Preview
F Superior Court of California F
XAVIER BECERRA County of Butte
Attorney General of California | |
PETER D. HALLORAN L 7/24/2020 L
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JERRY J. DESCHLER
Deputy Attomey General D ~
\ D
State Bar No. 215691 ( Deputy
By
1300 I Street, Suite 125 Electronically FILED
P.O, Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 210-7871
Fax: (916) 324-5567
E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov
Altorneys for Defendants
Board of Trustees of the California State University,
which is the State of California acting in its higher
education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees
of the California State University, State of
10 California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson
ll SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF BUTTE
13 CIVIL DIVISION
14
15
TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226
16
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JERRY J.
17 DESCHLER IN SUPPORT OF
v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
18 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS
TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT
STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF
20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY, Date: September 9, 2020
AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Time: 9:00 a.m.
21 AN INDIVIDUAL, Dept: 10
Judge: Robert A. Glusman
22 Defendants. Trial Date: none
Aétion Filed: April 24, 2019
23
24 I, Jerry Deschler, declare:
25 1 1am an attorney licensed to practice inall of the courts of the State of California, and
26 am a Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
27 General, attorneys for Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is
28 the State of California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of
Declaration Of Jerry J. Deschler In Support Of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226)
the California State University, State of California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson
(collectively “Defendants”). The following statements are based upon my personal knowledge,
and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so.
2 Plaintiff Teresa Randolph (“Randolph”) filed the Complaint in the instant action on or
around April 19, 2019. Before Defendants’ response to the Complaint ‘was due to be filed, I
initiated the meet and confer process by identifying the legal and factual deficiencies in the
Complaint in writing. Randolph subsequently served a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) by
mail. The FAC included all of the same causes of action that appeared
in the original Complaint
and added the second cause of action for “retaliation based on disability.” The FAC contained
10 almost all of the same defects and deficiencies as the original Complaint. Consequently, I again
11 sent a meet and confer letter in which the defects were detailed in writing. Eventually, I filed a
12 demurrer to the FAC. The demurrer was granted in part. The Court granted leave to amend as to
13 certain causes of action.
14 3 After the hearing on the demurrer, it became apparent that Randolph failed to exhaust
15 administrative remedies as to certain causes of action by presenting a government tort claim as
16 required by the California Government Tort Claims ‘Act. I obtained a copy of Randolph’s CSU
17 Claim Form, which contains no reference to any claim for defamation or invasion of privacy,
18 contains no facts alluding to any such claims, and does not mention individual defendant Deborah
19 Larson whatsoever. True and correct copies ofRandolph’s CSU Claim Form are attached to
20 Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit A. I also caused to be
21 issued from the Department of Justice, a request for claim search to the Department of General
22 Services, dated May 9, 2019, which is standard practice to obtain copies of any record of a
23 Government Tort Claims Act'claim filed with the Department of General Services, as required by
24 statute, or an affirmation that no records of any such claim exist. On May 15, 2015, J received
25 back a Declaration of no records, dated May 15, 2019, indicating that no claim had been filed,
26 True and correct copies of the Department of Justice’s request for claim search to the Department
27 of General Services, dated May 9, 2019, and responding Declaration of no records, dated May 15,
28 2019 are attached to Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit B.
Declaration Of Jerry J. Deschler In Support Of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's
Second Aniended Complaint (19CV01226)
———
4 Randolph subsequently served a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”), I
observed that the SAC contained many of the same defects as the FAC. A true and correct copy
of the SAC is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
5 On October 2, 2019, I sent a letter setting forth the specific defects in the SAC, and
the legal authority supporting the deficiencies in Randolph’s eighth, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth
causes of action. A true and correct copy of my October 2, 2019 letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit D.
6 On October 10, 2019, I further discussed the defects in the SAC with Randolph’s
counsel during a telephone call. He told me to “go ahead and file” because he was not willing to
10 cure the defects voluntarily. During meet and confer teleconference, Randolph’s counsel stated
11 that he added new factual allegations in paragraphs 50, 80, and 90 of the SAC that were sufficient
12 to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of
13 privacy. I subsequently reviewed those paragraphs. Paragraphs 50 and 80 are copied verbatim
14 from the FAC and allege no new facts whatsoever. Paragraph 90 does not contain any factual
15 allegations and instead merely restates legal contentions found elsewhere in the SAC.
7
16 I continued to attempt to discuss the legal defects and my belief that they could not be
17 cured. I offered to send a copy of Randolph’s CSU Claim Form to him. I subsequently did so. A
18 true and correct copy of my October 10, 2019 emailis attached hereto as Exhibit E. I received no
19 further responses from Randolph’s counsel.
20 8 Defendants filed a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings prior to filing an answer to
21 the SAC. The Court denied the motion on the grourids the pleadings were not yet at issue because
22 Defendants had not yet answered. Defendants subsequently filed an answer to the SAC. I again
23 attempted to meet and confer, and sent a letter to Randolph’s counsel on February 18, 2020
24 (which contains a typographical error and is erroneously dated February 18, 2019). During a
25 subsequent telephone call relating to other issues, I attempted to discuss the defects in the SAC
26 with Randolph’s counsel. Randolph’s counsel responded that he was unwilling to further discuss
27 the pleadings, and that Defendants should file a motion. In several subsequent emails from late
28 February 2020 to the present relating to a discovery dispute, Iattempted to schedule telephone
Declaration Of Jerry J. Deschter In Support Of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226)
—
calls with opposing counsel to discuss the discovery dispute. I intended to address the issues with
the pleadings as well. However, despite over 10 separate requests for a further meet and confer
phone call, Randolph’s counsel would not agree to discuss any issues relating to the case. True
and correct copies of some of the emails between me and opposing counsel, and my February 18,
2020 letter, are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit F.
Executed this 24 day of July 2020, in Sacramento, California.
ee ==
14
but did so anyway, violating campus policy. Plaintiff copied Mr. Cummings on her email to Ms.
15
Daley so that he would be aware of the violations. To Plaintiff's knowledge, no action was ever
16
taken against Ms. Daley due to these violations.
7
18 49,
19 Once the campus reopened, Plaintiff was even more buried with work, as she was now
20
two weeks further behind. Though she was sick, she was required to come in and work. Ms.
21
Daley’s behavior became even more aggressive towards Plaintiff in that she excluded Plaintiff
22
even more from department meetings, staff meetings, and events. Plaintiff's stress, anxiety and
23
24 back pain increased.
25
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 18
50.
On or about December 3rd the Plaintiff was notified that her office would be moving to
Holt Hall the first week of January. This added even more stress and anxiety to the Plaintiff,
especially with the campus holiday closure just two weeks away. Although she had let Ms. Dale’
6 and others know that another move during the most crucial phase of the conference, and just
after the fire catastrophe closure, would be difficult and require even more work, she was told,
that despite her doctor restrictions, her stress and related back injury, and the reasonable
accommodations agreed to by the University, she would need to pack the office files and
10
contents in preparation of yet another move. This resulted in tripling the Plaintiff's workload and
i
12 increasing her stress level.
13 ot.
14
On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff notified Ms, Daley that she had some medical
15
appointments coming up and that she would be out for a couple of days that month. Plaintiff
16
reminded Ms. Daley that she was ever more behind regarding the Conference due to the fire
17
18 closure and as a result she would have to work through the weekend, and likely the holiday
19 closure, to catch up, start packing the office, and post the Conference schedule to the conference
20
website so that registration could open January 1, 2019 as posted. Ms. Dalcy said “Oh, ok” and
21
left,
22
32.
23
24 On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff then met with Dean John Unruh to discuss Ms. Daley’s
25 inappropriate behavior, her continued violation of policies, its impact on the conference and the
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC 12940 (A), (H), (), (K), (), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACY AMOUNT: $750,000 - 19
students and to Plaintiff's stress levels. Plaintiff also discussed that she was being worked well
over the eight hour per day restrictions given to her by her doctor, that she was not allowed rest
or meal breaks, or time to take walks, that her stress levels were quickly increasing, and that the
University was violating the reasonable accommodations that had been agreed to. Despite
Plaintiff advising Mr. Unruh that he and the University would be liable for these violations, Mr.
Unruh took no action on Plaintiff's concerns tegarding the Defendants’ refusal to reasonable
accommodate her. He did not initiate an interactive process or provide Plaintiff with a reasonable]
accommodation, nor did he contact anyone else at the University to do so,
10
53.
ik
12 At the same meeting, Plaintiff also told Mr. Unruh that Ms. Daley was violating the
13 campus donations policy, consultant agreement/Request For Proposal policies, alechol policies
14
and Alcohol Beverage Control requirements. Plaintiff also told Mr. Unruh about Ms. Daley’s
15
refusal to meet with Plaintiff regarding the budget and the assorted problems that she and others
16
had identified, Despite Plaintiff telling Mr. Unruh that he and the University would be liable for
17
18 these violations, Mr. Unruh took no action on these issues.
19 34,
20
At the same meeting, Plaintiff also told Mr. Unruh that Ms. Daley had sent inappropriate
21
emails to non campus people, and described her hostility toward Plaintiff, and her hostile
22
behavior to students. Plaintiff told Mr. Unruh that the University would be liable for Ms.
23
24 Daiey’s violations if he, or someone, did not do something about them. Though Mr. Unruh
25 stated that he agreed that the issues raised by Plaintiff were problems, nothing was done to
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
7 DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT; $750,000 - 20
remedy the issues raised by Plaintiff.
55.
Mr. Unruh also stated that he agreed that the reorganization was not working and said
that he would talk to Mr. Grassian to try and come up with a solution.
36.
Ms. Daley somehow found out about the meeting that Plaintiff was having with Mr.
Unruh, and though not invited, listened outside, at the door, during the entire meeting. When
Robin McCrea, Mr. Unruh’s assistant, found Ms. Daley standing at the door listening, Ms. Daley]
10
quickly left. Ms. Daley was furious.
11
12 St.
13 Two days later on December 14, 2018 the Plaintiff returned from a dental procedure to
14
find that Ms. Daley had ordered IT to shut down the Conference website, with no notice or
15
warning to Plaintiff. There was no pre or post shut down notice to Plaintiff. By shutting down
16
the website, Ms. Daley was essentially shutting down the Conference, and climinating the
7
18 Plaintiff's ability to perform her job.
19 58.
20
Shortly thereafter, Ms. Daley communicated by email to Defendant employees that
21
Plaintiff was responsible for shutting down the Conference, even though it was Ms. Daley who
22
shut down the website, and therefore, the Conference.
23
24 59.
25 Ms. Daley had not spoken to the Plaintiff since their meeting on December 10th, and she
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (1), (), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 21
had not mentioned that she was going to shut down the website. This devastated the Plaintiff, as
well as the students working on the conference. They all were perplexed and afraid for the
future of the conference, and their jobs. Plaintiff's stress level was greatly increased.
60.
Michal Hanson, lead conference student, asked Plaintiff what she could do regarding the
Conference website being shut down and decided to include the topic on the Campus
Sustainability Committee agenda, which she was a member of. She later told Plaintiff that when
she brought up the conference and asked why Ms. Daley had shut it and the conference website
10
down, Provost Larson and Ms. Daley very angrily cut her off, feigning that they didn’t know
iW
12 what had happened or why. Ms. Daley immediately texted Plaintiff and accused her of causing a
13 “shit storm”. Again, Plaintiff's anxiety, stress and back pain increased,
14
61.
15
Later on December 14, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to HR, Dylan Saake, asking for a
16
transfer to Robin McCrea’s position as an accommodation for her disability. Ms. McCrea was
7
i8 retiring at the end of the month. This was a request for a lateral transfer into the same
9 classification. Plaintiff made it clear that she was making this request due to her supervisor’s
20
unwillingness to accommodate her disability. The request was denied with no reason given. No
ai
interactive process was conducted and no reasonable accommodation given. This lack of
22
responsiveness from Human Resources greatly increased Plaintiff's stress, anxiety and back pair]
23
24 62,
25 Later on December 14, 2018, Plaintiff then went home sick because of the devastating
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (4), @), (KX), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF, LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 22
actions of Ms. Daley and the University’s refusal to intervene.
63.
On December 15, 2018, Plaintiff emailed CSU Chico President Gayle Hutchinson, told
her about the violations by Ms. Daley and how the Defendants were not accommodating her
disability. Plaintiff begged the President to intervene but received no response to her allegations
of violations. In addition, Plaintiff did not receive a response from the President regarding the
Defendants’ failure to accommodate her. No interactive process was held and no reasonable
accommodation was made.
io
64,
li
12 On December 17, 2018 Plaintiff called in sick due to the ever increasing stress and
13 anxiety, and the impact of the stress on her back, all occurring because the Defendants’ refused
14
to convene an interactive process or provide a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
18
had a complete physical, mental and emotional breakdown due to all of the above, and could not
16
work,
17
18 65,
19 Later, on December 17, 2018, Plaintiff received an email from Ms. Daley, copied to Mike
20
Guzzi, Cheri Chastain and Nami Teves, sharing Plaintiff's issues stating “if this (your
21
absence) is about your health, perhaps we should discuss finding a replacement and you can take
22
a lesser role until you feel better. It is a lot of responsibility Teri, someone to help share the load|”
23
24 Ms. Daley was recommending, and sharing with others, that Plaintiff be replaced due to those
25 medical appointments, further causing Plaintiff to worry about her job, the success of the
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A). (H), (J), (6), (M4), (N), CC12945,2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 23
Conference, her students’ jobs, and her future at the CSU. At no point did Ms. Daiey initiate the
interactive process or provide a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff. At this point, Plaintiff
had been absent from work for two days for dental appointments and one day due to the Daley
created stress. Plaintiff had more than sufficient sick time to cover her absences, as she had
rarely been sick prior to September 2018, Daley’s comments only made Plaintiffs condition
worse.
66.
On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff had a second dental procedure to repiace a cracked
10
filing caused by stress, and stayed home sick the entire day.
ll
12 67.
13 At 4:00 am on December 19, 2019, Ms. Daley emailed Plaintiff demanding that she
14
attend a meeting to provide a full report updating her about the Conference, and ordered Plaintiff}
15
to provide many of her passwords (which violates the campus password protection policy).
16
Plaintiff had already provided Ms. Daley with all of this information via email, spreadsheets,
17
18 Working Schedule, and in meetings. Many of the passwords requested by Ms. Daley were
19 platforms that were not owned by the University that contained Plaintiff's confidential data, and
20
were not subject to being accessed by Ms. Daley. This created unbearable stress for Plaintiff.
21
68.
22
On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff had a previously planned holiday lunch with her
23
24 students. Ms. Daley had previously signed off on the cash advance for the lunch at 4:00 pm, so it
25 was known to her. Despite this, Ms. Daley ordered Plaintiff to attend a 4:00 pm meeting with
26
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (1), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF, LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 24
her and knew she would be unable to do so, due to her already planned holiday lunch at the very
same time.
69.
“Later on December 19, 2018, Plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave by Mr.
6 Saake for failing to attend the 4:00 pm meeting with Ms. Daley. Plaintiff was locked out of her
campus email, Box folders, and the buildings.
70.
By middle to late December, Plaintiff began having heart palpitations and her blood
10
pressure was very high, she hadn’t been sleeping and her anxiety, stress and back pain had
IL
12 severely increased.
13 Pla
i4
On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff saw her physician due to the stress from work, and the
15
Defendant's lack of accommodating her disability. Due to Defendants continual violations of the
16
physician’s restrictions, Plaintiff's physician then immediately took Plaintiff off of work.
17
18 Plaintiff notified Defendants that she was out on leave per her physician, until at least January 28}
19 2019.
20
72.
21
Despite Plaintiff being off of work on her physician’s orders, and due to stress, she
22
received an email from Mr. Saake ordering her to an investigatory interview on January 15, 2014
23
24 Plaintiff responded that she could not attend based on her physician’s orders. However, Plaintiff
25 did send a letter to Mr. Saake pointing out that the Defendants had access to all of the servers and
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), Q), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 25
other electronic information that Plaintiff had compiled over the years.
73.
On January 16, 2019 Plaintiff requested her personnel, medical, official, unofficial,
temporary and all files, as allowed by the union contract.
74.
Despite Plaintiffs initial response to his demand for an investigatory interview, Mr. Saakel
again ordered her to the investigatory interview. Plaintiff again declined due to her physician’s
orders. Plaintiffs condition was worsening, due to the additional stress that Defendants’ were
10
dumping on her, despite being off on sick leave due to this stress.
11
75.
13 On January 22, 2019 Plaintiff called the CSU Chico’s worker’s compensation carrier and
14
informed them that Defendants were not complying with her physician’s ordered restrictions, or
15
the agreed upon reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff received no response. No interactive
16
process was held and no reasonable accommodation was made.
W
18 76.
19 On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff's physician extended her medical leave, due to the
20
continued stress,
2i
TT:
22
On February 1, 2019, Defendants launched a new Conference website. The entire history
23
24 of the conference was missing, and all other Sustainability accomplishments made over the past
25 thirteen years were missing, as well as the campus’ examples of leadership and commitment to
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), G), (X), (), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 26
sustainability. In addition, Plaintiff's name was not listed. Plaintiff was no longer listed on the
RAJ website either. Plaintiff had been the key contact for both, prior to going off of work sick. It
was as if the Defendants had already terminated Plaintiff.
2.
As of February 21, 2019, Plaintiff had not received her files, as requested, though more
than 35 days had passed.
79.
On February 26, 2019 Plaintiff saw her physician again. Due to the Defendants’ continua’
10
failure to honor the restrictions that he had placed on Plaintiff, failure to reasonably
11
12 accommodate her as required, and due to the Defendants’ continual stressing of Plaintiff, he
13 recommended that she not return to work.
14
80.
45
On March 1, 2019, Plaintiff received a “Notice of Pending Disciplinary Action”
16
(“Notice”) from Provost Debra Larson. The “Notice” accused Plaintiff of dishonesty,
17
18 unprofessionalism, insubordination, intentional sabotage and maliciousness and other failure or
19 refusals to perform the duties of her position. All of these allegations were knowingly false,
20
unsubstantiated, and part of Ms. Daley’s, and Defendants’ strategy to retaliate against Plaintiff
al
due to her whistleblowing against Ms. Daley’s multiple violations of campus, Chancellor’s
22
Office and State policies and statutes. The Notice was also retaliation for Plaintiff's attempts to
23
24 have the Defendants comply with her physician ordered reasonable accommodations. Defendantg
25 had not engaged in the interactive process or provided reasonable accommodations to Plaintiff as|
26
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 27
requested by her physician and by Plaintiff on numerous occasions. Instead of waiting for
Plaintiff to return to work from her physician’s ordered leave so that she could be interviewed
regarding these allegations, Defendants’ chose to propose discipline against her without
completing the investigation by hearing her side of the story.
81.
The allegations in the notice were generally regarding files on the Defendants’ server.
Defendants accused Plaintiff of withholding passwords for information/University property from|
them when she went on leave.
10
82.
IE
12 But Plaintiff had already provided all of this information to Defendants as part of her
13 routine work at the CSU Chico prior to going out on leave. Plaintiff has also already provided
14
this information to Defendants on January 15, 2019, via letter, to Mr. Saake
15
83.
16
On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff resigned her position, per her physician’s advice, due to the
7
18 ongoing and never ending stress. She was constructively discharged.
19 84.
20
Besides violating California law, Defendants’ refusal to initiate the interactive process
21
with Plaintiff and to provide her with reasonable accommodation also violates the CSU Chico
22
“The ADA and Reasonable Accommodation For Employees with Disabilities Policy” (“CSU
23
24 Chico ADA Policy”) which states in pertinent part:
25 “Making a Request for Accommodation
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 28
The interactive process starts with an accommodation request from an employee with a
disability so it is important for employers to be able to recognize a request. According to
the EEOC, an individual may use "plain English" and need not mention the ADA or use
the phrase "reasonable accommodation" when requesting an accommodation. Therefore.
any time an employee indicates that he/she is having a problem and the problem is related
to a medical condition, CSU Chico should consider whether the employee is making a
request for accommodation under the ADA.”
CSU Chico ADA Policy, p. 6
“Employees
An employee may request an accommodation orally or in writing from his or her
supervisor; another supervisor or manager in his/her immediate chain of command; an
appropriate administrator; or the campus ADA coordinator.
A request for accommodation does not have to include any special words, such as
reasonable accommodation," "disability," or "Rehabilitation Act." The statements "I
10 can't move those boxes because of my back" and "I'm having trouble getting to work at
my scheduled starting time because of medical treatments I'm undergoing" both
iL
constitute requests that need to be considered for reasonable accommodation. Managers
42 and Administrators must be attuned to recognizing these kinds of statements as possible
requests for teasonable accommodation,”
13 CSU Chico ADA Policy, p. 6.
14
“Responding to Requests for Accommodation
iS ADA Coordinator:
All requests for accommodations made by current CSU Chico employees will be
16 managed by the ADA Coordinator. Requests received by supervisors or other CSU Chico
employees shall be forwarded to the ADA Coordinator as soon as possible, but in no
17
more than five business days. The ADA Coordinator will notify the employee's
18 appropriate administrator promptly, that an accommodation request has been made.”
CSU Chico ADA Policy, p. 7
19
85
20
21 Ms. Daley violated the CSU Chico In Kind Gift Process policy (“Gift Process Policy”),
22 when she refused to fill out and process the General Use In Kind Gift Form, the In Kind Gift
23
Acceptance, and the Pre Authorization Form, as required. She also violated the Chancellor’s
24
Office Policy, IRS Publication 526, and the CSU Chico Gift Acceptance Policy and the CSU
25
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), 0K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 29
1 Chico University Foundation Gift Acceptance Policy.
86.
On December 19, 2018, Ms. Daley demanded that Plaintiff provide her with all of
Plaintiff's passwords for all of the information that she had placed on campus servers. This
demand violates the CSU Responsible Use Policy — 8105.00 which states in pertinent part:
“4.4 Responsibility of Account Owners
4.4.1 The owner or custodians of credentials, such as a username and password, that
permit access to a CSU information system of network resource is responsible for all
activity initiated by the user and performed under his/her credentials.
10
4.4.2 Users must take reasonable steps to appropriately protect their credentials from
11
12 becoming known by, or used by others:
Unless specific prior authorization has been granted, users are prohibited from:
13 c) Disclosing passwords to any party or including passwords in documentation.”
14
15 87.
16 In November 2018, Ms. Daley moved an on campus event that included alcohol to an off
7
campus location. Ms. Daley intended to serve alcohol at the on-campus event, and did, in fact,
18
served alcohol at the off campus event. Plaintiff had warned Ms. Daley that holding an off
19
campus event required an Alcohol Use Request form, and approval by the CSU Chico Director
20
al of University Public Engagement in counsel with the University Risk Manager. Ms. Daley
22 ignored Plaintiff's advice per the CSU Chico Alcohol policy. Plaintiff also told Ms. Daley that
23
she also needed a license to serve alcohol from the State of California Alcohol Beverage Control
24
(“ABC”), per the CSU Chico Alcohol Policy and per State law. Ms. Daley ignored Plaintiffs
25
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (A), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (8),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 30
1 warnings. The correct process was not followed, no ABC license was obtained, no forms filled
out, and no approvals sought or given.
88.
The CSU Chico Alcohol Service at Special Events, EM 18-009 states the following in
pertinent part:
“POLICY
Events or occasions where alcohol is approved to be served or sold are termed “Special
Events” and must be approved by the Director of University Public Engagement in
counsel with the University Risk Manager.
The service or sale of alcohol in campus facilities is subject to campus policy and federal
10 and state laws.
fl
42 PROCEDURES
13 Alcohol Use Request forms are available at the UPE office or online at
bttp://www.csuchico.edu/upe/alcohol-policy/index.shtml
14
a5 Requests must be submitted 21 days prior to event.
An on-campus or off-campus University related event at which alcohol is to bé served or
16 sold must be sponsored by a unit, department or university-recognized faculty/staff
organization unless the facility is leased to an outside entity.
17
The person submitting the Alcohol Use Request application must be a University or
18 auxiliary employee, or the request must be co-signed by a University or auxiliary
employee.
19
Requests require the second approval signature of a senior administrator of the college,
20
department, division or auxiliary bosting the event.
21 Events that are open to the public or where alcohol is sold require an appropriate Alcohol
Beverage Control (ABC) license,
22
Procurement for Sale or Service
23
Purchase of alcohol for off-campus approved events must comply with all relevant
24 auxiliary guidelines or must be facilitated by an insured third party vendor.
Any donated alcohol that is to be served or sold at a University or auxiliary sponsored
25 event must follow the appropriate campus or auxiliary guidelines for donations.
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (4), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 31
89.
Due to the loss of her job, Plaintiff was forced to sell her Chico home. Due to the housing}
market, she was unable to find an affordable home in Chico or the Chico area.
90.
Defendants, in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her job, worked diligently to create
such emotional distress in her, that she would eventually quit her job. ‘That is exactly what
Plaintiff was forced to do. Defendants willfully defamed her, willfully refused to abide by
reasonabie accommodations already approved, willfully refused to meet in the required
10
interactive process, willfully refused to continue her reasonable accommodations, willfully
li
12 refused to engage in the interactive process or provide new reasonable accommodations,
13 willfully harassed her by communicating with her at 4 am, willfully lied when it told the campus
14
that Plaintiff was responsible for the shutdown of the conference website (basically shutting
15
down the conference itself), willfully changing her job duties without going through the proper
16
procedure thereby making it impossible for her to perform her job duties, intentionally left her
17
18 out of meetings that were part of her job description and duties, willfully damaged her personal
19 and professional reputations so that it would be impossible for Plaintiff to work there or to return|
20
to work, willfully distributed information regarding her health and medical condition to
21
unauthorized campus recipients, willfully required her to work long hours - well over and above
22
the restrictions placed on her by her physician, willfully trumped up charges against her,
23
24 willfully attempted to interview her regarding trumped up allegations of malfeasance while she
25 was out on physician ordered sick leave, and then willfully proposed that she be terminated from
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (1), (1), (K), (M), (N), CC12945,2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACY AMOUNT: $750,000 - 32
her job while Defendants (including Larson) made knowingly false charges and allegations
against Plaintiff. Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct towards the Plaintiff was with thd
intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress.
Defendants succeeded, by creating such a high level of emotional distress in Plaintiff that she
was constructively discharged.
91,
The acts of Defendants were prolonged, and systematic, and calculated to generate a high|
level of stress in Plaintiff, in order that she would quit. The constructive discharge was a direct
10
result of this campaign.
it
12 92.
13 On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff obtained a right to sue letter from the California Department
14
of Fair Employment and Housing.
is
93.
16
17
On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a California Tort Claims Act notice with the California!
18 State University. On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff's Tort Claim was rejected.
19 FIRST CLAIM
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A DISABILITY
20
Violation of California Government Code 12940 (a)
21 (Trustees of the California State University and the State of California)
22 94,
23
Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates by reference hercin all of the allegations contained
24
in paragraphs 1 through 93, above,
25
26
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
27
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (), (K), (M1), (XN), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 33
95.
California Government Code section 12940 (a) states the following:
“Tt is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by
the United States or the State of California:
(a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry,
physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital
status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military]
and veteran status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to
select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge
the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to
discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment.”
10
96.
li
12 Defendants’ conduct, outlined above, violated California Government Code 12940 (a).
13 97.
14
As a result of Defendants’ violations of California Government Code 12940 (a), Plaintiff
45
has, and will continue to, suffer damages, including, but not limited to, lost income, retirement,
16
and benefits, , loss of her home, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of
48 enjoyment of life, and damage to her health and to her personal and professional reputations.
19
SECOND CLAIM
20
RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING ILLEGAL PRACTICES
21 Violation of California Government Code 12940 (h)
(Trustees of the California State University and the State of California)
22
98.
23
24 Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained
25 in paragraphs | through 97, above.
26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (1), (), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
28
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF
PRIVACY AMOUNT: $750,000 - 34
99:
California Governmen
Preview
F Superior Court of California F XAVIER BECERRA County of Butte Attorney General of California | | PETER D. HALLORAN L 7/24/2020 L Supervising Deputy Attorney General JERRY J. DESCHLER Deputy Attomey General D ~ \ D State Bar No. 215691 ( Deputy By 1300 I Street, Suite 125 Electronically FILED P.O, Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 210-7871 Fax: (916) 324-5567 E-mail: Jerry.Deschler@doj.ca.gov Altorneys for Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is the State of California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of the California State University, State of 10 California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson ll SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF BUTTE 13 CIVIL DIVISION 14 15 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No. 19CV01226 16 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JERRY J. 17 DESCHLER IN SUPPORT OF v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 18 JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 19 TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPLAINT STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF 20 CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA DALEY, Date: September 9, 2020 AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DEBRA LARSON, Time: 9:00 a.m. 21 AN INDIVIDUAL, Dept: 10 Judge: Robert A. Glusman 22 Defendants. Trial Date: none Aétion Filed: April 24, 2019 23 24 I, Jerry Deschler, declare: 25 1 1am an attorney licensed to practice inall of the courts of the State of California, and 26 am a Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney 27 General, attorneys for Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, which is 28 the State of California acting in its higher education capacity (erroneously sued as “Trustees of Declaration Of Jerry J. Deschler In Support Of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226) the California State University, State of California”), Cynthia Daley, and Debra Larson (collectively “Defendants”). The following statements are based upon my personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and would competently do so. 2 Plaintiff Teresa Randolph (“Randolph”) filed the Complaint in the instant action on or around April 19, 2019. Before Defendants’ response to the Complaint ‘was due to be filed, I initiated the meet and confer process by identifying the legal and factual deficiencies in the Complaint in writing. Randolph subsequently served a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) by mail. The FAC included all of the same causes of action that appeared in the original Complaint and added the second cause of action for “retaliation based on disability.” The FAC contained 10 almost all of the same defects and deficiencies as the original Complaint. Consequently, I again 11 sent a meet and confer letter in which the defects were detailed in writing. Eventually, I filed a 12 demurrer to the FAC. The demurrer was granted in part. The Court granted leave to amend as to 13 certain causes of action. 14 3 After the hearing on the demurrer, it became apparent that Randolph failed to exhaust 15 administrative remedies as to certain causes of action by presenting a government tort claim as 16 required by the California Government Tort Claims ‘Act. I obtained a copy of Randolph’s CSU 17 Claim Form, which contains no reference to any claim for defamation or invasion of privacy, 18 contains no facts alluding to any such claims, and does not mention individual defendant Deborah 19 Larson whatsoever. True and correct copies ofRandolph’s CSU Claim Form are attached to 20 Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit A. I also caused to be 21 issued from the Department of Justice, a request for claim search to the Department of General 22 Services, dated May 9, 2019, which is standard practice to obtain copies of any record of a 23 Government Tort Claims Act'claim filed with the Department of General Services, as required by 24 statute, or an affirmation that no records of any such claim exist. On May 15, 2015, J received 25 back a Declaration of no records, dated May 15, 2019, indicating that no claim had been filed, 26 True and correct copies of the Department of Justice’s request for claim search to the Department 27 of General Services, dated May 9, 2019, and responding Declaration of no records, dated May 15, 28 2019 are attached to Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit B. Declaration Of Jerry J. Deschler In Support Of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Second Aniended Complaint (19CV01226) ——— 4 Randolph subsequently served a Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”), I observed that the SAC contained many of the same defects as the FAC. A true and correct copy of the SAC is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5 On October 2, 2019, I sent a letter setting forth the specific defects in the SAC, and the legal authority supporting the deficiencies in Randolph’s eighth, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth causes of action. A true and correct copy of my October 2, 2019 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 6 On October 10, 2019, I further discussed the defects in the SAC with Randolph’s counsel during a telephone call. He told me to “go ahead and file” because he was not willing to 10 cure the defects voluntarily. During meet and confer teleconference, Randolph’s counsel stated 11 that he added new factual allegations in paragraphs 50, 80, and 90 of the SAC that were sufficient 12 to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and invasion of 13 privacy. I subsequently reviewed those paragraphs. Paragraphs 50 and 80 are copied verbatim 14 from the FAC and allege no new facts whatsoever. Paragraph 90 does not contain any factual 15 allegations and instead merely restates legal contentions found elsewhere in the SAC. 7 16 I continued to attempt to discuss the legal defects and my belief that they could not be 17 cured. I offered to send a copy of Randolph’s CSU Claim Form to him. I subsequently did so. A 18 true and correct copy of my October 10, 2019 emailis attached hereto as Exhibit E. I received no 19 further responses from Randolph’s counsel. 20 8 Defendants filed a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings prior to filing an answer to 21 the SAC. The Court denied the motion on the grourids the pleadings were not yet at issue because 22 Defendants had not yet answered. Defendants subsequently filed an answer to the SAC. I again 23 attempted to meet and confer, and sent a letter to Randolph’s counsel on February 18, 2020 24 (which contains a typographical error and is erroneously dated February 18, 2019). During a 25 subsequent telephone call relating to other issues, I attempted to discuss the defects in the SAC 26 with Randolph’s counsel. Randolph’s counsel responded that he was unwilling to further discuss 27 the pleadings, and that Defendants should file a motion. In several subsequent emails from late 28 February 2020 to the present relating to a discovery dispute, Iattempted to schedule telephone Declaration Of Jerry J. Deschter In Support Of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (19CV01226) — calls with opposing counsel to discuss the discovery dispute. I intended to address the issues with the pleadings as well. However, despite over 10 separate requests for a further meet and confer phone call, Randolph’s counsel would not agree to discuss any issues relating to the case. True and correct copies of some of the emails between me and opposing counsel, and my February 18, 2020 letter, are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit F. Executed this 24 day of July 2020, in Sacramento, California. ee == 14 but did so anyway, violating campus policy. Plaintiff copied Mr. Cummings on her email to Ms. 15 Daley so that he would be aware of the violations. To Plaintiff's knowledge, no action was ever 16 taken against Ms. Daley due to these violations. 7 18 49, 19 Once the campus reopened, Plaintiff was even more buried with work, as she was now 20 two weeks further behind. Though she was sick, she was required to come in and work. Ms. 21 Daley’s behavior became even more aggressive towards Plaintiff in that she excluded Plaintiff 22 even more from department meetings, staff meetings, and events. Plaintiff's stress, anxiety and 23 24 back pain increased. 25 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 18 50. On or about December 3rd the Plaintiff was notified that her office would be moving to Holt Hall the first week of January. This added even more stress and anxiety to the Plaintiff, especially with the campus holiday closure just two weeks away. Although she had let Ms. Dale’ 6 and others know that another move during the most crucial phase of the conference, and just after the fire catastrophe closure, would be difficult and require even more work, she was told, that despite her doctor restrictions, her stress and related back injury, and the reasonable accommodations agreed to by the University, she would need to pack the office files and 10 contents in preparation of yet another move. This resulted in tripling the Plaintiff's workload and i 12 increasing her stress level. 13 ot. 14 On December 10, 2018, Plaintiff notified Ms, Daley that she had some medical 15 appointments coming up and that she would be out for a couple of days that month. Plaintiff 16 reminded Ms. Daley that she was ever more behind regarding the Conference due to the fire 17 18 closure and as a result she would have to work through the weekend, and likely the holiday 19 closure, to catch up, start packing the office, and post the Conference schedule to the conference 20 website so that registration could open January 1, 2019 as posted. Ms. Dalcy said “Oh, ok” and 21 left, 22 32. 23 24 On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff then met with Dean John Unruh to discuss Ms. Daley’s 25 inappropriate behavior, her continued violation of policies, its impact on the conference and the 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC 12940 (A), (H), (), (K), (), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACY AMOUNT: $750,000 - 19 students and to Plaintiff's stress levels. Plaintiff also discussed that she was being worked well over the eight hour per day restrictions given to her by her doctor, that she was not allowed rest or meal breaks, or time to take walks, that her stress levels were quickly increasing, and that the University was violating the reasonable accommodations that had been agreed to. Despite Plaintiff advising Mr. Unruh that he and the University would be liable for these violations, Mr. Unruh took no action on Plaintiff's concerns tegarding the Defendants’ refusal to reasonable accommodate her. He did not initiate an interactive process or provide Plaintiff with a reasonable] accommodation, nor did he contact anyone else at the University to do so, 10 53. ik 12 At the same meeting, Plaintiff also told Mr. Unruh that Ms. Daley was violating the 13 campus donations policy, consultant agreement/Request For Proposal policies, alechol policies 14 and Alcohol Beverage Control requirements. Plaintiff also told Mr. Unruh about Ms. Daley’s 15 refusal to meet with Plaintiff regarding the budget and the assorted problems that she and others 16 had identified, Despite Plaintiff telling Mr. Unruh that he and the University would be liable for 17 18 these violations, Mr. Unruh took no action on these issues. 19 34, 20 At the same meeting, Plaintiff also told Mr. Unruh that Ms. Daley had sent inappropriate 21 emails to non campus people, and described her hostility toward Plaintiff, and her hostile 22 behavior to students. Plaintiff told Mr. Unruh that the University would be liable for Ms. 23 24 Daiey’s violations if he, or someone, did not do something about them. Though Mr. Unruh 25 stated that he agreed that the issues raised by Plaintiff were problems, nothing was done to 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 7 DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT; $750,000 - 20 remedy the issues raised by Plaintiff. 55. Mr. Unruh also stated that he agreed that the reorganization was not working and said that he would talk to Mr. Grassian to try and come up with a solution. 36. Ms. Daley somehow found out about the meeting that Plaintiff was having with Mr. Unruh, and though not invited, listened outside, at the door, during the entire meeting. When Robin McCrea, Mr. Unruh’s assistant, found Ms. Daley standing at the door listening, Ms. Daley] 10 quickly left. Ms. Daley was furious. 11 12 St. 13 Two days later on December 14, 2018 the Plaintiff returned from a dental procedure to 14 find that Ms. Daley had ordered IT to shut down the Conference website, with no notice or 15 warning to Plaintiff. There was no pre or post shut down notice to Plaintiff. By shutting down 16 the website, Ms. Daley was essentially shutting down the Conference, and climinating the 7 18 Plaintiff's ability to perform her job. 19 58. 20 Shortly thereafter, Ms. Daley communicated by email to Defendant employees that 21 Plaintiff was responsible for shutting down the Conference, even though it was Ms. Daley who 22 shut down the website, and therefore, the Conference. 23 24 59. 25 Ms. Daley had not spoken to the Plaintiff since their meeting on December 10th, and she 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (1), (), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 21 had not mentioned that she was going to shut down the website. This devastated the Plaintiff, as well as the students working on the conference. They all were perplexed and afraid for the future of the conference, and their jobs. Plaintiff's stress level was greatly increased. 60. Michal Hanson, lead conference student, asked Plaintiff what she could do regarding the Conference website being shut down and decided to include the topic on the Campus Sustainability Committee agenda, which she was a member of. She later told Plaintiff that when she brought up the conference and asked why Ms. Daley had shut it and the conference website 10 down, Provost Larson and Ms. Daley very angrily cut her off, feigning that they didn’t know iW 12 what had happened or why. Ms. Daley immediately texted Plaintiff and accused her of causing a 13 “shit storm”. Again, Plaintiff's anxiety, stress and back pain increased, 14 61. 15 Later on December 14, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to HR, Dylan Saake, asking for a 16 transfer to Robin McCrea’s position as an accommodation for her disability. Ms. McCrea was 7 i8 retiring at the end of the month. This was a request for a lateral transfer into the same 9 classification. Plaintiff made it clear that she was making this request due to her supervisor’s 20 unwillingness to accommodate her disability. The request was denied with no reason given. No ai interactive process was conducted and no reasonable accommodation given. This lack of 22 responsiveness from Human Resources greatly increased Plaintiff's stress, anxiety and back pair] 23 24 62, 25 Later on December 14, 2018, Plaintiff then went home sick because of the devastating 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (4), @), (KX), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF, LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 22 actions of Ms. Daley and the University’s refusal to intervene. 63. On December 15, 2018, Plaintiff emailed CSU Chico President Gayle Hutchinson, told her about the violations by Ms. Daley and how the Defendants were not accommodating her disability. Plaintiff begged the President to intervene but received no response to her allegations of violations. In addition, Plaintiff did not receive a response from the President regarding the Defendants’ failure to accommodate her. No interactive process was held and no reasonable accommodation was made. io 64, li 12 On December 17, 2018 Plaintiff called in sick due to the ever increasing stress and 13 anxiety, and the impact of the stress on her back, all occurring because the Defendants’ refused 14 to convene an interactive process or provide a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff. Plaintiff 18 had a complete physical, mental and emotional breakdown due to all of the above, and could not 16 work, 17 18 65, 19 Later, on December 17, 2018, Plaintiff received an email from Ms. Daley, copied to Mike 20 Guzzi, Cheri Chastain and Nami Teves, sharing Plaintiff's issues stating “if this (your 21 absence) is about your health, perhaps we should discuss finding a replacement and you can take 22 a lesser role until you feel better. It is a lot of responsibility Teri, someone to help share the load|” 23 24 Ms. Daley was recommending, and sharing with others, that Plaintiff be replaced due to those 25 medical appointments, further causing Plaintiff to worry about her job, the success of the 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A). (H), (J), (6), (M4), (N), CC12945,2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 23 Conference, her students’ jobs, and her future at the CSU. At no point did Ms. Daiey initiate the interactive process or provide a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff. At this point, Plaintiff had been absent from work for two days for dental appointments and one day due to the Daley created stress. Plaintiff had more than sufficient sick time to cover her absences, as she had rarely been sick prior to September 2018, Daley’s comments only made Plaintiffs condition worse. 66. On December 18, 2018, Plaintiff had a second dental procedure to repiace a cracked 10 filing caused by stress, and stayed home sick the entire day. ll 12 67. 13 At 4:00 am on December 19, 2019, Ms. Daley emailed Plaintiff demanding that she 14 attend a meeting to provide a full report updating her about the Conference, and ordered Plaintiff} 15 to provide many of her passwords (which violates the campus password protection policy). 16 Plaintiff had already provided Ms. Daley with all of this information via email, spreadsheets, 17 18 Working Schedule, and in meetings. Many of the passwords requested by Ms. Daley were 19 platforms that were not owned by the University that contained Plaintiff's confidential data, and 20 were not subject to being accessed by Ms. Daley. This created unbearable stress for Plaintiff. 21 68. 22 On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff had a previously planned holiday lunch with her 23 24 students. Ms. Daley had previously signed off on the cash advance for the lunch at 4:00 pm, so it 25 was known to her. Despite this, Ms. Daley ordered Plaintiff to attend a 4:00 pm meeting with 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (1), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF, LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 24 her and knew she would be unable to do so, due to her already planned holiday lunch at the very same time. 69. “Later on December 19, 2018, Plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave by Mr. 6 Saake for failing to attend the 4:00 pm meeting with Ms. Daley. Plaintiff was locked out of her campus email, Box folders, and the buildings. 70. By middle to late December, Plaintiff began having heart palpitations and her blood 10 pressure was very high, she hadn’t been sleeping and her anxiety, stress and back pain had IL 12 severely increased. 13 Pla i4 On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff saw her physician due to the stress from work, and the 15 Defendant's lack of accommodating her disability. Due to Defendants continual violations of the 16 physician’s restrictions, Plaintiff's physician then immediately took Plaintiff off of work. 17 18 Plaintiff notified Defendants that she was out on leave per her physician, until at least January 28} 19 2019. 20 72. 21 Despite Plaintiff being off of work on her physician’s orders, and due to stress, she 22 received an email from Mr. Saake ordering her to an investigatory interview on January 15, 2014 23 24 Plaintiff responded that she could not attend based on her physician’s orders. However, Plaintiff 25 did send a letter to Mr. Saake pointing out that the Defendants had access to all of the servers and 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), Q), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 25 other electronic information that Plaintiff had compiled over the years. 73. On January 16, 2019 Plaintiff requested her personnel, medical, official, unofficial, temporary and all files, as allowed by the union contract. 74. Despite Plaintiffs initial response to his demand for an investigatory interview, Mr. Saakel again ordered her to the investigatory interview. Plaintiff again declined due to her physician’s orders. Plaintiffs condition was worsening, due to the additional stress that Defendants’ were 10 dumping on her, despite being off on sick leave due to this stress. 11 75. 13 On January 22, 2019 Plaintiff called the CSU Chico’s worker’s compensation carrier and 14 informed them that Defendants were not complying with her physician’s ordered restrictions, or 15 the agreed upon reasonable accommodations. Plaintiff received no response. No interactive 16 process was held and no reasonable accommodation was made. W 18 76. 19 On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff's physician extended her medical leave, due to the 20 continued stress, 2i TT: 22 On February 1, 2019, Defendants launched a new Conference website. The entire history 23 24 of the conference was missing, and all other Sustainability accomplishments made over the past 25 thirteen years were missing, as well as the campus’ examples of leadership and commitment to 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), G), (X), (), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 26 sustainability. In addition, Plaintiff's name was not listed. Plaintiff was no longer listed on the RAJ website either. Plaintiff had been the key contact for both, prior to going off of work sick. It was as if the Defendants had already terminated Plaintiff. 2. As of February 21, 2019, Plaintiff had not received her files, as requested, though more than 35 days had passed. 79. On February 26, 2019 Plaintiff saw her physician again. Due to the Defendants’ continua’ 10 failure to honor the restrictions that he had placed on Plaintiff, failure to reasonably 11 12 accommodate her as required, and due to the Defendants’ continual stressing of Plaintiff, he 13 recommended that she not return to work. 14 80. 45 On March 1, 2019, Plaintiff received a “Notice of Pending Disciplinary Action” 16 (“Notice”) from Provost Debra Larson. The “Notice” accused Plaintiff of dishonesty, 17 18 unprofessionalism, insubordination, intentional sabotage and maliciousness and other failure or 19 refusals to perform the duties of her position. All of these allegations were knowingly false, 20 unsubstantiated, and part of Ms. Daley’s, and Defendants’ strategy to retaliate against Plaintiff al due to her whistleblowing against Ms. Daley’s multiple violations of campus, Chancellor’s 22 Office and State policies and statutes. The Notice was also retaliation for Plaintiff's attempts to 23 24 have the Defendants comply with her physician ordered reasonable accommodations. Defendantg 25 had not engaged in the interactive process or provided reasonable accommodations to Plaintiff as| 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 27 requested by her physician and by Plaintiff on numerous occasions. Instead of waiting for Plaintiff to return to work from her physician’s ordered leave so that she could be interviewed regarding these allegations, Defendants’ chose to propose discipline against her without completing the investigation by hearing her side of the story. 81. The allegations in the notice were generally regarding files on the Defendants’ server. Defendants accused Plaintiff of withholding passwords for information/University property from| them when she went on leave. 10 82. IE 12 But Plaintiff had already provided all of this information to Defendants as part of her 13 routine work at the CSU Chico prior to going out on leave. Plaintiff has also already provided 14 this information to Defendants on January 15, 2019, via letter, to Mr. Saake 15 83. 16 On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff resigned her position, per her physician’s advice, due to the 7 18 ongoing and never ending stress. She was constructively discharged. 19 84. 20 Besides violating California law, Defendants’ refusal to initiate the interactive process 21 with Plaintiff and to provide her with reasonable accommodation also violates the CSU Chico 22 “The ADA and Reasonable Accommodation For Employees with Disabilities Policy” (“CSU 23 24 Chico ADA Policy”) which states in pertinent part: 25 “Making a Request for Accommodation 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 28 The interactive process starts with an accommodation request from an employee with a disability so it is important for employers to be able to recognize a request. According to the EEOC, an individual may use "plain English" and need not mention the ADA or use the phrase "reasonable accommodation" when requesting an accommodation. Therefore. any time an employee indicates that he/she is having a problem and the problem is related to a medical condition, CSU Chico should consider whether the employee is making a request for accommodation under the ADA.” CSU Chico ADA Policy, p. 6 “Employees An employee may request an accommodation orally or in writing from his or her supervisor; another supervisor or manager in his/her immediate chain of command; an appropriate administrator; or the campus ADA coordinator. A request for accommodation does not have to include any special words, such as reasonable accommodation," "disability," or "Rehabilitation Act." The statements "I 10 can't move those boxes because of my back" and "I'm having trouble getting to work at my scheduled starting time because of medical treatments I'm undergoing" both iL constitute requests that need to be considered for reasonable accommodation. Managers 42 and Administrators must be attuned to recognizing these kinds of statements as possible requests for teasonable accommodation,” 13 CSU Chico ADA Policy, p. 6. 14 “Responding to Requests for Accommodation iS ADA Coordinator: All requests for accommodations made by current CSU Chico employees will be 16 managed by the ADA Coordinator. Requests received by supervisors or other CSU Chico employees shall be forwarded to the ADA Coordinator as soon as possible, but in no 17 more than five business days. The ADA Coordinator will notify the employee's 18 appropriate administrator promptly, that an accommodation request has been made.” CSU Chico ADA Policy, p. 7 19 85 20 21 Ms. Daley violated the CSU Chico In Kind Gift Process policy (“Gift Process Policy”), 22 when she refused to fill out and process the General Use In Kind Gift Form, the In Kind Gift 23 Acceptance, and the Pre Authorization Form, as required. She also violated the Chancellor’s 24 Office Policy, IRS Publication 526, and the CSU Chico Gift Acceptance Policy and the CSU 25 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), 0K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 29 1 Chico University Foundation Gift Acceptance Policy. 86. On December 19, 2018, Ms. Daley demanded that Plaintiff provide her with all of Plaintiff's passwords for all of the information that she had placed on campus servers. This demand violates the CSU Responsible Use Policy — 8105.00 which states in pertinent part: “4.4 Responsibility of Account Owners 4.4.1 The owner or custodians of credentials, such as a username and password, that permit access to a CSU information system of network resource is responsible for all activity initiated by the user and performed under his/her credentials. 10 4.4.2 Users must take reasonable steps to appropriately protect their credentials from 11 12 becoming known by, or used by others: Unless specific prior authorization has been granted, users are prohibited from: 13 c) Disclosing passwords to any party or including passwords in documentation.” 14 15 87. 16 In November 2018, Ms. Daley moved an on campus event that included alcohol to an off 7 campus location. Ms. Daley intended to serve alcohol at the on-campus event, and did, in fact, 18 served alcohol at the off campus event. Plaintiff had warned Ms. Daley that holding an off 19 campus event required an Alcohol Use Request form, and approval by the CSU Chico Director 20 al of University Public Engagement in counsel with the University Risk Manager. Ms. Daley 22 ignored Plaintiff's advice per the CSU Chico Alcohol policy. Plaintiff also told Ms. Daley that 23 she also needed a license to serve alcohol from the State of California Alcohol Beverage Control 24 (“ABC”), per the CSU Chico Alcohol Policy and per State law. Ms. Daley ignored Plaintiffs 25 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (A), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (8), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 30 1 warnings. The correct process was not followed, no ABC license was obtained, no forms filled out, and no approvals sought or given. 88. The CSU Chico Alcohol Service at Special Events, EM 18-009 states the following in pertinent part: “POLICY Events or occasions where alcohol is approved to be served or sold are termed “Special Events” and must be approved by the Director of University Public Engagement in counsel with the University Risk Manager. The service or sale of alcohol in campus facilities is subject to campus policy and federal 10 and state laws. fl 42 PROCEDURES 13 Alcohol Use Request forms are available at the UPE office or online at bttp://www.csuchico.edu/upe/alcohol-policy/index.shtml 14 a5 Requests must be submitted 21 days prior to event. An on-campus or off-campus University related event at which alcohol is to bé served or 16 sold must be sponsored by a unit, department or university-recognized faculty/staff organization unless the facility is leased to an outside entity. 17 The person submitting the Alcohol Use Request application must be a University or 18 auxiliary employee, or the request must be co-signed by a University or auxiliary employee. 19 Requests require the second approval signature of a senior administrator of the college, 20 department, division or auxiliary bosting the event. 21 Events that are open to the public or where alcohol is sold require an appropriate Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license, 22 Procurement for Sale or Service 23 Purchase of alcohol for off-campus approved events must comply with all relevant 24 auxiliary guidelines or must be facilitated by an insured third party vendor. Any donated alcohol that is to be served or sold at a University or auxiliary sponsored 25 event must follow the appropriate campus or auxiliary guidelines for donations. 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (4), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 31 89. Due to the loss of her job, Plaintiff was forced to sell her Chico home. Due to the housing} market, she was unable to find an affordable home in Chico or the Chico area. 90. Defendants, in a conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her job, worked diligently to create such emotional distress in her, that she would eventually quit her job. ‘That is exactly what Plaintiff was forced to do. Defendants willfully defamed her, willfully refused to abide by reasonabie accommodations already approved, willfully refused to meet in the required 10 interactive process, willfully refused to continue her reasonable accommodations, willfully li 12 refused to engage in the interactive process or provide new reasonable accommodations, 13 willfully harassed her by communicating with her at 4 am, willfully lied when it told the campus 14 that Plaintiff was responsible for the shutdown of the conference website (basically shutting 15 down the conference itself), willfully changing her job duties without going through the proper 16 procedure thereby making it impossible for her to perform her job duties, intentionally left her 17 18 out of meetings that were part of her job description and duties, willfully damaged her personal 19 and professional reputations so that it would be impossible for Plaintiff to work there or to return| 20 to work, willfully distributed information regarding her health and medical condition to 21 unauthorized campus recipients, willfully required her to work long hours - well over and above 22 the restrictions placed on her by her physician, willfully trumped up charges against her, 23 24 willfully attempted to interview her regarding trumped up allegations of malfeasance while she 25 was out on physician ordered sick leave, and then willfully proposed that she be terminated from 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (1), (1), (K), (M), (N), CC12945,2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACY AMOUNT: $750,000 - 32 her job while Defendants (including Larson) made knowingly false charges and allegations against Plaintiff. Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct towards the Plaintiff was with thd intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress. Defendants succeeded, by creating such a high level of emotional distress in Plaintiff that she was constructively discharged. 91, The acts of Defendants were prolonged, and systematic, and calculated to generate a high| level of stress in Plaintiff, in order that she would quit. The constructive discharge was a direct 10 result of this campaign. it 12 92. 13 On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff obtained a right to sue letter from the California Department 14 of Fair Employment and Housing. is 93. 16 17 On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a California Tort Claims Act notice with the California! 18 State University. On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff's Tort Claim was rejected. 19 FIRST CLAIM DISCRIMINATION BASED ON A DISABILITY 20 Violation of California Government Code 12940 (a) 21 (Trustees of the California State University and the State of California) 22 94, 23 Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates by reference hercin all of the allegations contained 24 in paragraphs 1 through 93, above, 25 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE 27 TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (), (K), (M1), (XN), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACYAMOUNT: $750,000 - 33 95. California Government Code section 12940 (a) states the following: “Tt is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California: (a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military] and veteran status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” 10 96. li 12 Defendants’ conduct, outlined above, violated California Government Code 12940 (a). 13 97. 14 As a result of Defendants’ violations of California Government Code 12940 (a), Plaintiff 45 has, and will continue to, suffer damages, including, but not limited to, lost income, retirement, 16 and benefits, , loss of her home, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of 48 enjoyment of life, and damage to her health and to her personal and professional reputations. 19 SECOND CLAIM 20 RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING ILLEGAL PRACTICES 21 Violation of California Government Code 12940 (h) (Trustees of the California State University and the State of California) 22 98. 23 24 Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates by reference herein all of the allegations contained 25 in paragraphs | through 97, above. 26 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (1), (), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), 28 DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, INVASION OF PRIVACY AMOUNT: $750,000 - 34 99: California Governmen