Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Butte
Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law
CSB 276924
dimitre@mind.net 11/21/2019
PO Box 801 E
Ashland, OR 97520 D Ki ly El lerk
Telephone: 541-890-5022
Attorney for Plaintiff By Deputy
Electronically FILED
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE
TERESA RANDOLPH, an individual,
Plaintiff
10 vs.
Case No. 19CV01226
11
RUSSO THE CALIFORNIA
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN
12 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT
13 DEBRA LARSON ON THE PLEADINGS
14
15 Defendants
16 HEARING DATE: December 4, 2019
17
HEARING TIME: 9:00 AM
JUDGE: HONORABLE ROBERT
18 GLUSMAN
DEPT: 10
19 TRIAL DATE: NONE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
1 This is Plaintiff, Teresa Randolph’s Response to Defendants’ Demurrer. Defendant has
not demurred against Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or tenth claims.
Defendant demurrers to only Plaintiff's eighty, ninth, eleventh and twelfth claims.
Note that this filing is two days late because it was electronically filed by Plaintiff's counsel, but
for some reason it did not get into the system. Plaintiff's counsel only realized that the Response
had not been submitted when he received Defendants’ Reply today.
Per California Rules of Court 3.1300(d), no paper may be rejected for filing because it
was not timely submitted for filing.
10
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel believed that the response had been filed.... until he received
11
Defendants’ Reply today.
12
13 Good cause exists for accepting Plaintiff's Response. In addition, there is no prejudice to
14 Defendants because the hearing is not scheduled until December 4, giving Defendants eleven
15
days to file their Reply.
16
The Court should find good cause because the Response was inadvertently not filed
17
(Plaintiff's counsel thought that it was filed).
18
19
In addition, a Reply cannot be filed until after a Response is filed, so the Court should
20 strike Defendants’ Reply.
21
Plaintiff therefore requests the Court to allow this filing that is two days late and does not
22
prejudice Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
8"" cause of action - Wrongful Termination/Constructive Discharge/Retaliation in
Violation of a Statute
The Court should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on this Claim
The Court granted Plaintiff's request for leave to amend on this issue because the Court
believed that there is a Wrongful termination/constructive discharge claim in violation of statute
that can be brought against a public entity.
In the SAC, Plaintiff
has added a statutory claim.
A public employee cannot assert a wrongful termination/constructive discharge based on
a public policy action against a public employer.
10
“The Legislative Committee Comment to section 815 states: "This section abolishes all
11 common law or judicially declared forms of liability for public entities, except for such
liability as may be required by the state or federal constitution, e.g., inverse
12
condemnation. ..." (Legis. Com. com., 32 West's Ann. Gov.Code (1995), foll. § 815, p.
13 167, italics added.) Moreover, our own decisions confirm that section 815 abolishes
common law tort liability for public entities.”
14 See Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175 1179, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d
552, 80 P.3d 656; Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1127-1128, 119
15
Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171, cited in Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of California, 188 P.3d 629,
16 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 690, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal., 2008).
17 A Tameny “ cause of action' is a common law, judicially created tort.” Miklosy v.
18
Regents of Univ. Of California, 188 P.3d 629, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 690, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal., 2008).
19
Section 815 abolishes all common law forms of liability for public entities (with some
20
exceptions), “except for such liability as may be required by the state or federal constitution.”
21
22
Section 815.
23 Therefore, a public employee may only state a wrongful termination/constructive
24
discharge based on a statutory violation, claim against a public entity.
25
In her SAC, Plaintiff now states that this claim rests on a violation of Labor Code 1102.5
26
and California Government Code 12940 — the anti harassment, anti discrimination and anti
27
retaliation provision of the CGC.
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
Based on the above, Plaintiff has properly alleged a wrongful termination/constructive
discharge/retaliation claim based on a statute.
The Court should DENY Defendants’ demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, the Court
should give Plaintiff leave to amend.
9" Cause of Action — Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The Court should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on This Claim
Defendant’s already made a demurrer for this claim and the Court granted leave to
amend. Plaintiff added more allegations in paragraphs 50, 80, and especially 90 of the SAC that
10
easily met the requirements of this claim.
11
Defendant claims that Plaintiff cannot make a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional
12
13 Distress (“ITED”) because the egregious actions taken by Defendant against her do not rise to the
14 level of ITED.
15
IIED is characterized by:
16
“(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of
17 causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2)
the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and
18
proximate causation ofthe emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct...."
19
Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually
tolerated in a civilized community. on
20 Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181 (
Christensen ) cited in Light v. Cal. Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 14
21
Cal.App.5th 75 (Cal. App., 2017)
22
23 There are numerous California cases that support a claim of I[ED for Plaintiff Randolph.
24
First, the Supreme Court has stated, with respect to the tort of intentional infliction of
25
emotional distress, "plaintiff's status as an employee should entitle him to a greater degree of
26
protection from insult and outrage than if he were a stranger to defendants. Alcorn v. Anbro
27
Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499, fn. 2.) cited in Felix v. Fernandez (Cal. App., 2016)
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
Randolph was an employee of the CSU Chico for over 20 years. She had great
evaluations. She was a great employee. Alcorn applies here.
Second, in Light, a case on summary judgment, the Defendant had ostracized Light in the
workplace, encouraged Light to lie to investigators, pursued Light at home and in the office to
determine whether Light did so, and verbally and physically attacked Light after Light
disobeyed. The trier of fact could conclude this conduct was extreme and outrageous (especially
in light of Seals's supervisory position), taken for purposes of retaliation prohibited by FEHA,
and intended to cause Light emotional distress. Triable issues of fact therefore preclude summary
10
adjudication of this claim as to Seals. See Aguilar, supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 850, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d
11
841, 24 P.3d 493.) Light v. Cal. Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 14
12
13 Cal.App.sth 75 (Cal. App., 2017).
14 Third, in Rulon-Miller, the plaintiff
was a salesperson working for IBM in San Francisco.
15
At some point, she met and began dating a fellow employee. The employee later left IBM to join
16
another company and was transferred out of San Francisco. A year later he returned and once
17
again began dating the plaintiff.
18
19
IBM management officials were aware that the plaintiff was dating the former IBM
20 employee but IBM had a policy of not interfering in its employee's private affairs. Despite this
21
policy, the plaintiff's manager told her to stop dating the former employee since it constituted a"
22
‘conflict of interest.’ " He then gave the plaintiff some time to think about the matter. The next
23
day, the manager spoke to the plaintiff again, told her that " 'he had made up her mind for her, um
24
25
and dismissed her. Rulon-Miller v. International Business Machines Corp., supra, 162
26 Cal.App.3d at pp. 244-246, 208 Cal.Rptr. 524.)
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
A jury awarded the plaintiff damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the
appellate court affirmed the award. In holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of
extreme and outrageous conduct the court noted, "The combination of statements and conduct
would under any reasoned view tend to humiliate and degrade [the plaintiff.] Ru/on-Miller,
supra, at p. 255, 208 Cal.Rptr. 524.) Trerice v. Blue Cross of California, 209 Cal.App.3d 878,
257 Cal. Rptr. 338 (Cal. App., 1989)
Here, we are not even to summary judgment or trial. All Plaintiff
has to do is make
proper allegations of ITED. Plaintiff
has done so as shown in the above three cases.
10
Here, Plaintiff Randolph had eight months of absolute hell - humiliation and degradation
11
piled on top of more humiliation and degradation - by her supervisor and numerous other CSU
12
13 Chico managers, supervisors and HR itself. They conspired to force her out of her, humiliate her,
14 defame her and make it so that she could never return to her job. Unfortunately, this calculated
15
behavior succeeded and Ms. Randolph lost her job, the benefits that were attached to it, and her
16
full retirement.
17
Randolph was subjected by Defendants, in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her job,
18
19
worked diligently to create such emotional distress in her, that she would eventually quit her job.
20 That is exactly what Plaintiff was forced to do. Defendants willfully defamed her, willfully
21
refused to abide by reasonable accommodations already approved, willfully refused to meet in
22
the required interactive process, willfully refused to continue her reasonable accommodations,
23
willfully refused to engage in the interactive process or provide new reasonable
24
25
accommodations, willfully harassed her by communicating with her at 4 am (even after Plaintiff
26 and her physician had limited her work to eight hours per day), willfully lied when it told the
27 campus that Plaintiff was responsible for the shutdown of the conference website (basically
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
shutting down the conference itself), willfully changing her job duties without going through the
proper procedure thereby making it impossible for her to perform her job duties, intentionally
left her out of meetings that were part of her job description and duties, willfully damaged her
personal and professional reputations so that it would be impossible for Plaintiffto work there or
to return to work, willfully distributed information regarding her health and medical condition to
unauthorized campus recipients, willfully required her to work long hours - well over and above
the restrictions placed on her by her physician, willfully trumped up charges against her,
willfully attempted to interview her regarding trumped up allegations of malfeasance while she
10
was out on physician ordered sick leave, and then willfully proposed that she be terminated from
11
her job while Defendants (including Larson) made knowingly false charges and allegations
12
13 against Plaintiff. Para. 90 of SAC.
14 Plaintiff
had worked for CSU Chico for 22 years, and had always done an excellent job.
15
Defendants’ actions against Plaintiff were so outrageous and extreme that it forced her physician
16
to take her off of work. Even then, CSU Chico continued to harass her by demanding that she
17
come in for an investigatory interview (even after her physician had taken her off of work due to
18
19
work related stress), and then trumped up and presented her with a proposed disciplinary letter,
20 to ensure that she would never be able to return to work. Their ploy was successful, as Plaintiffs
21
physician then recommended that she never return to CSU Chico, due to the damaging, ongoing,
22
increasing stress and anxiety that their intentional actions were creating. Para 71-79 of SAC.
23
Defendant had a higher duty to protect Plaintiff from intentional infliction of emotional
24
25
distress. Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499, fn. 2.) cited in Felix v.
26 Fernandez (Cal. App., 2016), and Defendant failed this responsibility.
27
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
Yet, instead, Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct towards the Plaintiff
was with
the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress.
Defendant’s conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it caused Plaintiffs physician to highly
recommend that she not continue working at CSU Chico. The calculated and intentional acts
stated above, taken together, easily meet the requirements of an ITED claim.
The Court should DENY Defendant’s demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, if the Court
does not believe that Plaintiff has properly alleged this claim, she asked for leave to amend.
10
11" Cause of Action - Defamation
11 The Court Should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on this claim
12
13 Here, Defendants’ now claim that Plaintiff
did not adequately notify them of her
14 defamation claim in her tort claim notice. They did not make this claim previously, in their first
15
demurrer.
16
Plaintiff
did notify Defendant of her defamation claim — or, she made substantial
17
compliance — about her defamation claim.
18
19
Plaintiff listed “humiliation” as a claim under #15 of the Tort Claim Notice. In addition,
20 she listed “public humiliation” as a claim on the same form under #17. Exhibit 1.
21
In addition, in the narrative of the Tort Claim Notice, Plaintiff stated the following:
22
“,.. she (Supervisor Daley) continually worked to diminish and disrespect my role
23 as staff lead of the conference by going behind my back to managers and other campus
members to work in conflict with what the students and I had planned, disregarding
24
choices for keynote speakers, films, and scheduling layout, and contacting potential
25
keynotes without consulting with the Executive Team or me as the conference lead,
making the planning team and I look inefficient, creating confusion and chaos, and
26 causing the appearance of dysfunction...”
27
This caused even more stress, chaos and frustration, followed by her telling:
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
“several faculty on the interview panel that I had made these mistakes in an
attempt to make me look inefficient to not only the interview panel, but to the
applicants as well.”
This language complies with the Tort Notice requirements, and fairly gave Defendants
notice that Plaintiff intended to sue them for defamation.
In addition, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing included the following
language in its letter to the CSU, and eventually issued a right to sue letter to Randolph.
10 “T have now been accused of insubordination, dishonesty, and other false allegations
during my medical leave in further attempts to sabotage my name, reputation, and force
11 me to quit.”
Exhibit 2.
12
13 Plaintiff
has complied with the Tort Claims Act by notifying Defendant in her Tort Claim
14 Notice that Defendant “. . .has now been accused of insubordination, dishonesty, and other false
15
allegations during my medical leave in further attempts to sabotage my name, reputation, and
16
force me to quit.” Ex. 2. She also stated this in sections 15 and 17 of the Tort Notice. This is
17
clearly the crux of her defamation claim.
18
19
In addition, Plaintiff has also substantially complied with the Tort Claim Act:
20 “Under (the substantially complied) test, the court must ask whether sufficient
information is disclosed on the face of the filed claim "to reasonably enable the public
21
entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it
22
without the expense of a lawsuit."
City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 456, 115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701.)
23 Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576
(Cal. App., 1983)
24
25
Here, clearly, Plaintiff provided Defendant with more than enough information to comply
26
with the Tort Claims Act in her Tort Claim Notice, or, alternatively, to substantially comply with
27
the Tort Claims Act by virtue of her DFEH filing and notice to Defendant.
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER
1 The Court should DENY Defendants’ request for demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, if
the Court does not believe that Plaintiff has properly alleged this claim, she asks for leave to
amend.
12" Claim — Invasion of Privacy
The Court Should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on this Claim
Plaintiff substantially complied with the Tort Claims Act when the Defendants were
notified by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing of her discrimination claim. As
10
part of her discrimination claim, and the letter sent to the CSU Chico, Plaintiff stated:
11
“My medical appointments were discussed in public forums and private meetings.”
12
13 Exhibit 2.
14
Plaintiff
has substantially complied with the Tort Claims Act by notifying the Defendant
15
16 about her potential privacy claim in her DFEH right to sue and letter to the Defendants.
17 The Court should DENY Defendants’ demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, if the Court
18
does not believe that Plaintiff has properly alleged this claim, she requests leave to amend.
19
20
Respectfully submitted,
21
22
Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law LLC
23 By: /s/ Thomas Dimitre
24
Thomas Dimitre
25
Attorney for Plaintiff
Teresa Randolph
26
27 Dated: November 18, 2019 (resubmitted on November 21, 2019.
28
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER 10
Thomas Dimitre SBN 276924
Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law LLC
PO Box 801
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541 890 5022
Fax: 541 488 4601
Email: dimitre@mind.net
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
11
TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226
12
13 Plaintiff
SWORN DECLARATION OF THOMAS
14 and DIMITRE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE
15 IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
SECOND PARTIAL DEMURRER
16 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF
17 CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND
DEBRA LARSON
18
19 Defendants
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 1 lam the Plaintiff's attorney in this case.
I, Thomas Dimitre, resident and am employed in Oregon, declare and state as follows:
2. lam personally aware of all of the facts, and am competent to testify about each fact as
set forth in this declaration. All of my statements are based on my personal knowledge.
Iam competent to testify to these facts.
Exhibit | is a true and correct copy of the Tort Claim Notice filed by Plaintiff
and sent
to the Defendant, and is attached hereto.
Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the DFEH Notice of Right to Sue and Letter to
the CSU, and is attached hereto.
10
11
I believed that I had filed the Response electronically on 11/18, but found that it had
12
not been filed. Somehow I did not push the right button. Defendant is not prejudiced by
13
this short delay. Plaintiff's counsel was acting in good faith.
14
15 I swear, under the penalty of perjury, under the laws ofthe State of California, that
16
the foregoing is true and correct.
17
18
19 s/s Thomas Dimitre Date: November 18, 2019
20
Thomas Dimitre
21 Attorney for Plaintiff
Teresa Randolph
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law
CSB 276924
dimitre@mind.net
PO Box 801
Ashland, OR 97520
Telephone: 541-890-5022
Attorney for Plaintiff
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE
TERESA RANDOLPH, an individual,
Plaintiff
10 vs.
Case No. 19CV01226
11
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT 1
12 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND
13 DEBRA LARSON
14
15 Defendants
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
en
ra |] The California State University
RISK MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY
The California State University / Office of the Chancellor / Risk Management and
401 Golden Shore, 5th Floor / Long Beach, CA 90802-4210 OFFIC € E fety,
OF
(562) 951-4580 / www.calstate.edu/risk_management/claims
WARTS 209
CSU Claim Form
Js your claim complete? RISK MANAGEMENT
Include a check or money order for $25 payable to “Trustees of the CSU.”
Complete all sections relating to this claim and sign the form. Please print or type all information.
Attach receipts, bills, estimates or other documents that back up your claim.
Claimant Information
1 Randolph, Teresa A. 2 Tel: (530) 520-6717
Last Name First Name Mi 3 Email: |randolph.teri@gmail.com
4 1424 Heather Circle [chico CA 195926
Mailing Address City State Zip
5 Best time and way to reach you: M-F, 8-5
6 ls the claimant under 18? Ol Yes & No If YES, give date of birth:
Attorney or Representative Information MM DD YYYY
7 Dimitre, Thomas 8 Tel: (541) 890-5022
Last Name First Name MI 9 Email: |dimitre@mind.net
10 P.O. Box 801 Ashland OR 197520
Mailing Address City State Zip
11 Relationship to claimant: |Representing Attorney
Claim Information
12 Is your claim for a stale-dated warrant (uncashed check)?} O1| Yes | No
CSU campus that issued the warrant: If NO, continue to Step 13.
Dollar amount of warrant: Date of issue:
Proceed to Step 23 MM DD YYYY
13 Date of Incident: |March 11, 2019
Was the incident more than six months ago? O Yes & No
if YES, did you attach a separate sheet with an explanation for the late filing? OO Yes OO No
14 CSU campus or CSU employees against whom this claim is filed:|CSU Chico
CSU, Chico AND The Trustees of The California State University
18 Dollar amount of claim:
If the amount is more than $10.000, indicate the Oo Limited civil case ($25,000 or less)
type of civil case: Non-limited civil case (over $25,000)
Explain how you calculated the amount:
Dollar Amount of Claim - $250,000 explained with multiple losses to me personally: 10+yrs loss of job/wages, loss of|
benefits, infliction of physical pain and mental stress, discrimination, humiliation, shortened retirement plan estimates,
16 Location of the incident:
CSU, Chico campus
17 “| Describe the specific damage or injury:
Intentional and negligent infliction of physical and emotional distress, loss of job, loss of wages, loss of retirement!
learnings, and public humiliation.
18 Explain the circumstances that led to the damage or injury:
See Claim Form Attachment.
19 Explain why you believe the CSU is responsible for the damage or injury:
Despite repeated attempts to engage in the interactive process and be accommodated for my disability, and despite the
ICSU Chico's ADA and Reasonable Accommodation Policy, the University has failed to afford me my rights under the law.
The CSU continues to ignore my work restrictions and my requests for intervention and accommodation.
20 Does the claim involve a campus vehicle? O Yes ) No
if YES, provide the vehicle license number, if known:
Auto Insurance Information
24
Name of Insurance Carrier
Mailing Address City State Zip
Policy Number: Tel:
Are you the registered owner of the vehicle? O Yes O No
If NO, state name of owner:
Has a claim been filed with your insurance carrier, or will it be filed? O] Yes O No
Have you received any payment for this damage or injury? OO Yes O Ne
lf yes, what amount did you receive?
Amount of deductible, if any:
Claimant’s Driver's License Number Vehicle License Number;
Make of Vehicle: Model: Year:
Vehicle ID Number;
For Bodily Injury Claims Only (Pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act):
22 if a claim for bodily injury is being made:
Date of Birth: Social Security #:
MM__DD__YYYY
Notice and Signature
23 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all the information | have
provided is true and correct to the best of my information and belief. § further understand that if | have
provided information that is false, intentionally incomplete, or misleading | may be charged with a crime
punishablg by up to one yaar in state prison and/or a fine up to $10,000 (Penal Code section 72).
3/11/19
Signature of Claimant or Representative Date
Mail the original completed form and all attachments with the $25 filing fee or the “CSU Affidavit for
Waiver of Filing Fee" request to: CSU Office of the Chancellor, Risk Management & Public Safety, 401
Golden Shore, 5th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4210. Keep a copy for your records.
Claim Form Attachment
#18.
| was constructively discharged on March 11, 2019 because the CSU Chico continued
its failure to accommodate my disability or engage in the interactive process, despite
numerous requests to do so, and their knowledge that | was disabled and in need of an
accommodation.
Following continuing medical treatments due to a work-related injury on September 27,
2007, | provided the CSU with medical status updates continually from my doctor, which
included on March 30, 2015 specific accommodations to reduce my work-related stress.
Subsequently, on November 9, 2015 my doctor required additional accommodations to
include working no more than 8 hours per day. Since that time, these accommodations
that were agreed to were not implemented, and requests for reimplementation of the
accommodations and new accommodations were not implemented, and although I’d
made multiple requests to resolve these concerns, no interactive process has occurred.
In addition, the CSU has failed to accommodate my most recent disability, beginning in
December 2018.
Despite my escalating health concerns, | was further stressed with two reorganizations
of my position within two months (August and September, 2018), two relocations of my
physical office in less than 9 months (May 2018 and January 2019), on more than a half
dozen occasions since September 2018 | had requested the University recognize and
implement all accommodations set forth by my doctor. Additionally, on numerous
occasions | asked the University to initiate an interactive process and asked for
accommodation. The people that | asked are: President Gayle Hutchinson; Provost
Debra Larson; Daniel Grassian, Vice Provost for Academic Programs, John Unruh,
Dean, College of Agriculture, Dylan Saake, Director of Labor Relations and
Compliance/Title IX Coordinator/DHR Administrator, and my direct supervisor Director
Cynthia Daley. No action was ever initiated, no interactive process was ever held, no
reasonable accommodation was ever provided, no response given other than to directly
deny my requests, and concerns | brought forth continued to be ignored and
disregarded as though not important and not required of them to address.
During this time, the CSU, Chico continued to try and undermine my work and force me
to quit. Some of these examples are:
e | was given new and additional duties not pertaining to the sustainability conference
(Regenerative Ag Initiative tasks), which was already full load for September — April
each year with no prior consultation with me on my existing workload, with no interest of
how this would impact my medical restrictions and workload, causing increased stress
of being late in getting the conference started because I'd already been told there would
not be a 2019 conference.
e Cynthia began by requiring me to participate in meetings starting at 7:00 am, texting
my private phone as early as 4:00 am and as late as 7:00 pm, forcing me to participate
in meetings during lunch hours, or starting at 7:00 am, with non-emergency, non-
essential orders, violating my physician's orders, which were known to Cynthia.
e Cynthia Daley worked to undermine my work and function, intentionally sabotaging
my duties and my reputation by excluding me from crucial meetings and details
pertaining to my assigned tasks so as to cause me to appear unknowledgeable or
incompetent.
. Cinthia Daley continued to refuse to meet with me on budget related matters and
then would ask why | hadn't prepared an updated budget report for her to submit to the
Provost in attempts to sabotage my reputation by putting blame on me for her
shortcomings.
e Cynthia Daley violated the RFP process for consultant services, specifically those of
Tim LaSalle, which | reported to her dean John Unruh, which was part of the reasoning
behind her retaliation against me. She was in the process of initiating another consultant
agreement for a consultant, Melina Watts, to work from her home (Cynthia's home),
which I also reported to her dean John Unruh.
. Cynthia Daley continued to refuse to meet with me to discuss the Journal of
Regenerative Agriculture and details |! needed clarification on in setting it up, which
she'd asked me to create and launch as a top priority because a grant was depending
on it, which | worked tirelessly and excessively to do in just two short months, having no
idea how to do it, who to ask, standards to use, details and instructions for authors and
reviewers, and identification of editorial board members and their roles, and more. This
function typically would lie within the Librarian Classification.
° Cynthia Daley continued undermining meetings and planning progress for This Way
to Sustainability Conference, continued to disregard and minimize the students’ role in
the conference, going against their advice and input as organizers and a primary
funding source, disregarding and disrespecting all of us because she said she didn't feel
“in control” and saying she wasn’t being copied on emails or being given updates when
she continually was, and although the Executive Planning Team kept advising against
her insistence to make it a regenerative ag conference; she continually worked to
diminish and disrespect my role as staff lead of the conference by going behind my
back to managers and other campus members to work in conflict with what the students
and | had planned, disregarding choices for keynote speakers, films, and scheduling
layout, and contacting potential keynotes without consulting with the Executive Team or
me as the conference lead, making the planning team and | look inefficient, creating
confusion and chaos, and causing the appearance of disfunction, promising
unconfirmed speakers that she'd get them in, this and more inhibited my ability to
perform the duties, and those of my position description by removing the sustainability
web site without discussion and demanding | hand over all access to passwords and
everything related to it without justification, and as retaliation for me meeting with her
dean to report the situation and ongoing harassment by Cynthia.
e Cynthia Daley assigned me the task of completing the recruitment process for
several new non-state positions, and arrange interviews for several positions she'd had
me post. Intentionally after I'd scheduled the interviews with the full interview panel and
applicants, Cynthia tells me she doesn’t use Exchange campus email and that I'd need
to reschedule all of them, and instead stari using doodle polls. | ended up having to take
time out and record each one of the interviews because she refused to give me dates
and times she could attend in person. This caused even more stress, chaos and
frustration, followed by her telling several faculty on the interview panel that | had made
these mistakes in an attempt to make me look inefficient to not only the interview panel,
but to the applicants as well.
e Cynthia Daley was using her former student Taylor Herren as an assistant (who not
only didn’t even live in Chico, was not from what | could tell a current employee, and
was employed elsewhere, Kiss the Ground). Cynthia had her in charge of coordination
of campus and events and activities being hosted by RAI, and began copying her on
emails and communications relating to my job duties. | brought it to Cynthia's attention
that she had fost some of the recordings of guest speakers hosted previous to my
involvement, and that these recordings were never put on the ISD website because I'd
never received them. Cynthia accused me of losing some of the recordings (Richard
Teague’s for one), making me a scapegoat for Taylor’s lack of knowledge and follow-up
on getting these recordings both ADA compliant and posted the website. | had to find
the recordings, get the ADA compliance process completed, and load them to the
website. This caused a lot of added stress, time, chaos, and frustration for me, as well
as IMC and RCE staff.
° Cynthia Daley and Taylor Herren had both violated several campus and state
policies, and on one particular situation when | questioned who would provide the
required documentation for donated goods Cynthia stated “she had never documented
In-kind donations before, didn't care if the University got credit for the donations, and
she wasn’t going to start now. It’s too much red tape and we're simply not going to do
it.” Additionally, alcohol permit requirements continued to be ignored for events off
campus, specifically for one during the campus closure due to the Camp Fire. Off
campus permits (through the ABC) were never obtained but she 1) moved the event to
an off-campus location although campus was in a total shut down and 2) served alcohol
anyway without a permit, having obtained the donations from Sierra Nevada, and
several local wineries. The documentation was never provided and any trace was
destroyed.
It was after this that Cynthia began her more intense and intentional retaliation towards
me because | reported these issues, her treatment of me, the added stress she was
causing, and some of her other violations to University Advancement, the provost's
budget office, and directly to her dean John Unruh.
e On December 19, 2018, in retaliation for finding out | met with her dean John Unruh
to whistle blow her violations and behaviors, | was ordered by Cynthia Daley to report to
a meeting with she and her dean John Unruh to hand over my passwords and access to
some web-based platforms | used for the conference, provide a detailed budget report
about the conference, and a detailed update of conference planning to date, all of which
| had continually given her except for passwords because there was no justification, and
this violates the responsible use policy 8105. Not only had | already given conference
updates and status on an ongoing basis, in writing, but Cynthia had already approved
me to host our conference students at that very same time to a holiday luncheon off
campus. This was an intentional retaliation and inflicted more than emotional distress, |
completely broke down physically and mentally and had to leave work. | did not attend
the meeting, was too upset at that point to host the students who were also very upset,
and subsequently was suspended with pay that day instead.
These intentional actions and the retaliation | endured were void of any consideration of
my work restrictions being violated and are all just some of the things that contributed to
the situation now.
Due to the stress created by of all of this my doctor put me off work on 12/31/18. 1
provided the CSU with my physician’s medical status form and received no immediate
tesponse. On 1/11/19 | received a letter from the University, Dylan Saake, asking me to
meet with them regarding an investigation into my alleged misconduct.
Following my physician's advice | did not attend, and | so advised the CSU.
Since that time, | have remained off of work due to the ongoing stress of the University's
failure to engage in the interactive process or to provide accommodations requested by
my physician.
On February 26th, my physician stated that my health was worsening, due to the
University’s failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate me.
The failure of the CSU to follow my physician's orders, failure to engage in the
interactive process and to accommodate me, along with the CSU's retaliation for my
whistleblowing activities, has greatly impacted my health, so much so, that | am unable
to continue working at the CSU.
#19 Despite repeated attempts to engage in the interactive process and be
accommodated for my disability, and despite the CSU, Chico’s ADA and Reasonable
Accommodation Policy, the University has failed to afford me my rights under the law.
FERESAA. RANDOLPH
40
3/i 14.
CSU 7
APY Er Lf
CHASEO NAL
weno
—
2) IG
ae
[ees CAM
38
OFFICE OF
MAR 15 2019
RISK MANAGEMENT
my
| A tit
e018 22490 oouz| 1435 5182
7
SS
ESS
20
SQ
# =
LLANE EN ee gggleletf gdp typed
Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law
CSB 276924
dimitre@mind.net
PO Box 801
Ashland, OR 97520
Telephone: 541-890-5022
Attorney for Plaintiff
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF BUTTE
TERESA RANDOLPH, an individual,
Plaintiff
10 vs.
Case No. 19CV01226
11
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT 2
12 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND
13 DEBRA LARSON
14
15 Defendants
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
om STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agenc) GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
i)
» DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758
(800) 884-1684 (Voice) | (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California's Relay Service at 711
KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
http:/www.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@ dfeh.ca.gov
March 11, 2019
Teri Randolph
1424 Heather Circel
Chico, California 95926
RE: Notice of Case Closure and Rightto Sue
DFEH Matter Number: 201903-05409311
Rightto Sue: Randolph / The State of California, The Trustees of the California
State University, and California State University, Chico et al.
Dear Teri Randolph,
This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaintwas filed with the
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective March
11, 2019 because an immediate Rightto Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no
further action on the complaint.
This letter is also your Rightto Sue notice. According to Government Code section
12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or
employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be
filed within one year from the date of this letter.
To obtain a federal Rightto Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this
DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act,
whichever is earlier.
Sincerely,
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Teri Randolph DFEH No. 201903-05409311
Complainant,
vs.
The State of California, The Trustees of the
California State University, and California State
University, Chico
400 W. 1st Street
10
Chico, California 95929-0010
11
Cynthia Daley
12 400 W. 1st Street
Chico, California 95929-0310
13
Respondents
14
15
1. Respondent The State of California, The Trustees of the California State
16 University, and California State University, Chico is an employer subject to suit
under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900
17 et seq.).
18
2. Complainant
Teri Randolph, resides in the City of Chico State of California.
19
3. Complainant alleges that on or about March 11, 2019, respondent
took the
20 following adverse actions:
21
Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, family care or
22 medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), disability (physical or mental),
age (40 and over), other.
23
Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender,
24 family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), disability
(physical or mental), age (40 and over), other and as a result of the discrimination
25
was forced to quit, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or
26
-1-
27
Complaint - DFEH No. 201903-05409311
28 Date Filed: March 11, 2019
retaliation, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work
opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer.
Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted
any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related
accommodation, requested or used lea
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Butte Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law CSB 276924 dimitre@mind.net 11/21/2019 PO Box 801 E Ashland, OR 97520 D Ki ly El lerk Telephone: 541-890-5022 Attorney for Plaintiff By Deputy Electronically FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE TERESA RANDOLPH, an individual, Plaintiff 10 vs. Case No. 19CV01226 11 RUSSO THE CALIFORNIA PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN 12 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT 13 DEBRA LARSON ON THE PLEADINGS 14 15 Defendants 16 HEARING DATE: December 4, 2019 17 HEARING TIME: 9:00 AM JUDGE: HONORABLE ROBERT 18 GLUSMAN DEPT: 10 19 TRIAL DATE: NONE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER 1 This is Plaintiff, Teresa Randolph’s Response to Defendants’ Demurrer. Defendant has not demurred against Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or tenth claims. Defendant demurrers to only Plaintiff's eighty, ninth, eleventh and twelfth claims. Note that this filing is two days late because it was electronically filed by Plaintiff's counsel, but for some reason it did not get into the system. Plaintiff's counsel only realized that the Response had not been submitted when he received Defendants’ Reply today. Per California Rules of Court 3.1300(d), no paper may be rejected for filing because it was not timely submitted for filing. 10 Here, Plaintiff’s counsel believed that the response had been filed.... until he received 11 Defendants’ Reply today. 12 13 Good cause exists for accepting Plaintiff's Response. In addition, there is no prejudice to 14 Defendants because the hearing is not scheduled until December 4, giving Defendants eleven 15 days to file their Reply. 16 The Court should find good cause because the Response was inadvertently not filed 17 (Plaintiff's counsel thought that it was filed). 18 19 In addition, a Reply cannot be filed until after a Response is filed, so the Court should 20 strike Defendants’ Reply. 21 Plaintiff therefore requests the Court to allow this filing that is two days late and does not 22 prejudice Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER 8"" cause of action - Wrongful Termination/Constructive Discharge/Retaliation in Violation of a Statute The Court should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on this Claim The Court granted Plaintiff's request for leave to amend on this issue because the Court believed that there is a Wrongful termination/constructive discharge claim in violation of statute that can be brought against a public entity. In the SAC, Plaintiff has added a statutory claim. A public employee cannot assert a wrongful termination/constructive discharge based on a public policy action against a public employer. 10 “The Legislative Committee Comment to section 815 states: "This section abolishes all 11 common law or judicially declared forms of liability for public entities, except for such liability as may be required by the state or federal constitution, e.g., inverse 12 condemnation. ..." (Legis. Com. com., 32 West's Ann. Gov.Code (1995), foll. § 815, p. 13 167, italics added.) Moreover, our own decisions confirm that section 815 abolishes common law tort liability for public entities.” 14 See Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175 1179, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 552, 80 P.3d 656; Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1127-1128, 119 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171, cited in Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of California, 188 P.3d 629, 16 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 690, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal., 2008). 17 A Tameny “ cause of action' is a common law, judicially created tort.” Miklosy v. 18 Regents of Univ. Of California, 188 P.3d 629, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 690, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal., 2008). 19 Section 815 abolishes all common law forms of liability for public entities (with some 20 exceptions), “except for such liability as may be required by the state or federal constitution.” 21 22 Section 815. 23 Therefore, a public employee may only state a wrongful termination/constructive 24 discharge based on a statutory violation, claim against a public entity. 25 In her SAC, Plaintiff now states that this claim rests on a violation of Labor Code 1102.5 26 and California Government Code 12940 — the anti harassment, anti discrimination and anti 27 retaliation provision of the CGC. 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER Based on the above, Plaintiff has properly alleged a wrongful termination/constructive discharge/retaliation claim based on a statute. The Court should DENY Defendants’ demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, the Court should give Plaintiff leave to amend. 9" Cause of Action — Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress The Court should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on This Claim Defendant’s already made a demurrer for this claim and the Court granted leave to amend. Plaintiff added more allegations in paragraphs 50, 80, and especially 90 of the SAC that 10 easily met the requirements of this claim. 11 Defendant claims that Plaintiff cannot make a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional 12 13 Distress (“ITED”) because the egregious actions taken by Defendant against her do not rise to the 14 level of ITED. 15 IIED is characterized by: 16 “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of 17 causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and 18 proximate causation ofthe emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct...." 19 Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. on 20 Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181 ( Christensen ) cited in Light v. Cal. Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 14 21 Cal.App.5th 75 (Cal. App., 2017) 22 23 There are numerous California cases that support a claim of I[ED for Plaintiff Randolph. 24 First, the Supreme Court has stated, with respect to the tort of intentional infliction of 25 emotional distress, "plaintiff's status as an employee should entitle him to a greater degree of 26 protection from insult and outrage than if he were a stranger to defendants. Alcorn v. Anbro 27 Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499, fn. 2.) cited in Felix v. Fernandez (Cal. App., 2016) 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER Randolph was an employee of the CSU Chico for over 20 years. She had great evaluations. She was a great employee. Alcorn applies here. Second, in Light, a case on summary judgment, the Defendant had ostracized Light in the workplace, encouraged Light to lie to investigators, pursued Light at home and in the office to determine whether Light did so, and verbally and physically attacked Light after Light disobeyed. The trier of fact could conclude this conduct was extreme and outrageous (especially in light of Seals's supervisory position), taken for purposes of retaliation prohibited by FEHA, and intended to cause Light emotional distress. Triable issues of fact therefore preclude summary 10 adjudication of this claim as to Seals. See Aguilar, supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 850, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 11 841, 24 P.3d 493.) Light v. Cal. Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 14 12 13 Cal.App.sth 75 (Cal. App., 2017). 14 Third, in Rulon-Miller, the plaintiff was a salesperson working for IBM in San Francisco. 15 At some point, she met and began dating a fellow employee. The employee later left IBM to join 16 another company and was transferred out of San Francisco. A year later he returned and once 17 again began dating the plaintiff. 18 19 IBM management officials were aware that the plaintiff was dating the former IBM 20 employee but IBM had a policy of not interfering in its employee's private affairs. Despite this 21 policy, the plaintiff's manager told her to stop dating the former employee since it constituted a" 22 ‘conflict of interest.’ " He then gave the plaintiff some time to think about the matter. The next 23 day, the manager spoke to the plaintiff again, told her that " 'he had made up her mind for her, um 24 25 and dismissed her. Rulon-Miller v. International Business Machines Corp., supra, 162 26 Cal.App.3d at pp. 244-246, 208 Cal.Rptr. 524.) 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER A jury awarded the plaintiff damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the appellate court affirmed the award. In holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of extreme and outrageous conduct the court noted, "The combination of statements and conduct would under any reasoned view tend to humiliate and degrade [the plaintiff.] Ru/on-Miller, supra, at p. 255, 208 Cal.Rptr. 524.) Trerice v. Blue Cross of California, 209 Cal.App.3d 878, 257 Cal. Rptr. 338 (Cal. App., 1989) Here, we are not even to summary judgment or trial. All Plaintiff has to do is make proper allegations of ITED. Plaintiff has done so as shown in the above three cases. 10 Here, Plaintiff Randolph had eight months of absolute hell - humiliation and degradation 11 piled on top of more humiliation and degradation - by her supervisor and numerous other CSU 12 13 Chico managers, supervisors and HR itself. They conspired to force her out of her, humiliate her, 14 defame her and make it so that she could never return to her job. Unfortunately, this calculated 15 behavior succeeded and Ms. Randolph lost her job, the benefits that were attached to it, and her 16 full retirement. 17 Randolph was subjected by Defendants, in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her job, 18 19 worked diligently to create such emotional distress in her, that she would eventually quit her job. 20 That is exactly what Plaintiff was forced to do. Defendants willfully defamed her, willfully 21 refused to abide by reasonable accommodations already approved, willfully refused to meet in 22 the required interactive process, willfully refused to continue her reasonable accommodations, 23 willfully refused to engage in the interactive process or provide new reasonable 24 25 accommodations, willfully harassed her by communicating with her at 4 am (even after Plaintiff 26 and her physician had limited her work to eight hours per day), willfully lied when it told the 27 campus that Plaintiff was responsible for the shutdown of the conference website (basically 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER shutting down the conference itself), willfully changing her job duties without going through the proper procedure thereby making it impossible for her to perform her job duties, intentionally left her out of meetings that were part of her job description and duties, willfully damaged her personal and professional reputations so that it would be impossible for Plaintiffto work there or to return to work, willfully distributed information regarding her health and medical condition to unauthorized campus recipients, willfully required her to work long hours - well over and above the restrictions placed on her by her physician, willfully trumped up charges against her, willfully attempted to interview her regarding trumped up allegations of malfeasance while she 10 was out on physician ordered sick leave, and then willfully proposed that she be terminated from 11 her job while Defendants (including Larson) made knowingly false charges and allegations 12 13 against Plaintiff. Para. 90 of SAC. 14 Plaintiff had worked for CSU Chico for 22 years, and had always done an excellent job. 15 Defendants’ actions against Plaintiff were so outrageous and extreme that it forced her physician 16 to take her off of work. Even then, CSU Chico continued to harass her by demanding that she 17 come in for an investigatory interview (even after her physician had taken her off of work due to 18 19 work related stress), and then trumped up and presented her with a proposed disciplinary letter, 20 to ensure that she would never be able to return to work. Their ploy was successful, as Plaintiffs 21 physician then recommended that she never return to CSU Chico, due to the damaging, ongoing, 22 increasing stress and anxiety that their intentional actions were creating. Para 71-79 of SAC. 23 Defendant had a higher duty to protect Plaintiff from intentional infliction of emotional 24 25 distress. Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499, fn. 2.) cited in Felix v. 26 Fernandez (Cal. App., 2016), and Defendant failed this responsibility. 27 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER Yet, instead, Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct towards the Plaintiff was with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress. Defendant’s conduct was so extreme and outrageous that it caused Plaintiffs physician to highly recommend that she not continue working at CSU Chico. The calculated and intentional acts stated above, taken together, easily meet the requirements of an ITED claim. The Court should DENY Defendant’s demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, if the Court does not believe that Plaintiff has properly alleged this claim, she asked for leave to amend. 10 11" Cause of Action - Defamation 11 The Court Should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on this claim 12 13 Here, Defendants’ now claim that Plaintiff did not adequately notify them of her 14 defamation claim in her tort claim notice. They did not make this claim previously, in their first 15 demurrer. 16 Plaintiff did notify Defendant of her defamation claim — or, she made substantial 17 compliance — about her defamation claim. 18 19 Plaintiff listed “humiliation” as a claim under #15 of the Tort Claim Notice. In addition, 20 she listed “public humiliation” as a claim on the same form under #17. Exhibit 1. 21 In addition, in the narrative of the Tort Claim Notice, Plaintiff stated the following: 22 “,.. she (Supervisor Daley) continually worked to diminish and disrespect my role 23 as staff lead of the conference by going behind my back to managers and other campus members to work in conflict with what the students and I had planned, disregarding 24 choices for keynote speakers, films, and scheduling layout, and contacting potential 25 keynotes without consulting with the Executive Team or me as the conference lead, making the planning team and I look inefficient, creating confusion and chaos, and 26 causing the appearance of dysfunction...” 27 This caused even more stress, chaos and frustration, followed by her telling: 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER “several faculty on the interview panel that I had made these mistakes in an attempt to make me look inefficient to not only the interview panel, but to the applicants as well.” This language complies with the Tort Notice requirements, and fairly gave Defendants notice that Plaintiff intended to sue them for defamation. In addition, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing included the following language in its letter to the CSU, and eventually issued a right to sue letter to Randolph. 10 “T have now been accused of insubordination, dishonesty, and other false allegations during my medical leave in further attempts to sabotage my name, reputation, and force 11 me to quit.” Exhibit 2. 12 13 Plaintiff has complied with the Tort Claims Act by notifying Defendant in her Tort Claim 14 Notice that Defendant “. . .has now been accused of insubordination, dishonesty, and other false 15 allegations during my medical leave in further attempts to sabotage my name, reputation, and 16 force me to quit.” Ex. 2. She also stated this in sections 15 and 17 of the Tort Notice. This is 17 clearly the crux of her defamation claim. 18 19 In addition, Plaintiff has also substantially complied with the Tort Claim Act: 20 “Under (the substantially complied) test, the court must ask whether sufficient information is disclosed on the face of the filed claim "to reasonably enable the public 21 entity to make an adequate investigation of the merits of the claim and to settle it 22 without the expense of a lawsuit." City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 456, 115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701.) 23 Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist., 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 195 Cal.Rptr. 576 (Cal. App., 1983) 24 25 Here, clearly, Plaintiff provided Defendant with more than enough information to comply 26 with the Tort Claims Act in her Tort Claim Notice, or, alternatively, to substantially comply with 27 the Tort Claims Act by virtue of her DFEH filing and notice to Defendant. 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER 1 The Court should DENY Defendants’ request for demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, if the Court does not believe that Plaintiff has properly alleged this claim, she asks for leave to amend. 12" Claim — Invasion of Privacy The Court Should DENY Defendants’ Demurrer on this Claim Plaintiff substantially complied with the Tort Claims Act when the Defendants were notified by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing of her discrimination claim. As 10 part of her discrimination claim, and the letter sent to the CSU Chico, Plaintiff stated: 11 “My medical appointments were discussed in public forums and private meetings.” 12 13 Exhibit 2. 14 Plaintiff has substantially complied with the Tort Claims Act by notifying the Defendant 15 16 about her potential privacy claim in her DFEH right to sue and letter to the Defendants. 17 The Court should DENY Defendants’ demurrer on this claim. Alternatively, if the Court 18 does not believe that Plaintiff has properly alleged this claim, she requests leave to amend. 19 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 22 Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law LLC 23 By: /s/ Thomas Dimitre 24 Thomas Dimitre 25 Attorney for Plaintiff Teresa Randolph 26 27 Dated: November 18, 2019 (resubmitted on November 21, 2019. 28 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND DEMURRER 10 Thomas Dimitre SBN 276924 Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law LLC PO Box 801 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541 890 5022 Fax: 541 488 4601 Email: dimitre@mind.net IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 11 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226 12 13 Plaintiff SWORN DECLARATION OF THOMAS 14 and DIMITRE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE 15 IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND PARTIAL DEMURRER 16 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF 17 CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND DEBRA LARSON 18 19 Defendants 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 lam the Plaintiff's attorney in this case. I, Thomas Dimitre, resident and am employed in Oregon, declare and state as follows: 2. lam personally aware of all of the facts, and am competent to testify about each fact as set forth in this declaration. All of my statements are based on my personal knowledge. Iam competent to testify to these facts. Exhibit | is a true and correct copy of the Tort Claim Notice filed by Plaintiff and sent to the Defendant, and is attached hereto. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the DFEH Notice of Right to Sue and Letter to the CSU, and is attached hereto. 10 11 I believed that I had filed the Response electronically on 11/18, but found that it had 12 not been filed. Somehow I did not push the right button. Defendant is not prejudiced by 13 this short delay. Plaintiff's counsel was acting in good faith. 14 15 I swear, under the penalty of perjury, under the laws ofthe State of California, that 16 the foregoing is true and correct. 17 18 19 s/s Thomas Dimitre Date: November 18, 2019 20 Thomas Dimitre 21 Attorney for Plaintiff Teresa Randolph 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law CSB 276924 dimitre@mind.net PO Box 801 Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-890-5022 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE TERESA RANDOLPH, an individual, Plaintiff 10 vs. Case No. 19CV01226 11 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 1 12 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND 13 DEBRA LARSON 14 15 Defendants 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 en ra |] The California State University RISK MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY The California State University / Office of the Chancellor / Risk Management and 401 Golden Shore, 5th Floor / Long Beach, CA 90802-4210 OFFIC € E fety, OF (562) 951-4580 / www.calstate.edu/risk_management/claims WARTS 209 CSU Claim Form Js your claim complete? RISK MANAGEMENT Include a check or money order for $25 payable to “Trustees of the CSU.” Complete all sections relating to this claim and sign the form. Please print or type all information. Attach receipts, bills, estimates or other documents that back up your claim. Claimant Information 1 Randolph, Teresa A. 2 Tel: (530) 520-6717 Last Name First Name Mi 3 Email: |randolph.teri@gmail.com 4 1424 Heather Circle [chico CA 195926 Mailing Address City State Zip 5 Best time and way to reach you: M-F, 8-5 6 ls the claimant under 18? Ol Yes & No If YES, give date of birth: Attorney or Representative Information MM DD YYYY 7 Dimitre, Thomas 8 Tel: (541) 890-5022 Last Name First Name MI 9 Email: |dimitre@mind.net 10 P.O. Box 801 Ashland OR 197520 Mailing Address City State Zip 11 Relationship to claimant: |Representing Attorney Claim Information 12 Is your claim for a stale-dated warrant (uncashed check)?} O1| Yes | No CSU campus that issued the warrant: If NO, continue to Step 13. Dollar amount of warrant: Date of issue: Proceed to Step 23 MM DD YYYY 13 Date of Incident: |March 11, 2019 Was the incident more than six months ago? O Yes & No if YES, did you attach a separate sheet with an explanation for the late filing? OO Yes OO No 14 CSU campus or CSU employees against whom this claim is filed:|CSU Chico CSU, Chico AND The Trustees of The California State University 18 Dollar amount of claim: If the amount is more than $10.000, indicate the Oo Limited civil case ($25,000 or less) type of civil case: Non-limited civil case (over $25,000) Explain how you calculated the amount: Dollar Amount of Claim - $250,000 explained with multiple losses to me personally: 10+yrs loss of job/wages, loss of| benefits, infliction of physical pain and mental stress, discrimination, humiliation, shortened retirement plan estimates, 16 Location of the incident: CSU, Chico campus 17 “| Describe the specific damage or injury: Intentional and negligent infliction of physical and emotional distress, loss of job, loss of wages, loss of retirement! learnings, and public humiliation. 18 Explain the circumstances that led to the damage or injury: See Claim Form Attachment. 19 Explain why you believe the CSU is responsible for the damage or injury: Despite repeated attempts to engage in the interactive process and be accommodated for my disability, and despite the ICSU Chico's ADA and Reasonable Accommodation Policy, the University has failed to afford me my rights under the law. The CSU continues to ignore my work restrictions and my requests for intervention and accommodation. 20 Does the claim involve a campus vehicle? O Yes ) No if YES, provide the vehicle license number, if known: Auto Insurance Information 24 Name of Insurance Carrier Mailing Address City State Zip Policy Number: Tel: Are you the registered owner of the vehicle? O Yes O No If NO, state name of owner: Has a claim been filed with your insurance carrier, or will it be filed? O] Yes O No Have you received any payment for this damage or injury? OO Yes O Ne lf yes, what amount did you receive? Amount of deductible, if any: Claimant’s Driver's License Number Vehicle License Number; Make of Vehicle: Model: Year: Vehicle ID Number; For Bodily Injury Claims Only (Pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act): 22 if a claim for bodily injury is being made: Date of Birth: Social Security #: MM__DD__YYYY Notice and Signature 23 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that all the information | have provided is true and correct to the best of my information and belief. § further understand that if | have provided information that is false, intentionally incomplete, or misleading | may be charged with a crime punishablg by up to one yaar in state prison and/or a fine up to $10,000 (Penal Code section 72). 3/11/19 Signature of Claimant or Representative Date Mail the original completed form and all attachments with the $25 filing fee or the “CSU Affidavit for Waiver of Filing Fee" request to: CSU Office of the Chancellor, Risk Management & Public Safety, 401 Golden Shore, 5th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4210. Keep a copy for your records. Claim Form Attachment #18. | was constructively discharged on March 11, 2019 because the CSU Chico continued its failure to accommodate my disability or engage in the interactive process, despite numerous requests to do so, and their knowledge that | was disabled and in need of an accommodation. Following continuing medical treatments due to a work-related injury on September 27, 2007, | provided the CSU with medical status updates continually from my doctor, which included on March 30, 2015 specific accommodations to reduce my work-related stress. Subsequently, on November 9, 2015 my doctor required additional accommodations to include working no more than 8 hours per day. Since that time, these accommodations that were agreed to were not implemented, and requests for reimplementation of the accommodations and new accommodations were not implemented, and although I’d made multiple requests to resolve these concerns, no interactive process has occurred. In addition, the CSU has failed to accommodate my most recent disability, beginning in December 2018. Despite my escalating health concerns, | was further stressed with two reorganizations of my position within two months (August and September, 2018), two relocations of my physical office in less than 9 months (May 2018 and January 2019), on more than a half dozen occasions since September 2018 | had requested the University recognize and implement all accommodations set forth by my doctor. Additionally, on numerous occasions | asked the University to initiate an interactive process and asked for accommodation. The people that | asked are: President Gayle Hutchinson; Provost Debra Larson; Daniel Grassian, Vice Provost for Academic Programs, John Unruh, Dean, College of Agriculture, Dylan Saake, Director of Labor Relations and Compliance/Title IX Coordinator/DHR Administrator, and my direct supervisor Director Cynthia Daley. No action was ever initiated, no interactive process was ever held, no reasonable accommodation was ever provided, no response given other than to directly deny my requests, and concerns | brought forth continued to be ignored and disregarded as though not important and not required of them to address. During this time, the CSU, Chico continued to try and undermine my work and force me to quit. Some of these examples are: e | was given new and additional duties not pertaining to the sustainability conference (Regenerative Ag Initiative tasks), which was already full load for September — April each year with no prior consultation with me on my existing workload, with no interest of how this would impact my medical restrictions and workload, causing increased stress of being late in getting the conference started because I'd already been told there would not be a 2019 conference. e Cynthia began by requiring me to participate in meetings starting at 7:00 am, texting my private phone as early as 4:00 am and as late as 7:00 pm, forcing me to participate in meetings during lunch hours, or starting at 7:00 am, with non-emergency, non- essential orders, violating my physician's orders, which were known to Cynthia. e Cynthia Daley worked to undermine my work and function, intentionally sabotaging my duties and my reputation by excluding me from crucial meetings and details pertaining to my assigned tasks so as to cause me to appear unknowledgeable or incompetent. . Cinthia Daley continued to refuse to meet with me on budget related matters and then would ask why | hadn't prepared an updated budget report for her to submit to the Provost in attempts to sabotage my reputation by putting blame on me for her shortcomings. e Cynthia Daley violated the RFP process for consultant services, specifically those of Tim LaSalle, which | reported to her dean John Unruh, which was part of the reasoning behind her retaliation against me. She was in the process of initiating another consultant agreement for a consultant, Melina Watts, to work from her home (Cynthia's home), which I also reported to her dean John Unruh. . Cynthia Daley continued to refuse to meet with me to discuss the Journal of Regenerative Agriculture and details |! needed clarification on in setting it up, which she'd asked me to create and launch as a top priority because a grant was depending on it, which | worked tirelessly and excessively to do in just two short months, having no idea how to do it, who to ask, standards to use, details and instructions for authors and reviewers, and identification of editorial board members and their roles, and more. This function typically would lie within the Librarian Classification. ° Cynthia Daley continued undermining meetings and planning progress for This Way to Sustainability Conference, continued to disregard and minimize the students’ role in the conference, going against their advice and input as organizers and a primary funding source, disregarding and disrespecting all of us because she said she didn't feel “in control” and saying she wasn’t being copied on emails or being given updates when she continually was, and although the Executive Planning Team kept advising against her insistence to make it a regenerative ag conference; she continually worked to diminish and disrespect my role as staff lead of the conference by going behind my back to managers and other campus members to work in conflict with what the students and | had planned, disregarding choices for keynote speakers, films, and scheduling layout, and contacting potential keynotes without consulting with the Executive Team or me as the conference lead, making the planning team and | look inefficient, creating confusion and chaos, and causing the appearance of disfunction, promising unconfirmed speakers that she'd get them in, this and more inhibited my ability to perform the duties, and those of my position description by removing the sustainability web site without discussion and demanding | hand over all access to passwords and everything related to it without justification, and as retaliation for me meeting with her dean to report the situation and ongoing harassment by Cynthia. e Cynthia Daley assigned me the task of completing the recruitment process for several new non-state positions, and arrange interviews for several positions she'd had me post. Intentionally after I'd scheduled the interviews with the full interview panel and applicants, Cynthia tells me she doesn’t use Exchange campus email and that I'd need to reschedule all of them, and instead stari using doodle polls. | ended up having to take time out and record each one of the interviews because she refused to give me dates and times she could attend in person. This caused even more stress, chaos and frustration, followed by her telling several faculty on the interview panel that | had made these mistakes in an attempt to make me look inefficient to not only the interview panel, but to the applicants as well. e Cynthia Daley was using her former student Taylor Herren as an assistant (who not only didn’t even live in Chico, was not from what | could tell a current employee, and was employed elsewhere, Kiss the Ground). Cynthia had her in charge of coordination of campus and events and activities being hosted by RAI, and began copying her on emails and communications relating to my job duties. | brought it to Cynthia's attention that she had fost some of the recordings of guest speakers hosted previous to my involvement, and that these recordings were never put on the ISD website because I'd never received them. Cynthia accused me of losing some of the recordings (Richard Teague’s for one), making me a scapegoat for Taylor’s lack of knowledge and follow-up on getting these recordings both ADA compliant and posted the website. | had to find the recordings, get the ADA compliance process completed, and load them to the website. This caused a lot of added stress, time, chaos, and frustration for me, as well as IMC and RCE staff. ° Cynthia Daley and Taylor Herren had both violated several campus and state policies, and on one particular situation when | questioned who would provide the required documentation for donated goods Cynthia stated “she had never documented In-kind donations before, didn't care if the University got credit for the donations, and she wasn’t going to start now. It’s too much red tape and we're simply not going to do it.” Additionally, alcohol permit requirements continued to be ignored for events off campus, specifically for one during the campus closure due to the Camp Fire. Off campus permits (through the ABC) were never obtained but she 1) moved the event to an off-campus location although campus was in a total shut down and 2) served alcohol anyway without a permit, having obtained the donations from Sierra Nevada, and several local wineries. The documentation was never provided and any trace was destroyed. It was after this that Cynthia began her more intense and intentional retaliation towards me because | reported these issues, her treatment of me, the added stress she was causing, and some of her other violations to University Advancement, the provost's budget office, and directly to her dean John Unruh. e On December 19, 2018, in retaliation for finding out | met with her dean John Unruh to whistle blow her violations and behaviors, | was ordered by Cynthia Daley to report to a meeting with she and her dean John Unruh to hand over my passwords and access to some web-based platforms | used for the conference, provide a detailed budget report about the conference, and a detailed update of conference planning to date, all of which | had continually given her except for passwords because there was no justification, and this violates the responsible use policy 8105. Not only had | already given conference updates and status on an ongoing basis, in writing, but Cynthia had already approved me to host our conference students at that very same time to a holiday luncheon off campus. This was an intentional retaliation and inflicted more than emotional distress, | completely broke down physically and mentally and had to leave work. | did not attend the meeting, was too upset at that point to host the students who were also very upset, and subsequently was suspended with pay that day instead. These intentional actions and the retaliation | endured were void of any consideration of my work restrictions being violated and are all just some of the things that contributed to the situation now. Due to the stress created by of all of this my doctor put me off work on 12/31/18. 1 provided the CSU with my physician’s medical status form and received no immediate tesponse. On 1/11/19 | received a letter from the University, Dylan Saake, asking me to meet with them regarding an investigation into my alleged misconduct. Following my physician's advice | did not attend, and | so advised the CSU. Since that time, | have remained off of work due to the ongoing stress of the University's failure to engage in the interactive process or to provide accommodations requested by my physician. On February 26th, my physician stated that my health was worsening, due to the University’s failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate me. The failure of the CSU to follow my physician's orders, failure to engage in the interactive process and to accommodate me, along with the CSU's retaliation for my whistleblowing activities, has greatly impacted my health, so much so, that | am unable to continue working at the CSU. #19 Despite repeated attempts to engage in the interactive process and be accommodated for my disability, and despite the CSU, Chico’s ADA and Reasonable Accommodation Policy, the University has failed to afford me my rights under the law. FERESAA. RANDOLPH 40 3/i 14. CSU 7 APY Er Lf CHASEO NAL weno — 2) IG ae [ees CAM 38 OFFICE OF MAR 15 2019 RISK MANAGEMENT my | A tit e018 22490 oouz| 1435 5182 7 SS ESS 20 SQ # = LLANE EN ee gggleletf gdp typed Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at Law CSB 276924 dimitre@mind.net PO Box 801 Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-890-5022 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF BUTTE TERESA RANDOLPH, an individual, Plaintiff 10 vs. Case No. 19CV01226 11 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 2 12 STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, AND 13 DEBRA LARSON 14 15 Defendants 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 om STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agenc) GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR i) » DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758 (800) 884-1684 (Voice) | (800) 700-2320 (TTY) | California's Relay Service at 711 KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR http:/www.dfeh.ca.gov | Email: contact.center@ dfeh.ca.gov March 11, 2019 Teri Randolph 1424 Heather Circel Chico, California 95926 RE: Notice of Case Closure and Rightto Sue DFEH Matter Number: 201903-05409311 Rightto Sue: Randolph / The State of California, The Trustees of the California State University, and California State University, Chico et al. Dear Teri Randolph, This letter informs you that the above-referenced complaintwas filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective March 11, 2019 because an immediate Rightto Sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also your Rightto Sue notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. To obtain a federal Rightto Sue notice, you must contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Sincerely, Department of Fair Employment and Housing COMPLAINT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) In the Matter of the Complaint of Teri Randolph DFEH No. 201903-05409311 Complainant, vs. The State of California, The Trustees of the California State University, and California State University, Chico 400 W. 1st Street 10 Chico, California 95929-0010 11 Cynthia Daley 12 400 W. 1st Street Chico, California 95929-0310 13 Respondents 14 15 1. Respondent The State of California, The Trustees of the California State 16 University, and California State University, Chico is an employer subject to suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 17 et seq.). 18 2. Complainant Teri Randolph, resides in the City of Chico State of California. 19 3. Complainant alleges that on or about March 11, 2019, respondent took the 20 following adverse actions: 21 Complainant was harassed because of complainant's sex/gender, family care or 22 medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), disability (physical or mental), age (40 and over), other. 23 Complainant was discriminated against because of complainant's sex/gender, 24 family care or medical leave (cfra) (employers of 50 or more people), disability (physical or mental), age (40 and over), other and as a result of the discrimination 25 was forced to quit, denied a work environment free of discrimination and/or 26 -1- 27 Complaint - DFEH No. 201903-05409311 28 Date Filed: March 11, 2019 retaliation, denied reasonable accommodation for a disability, denied work opportunities or assignments, denied or forced to transfer. Complainant experienced retaliation because complainant reported or resisted any form of discrimination or harassment, requested or used a disability-related accommodation, requested or used lea