Preview
MURLENE J. RANDLE, State Bar #98124
LAW OFFICES OF MURLENE J. RANDLE
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 716
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 352-0189
Facsimile: (415) 352-0187
E-Mail: murlene‘@randlelawotlices.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Manconia Green
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
12/20/2018
Clerk of the Court
BY: CAROL BALISTRERI
Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MANCONIA GREEN,
Plaintiff,
ve
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, THE SAN FRANCISCO
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; ALBERT
WATERS, III and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants,
DISCOVERY
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLE
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
FOR INSPECTION (PITCHESS MOTION)
(EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1043)
Case No. CGC-17-560392
Judge: Honorable Harold Kahn
Dept.: 302
Time:
Date: January 18, 2019
Trial Date: June 17, 2019
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONDECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLE
1. lam the attorney for PLAINTIFF Manconia Green in this action, and I am licensed to
practice law in the State of California.
2. Lam informed and believe that the San Francisco Sheriff Department (“SFSD”), the
Department of Human Resources (“DHR”), the Equal Opportunity Office (“EEO”), and the Employee
Assistant Program (“EPA”) keeps written records and/or recordings related to internal employee
complaints, citizen complaints, and investigations along with findings related thereto. I am informed
that said records are kept in the personnel files, investigative files, internal affairs files, or other files
maintained by said agencies.
3. Tam informed and believe that on occasion citizens, co-workers, inmates, or the attorneys,
friends, and/or relatives of such individuals, make complaints to said agencies concerning its law
enforcement officers. These complaints allege that the officers committed acts of discrimination;
harassment, including sexual harassment; retaliation; unnecessary or excessive force; and/or acts of
dishonesty.
4, [am informed and believe that said agencies assign investigators or personnel to
investigate the complaints; that these investigators or other personnel conduct correspondence with or
interview witnesses and other persons and thereby make notes, memoranda, and recordings of
conversations in connections with their investigations. Accordingly, reports are prepared and filed,
regarding findings, opinions, and conclusions concerning their investigations; that that there are times
when disciplinary proceedings are commenced or taken as a result of these investigations; that the
above referenced agencies keep in their personnel records, or other files, notes, findings, memoranda,
recordings, reports, transcripts, opinions, and conclusions of the investigations made and of the
disciplinary proceedings commenced or taken as the result of such complaints; that the files contain
the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons interviewed during such investigations and
during the disciplinary proceedings commenced or taken as the result of such complaints; that the files
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONoC Om ND WA
also contain documents related to the investigation that include, the names, addresses, and telephone
numbers of persons who initiate complaints; the items requested may also contain records showing
disciplinary actions and suspensions of said officer(s) following review of the complaints by superior
officers and fellow officers concerning past incidents of the officer(s) engaging in acts of
discrimination; harassment, including sexual harassment; retaliation; improper tactics and/or action of
dishonesty.
5. 1 am informed and believe that, under California Law, employers are required to take
preventative measures in light of complaints and/or findings of sexual harassment.
6. Consequently, records should also show what, if any remedial/preventative measures
were instituted by the SFSD in light of PLAINTIFF’s complaint of sexual harassment, and the DHR
findings of Sexual Harassment/Gender Discrimination described in the factual basis detailed below.
7. I am informed and/believe that PLAINTIFF submitted documents, including copies of
text messages, phone records, and/or emails as a part of the investigation of her complaint described in
the factual basis detailed below, and that many of these records are no longer available to the
PLAINTIFF.
8. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain personnel files on its employees,
including peace officers, and that these files contain among other things, evaluations, work histories,
education and training, complaints made by and against the employees, and the results of any
investigations related thereto.
9. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain internal affairs files on it employees,
including peace officers, and that these files contain among other things, internal investigations against
the employees, and the results thereof.
10. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records reflecting requests made by
its deputy sheriffs to work overtime, which are often referred to as “overtime sign-up sheets,” which
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONBR WN
will reflect those who requested or signed up for overtime between January 1, 2010 through December
31, 2018.
11. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain overtime payroll reports, which
will reflect those who were paid overtime between January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2018.
12 I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain personnel records that would reflect
the seniority and/or start date of employees/peace officers who have signed up for overtime and
employee’s/peace officers who were paid to work overtime.
13. I am informed and believe SFSD deputy sheriffs are sometimes solicited to work
overtime hours, and that records of these solicitations are maintained by the SFSD.
14. I am informed and believe documents related to overtime requests or needs were
sometimes labeled “Court Project.”
15, I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records relating to the polices
governing the criteria for the assignment of overtime.
16. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records of the dates, times and the
type of Defensive Training conducted between June 17. 2010 and December 31, 2018.
17. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records of those who were required
to participate in Defensive Training between June 17. 2010 and December 31, 2018.
18. Iam informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records that will reflect any and all
changes made to Defensive Training Program between January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2018.
19. I am informed and believe that the SFSD issued a memorandum during the time of the
Plaintiffs tenure as a deputy sheriff, that cautioned the staff that in the defensive tactic
testing/training, such training should be conducted in a manner so as not to result injury or re-injury to
deputies during such testing.
20. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records related to the staffing of the
civil courts that indicate the staffing needs of the civil courts between Januaryl, 2013 through
December 31, 2018.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONoO ND AW
21. [am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records related to its staffing of the
Criminal Court between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018.
22. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records detailing/describing the
duties and responsibilities of it supervising staff members, including its command staff, and the scope
of those duties and responsibilities.
23. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records detailing/describing the
duties and responsibilities of deputy sheriffs.
24. 1am informed and believe that the SFSD has an organizational chart that would show
the organizational structure of the SFSD, and the tiers of command staff, and those who are supervised
by each commander and/or supervisor.
25. I am informed and believe that there are documents related to PLAINTIFF’s personnel
matters that were not produced in discovery, that are in possession and control of the SFSD.
26. 1 am informed and believe that many of materials sought are not known to either
PLAINTIFF or myself and, although PLAINTIFF has requested these items in discovery requests,
they will not be made available except upon order of this court, pursuant to this motion.
27. I am informed and believe that such records, data, and materials sought are in the
exclusive possession and control of the aforementioned agencies, and are readily available to each of
them.
28. Substantive issues in this case will be gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile
work environment retaliation, failure to make reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the
interactive process, and failure to take steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, hostile
work environment, and retaliation by the officers involved.
29. The evidence sought is not only relevant to impeach witnesses, but to determine
whether PLAINTIFF’s complaints were properly investigated; and whether the following actions were
retaliatory, gender/disability discriminatory, harassment--including sexual/gender harassment, and/or
created a hostile work environment: those actions found to be true by the Department of Human
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONResources; the act of moving PLAINTIFF’s work assignment to the civil court; the act of demanding
Defensive Tactic Training Testing, of the nature required herein, which resulted in further injury to the
PLAINTIFF; the act of the denial of overtime, the act threatening disciplinary actions; the act of
ordering PLAINTIFF suspended for 10 days; the act of denying PLAINTIFF’s workers compensation
claims; the act of denying PLAINTIFF paid leave, while on disability; and/or the act of denying the
authorization for surgery due to injuries suffered on the job. Further, the evidence sought as regard any
prior officer misconduct, specifically discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile —_ work
environment/harassment, retaliation, and/or acts of dishonesty will directly bear on Plaintiff's case, as
it may reveal “Me too” evidence, prior similar conduct, in addition to impeachment evidence.
30. Based on my information and belief, the factual foundation to support Plaintiff's
allegations is as follows:
a. On or about September of 2010, PLAINTIFF suffered an on-duty work
injury, which required extensive medical treatment and leave from work. Due, to subsequent
acts of the SFSD, described below, PLAINTIFF still suffers from the effects of that work
injury to this date, with a high probability of never fully recovering.
b. In or about October 2012, PLAINTIFF experienced complications due to
the above described back injury, and was out of work on disability leave. The recurrence of
the injury required PLAINTIFF to undergo an epidural procedure. A day or so after the
epidural, she went to the aid of her sister who was involved in a verbal altercation with a man
over a pay dispute. The police were called to the altercation, resulting in PLAINTIFF being
arrested, and charged with misdemeanor offences, which were all dismissed in 2015.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONCoe UND
c. In or around the above referenced time, October 2012, PLAINTIFF
called CHIEF ALBERT WATERS, II, to seek his advice regarding a work-related question
concerning the above off-duty incident. Immediately, CHIEF WATERS began to show
concern and support. Accordingly, he invited himself over to the PLAINTIFF’S home;
ostensibly to comfort her. However, once he was there, he began talking about non-work-
related matters. He noticed a picture of the PLAINTIFF on her wall which showed her in a
low-cut tight fitting shirt, and he said, “You should start dressing like that more.” CHIEF
WATERS then used both of his arms to hold the PLAINTIFF for an awkwardly long time. He
rubbed his leg against the PLAINTIFF’s leg throughout the whole time he was holding her
arms.
d. With knowledge of the recurrence of symptoms related to PLAINTIFF’S
2101 back injury, and with knowledge that PLAINTIFF was out on disability leave due to that
recurrence, and knowledge of her recent epidural procedure, CHIEF WATERS expressed that
PLAINTIFF should return to work, full duty. He said that he would protect her, and that being
at work and keeping busy would benefit her emotionally, as opposed to sitting home and
engaging in worry. Ultimately, by continuous pressure through phone calls and text messages,
he was able to convince PLAINTIFF to follow his advice and return to work full duty. In
keeping with his promise that he would protect her if she returned to full duty, CHIEF
WATERS made special accommodations to have the PLAINTIFF assigned to his worksite,
where she was reported to him directly.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green vy. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONCo ew ND
e. PLAINTIFF originally met CHIEF WATERS around October 1999, At
that time, he appeared to favor her. He introduced her to his family and came across as though
he genuinely cared for her, as a mentor. Consequently, PLAINTIFF initially had much respect
for CHIEF WATERS, believing that he had her best interest at heart in the role of a mentor.
She therefore confided in him often about matters related to her personal life.
f. However, there were periods of times after PLAINTIFF originally
meeting CHIEF WATERS that she would stopped communicating with him, because he had
begun to make comments about her personal life that PLAINTIFF felt were inappropriate,
intrusive, and that made her feel uncomfortable.
g. Initially, after PLAINTIFF’s return to work, given CHIEF WATERS
verbalization of interest and care for her wellbeing, she valued his opinion. Consequently, she
listened to him and did many of the things he suggested and/or told her to do. This was
consistent with what she had done so many times in the past. According to PLAINTIFF,
CHIEF WATERS had a way with words. PLAINTIFF initially felt because of CHIEF
WATERS’ rank, and his role has her superior, she should listen to him and do as he said.
h. However, CHIEF WATERS started to give PLAINTIFF “so called”
advice that she now realizes crossed the line. In that regard, while on-duty and in uniform, he
would tell PLAINTIFF how to dress at work, suggesting that she wear low cut shirts and
dresses. To PLAINTIFF’s knowledge, CHIEF WATERS would never use his authority to tell
others how to dress. For instance, LIEUTENANT CALVARESE, who was also assigned to
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONthe same worksite as that PLAINTIFF, at the same time as the PLAINTIFF, would come to
work in casual clothes, such as jeans and a tee-shirt. CHIEF WATERS never chastised him
about his appearance. Also, while on-duty and in uniform, CHIEF WATERS even suggested
that the PLAINTIFF go away for the weekend to relieve stress; he then invited himself to
come along with her on the trip. PLAINTIFF was surprised at his suggestion that he join her
on her trip, and she declined his offer.
i. Also, beginning in or around November 2012, in addition to telling
PLAINTIFF how to dress at work, as described above, CHIEF WATERS began to frequently
give PLAINTIFF awkwardly long, touchy, feely hugs, while on-duty and in uniform. He
would approach the PLAINTIFF when no one was around to witness any type of interaction
and hug her. These hugging episodes continued over a seven-month period, and would occur
approximately three times a week throughout her assignment at the Field Services Support
Division Offices (‘FSSD”) —one of the divisions under the command of CHIEF WATERS.
At first, PLAINTIFF thought the hugs were good morning hugs and so she reciprocated. Then.
she realized that CHIEF WATERS expected hugs from her. He made statements such as, “give
me a hug” or “where is my hug?” or “you know you’re fired if you don’t give me a hug,” or
words to those effects.
je On or about December 28, 2012, while PLAINTIFF was shredding
documents, CHIEF WATERS, while on-duty and in uniform, came in the room where
PLAINTIFF was shredding the documents. He told her to keep shredding so no one could hear
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONthe conversation. He began lecturing her, as he had done on previous occasions. He lectured
her about her lack of confidence and suggested that she wear dresses and high heels. He said it
would help her self-esteem and instill confidence in her as a woman. He told PLAINTIFF, “If
you don’t do it for you, do it for me.” CHIEF WATERS also said, she should look good in
underwear; stating, if you look good, you will feel so much better. He went on to say to
PLAINTIFF that she should wear the undergarments in front of him to build her confidence.
PLAINTIFF recalls responding to CHIEF WATERS’ request that she wear the undergarments
in front of him with the question, “what about Annie?” (Annie is the name of CHIEF
WATERS?’ wife.) PLAINTIFF was shocked and offended by the above comments and
suggestions made by CHIEF WATERS. The entire incident caused PLAINTFF to become
sick to her stomach.
k. On several occasions following the above referenced conversation,
CHIEF WATERS continued to tell PLAINTIFF to wear dresses and high heels to work, which
PLAINTIFF believes was solely to make her more attractive to him. She refused his
continued requests, due to both her physical injuries and to the inappropriateness of his
requests.
1. In addition to the comments described above, CHIEF WATERS brought
up intimate details about PLAINTIFF’s past relationships with men. He told the PLAINTIFF
that she should only date men who are African American. He continuously asked her about
her past relationships in regards to the race/ethnicity of those men. He went on to tell her that
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONshe should go to church. He further suggested that she read a ritual to boost her confidence.
Given the fact that this conduct occurred while the PLAINTIFF and CHIEF WATERS were in
uniform, and they both were on duty, PLAINTIFF felt that it could be deemed insubordination
for her to just walk away from CHIEF WATERS, so she endured his interrogations and
lectures.
m. Subsequent to PLAINTIFF’s refusal to acquiesce to his suggestions,
including his requests that she wear dresses, high heels, and sexy underwear in front of him,
and while PLAINTIFF was still assigned to Field Services Unit under CHIEF WATERS’
supervision, he began to treat her poorly in the presence of other people at work. He was mean
and strict with her, contrary to the way he treated the other employees. He would tell her that
she was going to get fired, or that she was going to go back to the jails to work. He told her
that she was going to roll her chair into the pods and work. Meaning she would lose her
permanent position as a court bailiff, and be reassigned to work in the jails.
n. Based on PLAINTIFF’s experience and information and belief, due to
the rank structure of the Sheriff’s Department, it is highly unusual for a Chief Deputy, such as
CHIEF WATERS, to directly supervise a line deputy sheriff, such as the PLAINTIFF.
Between the ranks of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff, there are four other ranks:
Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant and Senior Deputy Pursuant to Sheriff's Department Policy, the
normal practice would have been for CHIEF WATERS to utilized the chain of command,
rather than having direct contact with the PLAINTIFF.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION0. Based on all the foregoing, PLAINTIFF began to question whether
CHIEF WATERS was manipulating her or guiding her. She ultimately came to realize that
CHIEF WATERS had depraved ulterior motives. However, she was aware that CHIEF
WATERS was the fourth in command of the entire Sheriff's Department, and that he wielded
great power; consequently, she was frightened over the consequences of challenging him or
reporting him.
p. On or about April 5, 2013, PLAINTIFF came to work in a velour sweat
suit and casual shoes. CHIEF WATERS admonished her for not wearing a dress and high heel,
but did not similarly admonish a male lieutenant who was dressed in casual wear. PLAINTIFF
informed CHIEF WATERS that she could not wear high heels because of her medical
condition.
q. Six days later, on or about April 11, 2013, CHIEF WATERS and
CAPTAIN MARTY IDETA (“IDETA”) informed the PLAINTIFF that she would be
reassigned to the Civil Unit at City Hall effective April 15, 2013, a unit that remains under the
overall supervision of CHIEF WATERS. Contrary to common practice, the Department did
not ask/or provide the PLAINTIFF with a choice of assignment based on her significant
seniority of 14 years. PLAINTIFF was only told that the SFSD was short staffed with regard
to deputy sheriffs in the civil courts.
r. The above reassignment placed PLAINTIFF under the supervision of
LIEUTENANT JOHN GARCIA (“GARCIA” or “LT. GARCIA”). LT. GARCIA, while on-
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONduty and in uniform, joked about CHIEF WATERS "smashing” PLAINTIFF. (PLAINTIFF
has heard the term “smashing” used to describe having sex with someone; and, she has heard
the word used to indicate the physical smashing of someone.) LT. GARCIA treated
PLAINTIFF harshly, and was dismissive toward her during the entire time that he supervised
her. PLAINTIFF was assigned under LT, GARCIA’s supervision from April 15, 2013 until
July 2015.
Ss. Although PLAINTIFF was allegedly sent to the Civic Center Court house
due to a shortage of sheriff deputies there, PLAINTIFP’s initial assignment, pursuant to the
order of LT. GARCIA, was to assist the file clerks who worked in civil court house as opposed
to working with members of the sworn sheriff staff. She performed clerk tasks, which
included clerical duties such as filing, along with other paper work. Consequently,
PLAINTIFF was not performing any deputy sheriff duties, during this time. In fact, she was
often supervised by civil clerks as authorization by LT. GARCIA.
t. On May 31, 2013, after much reflection and turmoil regarding CHIEF
WATERS conduct toward her, combined with the hostility and harassment she was suffering
at the hand of LT. GARCIA, and those whom he authorized to supervise her, PLAINTIFF
reported the foregoing described conduct by CHIEF WATERS, to ASSISTANT SHERIFF
PAUL MIYAMOTO (“SHERIFF MIYAMOTO”).
u. In light of PLAINTIFF’s complaint regarding CHIEF WATER’s conduct
described above, she was referred to the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”). The EAP
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
MAprovides free, voluntary, and confidential direct counseling services to City and County of San
Francisco (“CCSF”), Superior Count employees, their family members, and significant others.
PLAINTIFF recalls meeting with Jean Miranda and/or possibly someone else at the EPA, on
at least two occasions, in relation to her complaint against CHIEF WATERS (she is unclear, at
this time of the identity of the other person.)
v. Based on information and belief, on or about June 4, 2013, the EPA
referred the PLAINTIFF to the Department of Human Resources Equal Employment
Opportunities Division (‘7DHR EEO”.) Accordingly, PLAINTIFF called Janie White, Senior
Specialist Equal Employment Programs. This resulted in Magaly Fernandez, Senior Specialist
EEO Programs being assigned to investigate PLAINTIFF’s sexual/gender harassment
complaint.
w. Further, on or about June 5, 2013, SHERIFF MIYAMOTO forwarded
PLAINTIFF’s complaint to the Department of Human Resources’ (“DHR”) Equal
Employment Opportunity Division (“EEO”).
x. At about the time of the commencement of the DHR/EEO investigation,
Sheriff Department employees, who were under CHIEF WATERS’ supervision and/or control,
or who were authorized to supervise the PLAINTIFF by those under CHIEF WATERS’
supervision and/or control, began treating PLAINTIFF badly. In addition to other ways (some
of which are described above,) PLAINTIFF was subjected to malicious gossip behind her
back, she was informed of this malicious gossip by a co-workers, clerk in the civil courts; she
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
13was treated with disrespect and hostility by her supervisors and co-worker, a clerk in civil
courts; she was referred to as a “Ho” by clerk, co-workers in the civil courts, and, she was
subjected to a verbal insinuation by a supervisor clerk in the civil courts that she had a foul
smell.
y. Approximately a year after PLAINTIFF’s complaint to DHR/EEO, in a
letter dated April 8, 2014, DHR made the following findings:
“The investigation established that you were subjected to physical and verbal
conduct on account of your sex (female) when Chief Waters hugged you and made
sexually suggestive comments about your attire. Witness testimony confirmed that
Chief Waters' unwelcome and offensive conduct occurred throughout your
assignment at FSSD. Furthermore, the investigative findings are sufficient to show
that you found this conduct extremely offensive and were distressed.”
“The investigative findings did not support your allegation that you were reassigned
from FSSD to the Civil Unit because of your refusal to wear dresses and heels to
work as Chief Waters requested.”
“The investigation established that Chief Waters admonished you for wearing
casual attire and asked you to wear dresses and high heels to work. Chief Waters’
request that you wear dresses and heels was sexual in nature because he did not
require men to dress in any specific attire. You found Chief Waters’ request
unwelcome and refused to wear a dress and heels. However, the investigation did
not substantiate that Chief Waters’ request was a condition of your continued
assignment at FSSD- Rather, Chief Waters and two witnesses testified that you and
a male Lieutenant were transferred to the Civil Unit due to staff shortages. It was also
established that during your initial contact with DHR EEO, you told Janie White, then
EEO Programs Senior Specialist, that you had been reassigned to City Hall in April 2013
because there was not much work at FSSD.”
Z. At the time that PLAINTIFF was assigned to the Civil Unit of the Field &
Support Services Division, she received a written notice stating: “As a reminder, during your
detail assignment you are to dress in business attire and you will not be permitted to carry a
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
rtfirearm, on or off duty, or respond to any incidents.” However, on or about June 17, 2014, less
than two months after the above referenced DHR findings, and despite the above notice dated
April 11, 2013, and while still under the supervision of LT GARCIA, PLAINTIFF was
assigned to attend Defensive Tactics Training. Further, PLAINTIFF’s criminal case was still
pending at that time, which also prevented her from carrying a gun and participating in and/or
responding to any incidents.
aa. The Defensive Tactics Training consisted of classroom and physical
control techniques. PLAINTIFF was partnered up with another deputy sheriff to practice
various control holds, handcuffing techniques, searching techniques, and physical takedowns.
At the end of the instructions, the group were tested by performing the foregoing techniques
on one another. For the first time during PLAINTIFF’s 14 plus years in the SFSD, the testing
of the physical component, including the take-downs, was graded on a pass-fail basis—to fail
this exercise meant you failed the entire training. PLAINTIFF had participated in and
completed the physical component wherein she was required to take down another deputy
sheriff; she, therefore, felt she had completed the testing. Nonetheless. she was directed to
further participate in the testing by being taken down by another deputy sheriff. PLAINTIFF
was concerned about being reinjured if she was taken down; consequently, she notified
Sergeant Pineda, the sergeant in charge, that she had a previous back injury. Sgt. Pineda
responded if you are on full duty, you will be treated as such, or words to that effect. She was
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONtherefore required to allow another deputy to take her down. That evening, and during the
days that followed, PLAINTIFF suffered from pain, which grew progressively worse.
bb. At no time subsequent to PLAINTIFF’s return to full duty in November
2012, while she worked under the supervision of CHIEF WATERS, nor prior to the above
described training on June 17, 2014, had PLAINTIFF been required to participate in defensive
training.
ec, Further, PLAINTIFF is aware that others who have returned to full duty
after an injury are afforded some accommodations, during initial training exercises. Based on
information and belief there is a SFSD Memo to the effect that training staff should not go too
hard during training, in order to prevent injuries or the recurrence of injuries.
dd. Between late June 2014, and early July, 2014, PLAINTIFF wrote an
incident report regarding the recurrence of her back injury, which happened during Defensive
Tactic Training. PLAINTIFF asked LT. GARCIA to sign the report documenting the incident.
LT. GARCIA initially refused to sign the report. He stated that the training department should
sign the report.
ec. At that point, PLAINTIFF informed LT. GARCIA that she was not filing
a claim, that the report was just documentation of what happened. He then said okay, I thought
you were trying to pull a fast one.
ff. The June 17, 2014, injury that PLAINTIFF suffered in Defensive Tactic
Training resulted in her doctor ordering her off work on separate occasions. However,
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
1bPLAINTIFF’s worker’s compensation claims related thereto were denied by the Sheriff
Department on all occasions. Ironically, although the SFSD denied PLAINTIFF’s workers’
compensation claim related to this recurring injury, the SFSD refused to allow PLAINTIFF to
work during this time; citing to her doctor’s orders.
gg. In an effort to promote her healing process, while staying financially
secure, PLAINTIFF applied to use her sick leave, vacation leave, and any other personal leave
time that she had available to her. Initially, the SFSD only allowed her to use sick leave. All
other forms of leave were denied.
hh. Based on the actions of the Sheriff's Department, describe above,
PLAINTIFF filed a grievance with the Union of the SFSD,
ii. Given PLAINTIFF’s recurrence of symptoms related to a 2010 injury in
2012, as described earlier, necessitating the use of sick leave, she had limited sick time
available to her in 2014. Consequently, her sick leave was quickly exhausted. The fact that
she was not initially allowed to use vacation and/or other personal leave time that she had
accrued, meant that PLAINTIFF would have no income if she did not return to work, once her
sick leave was exhausted—injured or not. Accordingly, she was forced to beg her workers’
compensation doctor to allow her to return to work fulltime. He ultimately did so, and
PLAINTIFF returned to work although she was in severe pain.
ii- In or around November 2014, PLAINTIFF’s off duty criminal incident,
referenced earlier, was totally resolved with the action being dismissed.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green y. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONkk. Although all the criminal charges were dismissed for lack of evidence,
PLAINTIFF was still issued a suspension order for 10 days by the Sheriff Department related
to those dismissed charges.
IL. In or around March 2015, due to working full duty, while injured,
PLAINTIFF suffered a neck injury. Notwithstanding this, however, in order to survive
financially, she continued to work while in pain and on medication. The pain continued and
eventually became unbearable, forcing her to stop working.
mm. PLAINTIFF’s neck injury resulted in a visit to her personal physician
who ordered an MRI. The MRI showed a three-disc herniation. PLAINTIFF took the MRI
result to her worker compensation physicians, who ordered her off work. The Sheriff's
Department and/or other City agencies did not honor her doctor’s recommendation, and
refused PLAINTIFF disability pay.
nn. Around July 2015, while undergoing all the issues related to her
disability, lack of pay, and lack of accommodations, her temporary detail assignment at the
Civil Unit of the Sheriff's Department ended. PLAINTIFF received a letter from the personnel
unit reassigning her back to the criminal courts’ division at the Hall of Justice (““HOJ”). She
was instructed to contact LT. TILTON, who works under the supervision of CHIEF
WATERS, for details of her reassignment back to her permanent assignment at the HOJ.
PLAINTIFF called LT. TILTON, who immediately tried to reassign her back to the Civil
Courts instead of the Criminal Courts.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
1%oo. During the time and conduct described above, based on information and
belief, the Hall of Justice Courts were severely understaffed. Accordingly, eight to nine
bailiffs were required to work overtime on a daily basis. Moreover, during this time, the Hall
of Justice Courts’ Unit, were in desperate need of “trained” experienced bailiffs, such as the
PLAINTIFF. Based on her work experience and training, PLAINTIFF knew the procedures of
conducting courtroom security for in-custody jury trials, whereas Civic Center Courthouse
bailiffs do not require that expertise. Further, the normal procedure is that reassignments from
the Hall of Justice Courts to the Civic Center Courthouse is based on a request for volunteers
first, then on an involuntary draft based on seniority---the Plaintiff at this point in time, had
approximately 15 years of experience as a deputy sheriff. Consequently, based on the
department rules and procedures, she would normally have been one of the last deputies to get
drafted for reassignment to the Civic Center Courthouse.
pp. Further, PLAINTIFF had worked in the Criminal Courts since 2008. Her
gun, uniforms and lockers had also been assigned there since 2008. Pursuant to the Sheriff
Departments Satellite Policy, PLAINTIFF had permanent employment status at the Hall of
Justice Courts (“HOS”) or (“Criminal Courts”).
qq. Given the above, PLAINTIFF initiated Step 1 in the grievance process,
pursuant to her Collective Bargaining Agreement, and informed LT. TILTON that such a
reassignment to the Civil Courts would be a transfer against policy and past practices.
Ultimately, LT. TILTON agreed to let PLAINTIFF return to the criminal courts due to her
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONthreat to put in a written grievance. However, he made it known that he did not like her. He did
this by singling out PLAINTIFF in efforts to catch her doing something for which he could
write her up. For instance, after PLAINTIFF’s return to the criminal courts and while working
at the Hall of Justice Lobby Security, PLAINTIFF was using the restroom during an allowed
rest period. Although LT. TILTON, who was on-duty and in uniform working overtime at a
different facility, he contacted CADET AUNG, to find out the whereabouts of the
PLAINTIFF. Based on information and belief, it is highly unusual for a supervisor, who is
assigned to another facility, and who is supposed to be supervising his employees at that
facility, to conduct checks on employees at another facility/unit.
Ir. PLAINTIFF appealed the City’s earlier described refusal of workers’
compensation to the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. On or about December 15, 2015,
The California Workers Compensation Appeals Board awarded a judgment in PLAINTIFF’s
favor. Nonetheless, the Sheriff Department refused to honor the judgment. PLAINTIFF then
filed another grievance that went all the way to the Under Sheriff.
ss. Concurrently, with the grievance referenced in the above paragraph, on or
about February 2, 2016, PLAINTIFF filed an Audit Referral with the Department of Industrial
Relations, Division of Workers Compensation. This 2016 filing of the Audit Referral finally
resulted in PLAINTIFF getting the disability pay she had been denied in 2014 and 2015.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONtt. From on or around July 2015 through 2016, LT. TILTON, under the
supervision of CHIEF WATERS, has facilitated and permitted hostility and harassment
against PLAINTIFF.
uu. Based on information and belief, on or around June 2016, LT. TILTON
had SENIOR SARAH DEPUTY JAMES, who was a new supervisor at the HOJ Courts, write
up PLAINTIFF for allegedly being discourteous to SENIOR DEPUTY JAMES over the
phone. PLAINTIFF needed a supervisor to verify her employment with the Sheriff's
Department for a rental company, which is common practice for a supervisor to do. However
SENIOR DEPUTY JAMES told PLAINTIFF that she was not capable of confirming her
employment, even though SENIOR DEPUTY JAMES had called the PLAINTIFF frequently
to ask the PLAINTIFF if she could do her a favor and work overtime at County Jail # 2.
Consequently, she was aware of PLAINTIFF’s employment in the Sheriff's Department.
vv. PLAINTIFF has observed white male co-workers engage in inappropriate
conduct in the presence of LT. TILTON, however, none of them were written up or
reprimanded for their conduct. Among the many instances where other co-workers were
treated differently than PLAINTIFF are the following: (1) in and about 2016, DEPUTY
MIKAEL SVAHLIN, a white male, yelled and used profanity, and refused a direct order from
LT. TILTON in Department 21 of the trial courts. LT. TILTON did not take any action. This
incident was witnessed and spoken about by many deputies. (2) DEPUTY MICHAEL
GLISSON yelled and refused to obey SENIOR DEPUTY AJAY SAXENA’S direct order, and
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
2when the incident was brought to LT. TILTON, he dismissed it and did not take any action
against DEPUTY GLISSON. This incident was witnessed and spoken about by many
deputies; and, (3) Based on information and belief, with the knowledge of LT. TILTON, a
White Male Deputy Sheriff, BRIAN SAVAGE was employed as a bartender, which is
prohibited per Sheriff's Department Policy. This deputy, would show up to work smelling of
alcohol, causing several complaints from clerks. However, LT. TILTON did not take any
actions to address this policy violations, and/or this conduct.
ww. Not only had LT. TILTON personally harassed and discriminated against
PLAINTIFF, after and during her return to the HOJ Criminal Courts, he allowed coworkers to
be rude and disrespectful to her. Further, other Co-workers, of whose identity Plaintiff is
uncertain, destroyed her calendars, and demonstrated other disparaging treatment toward her.
Similarly, the retaliation and harassment has been manifested through the denial of overtime
during the years 2015 and 2016. During that time, PLAINTIFF continuously signed up for
overtime at the HOJ Courts Services Unit and was continuously unfairly denied such overtime
by CHIEF WATTERS, LT. TILTON, and SR. DEPUTY MICHAELBOROVINA.
xx. Contrary to the manner in which PLAINTIFF has been treated, other
employees have received the following treatment: CHIEF WATERS, in violation of
Department Policy & Procedure, allowed other deputies to work more than 16 hours, among
those deputies that Plaintiff can recall were: MICHAEL BOROVINA, REX YANGUAS,
NICOLE SMITH, and SR. DEPUTY JAMES ARAGON. Thereby, PLAINTIFF did not get
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
2athe opportunity to work the overtime although it was something she requested. According to
SENIOR. DEPUTY BOROVINA, SENIOR DEPUTY ARAGON, and LT. TILTON, it was
CHIEF WATERS’ order to make this special exemption to policy. Based on this conduct
PLAINTIFF initiated Step | of the grievance process, pursuant to her Collective Bargaining
Agreement. At that point the Department reverted back to disallowing the employees at the
Hall of Justice Lobby Security to work more than 16 hours.
yy. CHIEF WATERS has also hired people with less seniority and people
from other divisions whom he has treated more favorably than PLAINTIFF, as related to her
employment. Those deputies include SEAN LEE, and NICOLE SMITH.
zz. LT. TILTON, while denying PLAINTIFF’s legitimate requests for
overtime, allowed DEPUTY SMITH, who has less seniority than PLAINTIFF, to leave her
court room assignment prior to the end of her shift. He then allowed DEPUTY SMITH to
work security in the lobby on the swing shift, whereby she was able to earn overtime.
aaa. On or about December 24, 2015, contrary to policy, and contrary to how
PLAINTIFF was being treated, SR. DEPUTY BOROVINA went directly to DEPUTY
SMITH, over the PLAINTIFF, to see if she wanted to work swing shift and she was detailed to
the lobby by LT. TILTON for the day. This resulted in her getting overtime, while the
PLAINTIFF’s request had been denied.
bbb. PLAINTIFF contacted DEPUTY SMITH via text message, asking her
how she got the overtime, as opposed to those who had signed up for overtime who had more
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
ppseniority than she had. DEPUTY SMITH told PLAINTIFF that SR. DEPUTY BOROVINA
asked her to work the overtime. DEPUTY SMITH went on to tell PLAINTIFF that they would
call her (meaning DEPUTY SMITH), and offer her the overtime, knowing others with more
seniority than her were signed up for the overtime.
ccc, PLAINTIFF further understands that LT. TILTON would give DEPUTY
SMITH overtime hours under the guise of labeling it, "court project.” Contrary to Sheriff
Department policy, the “court project” overtime was never posted for everyone to see and
request. The “court project” overtime sometimes allowed DEPUTY SMITH to work the
overtime hours from home, which is also against Sheriff Department policy. There was also a
process of hiding overtime sign-ups and holidays sign-up sheets for the Hall of Justice Lobby
security detail. SR. DEPUTY BOROVINA, who was in charge, would not post overtime and
holiday overtime. Instead, he would assign whomever he chose to those details; PLAINTIFF
was not among those he chose.
ddd. PLAINTIFF is currently still on workers’ compensation disability, and
under a doctor’s care. She has suffered and continue to suffer both physical and emotional
distress. The Sheriff Department, to date, continues to reftise authorization of the surgery
needed by PLAINTIFF due to injuries she received on the job.
eee. PLAINTIFF submitted text messages, emails and/or other documents to
DHR related to their investigation of her claims. Due to a change in phone subscription
service, she is unable to retrieve most of this documentation.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
ayfff. As indicated from the DHR findings, that department investigated
PLAINTIFF’s allegations regarding sexual harassment. As a part of that investigation it is
believed, based on information, that several witnesses were interviewed, including CHIEF
WATERS.
ggg. Based on information and belief, the Sheriff Department conducted an
internal investigation related to PLAINTIFF’s claims.
hhh. Based on information and belief, a cadet, Kanesha Smith, made
allegations of sexual harassment against CHIEF WATERS in or around 2009 and that based
on those allegation, an investigation was conducted by either or both the Sheriff Department
and/or DHR.
iii. | Based on information and belief Lieutenant Donna Steppe, made
allegations of sexual harassment against CHIEF WATERS in or around 2016-2017. It is
believed that either or both the Sheriff Department and/DHR conducted investigations based
on this claim.
ji. In a letter dated July 15, 2016, to the Director of DHR, PLAINTIFF
initiated a complaint regarding ongoing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at the hand
of CHIEF WATERS and/or his subordinates.
kkk. Again, in a letter dated October 31, 2016, PLAINTIFF, again, formally
complained of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation naming the SFSD, SHERIFF VICKI
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
arCo wn aD
HENNESSY, CHIEF WATERS, LT. TILTON, SR. DEPUTY MICHAEL BOROVINA, and
DEPUTY CLIVE CHU.
{ll On or about November 3, 2016, PLAINTIFF sent an email to Investigator
Magaly Fernandez with a copy of her complaint, described above. PLAINTIFF asked
Investigator Fernandez to forward her complaint to her director. Investigator Magaly
Fernandez responded that she had forwarded PLAINTIFF’s complaint to her supervisor,
Svetlana Vaksberg.
mmm. On December 1, 2016, PLAINTIFF sent Investigator Fernandez a follow-
up email stating that she had not heard from DHR/EEO about her complaint. On that same
date, Investigator Fernandez responded to PLAINTIFF’s email stating “We are in receipt of
your complaint and it is under review.
nnn. Ina letter dated December 28, 2016, Linda C. Simon, Director, EEO and
Leave Programs, DHR, informed PLAINTIFF that her complaint had been assigned to Marvin
Dunson III, EEO Programs Senior Specialist, DHR. The letter further stated that Mr. Dunson
would be reviewing PLAINTIFF’s complaint to determine the timeliness of the complaint and
jurisdictional issues; and that, after which, he would be contacted PLAINTIFF in writing or by
telephone within in 10 days.
ooo. Mr. Dunson, later informed PLAINTIFF that, pursuant to his review, her
complaints were not timely under EEO/DHR guidelines.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green y. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al.
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
26NY Du sf
19. I am informed and believe that Defendants, and the officers identified herein, have
engaged in serious misconduct in violation of Plaintiffs rights. Therefore, the credibility of the
officers is central to the determination of the causes of action asserted. A history of dishonesty and
using improper tactics is relevant to impeach the officer and to establish conduct in conformity with a
habit and custom to act outside the law. (See e.g., City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App.
4th 1135, 1146, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 624 (6th Dist. 1998), as modified, (Dec. 11, 1998).)
20. The materials identified herein are necessary for the proper preparation of this case for
trial. The material may be used as follows:
a, To locate and investigate witnesses or other evidence of the dishonest character of the
officer(s) involved to show that the officer(s) acted in conformity with that character at
the time of this incident;
b. To locate and investigate witnesses or other evidence of discriminatory, harassing,
and/or retaliatory character of the officer(s) involved to show that the officer(s) acted in
conformity with that character at the time of this incident;
c. To refresh the recollection of witnesses to incidents of discrimination, harassment,
and/or retaliation so that Plaintiff may accurately ascertain the facts and circumstances
of those incidents;
d. To properly prepare for cross-examination and impeachment of witnesses to be called
by Defendants;
e. To have the trier of fact properly assess the credibility of Defendants’ and Plaintiff's
witnesses; and
f. To impeach the testimony of the officers involved with acts showing a morally lax
character and hence a readiness to lie;
g. To corroborated the testimony of witnesses, including the Plaintiff.
h. And for other reasons outlined in the Plaintiffs Noticed Motion which this declaration
supports.
Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL
DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION
27ocooU WN DH BR WN
YN NY MY NY NY NY NY
Preview
MURLENE J. RANDLE, State Bar #98124 LAW OFFICES OF MURLENE J. RANDLE 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 716 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 352-0189 Facsimile: (415) 352-0187 E-Mail: murlene‘@randlelawotlices.com Attorney for Plaintiff Manconia Green ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 12/20/2018 Clerk of the Court BY: CAROL BALISTRERI Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MANCONIA GREEN, Plaintiff, ve THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; ALBERT WATERS, III and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, DISCOVERY DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FOR INSPECTION (PITCHESS MOTION) (EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1043) Case No. CGC-17-560392 Judge: Honorable Harold Kahn Dept.: 302 Time: Date: January 18, 2019 Trial Date: June 17, 2019 Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONDECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLE 1. lam the attorney for PLAINTIFF Manconia Green in this action, and I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. 2. Lam informed and believe that the San Francisco Sheriff Department (“SFSD”), the Department of Human Resources (“DHR”), the Equal Opportunity Office (“EEO”), and the Employee Assistant Program (“EPA”) keeps written records and/or recordings related to internal employee complaints, citizen complaints, and investigations along with findings related thereto. I am informed that said records are kept in the personnel files, investigative files, internal affairs files, or other files maintained by said agencies. 3. Tam informed and believe that on occasion citizens, co-workers, inmates, or the attorneys, friends, and/or relatives of such individuals, make complaints to said agencies concerning its law enforcement officers. These complaints allege that the officers committed acts of discrimination; harassment, including sexual harassment; retaliation; unnecessary or excessive force; and/or acts of dishonesty. 4, [am informed and believe that said agencies assign investigators or personnel to investigate the complaints; that these investigators or other personnel conduct correspondence with or interview witnesses and other persons and thereby make notes, memoranda, and recordings of conversations in connections with their investigations. Accordingly, reports are prepared and filed, regarding findings, opinions, and conclusions concerning their investigations; that that there are times when disciplinary proceedings are commenced or taken as a result of these investigations; that the above referenced agencies keep in their personnel records, or other files, notes, findings, memoranda, recordings, reports, transcripts, opinions, and conclusions of the investigations made and of the disciplinary proceedings commenced or taken as the result of such complaints; that the files contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons interviewed during such investigations and during the disciplinary proceedings commenced or taken as the result of such complaints; that the files Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONoC Om ND WA also contain documents related to the investigation that include, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons who initiate complaints; the items requested may also contain records showing disciplinary actions and suspensions of said officer(s) following review of the complaints by superior officers and fellow officers concerning past incidents of the officer(s) engaging in acts of discrimination; harassment, including sexual harassment; retaliation; improper tactics and/or action of dishonesty. 5. 1 am informed and believe that, under California Law, employers are required to take preventative measures in light of complaints and/or findings of sexual harassment. 6. Consequently, records should also show what, if any remedial/preventative measures were instituted by the SFSD in light of PLAINTIFF’s complaint of sexual harassment, and the DHR findings of Sexual Harassment/Gender Discrimination described in the factual basis detailed below. 7. I am informed and/believe that PLAINTIFF submitted documents, including copies of text messages, phone records, and/or emails as a part of the investigation of her complaint described in the factual basis detailed below, and that many of these records are no longer available to the PLAINTIFF. 8. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain personnel files on its employees, including peace officers, and that these files contain among other things, evaluations, work histories, education and training, complaints made by and against the employees, and the results of any investigations related thereto. 9. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain internal affairs files on it employees, including peace officers, and that these files contain among other things, internal investigations against the employees, and the results thereof. 10. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records reflecting requests made by its deputy sheriffs to work overtime, which are often referred to as “overtime sign-up sheets,” which Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONBR WN will reflect those who requested or signed up for overtime between January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2018. 11. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain overtime payroll reports, which will reflect those who were paid overtime between January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2018. 12 I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain personnel records that would reflect the seniority and/or start date of employees/peace officers who have signed up for overtime and employee’s/peace officers who were paid to work overtime. 13. I am informed and believe SFSD deputy sheriffs are sometimes solicited to work overtime hours, and that records of these solicitations are maintained by the SFSD. 14. I am informed and believe documents related to overtime requests or needs were sometimes labeled “Court Project.” 15, I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records relating to the polices governing the criteria for the assignment of overtime. 16. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records of the dates, times and the type of Defensive Training conducted between June 17. 2010 and December 31, 2018. 17. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records of those who were required to participate in Defensive Training between June 17. 2010 and December 31, 2018. 18. Iam informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records that will reflect any and all changes made to Defensive Training Program between January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2018. 19. I am informed and believe that the SFSD issued a memorandum during the time of the Plaintiffs tenure as a deputy sheriff, that cautioned the staff that in the defensive tactic testing/training, such training should be conducted in a manner so as not to result injury or re-injury to deputies during such testing. 20. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records related to the staffing of the civil courts that indicate the staffing needs of the civil courts between Januaryl, 2013 through December 31, 2018. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONoO ND AW 21. [am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records related to its staffing of the Criminal Court between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018. 22. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records detailing/describing the duties and responsibilities of it supervising staff members, including its command staff, and the scope of those duties and responsibilities. 23. I am informed and believe that the SFSD maintain records detailing/describing the duties and responsibilities of deputy sheriffs. 24. 1am informed and believe that the SFSD has an organizational chart that would show the organizational structure of the SFSD, and the tiers of command staff, and those who are supervised by each commander and/or supervisor. 25. I am informed and believe that there are documents related to PLAINTIFF’s personnel matters that were not produced in discovery, that are in possession and control of the SFSD. 26. 1 am informed and believe that many of materials sought are not known to either PLAINTIFF or myself and, although PLAINTIFF has requested these items in discovery requests, they will not be made available except upon order of this court, pursuant to this motion. 27. I am informed and believe that such records, data, and materials sought are in the exclusive possession and control of the aforementioned agencies, and are readily available to each of them. 28. Substantive issues in this case will be gender discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment retaliation, failure to make reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to take steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the officers involved. 29. The evidence sought is not only relevant to impeach witnesses, but to determine whether PLAINTIFF’s complaints were properly investigated; and whether the following actions were retaliatory, gender/disability discriminatory, harassment--including sexual/gender harassment, and/or created a hostile work environment: those actions found to be true by the Department of Human Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONResources; the act of moving PLAINTIFF’s work assignment to the civil court; the act of demanding Defensive Tactic Training Testing, of the nature required herein, which resulted in further injury to the PLAINTIFF; the act of the denial of overtime, the act threatening disciplinary actions; the act of ordering PLAINTIFF suspended for 10 days; the act of denying PLAINTIFF’s workers compensation claims; the act of denying PLAINTIFF paid leave, while on disability; and/or the act of denying the authorization for surgery due to injuries suffered on the job. Further, the evidence sought as regard any prior officer misconduct, specifically discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile —_ work environment/harassment, retaliation, and/or acts of dishonesty will directly bear on Plaintiff's case, as it may reveal “Me too” evidence, prior similar conduct, in addition to impeachment evidence. 30. Based on my information and belief, the factual foundation to support Plaintiff's allegations is as follows: a. On or about September of 2010, PLAINTIFF suffered an on-duty work injury, which required extensive medical treatment and leave from work. Due, to subsequent acts of the SFSD, described below, PLAINTIFF still suffers from the effects of that work injury to this date, with a high probability of never fully recovering. b. In or about October 2012, PLAINTIFF experienced complications due to the above described back injury, and was out of work on disability leave. The recurrence of the injury required PLAINTIFF to undergo an epidural procedure. A day or so after the epidural, she went to the aid of her sister who was involved in a verbal altercation with a man over a pay dispute. The police were called to the altercation, resulting in PLAINTIFF being arrested, and charged with misdemeanor offences, which were all dismissed in 2015. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONCoe UND c. In or around the above referenced time, October 2012, PLAINTIFF called CHIEF ALBERT WATERS, II, to seek his advice regarding a work-related question concerning the above off-duty incident. Immediately, CHIEF WATERS began to show concern and support. Accordingly, he invited himself over to the PLAINTIFF’S home; ostensibly to comfort her. However, once he was there, he began talking about non-work- related matters. He noticed a picture of the PLAINTIFF on her wall which showed her in a low-cut tight fitting shirt, and he said, “You should start dressing like that more.” CHIEF WATERS then used both of his arms to hold the PLAINTIFF for an awkwardly long time. He rubbed his leg against the PLAINTIFF’s leg throughout the whole time he was holding her arms. d. With knowledge of the recurrence of symptoms related to PLAINTIFF’S 2101 back injury, and with knowledge that PLAINTIFF was out on disability leave due to that recurrence, and knowledge of her recent epidural procedure, CHIEF WATERS expressed that PLAINTIFF should return to work, full duty. He said that he would protect her, and that being at work and keeping busy would benefit her emotionally, as opposed to sitting home and engaging in worry. Ultimately, by continuous pressure through phone calls and text messages, he was able to convince PLAINTIFF to follow his advice and return to work full duty. In keeping with his promise that he would protect her if she returned to full duty, CHIEF WATERS made special accommodations to have the PLAINTIFF assigned to his worksite, where she was reported to him directly. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green vy. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONCo ew ND e. PLAINTIFF originally met CHIEF WATERS around October 1999, At that time, he appeared to favor her. He introduced her to his family and came across as though he genuinely cared for her, as a mentor. Consequently, PLAINTIFF initially had much respect for CHIEF WATERS, believing that he had her best interest at heart in the role of a mentor. She therefore confided in him often about matters related to her personal life. f. However, there were periods of times after PLAINTIFF originally meeting CHIEF WATERS that she would stopped communicating with him, because he had begun to make comments about her personal life that PLAINTIFF felt were inappropriate, intrusive, and that made her feel uncomfortable. g. Initially, after PLAINTIFF’s return to work, given CHIEF WATERS verbalization of interest and care for her wellbeing, she valued his opinion. Consequently, she listened to him and did many of the things he suggested and/or told her to do. This was consistent with what she had done so many times in the past. According to PLAINTIFF, CHIEF WATERS had a way with words. PLAINTIFF initially felt because of CHIEF WATERS’ rank, and his role has her superior, she should listen to him and do as he said. h. However, CHIEF WATERS started to give PLAINTIFF “so called” advice that she now realizes crossed the line. In that regard, while on-duty and in uniform, he would tell PLAINTIFF how to dress at work, suggesting that she wear low cut shirts and dresses. To PLAINTIFF’s knowledge, CHIEF WATERS would never use his authority to tell others how to dress. For instance, LIEUTENANT CALVARESE, who was also assigned to Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONthe same worksite as that PLAINTIFF, at the same time as the PLAINTIFF, would come to work in casual clothes, such as jeans and a tee-shirt. CHIEF WATERS never chastised him about his appearance. Also, while on-duty and in uniform, CHIEF WATERS even suggested that the PLAINTIFF go away for the weekend to relieve stress; he then invited himself to come along with her on the trip. PLAINTIFF was surprised at his suggestion that he join her on her trip, and she declined his offer. i. Also, beginning in or around November 2012, in addition to telling PLAINTIFF how to dress at work, as described above, CHIEF WATERS began to frequently give PLAINTIFF awkwardly long, touchy, feely hugs, while on-duty and in uniform. He would approach the PLAINTIFF when no one was around to witness any type of interaction and hug her. These hugging episodes continued over a seven-month period, and would occur approximately three times a week throughout her assignment at the Field Services Support Division Offices (‘FSSD”) —one of the divisions under the command of CHIEF WATERS. At first, PLAINTIFF thought the hugs were good morning hugs and so she reciprocated. Then. she realized that CHIEF WATERS expected hugs from her. He made statements such as, “give me a hug” or “where is my hug?” or “you know you’re fired if you don’t give me a hug,” or words to those effects. je On or about December 28, 2012, while PLAINTIFF was shredding documents, CHIEF WATERS, while on-duty and in uniform, came in the room where PLAINTIFF was shredding the documents. He told her to keep shredding so no one could hear Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONthe conversation. He began lecturing her, as he had done on previous occasions. He lectured her about her lack of confidence and suggested that she wear dresses and high heels. He said it would help her self-esteem and instill confidence in her as a woman. He told PLAINTIFF, “If you don’t do it for you, do it for me.” CHIEF WATERS also said, she should look good in underwear; stating, if you look good, you will feel so much better. He went on to say to PLAINTIFF that she should wear the undergarments in front of him to build her confidence. PLAINTIFF recalls responding to CHIEF WATERS’ request that she wear the undergarments in front of him with the question, “what about Annie?” (Annie is the name of CHIEF WATERS?’ wife.) PLAINTIFF was shocked and offended by the above comments and suggestions made by CHIEF WATERS. The entire incident caused PLAINTFF to become sick to her stomach. k. On several occasions following the above referenced conversation, CHIEF WATERS continued to tell PLAINTIFF to wear dresses and high heels to work, which PLAINTIFF believes was solely to make her more attractive to him. She refused his continued requests, due to both her physical injuries and to the inappropriateness of his requests. 1. In addition to the comments described above, CHIEF WATERS brought up intimate details about PLAINTIFF’s past relationships with men. He told the PLAINTIFF that she should only date men who are African American. He continuously asked her about her past relationships in regards to the race/ethnicity of those men. He went on to tell her that Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONshe should go to church. He further suggested that she read a ritual to boost her confidence. Given the fact that this conduct occurred while the PLAINTIFF and CHIEF WATERS were in uniform, and they both were on duty, PLAINTIFF felt that it could be deemed insubordination for her to just walk away from CHIEF WATERS, so she endured his interrogations and lectures. m. Subsequent to PLAINTIFF’s refusal to acquiesce to his suggestions, including his requests that she wear dresses, high heels, and sexy underwear in front of him, and while PLAINTIFF was still assigned to Field Services Unit under CHIEF WATERS’ supervision, he began to treat her poorly in the presence of other people at work. He was mean and strict with her, contrary to the way he treated the other employees. He would tell her that she was going to get fired, or that she was going to go back to the jails to work. He told her that she was going to roll her chair into the pods and work. Meaning she would lose her permanent position as a court bailiff, and be reassigned to work in the jails. n. Based on PLAINTIFF’s experience and information and belief, due to the rank structure of the Sheriff’s Department, it is highly unusual for a Chief Deputy, such as CHIEF WATERS, to directly supervise a line deputy sheriff, such as the PLAINTIFF. Between the ranks of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff, there are four other ranks: Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant and Senior Deputy Pursuant to Sheriff's Department Policy, the normal practice would have been for CHIEF WATERS to utilized the chain of command, rather than having direct contact with the PLAINTIFF. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION0. Based on all the foregoing, PLAINTIFF began to question whether CHIEF WATERS was manipulating her or guiding her. She ultimately came to realize that CHIEF WATERS had depraved ulterior motives. However, she was aware that CHIEF WATERS was the fourth in command of the entire Sheriff's Department, and that he wielded great power; consequently, she was frightened over the consequences of challenging him or reporting him. p. On or about April 5, 2013, PLAINTIFF came to work in a velour sweat suit and casual shoes. CHIEF WATERS admonished her for not wearing a dress and high heel, but did not similarly admonish a male lieutenant who was dressed in casual wear. PLAINTIFF informed CHIEF WATERS that she could not wear high heels because of her medical condition. q. Six days later, on or about April 11, 2013, CHIEF WATERS and CAPTAIN MARTY IDETA (“IDETA”) informed the PLAINTIFF that she would be reassigned to the Civil Unit at City Hall effective April 15, 2013, a unit that remains under the overall supervision of CHIEF WATERS. Contrary to common practice, the Department did not ask/or provide the PLAINTIFF with a choice of assignment based on her significant seniority of 14 years. PLAINTIFF was only told that the SFSD was short staffed with regard to deputy sheriffs in the civil courts. r. The above reassignment placed PLAINTIFF under the supervision of LIEUTENANT JOHN GARCIA (“GARCIA” or “LT. GARCIA”). LT. GARCIA, while on- Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONduty and in uniform, joked about CHIEF WATERS "smashing” PLAINTIFF. (PLAINTIFF has heard the term “smashing” used to describe having sex with someone; and, she has heard the word used to indicate the physical smashing of someone.) LT. GARCIA treated PLAINTIFF harshly, and was dismissive toward her during the entire time that he supervised her. PLAINTIFF was assigned under LT, GARCIA’s supervision from April 15, 2013 until July 2015. Ss. Although PLAINTIFF was allegedly sent to the Civic Center Court house due to a shortage of sheriff deputies there, PLAINTIFP’s initial assignment, pursuant to the order of LT. GARCIA, was to assist the file clerks who worked in civil court house as opposed to working with members of the sworn sheriff staff. She performed clerk tasks, which included clerical duties such as filing, along with other paper work. Consequently, PLAINTIFF was not performing any deputy sheriff duties, during this time. In fact, she was often supervised by civil clerks as authorization by LT. GARCIA. t. On May 31, 2013, after much reflection and turmoil regarding CHIEF WATERS conduct toward her, combined with the hostility and harassment she was suffering at the hand of LT. GARCIA, and those whom he authorized to supervise her, PLAINTIFF reported the foregoing described conduct by CHIEF WATERS, to ASSISTANT SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO (“SHERIFF MIYAMOTO”). u. In light of PLAINTIFF’s complaint regarding CHIEF WATER’s conduct described above, she was referred to the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”). The EAP Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION MAprovides free, voluntary, and confidential direct counseling services to City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”), Superior Count employees, their family members, and significant others. PLAINTIFF recalls meeting with Jean Miranda and/or possibly someone else at the EPA, on at least two occasions, in relation to her complaint against CHIEF WATERS (she is unclear, at this time of the identity of the other person.) v. Based on information and belief, on or about June 4, 2013, the EPA referred the PLAINTIFF to the Department of Human Resources Equal Employment Opportunities Division (‘7DHR EEO”.) Accordingly, PLAINTIFF called Janie White, Senior Specialist Equal Employment Programs. This resulted in Magaly Fernandez, Senior Specialist EEO Programs being assigned to investigate PLAINTIFF’s sexual/gender harassment complaint. w. Further, on or about June 5, 2013, SHERIFF MIYAMOTO forwarded PLAINTIFF’s complaint to the Department of Human Resources’ (“DHR”) Equal Employment Opportunity Division (“EEO”). x. At about the time of the commencement of the DHR/EEO investigation, Sheriff Department employees, who were under CHIEF WATERS’ supervision and/or control, or who were authorized to supervise the PLAINTIFF by those under CHIEF WATERS’ supervision and/or control, began treating PLAINTIFF badly. In addition to other ways (some of which are described above,) PLAINTIFF was subjected to malicious gossip behind her back, she was informed of this malicious gossip by a co-workers, clerk in the civil courts; she Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION 13was treated with disrespect and hostility by her supervisors and co-worker, a clerk in civil courts; she was referred to as a “Ho” by clerk, co-workers in the civil courts, and, she was subjected to a verbal insinuation by a supervisor clerk in the civil courts that she had a foul smell. y. Approximately a year after PLAINTIFF’s complaint to DHR/EEO, in a letter dated April 8, 2014, DHR made the following findings: “The investigation established that you were subjected to physical and verbal conduct on account of your sex (female) when Chief Waters hugged you and made sexually suggestive comments about your attire. Witness testimony confirmed that Chief Waters' unwelcome and offensive conduct occurred throughout your assignment at FSSD. Furthermore, the investigative findings are sufficient to show that you found this conduct extremely offensive and were distressed.” “The investigative findings did not support your allegation that you were reassigned from FSSD to the Civil Unit because of your refusal to wear dresses and heels to work as Chief Waters requested.” “The investigation established that Chief Waters admonished you for wearing casual attire and asked you to wear dresses and high heels to work. Chief Waters’ request that you wear dresses and heels was sexual in nature because he did not require men to dress in any specific attire. You found Chief Waters’ request unwelcome and refused to wear a dress and heels. However, the investigation did not substantiate that Chief Waters’ request was a condition of your continued assignment at FSSD- Rather, Chief Waters and two witnesses testified that you and a male Lieutenant were transferred to the Civil Unit due to staff shortages. It was also established that during your initial contact with DHR EEO, you told Janie White, then EEO Programs Senior Specialist, that you had been reassigned to City Hall in April 2013 because there was not much work at FSSD.” Z. At the time that PLAINTIFF was assigned to the Civil Unit of the Field & Support Services Division, she received a written notice stating: “As a reminder, during your detail assignment you are to dress in business attire and you will not be permitted to carry a Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION rtfirearm, on or off duty, or respond to any incidents.” However, on or about June 17, 2014, less than two months after the above referenced DHR findings, and despite the above notice dated April 11, 2013, and while still under the supervision of LT GARCIA, PLAINTIFF was assigned to attend Defensive Tactics Training. Further, PLAINTIFF’s criminal case was still pending at that time, which also prevented her from carrying a gun and participating in and/or responding to any incidents. aa. The Defensive Tactics Training consisted of classroom and physical control techniques. PLAINTIFF was partnered up with another deputy sheriff to practice various control holds, handcuffing techniques, searching techniques, and physical takedowns. At the end of the instructions, the group were tested by performing the foregoing techniques on one another. For the first time during PLAINTIFF’s 14 plus years in the SFSD, the testing of the physical component, including the take-downs, was graded on a pass-fail basis—to fail this exercise meant you failed the entire training. PLAINTIFF had participated in and completed the physical component wherein she was required to take down another deputy sheriff; she, therefore, felt she had completed the testing. Nonetheless. she was directed to further participate in the testing by being taken down by another deputy sheriff. PLAINTIFF was concerned about being reinjured if she was taken down; consequently, she notified Sergeant Pineda, the sergeant in charge, that she had a previous back injury. Sgt. Pineda responded if you are on full duty, you will be treated as such, or words to that effect. She was Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONtherefore required to allow another deputy to take her down. That evening, and during the days that followed, PLAINTIFF suffered from pain, which grew progressively worse. bb. At no time subsequent to PLAINTIFF’s return to full duty in November 2012, while she worked under the supervision of CHIEF WATERS, nor prior to the above described training on June 17, 2014, had PLAINTIFF been required to participate in defensive training. ec, Further, PLAINTIFF is aware that others who have returned to full duty after an injury are afforded some accommodations, during initial training exercises. Based on information and belief there is a SFSD Memo to the effect that training staff should not go too hard during training, in order to prevent injuries or the recurrence of injuries. dd. Between late June 2014, and early July, 2014, PLAINTIFF wrote an incident report regarding the recurrence of her back injury, which happened during Defensive Tactic Training. PLAINTIFF asked LT. GARCIA to sign the report documenting the incident. LT. GARCIA initially refused to sign the report. He stated that the training department should sign the report. ec. At that point, PLAINTIFF informed LT. GARCIA that she was not filing a claim, that the report was just documentation of what happened. He then said okay, I thought you were trying to pull a fast one. ff. The June 17, 2014, injury that PLAINTIFF suffered in Defensive Tactic Training resulted in her doctor ordering her off work on separate occasions. However, Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION 1bPLAINTIFF’s worker’s compensation claims related thereto were denied by the Sheriff Department on all occasions. Ironically, although the SFSD denied PLAINTIFF’s workers’ compensation claim related to this recurring injury, the SFSD refused to allow PLAINTIFF to work during this time; citing to her doctor’s orders. gg. In an effort to promote her healing process, while staying financially secure, PLAINTIFF applied to use her sick leave, vacation leave, and any other personal leave time that she had available to her. Initially, the SFSD only allowed her to use sick leave. All other forms of leave were denied. hh. Based on the actions of the Sheriff's Department, describe above, PLAINTIFF filed a grievance with the Union of the SFSD, ii. Given PLAINTIFF’s recurrence of symptoms related to a 2010 injury in 2012, as described earlier, necessitating the use of sick leave, she had limited sick time available to her in 2014. Consequently, her sick leave was quickly exhausted. The fact that she was not initially allowed to use vacation and/or other personal leave time that she had accrued, meant that PLAINTIFF would have no income if she did not return to work, once her sick leave was exhausted—injured or not. Accordingly, she was forced to beg her workers’ compensation doctor to allow her to return to work fulltime. He ultimately did so, and PLAINTIFF returned to work although she was in severe pain. ii- In or around November 2014, PLAINTIFF’s off duty criminal incident, referenced earlier, was totally resolved with the action being dismissed. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green y. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONkk. Although all the criminal charges were dismissed for lack of evidence, PLAINTIFF was still issued a suspension order for 10 days by the Sheriff Department related to those dismissed charges. IL. In or around March 2015, due to working full duty, while injured, PLAINTIFF suffered a neck injury. Notwithstanding this, however, in order to survive financially, she continued to work while in pain and on medication. The pain continued and eventually became unbearable, forcing her to stop working. mm. PLAINTIFF’s neck injury resulted in a visit to her personal physician who ordered an MRI. The MRI showed a three-disc herniation. PLAINTIFF took the MRI result to her worker compensation physicians, who ordered her off work. The Sheriff's Department and/or other City agencies did not honor her doctor’s recommendation, and refused PLAINTIFF disability pay. nn. Around July 2015, while undergoing all the issues related to her disability, lack of pay, and lack of accommodations, her temporary detail assignment at the Civil Unit of the Sheriff's Department ended. PLAINTIFF received a letter from the personnel unit reassigning her back to the criminal courts’ division at the Hall of Justice (““HOJ”). She was instructed to contact LT. TILTON, who works under the supervision of CHIEF WATERS, for details of her reassignment back to her permanent assignment at the HOJ. PLAINTIFF called LT. TILTON, who immediately tried to reassign her back to the Civil Courts instead of the Criminal Courts. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION 1%oo. During the time and conduct described above, based on information and belief, the Hall of Justice Courts were severely understaffed. Accordingly, eight to nine bailiffs were required to work overtime on a daily basis. Moreover, during this time, the Hall of Justice Courts’ Unit, were in desperate need of “trained” experienced bailiffs, such as the PLAINTIFF. Based on her work experience and training, PLAINTIFF knew the procedures of conducting courtroom security for in-custody jury trials, whereas Civic Center Courthouse bailiffs do not require that expertise. Further, the normal procedure is that reassignments from the Hall of Justice Courts to the Civic Center Courthouse is based on a request for volunteers first, then on an involuntary draft based on seniority---the Plaintiff at this point in time, had approximately 15 years of experience as a deputy sheriff. Consequently, based on the department rules and procedures, she would normally have been one of the last deputies to get drafted for reassignment to the Civic Center Courthouse. pp. Further, PLAINTIFF had worked in the Criminal Courts since 2008. Her gun, uniforms and lockers had also been assigned there since 2008. Pursuant to the Sheriff Departments Satellite Policy, PLAINTIFF had permanent employment status at the Hall of Justice Courts (“HOS”) or (“Criminal Courts”). qq. Given the above, PLAINTIFF initiated Step 1 in the grievance process, pursuant to her Collective Bargaining Agreement, and informed LT. TILTON that such a reassignment to the Civil Courts would be a transfer against policy and past practices. Ultimately, LT. TILTON agreed to let PLAINTIFF return to the criminal courts due to her Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONthreat to put in a written grievance. However, he made it known that he did not like her. He did this by singling out PLAINTIFF in efforts to catch her doing something for which he could write her up. For instance, after PLAINTIFF’s return to the criminal courts and while working at the Hall of Justice Lobby Security, PLAINTIFF was using the restroom during an allowed rest period. Although LT. TILTON, who was on-duty and in uniform working overtime at a different facility, he contacted CADET AUNG, to find out the whereabouts of the PLAINTIFF. Based on information and belief, it is highly unusual for a supervisor, who is assigned to another facility, and who is supposed to be supervising his employees at that facility, to conduct checks on employees at another facility/unit. Ir. PLAINTIFF appealed the City’s earlier described refusal of workers’ compensation to the Workers Compensation Appeals Board. On or about December 15, 2015, The California Workers Compensation Appeals Board awarded a judgment in PLAINTIFF’s favor. Nonetheless, the Sheriff Department refused to honor the judgment. PLAINTIFF then filed another grievance that went all the way to the Under Sheriff. ss. Concurrently, with the grievance referenced in the above paragraph, on or about February 2, 2016, PLAINTIFF filed an Audit Referral with the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers Compensation. This 2016 filing of the Audit Referral finally resulted in PLAINTIFF getting the disability pay she had been denied in 2014 and 2015. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTIONtt. From on or around July 2015 through 2016, LT. TILTON, under the supervision of CHIEF WATERS, has facilitated and permitted hostility and harassment against PLAINTIFF. uu. Based on information and belief, on or around June 2016, LT. TILTON had SENIOR SARAH DEPUTY JAMES, who was a new supervisor at the HOJ Courts, write up PLAINTIFF for allegedly being discourteous to SENIOR DEPUTY JAMES over the phone. PLAINTIFF needed a supervisor to verify her employment with the Sheriff's Department for a rental company, which is common practice for a supervisor to do. However SENIOR DEPUTY JAMES told PLAINTIFF that she was not capable of confirming her employment, even though SENIOR DEPUTY JAMES had called the PLAINTIFF frequently to ask the PLAINTIFF if she could do her a favor and work overtime at County Jail # 2. Consequently, she was aware of PLAINTIFF’s employment in the Sheriff's Department. vv. PLAINTIFF has observed white male co-workers engage in inappropriate conduct in the presence of LT. TILTON, however, none of them were written up or reprimanded for their conduct. Among the many instances where other co-workers were treated differently than PLAINTIFF are the following: (1) in and about 2016, DEPUTY MIKAEL SVAHLIN, a white male, yelled and used profanity, and refused a direct order from LT. TILTON in Department 21 of the trial courts. LT. TILTON did not take any action. This incident was witnessed and spoken about by many deputies. (2) DEPUTY MICHAEL GLISSON yelled and refused to obey SENIOR DEPUTY AJAY SAXENA’S direct order, and Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION 2when the incident was brought to LT. TILTON, he dismissed it and did not take any action against DEPUTY GLISSON. This incident was witnessed and spoken about by many deputies; and, (3) Based on information and belief, with the knowledge of LT. TILTON, a White Male Deputy Sheriff, BRIAN SAVAGE was employed as a bartender, which is prohibited per Sheriff's Department Policy. This deputy, would show up to work smelling of alcohol, causing several complaints from clerks. However, LT. TILTON did not take any actions to address this policy violations, and/or this conduct. ww. Not only had LT. TILTON personally harassed and discriminated against PLAINTIFF, after and during her return to the HOJ Criminal Courts, he allowed coworkers to be rude and disrespectful to her. Further, other Co-workers, of whose identity Plaintiff is uncertain, destroyed her calendars, and demonstrated other disparaging treatment toward her. Similarly, the retaliation and harassment has been manifested through the denial of overtime during the years 2015 and 2016. During that time, PLAINTIFF continuously signed up for overtime at the HOJ Courts Services Unit and was continuously unfairly denied such overtime by CHIEF WATTERS, LT. TILTON, and SR. DEPUTY MICHAELBOROVINA. xx. Contrary to the manner in which PLAINTIFF has been treated, other employees have received the following treatment: CHIEF WATERS, in violation of Department Policy & Procedure, allowed other deputies to work more than 16 hours, among those deputies that Plaintiff can recall were: MICHAEL BOROVINA, REX YANGUAS, NICOLE SMITH, and SR. DEPUTY JAMES ARAGON. Thereby, PLAINTIFF did not get Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION 2athe opportunity to work the overtime although it was something she requested. According to SENIOR. DEPUTY BOROVINA, SENIOR DEPUTY ARAGON, and LT. TILTON, it was CHIEF WATERS’ order to make this special exemption to policy. Based on this conduct PLAINTIFF initiated Step | of the grievance process, pursuant to her Collective Bargaining Agreement. At that point the Department reverted back to disallowing the employees at the Hall of Justice Lobby Security to work more than 16 hours. yy. CHIEF WATERS has also hired people with less seniority and people from other divisions whom he has treated more favorably than PLAINTIFF, as related to her employment. Those deputies include SEAN LEE, and NICOLE SMITH. zz. LT. TILTON, while denying PLAINTIFF’s legitimate requests for overtime, allowed DEPUTY SMITH, who has less seniority than PLAINTIFF, to leave her court room assignment prior to the end of her shift. He then allowed DEPUTY SMITH to work security in the lobby on the swing shift, whereby she was able to earn overtime. aaa. On or about December 24, 2015, contrary to policy, and contrary to how PLAINTIFF was being treated, SR. DEPUTY BOROVINA went directly to DEPUTY SMITH, over the PLAINTIFF, to see if she wanted to work swing shift and she was detailed to the lobby by LT. TILTON for the day. This resulted in her getting overtime, while the PLAINTIFF’s request had been denied. bbb. PLAINTIFF contacted DEPUTY SMITH via text message, asking her how she got the overtime, as opposed to those who had signed up for overtime who had more Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION ppseniority than she had. DEPUTY SMITH told PLAINTIFF that SR. DEPUTY BOROVINA asked her to work the overtime. DEPUTY SMITH went on to tell PLAINTIFF that they would call her (meaning DEPUTY SMITH), and offer her the overtime, knowing others with more seniority than her were signed up for the overtime. ccc, PLAINTIFF further understands that LT. TILTON would give DEPUTY SMITH overtime hours under the guise of labeling it, "court project.” Contrary to Sheriff Department policy, the “court project” overtime was never posted for everyone to see and request. The “court project” overtime sometimes allowed DEPUTY SMITH to work the overtime hours from home, which is also against Sheriff Department policy. There was also a process of hiding overtime sign-ups and holidays sign-up sheets for the Hall of Justice Lobby security detail. SR. DEPUTY BOROVINA, who was in charge, would not post overtime and holiday overtime. Instead, he would assign whomever he chose to those details; PLAINTIFF was not among those he chose. ddd. PLAINTIFF is currently still on workers’ compensation disability, and under a doctor’s care. She has suffered and continue to suffer both physical and emotional distress. The Sheriff Department, to date, continues to reftise authorization of the surgery needed by PLAINTIFF due to injuries she received on the job. eee. PLAINTIFF submitted text messages, emails and/or other documents to DHR related to their investigation of her claims. Due to a change in phone subscription service, she is unable to retrieve most of this documentation. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION ayfff. As indicated from the DHR findings, that department investigated PLAINTIFF’s allegations regarding sexual harassment. As a part of that investigation it is believed, based on information, that several witnesses were interviewed, including CHIEF WATERS. ggg. Based on information and belief, the Sheriff Department conducted an internal investigation related to PLAINTIFF’s claims. hhh. Based on information and belief, a cadet, Kanesha Smith, made allegations of sexual harassment against CHIEF WATERS in or around 2009 and that based on those allegation, an investigation was conducted by either or both the Sheriff Department and/or DHR. iii. | Based on information and belief Lieutenant Donna Steppe, made allegations of sexual harassment against CHIEF WATERS in or around 2016-2017. It is believed that either or both the Sheriff Department and/DHR conducted investigations based on this claim. ji. In a letter dated July 15, 2016, to the Director of DHR, PLAINTIFF initiated a complaint regarding ongoing discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at the hand of CHIEF WATERS and/or his subordinates. kkk. Again, in a letter dated October 31, 2016, PLAINTIFF, again, formally complained of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation naming the SFSD, SHERIFF VICKI Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION arCo wn aD HENNESSY, CHIEF WATERS, LT. TILTON, SR. DEPUTY MICHAEL BOROVINA, and DEPUTY CLIVE CHU. {ll On or about November 3, 2016, PLAINTIFF sent an email to Investigator Magaly Fernandez with a copy of her complaint, described above. PLAINTIFF asked Investigator Fernandez to forward her complaint to her director. Investigator Magaly Fernandez responded that she had forwarded PLAINTIFF’s complaint to her supervisor, Svetlana Vaksberg. mmm. On December 1, 2016, PLAINTIFF sent Investigator Fernandez a follow- up email stating that she had not heard from DHR/EEO about her complaint. On that same date, Investigator Fernandez responded to PLAINTIFF’s email stating “We are in receipt of your complaint and it is under review. nnn. Ina letter dated December 28, 2016, Linda C. Simon, Director, EEO and Leave Programs, DHR, informed PLAINTIFF that her complaint had been assigned to Marvin Dunson III, EEO Programs Senior Specialist, DHR. The letter further stated that Mr. Dunson would be reviewing PLAINTIFF’s complaint to determine the timeliness of the complaint and jurisdictional issues; and that, after which, he would be contacted PLAINTIFF in writing or by telephone within in 10 days. ooo. Mr. Dunson, later informed PLAINTIFF that, pursuant to his review, her complaints were not timely under EEO/DHR guidelines. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green y. City and County of San Francisco, Et Al. DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION 26NY Du sf 19. I am informed and believe that Defendants, and the officers identified herein, have engaged in serious misconduct in violation of Plaintiffs rights. Therefore, the credibility of the officers is central to the determination of the causes of action asserted. A history of dishonesty and using improper tactics is relevant to impeach the officer and to establish conduct in conformity with a habit and custom to act outside the law. (See e.g., City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 624 (6th Dist. 1998), as modified, (Dec. 11, 1998).) 20. The materials identified herein are necessary for the proper preparation of this case for trial. The material may be used as follows: a, To locate and investigate witnesses or other evidence of the dishonest character of the officer(s) involved to show that the officer(s) acted in conformity with that character at the time of this incident; b. To locate and investigate witnesses or other evidence of discriminatory, harassing, and/or retaliatory character of the officer(s) involved to show that the officer(s) acted in conformity with that character at the time of this incident; c. To refresh the recollection of witnesses to incidents of discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation so that Plaintiff may accurately ascertain the facts and circumstances of those incidents; d. To properly prepare for cross-examination and impeachment of witnesses to be called by Defendants; e. To have the trier of fact properly assess the credibility of Defendants’ and Plaintiff's witnesses; and f. To impeach the testimony of the officers involved with acts showing a morally lax character and hence a readiness to lie; g. To corroborated the testimony of witnesses, including the Plaintiff. h. And for other reasons outlined in the Plaintiffs Noticed Motion which this declaration supports. Case No. CGC-17-560392, Green v. City and County of San Francisco, Et AL DECLARATION OF MURLENE J. RANDLEN ISO OF PITCHESS MOTION 27ocooU WN DH BR WN YN NY MY NY NY NY NY