Preview
1. XAVIER BECERRA No FEE- Gov. CODE,§ 6103
Attorney General of California
2 PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 JERRY J. DESCHLER 2/18/2020
Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 215691
1300 I Street, Suite 125
5 P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
6 Telephone: (916) 210-7871
Fax: (916) 324-5567
7 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants .
8 Board of Trustees of the California State University,
which is the State of California acting in its higher
9 education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees
of the California State University, State of
10 California"), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF BUTTE
13 CIVIL DIVISION
14
15
TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226
16
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT
v.
18
19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIY;ERSITY,STATE OF
20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY,
AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON,
21 AN INDIVIDUAL,
Trial Date: none
22 Defendants. Action Filed: April 24, 2019
23
24 Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of
25 California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees of the California
26 State University, State of California"), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson ("Defendants") answer
27 the unverified Second Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") filed by plaintiff Teresa Randolph
28 ("Plaintiff') as follows:
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (l 9CVO 1226)
1 GENERAL DENIAL
2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 431.30(d) and 446, Defendants generally and
3 specifically deny each and every allegation of the Complaint. Defendants further deny generally
4 and specifically that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or
5 omission on the part of Defendants, or their agents, representatives, and employees.
6 ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
7 Defendants assert the following separate additional defenses to the Complaint. As
8 Defendants' investigation and discovery have just commenced, Defendants cannot fully anticipate
9 all defenses that may be applicable to the action. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the right to
10 assert additional defenses, if and to the extent that such defenses are applicable and, if
11 appropriate, to amend this answer accordingly.
12 FIRST DEFENSE
13 1. The Complaint, in itsentirety and through each separately stated cause of action,
14 fails to state facts sufficient to copstitute a viable cause of action against Defendants.
15 SECOND DEFENSE
16 2. Plaintiff's Complaint and each alleged cause of action are barred in whole or in part
17 by Labor Code sections 2854.or 2856 in that Plaintiff failed to use ordinary care and diligence in
18 the performance of her duties and failed to comply substantially with the reasonable directions of
19 Defendants.
20 THIRD DEFENSE
21 3. Plaintiff failed to comply with the government claims presentation requirement
22 before commencing this action or failed to reflect each purported cause of action in a g9vernment
23 claim. Defendants furthermore reserve all privileges and immunities available to it under California
24 law, including but not limited fo all defenses available under the Government Claims Act.
25 FOURTH DEFENSE
26 4. Plaintiff is barred from seeking any relief due to the equitable. doctrine of waiver,
27 laches, estoppel and/or unclean hands.
28 III
2
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226)
1 FIFTH DEFENSE
2 5. The damages alleged in the Complaint, if any, were not caused by Defendants, but
3 were the result of Plaintiffs own actions or omissions, or acts of other parties or persons over which
4 Defendants had no control.
5 SIXTH DEFENSE
6 6. Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to sections 815 and 820, et seq. of
7 the California Government Code, including, but not limited to, sections 815, 815.2, 818, 818.2,·
8 818.8, 820.2, 820.6, 820.8, 821.6, and 822.2 and otherwise under state law. In addition, Defendants
9 have absolute immunity and/or qualified immunity because they and other agents and/or employees
10 of Defendants were acting within the scope of their official capacities and/or discretionary duties.
11 SEVENTH DEFENSE
12 7. To the extent Defendants obtain through disi;;overy or otherwise after-acquired
13 evidence of wrongdoing by Plaintiff, the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged
14 therein are barred by the doctrine of after-acquired evidence, or the doctrine of after-acquired
15 · evidence limits and reduces Plaintiffs alleged damages.
16 EIGHTH DEFENSE
17 8. The Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred and this Court is without
18 jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative and/or judicial remedies.
19 NINTH DEFENSE
20 9. To the extent that Plaintiff did not timely file the Complaint and each purpmted
21 cause of action alleged therein, they are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of
22 limitations, including, but not limited to, California Government Code section 12965(b) and Code
23 of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338(a), and 340(c).
24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 10. Plaintiffs Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred
26 to the extent that actions by her employer with respect to Plaintiff were taken in good faith and/or
27 for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons and/or were based on reasonable factors
28 other than disability, gender, age, and/or any other protected status or protected conduct.
3
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226)
1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 11. Plaintiffs Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred
3 in whole or in part because any and all actions taken by Defendants with respect to Plaintiff were
4 job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity.
5 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 12. · Defendants cannot be held liable for any conduct alleged in the Complaint to the
7 extent the individuals who. allegedly engaged in the conduct against Plaintiff were not acting within
8 the course and scope of their employment or agency.
9 THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
10 13. Plaintiffs Complaint and each.purported cause of action alleged therein are barred
11 because Plaintiff frustrated and prevented Defendants from thoroughly investigating any
12 allegations of unlawful conduct by failing or refusing to report her allegations to Defendants in a
13 timely manner, notwithstanding the opportunity for her to do so without fear of retaliation.
14 Therefore, any alleged failure by Defendants to take remedial or disciplinary measures resulted
15 entirely from Plaintiffs frustration of Defendants' ability to remedy any alleged unlawful conduct.
16 FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
17 14. Plaintiff's first, fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action.are barred in whole or in
18 part because Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the job with or without a
19 reasonable accommodation.
20 FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
21 15. Plaintiff's first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in
22 part because Defendants afforded Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation which Plaintiff refused.
23 SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
24 16. Plaintiff's first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in
25 part because any accommodation sought by Plaintiff for her alleged disability created an undue
26 hardship.
27 III
28 III
4
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (l 9CV01226)
1 SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
2 17. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are baned in whole or in
3 part because Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the job with or without a
4 reasonable accommodation without endangering the health or safety of herself or others.
5 EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
6 18. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in
7 part because Plaintiff failed to participate in the interactive process and/or the process broke down
8 through no fault of Defendants.
9 NINETEENTH DEFENSE
1o 19. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in
11 part because Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to notify Defendants of her need for an
12 accommodation.
13 TWENTIETH DEFENSE
14 20. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in
15 part because Defendants provided a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff for her alleged disability
16 or medical condition.
17 TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
18 21. Plaintiffs first through eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in part because
19 . assuming arguendo Defendants knew or should have known Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful
20 discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, Defendants took immediate and appropriate
21 con-ective action.
22 TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
23 22. Defendants are not liable for the damage to Plaintiffs reputation, if any, to the extent
24 defendant's statement(s) about plaintiff was/were substantially true.
25 TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
26 23. Defendants are not liable for the alleged defamatory statement(s) to the extent the
27 alleged statement(s) was/were non-actionable opinions, rather than statement(s) of fact.
28 III
5
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226)
1 TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
2 24. Defendants are not liable for the alleged defamatory statements to the extent such
3 statements are privileged pursuant to Civil Code section 47(c).
4 TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
5 25. Defendants are not liable for the alleged defamatory statements to the extent the
6 statement(s) published addressed a matter of public concern, and Plaintiff cannot establish by clear
7 and convincing evidence that Defendants published the statement(s) with actual malice.
8 TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
9 26. Defendants Cynthia Daley and Deborah Larson are not liable to the extent that they
10 made the alleged defamatory statement(s) in their capacities as public employees while engaged in
11 discretionary acts within the scope of their authority.
12 TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
13 27. Defendants are entitled to offset for any monies received by Plaintiff from any
14 source in compensation for her alleged economic damages and non-economic damages under the
15 common-law doctrine of offset and under the doctrine prohibiting double recovery set fo1ih in Witt
16 y. Ja~kson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 and its progeny.
17 TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
18 28. Defendants owe no obligation to Plaintiff with respect to the matters described in
19 Plaintiff's Complaint to the extent that Plaintiff failed to mitigate, minimize, or otherwise avoid
20 losses, damages, or expenses.
21 TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
22 29. Plaintiff's purported claims for emotional distress damages are barred to the extent
23 that the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff's alleged emotional distress and other injuries, if any, is
24 before the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board pursuant to the exclusive remedy
25 provisions of the California Workers' Compensation Act. See California Labor Code sections 3600,
26 et seq.
27 III
28 III
6
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226)
1 THIRTIETH DEFENSE
2 30. Any damages are barred by the Avoidable Consequences Doctrine because: (1)
3 Defendants exercised reasonable steps to prevent and correct any workplace behavior alleged
4 unlawful; (2) Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that
5 Defendants provided; and (3) reasonable use of the Defendants' procedures would have prevented
6 at least some of the harm that Plaintiff suffered. State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior <;ourt
7 (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1026, 1045-46.
8 THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
9 31. If Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery, such recovery must be reduced by the amount
10 Plaintiff received from collateral or alternative sources, and Defendants shall be entitled to a set-
11 off in the amounts of any prior, pending or ongoing recoveries for the same injuries or damages
12 alleged in this action, and is entitled to reimbursement pursuant to Government Code section 985.
13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14 Accordingly, Defendants pray as follows:
15 1. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the
16 Complaint as a whole, and that Plaintiff take nothing by way of the Complaint;
17 2. That the Complaint, and each cause of action therein, be dismissed with prejudice;
18 3. That Defendants be awarded costs, expenses, and statutory attorneys' fees incurred in
19 the action; and
20 II I
21 II I
22 I II
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (l 9CVO 1226)
4. That the Court grant such other and further relief as it deems proper.
2 Dated: February 18, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,
3 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
4 PETER D. HALLORAN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
5
6
7
JERRY J. DESCHLER
8 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
9 Board of Trustees of the California State
University, which is the State of California
10 acting in its higher education capacity
(erroneously sued as "Trustees of the
11 California State University, State of
California "), Cynthia Daley, and Debra
12 Larson
13 SA2019102196
14426328.docx
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CVO 1226)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL
Case Name: Teresa Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, et al.
Case No.: 19CV01226
I declare:
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal
mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with-the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On February 18, 2020, I served the attached DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the
internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Suite 125,
P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, addressed as follows:
Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at law
PO Box 801
Ashland, OR 97520
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the fo regoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 18, 2020, at Sacramento,
California. /\.. 0
Jenny Thirakul ~
Declarant Signature
SA20 19 102 196
14439362.docx
Preview
1. XAVIER BECERRA No FEE- Gov. CODE,§ 6103 Attorney General of California 2 PETER D. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 JERRY J. DESCHLER 2/18/2020 Deputy Attorney General 4 State Bar No. 215691 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916) 210-7871 Fax: (916) 324-5567 7 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants . 8 Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in its higher 9 education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees of the California State University, State of 10 California"), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF BUTTE 13 CIVIL DIVISION 14 15 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226 16 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND 17 AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 18 19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIY;ERSITY,STATE OF 20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, 21 AN INDIVIDUAL, Trial Date: none 22 Defendants. Action Filed: April 24, 2019 23 24 Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of 25 California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees of the California 26 State University, State of California"), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson ("Defendants") answer 27 the unverified Second Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") filed by plaintiff Teresa Randolph 28 ("Plaintiff') as follows: Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (l 9CVO 1226) 1 GENERAL DENIAL 2 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 431.30(d) and 446, Defendants generally and 3 specifically deny each and every allegation of the Complaint. Defendants further deny generally 4 and specifically that Plaintiff has been damaged in any sum, or at all, by reason of any act or 5 omission on the part of Defendants, or their agents, representatives, and employees. 6 ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 7 Defendants assert the following separate additional defenses to the Complaint. As 8 Defendants' investigation and discovery have just commenced, Defendants cannot fully anticipate 9 all defenses that may be applicable to the action. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the right to 10 assert additional defenses, if and to the extent that such defenses are applicable and, if 11 appropriate, to amend this answer accordingly. 12 FIRST DEFENSE 13 1. The Complaint, in itsentirety and through each separately stated cause of action, 14 fails to state facts sufficient to copstitute a viable cause of action against Defendants. 15 SECOND DEFENSE 16 2. Plaintiff's Complaint and each alleged cause of action are barred in whole or in part 17 by Labor Code sections 2854.or 2856 in that Plaintiff failed to use ordinary care and diligence in 18 the performance of her duties and failed to comply substantially with the reasonable directions of 19 Defendants. 20 THIRD DEFENSE 21 3. Plaintiff failed to comply with the government claims presentation requirement 22 before commencing this action or failed to reflect each purported cause of action in a g9vernment 23 claim. Defendants furthermore reserve all privileges and immunities available to it under California 24 law, including but not limited fo all defenses available under the Government Claims Act. 25 FOURTH DEFENSE 26 4. Plaintiff is barred from seeking any relief due to the equitable. doctrine of waiver, 27 laches, estoppel and/or unclean hands. 28 III 2 Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226) 1 FIFTH DEFENSE 2 5. The damages alleged in the Complaint, if any, were not caused by Defendants, but 3 were the result of Plaintiffs own actions or omissions, or acts of other parties or persons over which 4 Defendants had no control. 5 SIXTH DEFENSE 6 6. Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to sections 815 and 820, et seq. of 7 the California Government Code, including, but not limited to, sections 815, 815.2, 818, 818.2,· 8 818.8, 820.2, 820.6, 820.8, 821.6, and 822.2 and otherwise under state law. In addition, Defendants 9 have absolute immunity and/or qualified immunity because they and other agents and/or employees 10 of Defendants were acting within the scope of their official capacities and/or discretionary duties. 11 SEVENTH DEFENSE 12 7. To the extent Defendants obtain through disi;;overy or otherwise after-acquired 13 evidence of wrongdoing by Plaintiff, the Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged 14 therein are barred by the doctrine of after-acquired evidence, or the doctrine of after-acquired 15 · evidence limits and reduces Plaintiffs alleged damages. 16 EIGHTH DEFENSE 17 8. The Complaint, and each cause of action therein, is barred and this Court is without 18 jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative and/or judicial remedies. 19 NINTH DEFENSE 20 9. To the extent that Plaintiff did not timely file the Complaint and each purpmted 21 cause of action alleged therein, they are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of 22 limitations, including, but not limited to, California Government Code section 12965(b) and Code 23 of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 338(a), and 340(c). 24 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 10. Plaintiffs Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred 26 to the extent that actions by her employer with respect to Plaintiff were taken in good faith and/or 27 for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons and/or were based on reasonable factors 28 other than disability, gender, age, and/or any other protected status or protected conduct. 3 Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226) 1 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 11. Plaintiffs Complaint and each purported cause of action alleged therein are barred 3 in whole or in part because any and all actions taken by Defendants with respect to Plaintiff were 4 job related for the positions in question and consistent with business necessity. 5 TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 12. · Defendants cannot be held liable for any conduct alleged in the Complaint to the 7 extent the individuals who. allegedly engaged in the conduct against Plaintiff were not acting within 8 the course and scope of their employment or agency. 9 THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 10 13. Plaintiffs Complaint and each.purported cause of action alleged therein are barred 11 because Plaintiff frustrated and prevented Defendants from thoroughly investigating any 12 allegations of unlawful conduct by failing or refusing to report her allegations to Defendants in a 13 timely manner, notwithstanding the opportunity for her to do so without fear of retaliation. 14 Therefore, any alleged failure by Defendants to take remedial or disciplinary measures resulted 15 entirely from Plaintiffs frustration of Defendants' ability to remedy any alleged unlawful conduct. 16 FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 17 14. Plaintiff's first, fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action.are barred in whole or in 18 part because Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the job with or without a 19 reasonable accommodation. 20 FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 21 15. Plaintiff's first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in 22 part because Defendants afforded Plaintiff a reasonable accommodation which Plaintiff refused. 23 SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 24 16. Plaintiff's first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in 25 part because any accommodation sought by Plaintiff for her alleged disability created an undue 26 hardship. 27 III 28 III 4 Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (l 9CV01226) 1 SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 2 17. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are baned in whole or in 3 part because Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of the job with or without a 4 reasonable accommodation without endangering the health or safety of herself or others. 5 EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE 6 18. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in 7 part because Plaintiff failed to participate in the interactive process and/or the process broke down 8 through no fault of Defendants. 9 NINETEENTH DEFENSE 1o 19. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in 11 part because Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to notify Defendants of her need for an 12 accommodation. 13 TWENTIETH DEFENSE 14 20. Plaintiffs first,fourth, fifth, and eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in 15 part because Defendants provided a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff for her alleged disability 16 or medical condition. 17 TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE 18 21. Plaintiffs first through eighth causes of action are barred in whole or in part because 19 . assuming arguendo Defendants knew or should have known Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful 20 discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation, Defendants took immediate and appropriate 21 con-ective action. 22 TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE 23 22. Defendants are not liable for the damage to Plaintiffs reputation, if any, to the extent 24 defendant's statement(s) about plaintiff was/were substantially true. 25 TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE 26 23. Defendants are not liable for the alleged defamatory statement(s) to the extent the 27 alleged statement(s) was/were non-actionable opinions, rather than statement(s) of fact. 28 III 5 Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226) 1 TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE 2 24. Defendants are not liable for the alleged defamatory statements to the extent such 3 statements are privileged pursuant to Civil Code section 47(c). 4 TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE 5 25. Defendants are not liable for the alleged defamatory statements to the extent the 6 statement(s) published addressed a matter of public concern, and Plaintiff cannot establish by clear 7 and convincing evidence that Defendants published the statement(s) with actual malice. 8 TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE 9 26. Defendants Cynthia Daley and Deborah Larson are not liable to the extent that they 10 made the alleged defamatory statement(s) in their capacities as public employees while engaged in 11 discretionary acts within the scope of their authority. 12 TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE 13 27. Defendants are entitled to offset for any monies received by Plaintiff from any 14 source in compensation for her alleged economic damages and non-economic damages under the 15 common-law doctrine of offset and under the doctrine prohibiting double recovery set fo1ih in Witt 16 y. Ja~kson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57 and its progeny. 17 TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE 18 28. Defendants owe no obligation to Plaintiff with respect to the matters described in 19 Plaintiff's Complaint to the extent that Plaintiff failed to mitigate, minimize, or otherwise avoid 20 losses, damages, or expenses. 21 TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE 22 29. Plaintiff's purported claims for emotional distress damages are barred to the extent 23 that the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff's alleged emotional distress and other injuries, if any, is 24 before the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board pursuant to the exclusive remedy 25 provisions of the California Workers' Compensation Act. See California Labor Code sections 3600, 26 et seq. 27 III 28 III 6 Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226) 1 THIRTIETH DEFENSE 2 30. Any damages are barred by the Avoidable Consequences Doctrine because: (1) 3 Defendants exercised reasonable steps to prevent and correct any workplace behavior alleged 4 unlawful; (2) Plaintiff unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that 5 Defendants provided; and (3) reasonable use of the Defendants' procedures would have prevented 6 at least some of the harm that Plaintiff suffered. State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior <;ourt 7 (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1026, 1045-46. 8 THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE 9 31. If Plaintiff is entitled to any recovery, such recovery must be reduced by the amount 10 Plaintiff received from collateral or alternative sources, and Defendants shall be entitled to a set- 11 off in the amounts of any prior, pending or ongoing recoveries for the same injuries or damages 12 alleged in this action, and is entitled to reimbursement pursuant to Government Code section 985. 13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 14 Accordingly, Defendants pray as follows: 15 1. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the 16 Complaint as a whole, and that Plaintiff take nothing by way of the Complaint; 17 2. That the Complaint, and each cause of action therein, be dismissed with prejudice; 18 3. That Defendants be awarded costs, expenses, and statutory attorneys' fees incurred in 19 the action; and 20 II I 21 II I 22 I II 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (l 9CVO 1226) 4. That the Court grant such other and further relief as it deems proper. 2 Dated: February 18, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 3 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California 4 PETER D. HALLORAN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 6 7 JERRY J. DESCHLER 8 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 9 Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California 10 acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as "Trustees of the 11 California State University, State of California "), Cynthia Daley, and Debra 12 Larson 13 SA2019102196 14426328.docx 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Defendants' Answer to Second Amended Complaint (19CVO 1226) DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name: Teresa Randolph v. Trustees of the California State University, et al. Case No.: 19CV01226 I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with-the United States Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On February 18, 2020, I served the attached DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550, addressed as follows: Thomas Dimitre, Attorney at law PO Box 801 Ashland, OR 97520 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the fo regoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February 18, 2020, at Sacramento, California. /\.. 0 Jenny Thirakul ~ Declarant Signature SA20 19 102 196 14439362.docx