affect the coordinate body’s decision-making process” (id. at p. 793, 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352). On the other hand, said Johnson, there is no basis for immunizing lower-level, or “ministerial,” decisions that merely implement a basic policy already formulated. (Johnson, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 796, 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352.) Moreover, we cautioned, immunity applies only to deliberate and considered policy decisions, in which a “[conscious] balancing [of] risks and advantages ... took place. The fact that an employee normally engages in ‘discretionary activity’ is irrelevant if, in a given case, the employee did not render a considered decision. [Citations].” (Id. at p. 795, fn. 8, 73 Cal.Rptr. 240, 447 P.2d 352.) Caldwell, 10 Cal.4th at 981, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 842, 897 P.2d 1320 (<HOLDING>). Subsequent cases have further explained that
recognizing failure to renew contract as adverse action holding in title vii case that plaintiff demonstrated adverse employment action in school districts decision not to renew principals contract for the following year but offering principal a demotion holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal holding that failure to renew contract was adverse employment action holding that votes by members of a school districts governing board whether to renew the superintendents employment contract qualify as discretionary acts within the meaning of section 8202