Felix was assigned to work with you only one-half
hour
	daily
	and
	during 	that. 	time
	there	
WcLS	
generally
	no
	problem
hour daily and during that time there was generally no problem
with 	her.	
~
	~	
n,,,, <t7J-v
tJ.~	
.
;h	
u-7'~	
~
	~
m
/;
1
55	
1
~
i
	r,}_yfl""
tJ);J ,
i--
)'..c.r<~
	_
:.1/rr;.1,._,.,
1 ~
~~\
~c)cr~/k~
, tv/
_.
11
P
1
11
_,.,f\1
	J 
.t1r4'
[f'
	r.;P°
£.1,,
;(l'
vd
:,J..v
	)/}
II,.,- U
,,
'di~) -
;,~
~
hr
J O
.~~
l v	
11i~)
~ 	~
·
~	
h-
ct~J:.tJ
	oymG	
a.J
~
	~ G~	
o#,,.,d,
~
',j5fli~,	
In 	June
	1985 	you 	were
	assig'hed
	to
	work
	with 	an
	hispanic 	teacher
supposed
o d With her-	
to
	have
	equal
named
	Delores 	Landeros 	with
	whom
	you
	c:.re
status.
	There
	was 	no
	problem
	at 	first.
	However, 	she
	tried
	to
would
	make
	yourchange
	the 	children's
	program.
	in
	a
	manner 	which
job
	more
	difficult4 	Further,
	she 	has 	been
	criticizing
	you
	in
claim 	she
	is
	unqualified 	to
	do. 	In
writing
	which 	you
on
	the 	job
	on
particular,
	she 	has 	accused
	you
	of 	sleeping
others
	you
J>	
to 	her 	reports
	and
	those 	of
several occasions. Due to her reports and those of others you	
several 	occasions.
	Due
required 	to
	subr;:rit
	ta
	a
	doc_to~examination.
	/,/- /
ever being required to submit to a doctor's	
~
bei.n,g.
~
I 	4l'.-,
,I,~ 	~ ~ 	~ 	~	
r'J-t¼
t,.h/~
~μ.¥
/,
C?n
	May
	l?,
	1985,
	when 	Ms. 	Willougl1~y 	had 	waited 	unt,il 	t~e
	last
ctay
	to 	give
	you 	your
	Stull 	evaluation, 	she
	stated 	tnat 	1t
	was
'
L. 6-
	}
»-
>~
c)v
f,1/
i
	?P'~
1rifl.	
(11°
,	
Jr'
,JJ
r'r\/~,;}
'.✓~
&
9'7_,b7'>?-
·~
;,,;1
p
)1rt'	
~ 	)t/,-,-& 	W,
If~
	{J., 	;,z.,,k.	
~')'ti 	I'
	()~c-7	
~
,.,a!:};·	
~	
/!iv 	ffr'
	μr
	'/21-
/~	
or-
~
\t" 	Sh<.;	
~	
/4	
Ck~
l)HAJ{,v 	,!)Kft~I~, 	U-J /?~/ 	,/2;-u{' 	/2-e.r- j?J~ 	~ 	-__ ,__ 	/_,_,
.. )
USS
is ne
assigne
is elime
ERB
amnio, a mate , took her place maned.

August
	13,
	1985
LA-CE-2200
Page
	4
reevaluated 	This
complete
	and
	that	
you	
would 	be
	next
	year.
not
deviation
	from
	the
	~orwal
	practice
	of
	an
	evaluation
	every
is
	a
oth~r
	year.
	The
	eval~a~~on
	sta~ed
	that
	yobr
	performance
	was
because
	cf	
t:tre
satisfactory,..	
·11as
	e.one	b·1':	
_r.	
'	
a.
	~,
a 	'::h1::s
~i
:%J
	co
...
L L
	ease.
	You	
believe
	that	
Hs#	
Willoughby
	intends	
to
the.
case
	is
	closed
	and
	then
	give
	you 	an
	evaluation
wait
	until
you
your 	performance
	is
	unsatisfactory
	beca11:.e
	oanno
t•
stating
yo";
	aid~.9-.
	Yo;.i
	state
	that
	Ms.
	Willoughby
	is
	nice
	but,
60nt:eol
cooperative
	with
	the
	downtown
	Oistrict
	administration-~~
~t~~i;,.G&lE£;:~e
~ a~Ednft'
~
~
~~
9
{~h1f"J	
/ 	·
In
	Summer
	1984
	you
	were
	the 	building
	represent~
United
	Angeles
	exclusive
	Teachers-Los
	(UTLA),
	the
representative
	of
	your
	ba.:::gaining
	unit.	
'I!hezc	
was
	ii
l U:e
in'ze:,st 	in
	the
	cmpl,>;1ye.2
	a1.gani:z:atioH1at:
	Arn:.i-tas
	Cbilar::
0
n':::.
or:	
the	
teac1::::s:»;s.	
In
	the
C.s::el:::ur
	oe	
rho 	part;	
gf
	2:-.
	'iii2.lou~sy
the
election
	to
	determine 	time
	for
	the
	chapter
	chair,
	duty-free
unit
	voted
	against
	such
	free
	time.
behalf
UTLA
	filed
	yourhas
	recently
	o:1e
	grievance
	on
	regarding
an
11
unplausible
11
	letter:-
	frora
	an
	"unqualified"
	parent
	concerning
she
	would
	place
	in
your 	performance
	which
	~s. 	Willoughby
	said
your
	personnel
	file.	
The	
first
	step
	of
	the 	grievance 	procedure
not
has
	set
	for
	Augus~
	1985.
	You
	have
	filed
	any
	other
been
grievances.	
:Jt-~
	~.,	
'
and
No
	Nexus 	Between
	Protected
	Activities
	Emplover's 	Conduct
secti0~1
	To
	establish
	a
	violation
	of
	EBRl>-.
	3543.S(a),	
~	
charging
that
	(1) 	an 	employee
	has
	exercised
	rights
	under
party
	must
	show
the
	EERA,
	(2)
	the
	employe= 	had 	knowledge
	of 	the 	exercise 	of
employer 	imposed
	or 	threatened 	tothose
	rights,
	and
	(3}
	the
to
reprisals, 	discri~inated
	or 	threatened 	discriminate,
impose
or 	otherwise
	interfered 	~ith, 	restrained
	or 	coerced 	the
employe~
	because 	of 	the 	exercise
	of 	those
	rights.	
Novato
Unified 	School
	District
	(1982}
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
	210;
	Carlsbad
89.
Unified 	School
	Distric~
	(1979)
	PERB
	Decision
	No.
byyou
	activities
	Assuming 	engaged
	in 	protected
	filing
	the
complaint
	and 	amended
	discriraination 	complaints 	in 	federal
court 	in 	January
	and
	~lay
	1985,
	the 	charge 	nevertheless
	fails
	to
/

August
	13,
LA-CE-2200
Page
	5
1985
EERA
	state
	a
	prima
	facie
	case 	of
	a
	violation
	of
	the	
.l	
This
is
	because
	there
	is
	no
	showing
	that
	the 	employer's
	actions
occurred
	in
	reprisal
	because
	you
	filed
	the
	lawsuit. 
with
	The
	facts
	you
	provided
	show
	that
	you
	hav~
	had
	problems
vour
	co-workers
	since
	at
	least
	1980 	and
	at
	three
	different
centers.
	You
	state
	that
	it
	is
	because	
you	
were
	a
	children's
minority
	white 	teacher
	at
	schools
	employing
	pred0minately 	black
and
	hispanic 	teachers
	and
	aides.
	The
	respondent
	states 	that
	it
is
	because
	you
	are
	an
	ineffective
	supervisor.
	According
	to
your
	information, 	the
	problems
	come
	and	
go 	depend~ng 	upon
	whom
you
	are
	working
	with
	and
	supervising.
	The
	recurring
	problems
are
	that 	certain
	teachers
	and
	aides 	are
	aggressive,
	overbearing
assume
	control
	of
	the 	classroom
	when
	you
	are
	nominally
	in
	and
charge.
	Other
	teachers
	and
	aides
	criticize
	you
	and
	your
	·
supervisor
	normally
	sides
	with
	their
	version
	of 	incidents.
	You
state
	that
	the
	situation
	has
	worsened
	again
	recently	
and
lThere
	is
	a
	question
	whether
	the
	filing
	of
	your
lawsuit
	is
	conduct
	protected
	by
	the
	EERA
	since
	it
	appears
	that
an
	individual
	you
	are
	sisply
	an
	individual
	employee
	pursuing
remedy
	for 	alleged 	personal
	racial 	discrimination.
Discrimination
	based
	on
	race, 	color, 	religion,
	sex
	or
	national
origin,
	standing 	alone,
	is
	not
	inherently 	destructive
	of
employees'
	EERA
	rights. 	Jubilee
	Mfg. 	Co. 	(1973} 	202
	NLRB
	272,
82
	LRRM
	1482,
	aff'd
	sub
	nom.
	Steelworkers
	v.
	NLRB
	(D.C.
	Cir.
]97.1) 	504
	F.2d
	271,
	87
	LR.RH
	3168.
However,
	a
	discrimination
	complaint
	may
	be
	protected
in 	instances
	where 	the 	employee
	is
	seeking 	to 	enforce
contractual 	provisions 	prohibiting 	discrimination.
	rnterb-Oro
Contractors, 	Inc.
	{1966)
	157
	NLRB
	1295,
	61
	LR..~1
	1537;·
	King:
Soooers,
	Inc.
	{1976) 	222
	NLRB
	1011,
	91
	LRRM
	1292. 	This
situation
	may
	not
	be
	present 	in 	the
	instant
	case
	because
	when
you
	filed
	the
	1982
	complaints
	you
	did 	not
	know
	that
	the
collective
	bargaining 	contract
	between
	the
	District
	and
	UTL-~
contained
	a
	discrimination 	provision-
	Viewing
	the
	1985
	lawsuit
as 	an
	extension 	of 	the
	original 	action,
	it
	could
	be 	concluded
that
	you
	lacked 	the 	requisite 	intent 	to 	enforce 	the 	contractual
provisions
	so
	that
	the 	cases Fited
	above 	would
	not 	apply.
	.
.
~.	
r; rrt"lo/i	
b1~
~4L
	-f
ha.:r.·--~,.,.,d
i s.c,., m 1fla;-;.. J t:R1 	w&.S
~	
-r J
	,,
	• 	j 	_-
11
1),,,,,.,- 	1	
J...:W_	
l
Cb ~re.d..,	
bii	
·
);ye_,	
PCl)...;1	
-;p-,~-rrllr::;t-,	
d.1
1
1 ~ia~n-
fvl
r. 	/(~--5,ner 	-' 	.	
1rt:..~,
	o-r 	r'~pr:=-;_n~,~ 	'd- 	_
l)T h..f½-. 	+a
Jd.	
~	
i+ 	!JJ)4Sn"Y-:.
	L 	d/cln JI- 	.cZ6QfJY-
wfio_;-
	}re:,,.,
	h 	/d 	I?] e.,,,	
~ 	~
h u	
-e.-..u
	-h:, 	e,.n ~~~
..-
/l .,,__ j.,A. ,,, ,.
T,
-' / 	-
~I
✓
-.	
t.. . +, ~ 	cl.,
.f
C,,.... / ?77 /
~ ,!?./
. 	..i.-.__.,,.,
~
r
·~(.,L,-..,,<..-1	
~L,/1
5 _,,·g,-t_.._S 	//r-v r11
,_,,,. , , C
~ 	~ 	~hi-~ 	~ 	~ 	/;, s l''_s hl.J 	~;-_ 	/ 	1 	('~ r, ~ .,... ..,. ,..-J J.,,,, p. 	A~ 	~

August
	13,
	1983
LA-CE-2200
Page
	6
because 	of
	the
	lawsuit.
	The
	theory
	is 	that
	your
	supervisor,
/·ls.
	Willough!:)y,
	is
	unce::
	ins'tructions
	from
	distr'ict
headquarters
	to
	make	
~o=~	
difficult
	for
	you.
	She
	therefore
declines
	to
	correct
	t~e
	~isbehavior
	of 	the
	other 	teachers
	and
aides
	and
	does 	not
	sup?ort
	you.
The
	facts
	of 	the 	case
	do
	not
	support
	a
	retaliation
	theory
because 	the
	alleged
	harrassment
	has
	continued 	for
	several
	years
and
	has 	not
	a9preciably
	changed
	in
	kind
	or
	increased 	in
intens~ty
	during 	the 	period
	after
	the 	lawsuit
	and 	amendment
were
	filed.
	Your
	letters
	and
	papers 	submitted
	show
	only
	the
same
	continuing
	problems
	as
	you
	relocated
	from
	the
	Marvin
Avenue
	Children's
	Center
	to
	Toluca
	Lake
	Children's
	Center
	to
•\:i)A:-:r:itas-
Children's
	Center.
	For
	this
	reason
	'the
	charge
	lacks
facts
	showing
	a
	nexus 	between
	the
	protected
	conduct
	and
	the
	'\
employer's
	act
ions.
	The
	charge
	must
	be
	dismissed.
-:[)e,}6.)tJi
f''f
h().,,S
h~n-~e
C.	
~	
u·r
.Jn
	~l
.	
~
t\rrr
1
1n
	· · 	L
r 	ncJrV¢'
~s•+vn 	l r'\·
1
Opportunity 	to
	Amend	
~t~f'le.,,e...
	,\
MiY!/v,
·For
	the 	reasons
	stated
	above,
	the 	charge 	as
	presently
	•,,;r
it
ten
does 	not.
state
	a
	prima
	facie 	violation
	of 	the
	EERA
•.
	·
If
	you
feel 	that
	there
	are
	facts
	or
	legal
	arguments
	which
	would
require
	different
	conclusion,
	an 	amended·
charge 	should
	be
pre?ared
	on
	a
	standard
	P2RB
	unfair 	practice
	charge
	form
	clearly
labeled
	First
	Ar:iendec
	Charge, 	should
	contain
	all
	the
allegations
	you 	wish
	to
	nake
	and 	be
	signed 	under
	penalty 	of
perjury.
	The 	amended
	ch~rge
	must 	be
	served
	on
	the 	respondent
and
	the
	original
	proof
	of
	service
	must
	be
	filed
	with
	PERS.
	If
I
	de
	not 	rece
i ''':	
an
	ar::-,end~c'
	charge 	or	
id
l:hdrawal
	from 	you 	by
August 	26, 	1983,
	I
	shall
	dismiss
	your
	charge.
	If
	you
	have
	any
questions 	regarding	
hoH	
to 	proceed, 	please
	call
	me
	at
	(213)
736-3127.
LqgS
l
j-<-J
[.url 5
vf
Y7''J
S'·	
v~
_ uf
exceeds
t
R
a