Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) in A. Sameh El Kharbawy vs. Board of Trustees of California State of University| Trellis.Law

On October 23, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Kharbawy, A. Sameh El, and Board Of Trustees Of California State Of University, Castro, Joseph I., Fu, Xuanning, Hamm, Daryl L., Jimenez-Sandoval, Saul, Zelenzy, Lynnette, for 15 Unlimited - Other Employment in the District Court of Fresno County.

Preview
Jesse J. Maddox, Bar No. 219091
jmaddox@lewlegal.com E-FILED
Nathan T. Jackson, Bar No. 285620 11/18/2021 12:33 PM
njackson@lewlegal.com Superior Court of California
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE County of Fresno
A Professional Law Corporation By: |. Herrera, Deputy
5250 North Palm Ave, Suite 310
Fresno, California 93704
Telephone: 559.256.7800
Facsimile: 559.449.4535

Attorneys for Defendants BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DARRYL L. HAMM, and
XUANNING FU

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
COUNTY OF FRESNO
11
A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY, Case No.: 21CECG02214
eo 12
Plaintiff, [ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
13 KIMBERLY GAAB, DEPT. 503]
V,
14 Complaint Filed: October 23, 2020
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
15 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY; DECLARATION OF NATHAN T. JACKSON
BEEZ
Es
DARRYL L. HAMM, an individual; IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DARRYL L.
FES
<
16 LYNNETTE ZELEZNY, an individual. 3: HAMM’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual; PLAINTIFF A. SAMEH EL KHARBAWY’S
17 SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an COMPLAINT
individual; XUANNING FU, an
18 individual; AND DOES 1| through 50,

19 Defendants. (*Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov.
Code, § 6103.)
20

21 I, Nathan T. Jackson, declare as follows

22 1 I am an attorney licensed to practice before the all the Courts of the State of

23 California, and I am an associate in the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, attorneys for

24 Defendant Darryl L. Hamm. I have personal knowledge of each matter stated herein, and if called

25 upon to do so, I could and would competently testify to each matter set forth herein.

26 2 Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs original

27 complaint in this matter, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

28 Mil
1
Declaration of Nathan T. Jackson in Support of Special Motion to Strike
9806872.1 FROO7-003
3 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Marylou

Mendoza-Miller that was filed with this Court in support of the Board of Trustees of California

State University’s (“CSU”) anti-SLAPP motion.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Marylou

Mendoza-Miller that was filed with this Court in support of CSU’s motion to transfer venue.

5 Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Martha

Guiditta that was filed with this Court in support of the CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the declaration of Rudy

Sanchez that was filed with this Court in support of the CSU’s anti-SLAPP motion.
7
10 CSU retained Bianca Samuel with the law firm of Wilke Fleury to investigate

11 allegations that Plaintiff engaged in workplace misconduct. Ms. Samuel was assisted by Martha

so 12 Wilson of Municipal Resource Group, and I have reviewed their report. The report uses

13 alphabetical monikers in the witness summary section in an effort to protect the identity of the

14 interview subjects. However, not all witness names in the report have been redacted. For example,

15 to the extent an interview subject mentions another person by name, that name is not concealed. In
BEEZ
Es
AEs 16 an effort to protect individuals’ privacy rights, I redacted witness names in the interviews section,
et
24 14 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
a3 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY; DECLARATION OF MARYLOU MENDOZA-
15 DARRYL L. HAMM, an individual; MILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
BEEZ
Ese
LYNNETTE ZELEZNY, an individual. 3: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA
FES 16 JOSEPH I. CASTRO, an individual; STATE UNIVERSITY’S SPECIAL MOTION
<
SAUL JIMENEZ-SANDOVAL, an TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF A. SAMEH EL
17 individual; XUANNING FU, an KHARBAWY’S COMPLAINT
individual; AND DOES 1| through 50,
18
Defendant. (PART 1 OF 2)
19

20
(*Exempt from filing fees pursuant to Gov.
21 Code, § 6103.)
22

23 I, Marylou Mendoza-Miller, declare as follows:

24 1 Ihave personal knowledge of each matter stated herein, and if called upon to do

25 so, I could and would competently testify to each matter set forth herein.

26 2 Iam currently employed as the Associate Vice President of Human Resources

27 for California State University, Fresno (“Fresno State”). In my role as Associate Vice President

28 1
Declaration of Marylou Mendoza-Miller in Support of Defendant’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
Complaint
9684532.2 FROO7-003
of Human Resources, I am familiar with California State University’s Executive Orders, which

apply to all Universities in the CSU system, including Fresno State. CSU Executive Order

1096 contains the complaint process for any CSU employee or third party who chooses to file a

complaint alleging discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation. CSU Executive Order 1058

contains the (prior) complaint process for any CSU employee who chooses to file a complaint

alleging a violation of California’s Whistleblower Protection Act. Executive Order 1058 has

since been superseded by Executive Order 1116. In my role at Fresno State, I have access to,

and have reviewed, the Executive Order Complaints that Plaintiff has filed since 2017. This

includes documents that Plaintiff may have sent to the Chancellor’s Office.

10 3 Plaintiff filed a complaint with CSU in August of 2017 pursuant to Executive

11 Orders 929 and 1058. A true and correct copy of this document, which is dated August 16,

ge
ge 12 2017, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, minus the enclosures listed on pages 53-54.
ga
gesSe 4
SAR 13 Plaintiff submitted amendments and addenda to Exhibit 1. Attached hereto as
Bo
>e 14 Exhibits 2 through 4 are Plaintiff's additional submissions (minus enclosures) dated August
3A
Oss 15 18, 2017; August 29, 2017; and September 21, 2017, respectively.
ge2
2S
foe
3s
<&
16 5 Linda Hanson, the former Assistance Vice Chancellor for CSU, responded to

17 Exhibits 1-4 through a series of communications with Plaintiff that began on August 29, 2017,

18 and concluded on January 4, 2018. Attached hereto as Exhibits 5 through 6 are true and

19 correct copies of the two letters from Ms. Hanson, to Plaintiff, dated October 20, 2017, and

20 January 4, 2018, respectively. Ms. Hanson no longer works for CSU.

21 6 Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of portions of an

22 Executive Order 1096 complaint I received from Plaintiff by e-mail on November 27, 2017. I

23 have included Annex A-E but omitted any of the attachments listed on Annex D, CSU retained

24 the law firm of Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost (“FFF”) to perform a workplace investigation into

25 this complaint. I know this because I was involved in overseeing the investigation.

26 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an Executive Order

27 1058 complaint I received from Plaintiff
by e-mail on June 5, 2018.

28 Mt
2
Declaration of Marylou Mendoza-Miller
9684532.2 FROO7-003
8 Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an Executive Order

1058 complaint J received from attorney Wendy Musell, on behalf
of Plaintiff, by e-mail on

June 14, 2019. Ms. Musell was one of Plaintiff's legal representatives.

9 Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of a letter I sent to

Plaintiff
on January 31, 2019, summarizing the results of an investigation into Plaintiff's

Executive Order 1096 complaint from November of 2017. Redactions have been made to this

Exhibit in order to protect the privacy rights of students. I sent Plaintiff this letter, in part,

because he would not agree to an interview date with FFF (as noted in Exhibit 10), and a

significant period of time had passed. The letter invited Plaintiff
to respond to this

10 information, including presenting further relevant evidence. Plaintiff's deadline to respond

11 was February 13, 2019. Plaintiff responded to Exhibit 10 on February 13, 2019, but he did not

ge
gS 12 substantively address the information in Exhibit 10 or provide me with new evidence. A true
es
Bee
B2
£855
Bag 13 and correct copy of Plaintiffs response letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 11, and it is the last
BO¢g
> e 14 time Plaintiff ever communicated with me about Exhibit 10.
28
as za
Gee 15 10. Plaintiffs employment at CSU is governed by the collective bargaining
Bg
Zee
2S go
aeg 16 agreement (“CBA”) between CSU and the California Faculty Association. A true and correct
<&a
17 copy of this CBA is attached as Exhibit 5 to the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice.

18 ll. Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of CSUs’ Executive

19 Order 1116, which is available online at: https://calstate.policystat.com/policy/6742050/latest/.

20 Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is the predecessor to Executive Order 1116 — Executive Order

21 1058, which is no longer in effect but referenced in Plaintiff's lawsuit.

22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the

23 foregoing is true and correct.

24 Executed this jlo day of Septem 2021, at Fresno, California.

28
3
Declaration of Marylou Mendoza-Miller
9684532.2 FROOT-003
EXHIBIT 1
FRESNGSTATE
College of Arts and Humanities

August 16, 2017

CONFIDENTIAL

VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL

Melissa Bard, M.S
Vice Chancellor of Human Resources
California State University
Office of the Chancellor
401 Golden Shore
Long Beach, CA 90802

Re:
Unlawful and Improper Governmental Activities, Administrative
Misconduct, Employment & Contractual Violations at California State
University, Fresno.

Dear Ms. Bard,

Pursuant to California Government Code §8547, California Labor Code
Section 1102.5, Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, California State
University Executive Orders 929, 1058 and related policies and laws, this.
complaint and its attachments are filed, as a matter of right and obligation, as a
report on ongoing violations of law and policy, improper governmental
activities, employment and civil rights abuses at California State University,
Fresno (hereafter “CSU-Fresno” or “University”).

This complaint is filed within the statutory time limit, and I affirm that its
contents are true or believed to be true to the best of my knowledge and records.

Art and Design Department
California State University, Fresno Conley Art 105
5225 N. Backer M/S CAGS « Fresno, California 93740
P 559.278.2516 F 559.278.4706 www.FresnoState.edu/artanddesign
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

eee Naty SST PWS iN
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page 2

As existing and inevitable conflicts of interest will prevent both the Human
Resources Department and the Office of Faculty Affairs at California State
University, Fresno from investigating and/or adjudicating this complaint, it is
thus filed with your office (as the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources at
California State University) in line with the jurisdictional parameters established
in the California State University Executive Order 929,
Additional complaints will be filed upon consultation with the appropriate
State and Federal agencies with jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate the
issues raised herein.

CONTENTS

List of Respondents
Summary
Statement of Facts. 13
Introduction eaeeeeeeeenense penapecersaeeenretsest] eorneasy 5 aeeeeceaeatverneesceneeeaseenee 13

I. Fraud, Negligence and Sham Hiring Practices: The Holly Sowles Case. 13
1. Holly Sowles’s Fraudulent Résumé peseeetrecenserereemeced co 14
2. Negligence And Unlawful Hiring Practices oe a seseeeeeneeecteeeneeteeene
3. Improper Activities, Tortious Conduct and Cantractual Breaches eteaeseetnaeecenenteeesessteeees

IL. Discriminatory Culture and Practices At CSU-Fresno eee tes eeeee eae eeceec aces seceeeesceereees 32

III. Administrative Abuses and Misconduct eee aneennaaatueneceencenarensescerercerersnusmacesceecsa] 37
1, Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Justice: The Provost's Hoax “Offer” seesetennessee 37
2. Acts of Moral Turpitude: The Fibs, Forgeries & Misrepresentations of Xuanning Fu 41
3. Plagiarism, Misrepresentation and Falsification of Official Reports: The accreditation
of the Interior Design Program. 47

IV. Employment and Civil Rights Abuses at CSU-Fresno 5 peetteeneeeesenseee S 50

2 of 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page3

RESPONDENTS NAMED IN THIS COMPLAINT

The following is a partial and preliminary list of individuals named in this
complaint as respondents:

1. Mr. Michael Burgess, Environmental Health, Safety, Risk Management
& Sustainability; California State University Fresno.

Dr. Honora Chapman, Associate Dean; College of Arts & Humanities;
California State University, Fresno.

Dr. Xuanning Fu, Dean of Undergraduate Studies; California State
University, Fresno.

Dr. Saul Jiménez-Sandoval, Dean of the College of Arts & Humanities;
California State University, Fresno.

Di ir. Shane Moreman, Professor of Communication, California State
University, Fresno.

D: 1. Dennis Nef, Vice Provost; California State University, Fresno.

Dr. Rudolph “Rudy” Sanchez, Associate Vice President for Faculty
Affairs; California State University, Fresno.

Ms. Holly Sowles, Assistant Professor, Department of Art & Design,
California State University, Fresno.

M r. Martin Valencia, Chair, Department of Art & Design. California
State University, Fresno.

10. Dr. Lynnette Zelezny, Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs;
California State University, Fresno.

3 of 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page4

SUMMARY
This complaint is filed as a report on improper governmental activities,
administrative misconduct, employment and contractual abuses, and other
violations of law and policy at California State University, Fresno (hereafter
“University” or “CSU-Fresno”). Since a full account of those issues (and their
history) requires far more space than is available here, this complaint will focus
on the following seven critical issues:

1. Fraud, Negligence and Sham Hiring Practices: The Holly Sowles Case

In August 2016, Holly Sowles (hereafter “Sowles”) was appointed to a full-
time teaching position in the Interior Design Program at CSU-Fresno. Sowles’s
appointment _was the outcome of résumé fraud, negligence _and_serious
administrative misconduct.

In her application to CSU-Fresno, Sowles committed several acts of résumé
fraud. As the evidence shows, Sowles falsified her credentials, made-up her
educational background, and lied about her earned degrees. Sowles’s
professional résumé is also largely a work of fiction. She made up most of her
work experience, misrepresented the dates and grossly exaggerated the scope of
her past employment, and lied about her professional expertise and
accomplishments.

Sowles’s actual résumé betrays her motives for presenting false credentials
to CSU-Fresno. The evidence indicates that Sowles knew (at the_time_of her
application) that she did not hold the academic qualifications required for
appointment to a tenure-track position at CSU-Fresno, and that she did not meet
the teaching/ professional experience requirements stipulated in the position
announcement.

Moreover and significantly, Sowles's appointment to CSU-Fresno was the
outcome of an unlawful, sham “search”, which was conducted_by an
illegitimately appointed committee {that was neither elected by the
Department’s faculty nor qualified in the field of Interior Design), and
concluded in few days under conspicuously suspicious circumstances. A history

40f 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page5

of administrative interferences has undermined faculty searches and tainted
their outcomes (triggering several controversies over the years). In Sowles’s
case, the University was cautioned (formally and informally) of the legal, policy
and procedural violations committed during the search process search, and
opted to disregard them.

2. Improper Activities, Tortious Conduct and Contractual Breaches

Six months after her appointment to CSU-Fresno, Sowles was handpicked for
a custom-tailored leadership “position” in the Department of Art and Design—
as a four-year “Coordinator of the Interior Design Program”. This “position” i
not a bona fide University position. It is not recognized or codified anywhere in
the University’s regulatory or contractual frameworks!. It has no description,
minimum qualifications, appointment requirements, specified responsibilities, a
defined work environment, a codified set of supervisory relationships, an
evaluation mechanism or a compensation structure.

Sowles’s “position” is also not referenced anywhere in the Department's
Policy Manual (which provides an entirely different system for representing and
administrating academic units).

Nothing tells us what Sowles is responsible for (as a four-year “Coordinator” of
an academic unit in Art and Design); how that job is done; how it will be
evaluated; how it relates to other {bona-fide) positions in the Department and
outside it. Nothing explains the responsibilities assigned to this new “position”.
Or who will assign them. Or how they will be assigned. Further, the
Department of Art and Design already has, in place, a system for representing
its academic units for all business matters. This system is still in effect. No real
need argues for changing it, and no legitimate motive can be behind the
administration’s attempt to circumvent it.

1 In this complaint, the term “regulatory frameworks” will generally refer to the hierarchy of
instruments that govern the University’s operations. These include the University Policies
Manual (UPM); the Chancellor's Executive Orders, and the operative Collective Bargaining
Agreement (faculty contract).

5 of 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page6

Clearly, departments and programs do not possess the right or authority to
create (and fill) University “positions” ad voluntatem. CSU-Fresno is a public
institution, not a fiefdom or a private club! It is governed by laws, policies and
contracts that cannot be overruled, expired or suspended by administrators.

Aside from questions that must be asked about Sowles’s qualifications to
hold a teaching position at CSU-Fresno (and the legitimacy of her appointment),
administrating programs and departments (in a public institution) with sham
“positions”, circumventing the legal and regulatory frameworks that organize
faculty employment at CSU-Fresno opens the University to legal liabilities for
tortious conduct and breaches of contract.

3. Discriminatory Culture and Practices at CSU-Fresno

Endemic racism and_ discrimination are an alarming reality at CSU-Fresno
and have been for years. Individuals of Middle Eastern descent have been
especially targeted with these abuses.

Since May 2017, the University has been at the center of a national
controversy over the administration’s decision to cancel a faculty search in its
Middle East Studies Program (an academic unit in the University’s College of
Arts and Humanities). Evidently, after four finalists for the position — all Middle
Eastern Americans— were announced and invited to campus interviews, the
administration abruptly canceled the search, citing “procedural violations”.
What triggered the outcry and the media frenzy was a widely shared view that
the search was cancelled as a result of (racist, discriminatory) objections to the
candidates—with which the administration evidently colluded. As documented
hereunder, much evidence supports this.

During my years at CSU-Fresno, I, too, have experienced racism and
discrimination first hand—and, as this complaint documents, still do today.
When members of the University’s administration (at various levels) are not
committing those abuses directly, they are enabling them or sustaining them (by
failing to address, prevent or remedy them). Grievances are almost always met

60f 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page7

with retaliation; dissent with harassment and hostility. The offending parties are
frequently rewarded, not disciplined.

4. Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Justice: The Provost’s Hoax
“Offer”

On December 22, 2015, the University’s Provost, Lynnette Zelezny
(hereafter “Zelezny” or “Provost’), offered me a leadership position at CSU-
Fresno. Specifically, Zelezny asked me to consider the position of “Director” of a
new institute, which, she claimed, was being launched to advance studies of
sustainability and innovation at CSU-Fresno and in the region. Zelezny’s job
offer was a hoax.

At the time, the Provost and I hardly knew each other (professionally or
personally), and prior to December 22, 2015, she showed no interest whatsoever
in my work at CSU-Fresno. Zelezny certainly knew, however, that, at the time, I
was a witness in (and an active participant in adjudicating) administrative and
Jegal_complaints against _her_and_ several other members of the University’s
administration. (Those complaints were filed in 2014 and 2015 by members of the
Interior Design faculty, who accused the University of employment and civil
rights abuses).

For weeks, Zelezny’s emails continued to assure me that her new institute
was a top priority of the University’s administration; that she was committed to
launching it immediately (by Fall 2016); that I was the administration's choice to
be its “Director”. In her last email on the matter (on January 26, 2016), Zelezny
reported that she was working with the University’s Vice Provost (Dennis Nef)
to finalize the contractual details of my new position. “Will get back with you
shortly,” Zelezny pledged. She never did!

In the days that ensued, two realities become clear to the Provost: First, that
she was at the center of my colleagues’ complaints against CSU-Fresno; second,
my continued support for a full and fair investigation and adjudication of those
complaints. Once those realities became evident, the “leadership opportunity”

7 of 54
Melissa Bard
‘California State University
August 16, 2017
Page 8

suddenly vanished. I have not heard from the Provost since, and to this day, her
(once urgent) “institute” has not seen the light of day!

5. Acts of Moral Turpitude: The Fibs, Forgeries and Misrepresentations
of Xuanning Fu

For six weeks in February and March, 2017, Xuanning Fu, the University’s
Dean of Undergraduate Studies (hereafter “Fu”) and 1 attempted to resolve
some “concerns” that he alleged to have received from some students in two
courses that I taught in Spring 2017. Our email exchanges on the matter
(between February 13, 2017 and March 14, 2017) open an instructive window
into administrative misconduct, unlawful harassment and workplace abuses at
CSU-Fresno. They reveal the work of a scheming predator; a skilled bully so
militant in his commitment to poison my work environment that he ends up
forging documents, fabricating records, altering emails, dodging facts, laws and
policies—while reminding me of his (the administration’s) “power” and
“authority” over its employees!

According to Fu, on February 6, 2017, a group of students in two of my
courses paid him a visit to complain that they had not yet received a printed
syllabus, and that they did not know my office hours for the semester. While Fu
could have resolved the matter on the spot, he did not. (Informing the students
of my office hours or arranging extra copies of whatever syllabi they needed
required no more than a phone call or an email, and no more than a few minutes
of everyone’s time). Instead, by the time the students left his office, they had
“"y
submitted a “written complaint

What Fu did next was
significant. For seven days, Fu did absolutely
nothing! He sat on the students’ su complaint” until February 13, 2017, which was
the “last day to drop classes without a serious and compelling reason”. After
that date (“census day”), course syllabi became past due—a potential violation
of University policy! Which was, apparently, what Fu was planning here _all
along: a “gotcha” moment!

Bof 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page9

When pressed to produce the “complaint” that he claimed to have received
from students, Fu fabricated a document and emailed it to me (in PDF format).
As the evidence reveals, the PDFs that Fu emailed me were not created by
students (on or about February 6, 2017); they were created by Fu, on his own
computer, on February 23, 2017.

Realizing, perhaps, the gravity of his actions, Fu then attempted to edit the
thread of our email exchanges to delete from the record the incriminating emails
and_evidence—i.e. his forged PDFs, and his follow-up attestations that they
were “all students submitted” on February 6, 2017. When confronted about this,
Fu blamed the “computer set up” that he had been using at the time, and
claimed that he was “out of the country”. As the evidence reveals, neither claim
was truthful.

Throughout the whole affair, Fu stubbornly declined to reveal the identities
of the students involved in the alleged “complaint”, or to allow for an informal
resolution of the matter—which betrays his intent.

6. Plagiarism, Misrepresentation and Falsification of Official Reports:
The accreditation
accreciravon of the
OF the snterior
Interior hes
Design Program at CSU-Fresno

In March 2017, CSU-Fresno’s Interior Design Program received
reaccreditation by the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (“CIDA”
hereafter). The path that the administration took to achieve this accreditation,
however, was riddled with impropriety and unlawful conduct. As the evidence
shows, in September 2016, four University administrators (and_at_least_one
member of the Interior Design faculty) knowingly and deliberately defrauded
CIDA to achieve reaccreditation for the Interior Design Program. Notably, CIDA
is a government and publicly funded accreditation agency.

The facts are troubling:
In November 2016, the Interior Design Program (an academic unit in the
notoriously turbulent and problem-ridden Department of Art and Design) was
scheduled for a reaccreditation review. In late August 2016 (twelve weeks before
the scheduled review), the accreditation file was suddenly assigned to a newly

9 of 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page 10

appointed Assistant Professor (Silvana Polgar) and a group of University
administrators (Martin Valencia, Chair of the Department of Art and Design;
Honora Chapmen, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities; Sail
Jiménez-Sandoval, Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities, and Rudoplh
Sanchez, Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs).

The team’s first assignment was to prepare the Program's Accreditation
Report (what CIDA refers to as the “Program Analysis Report” or “PAR”) and
file it by CIDA’s deadline—a couple of weeks later (September 9, 2016).

According to CIDA’s policy, in a PAR, an academic program communicates
its academic missions, objectives and core values; it analyzes its curricula and
methods, and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. “A program is able to
obtain this knowledge,” CIDA instructs, “by conducting a broad and
comprehensive self-study in preparation for a CIDA accreditation review...
When the self-study is complete, the program emerges with a view of its own
strengths”. (Quoted from CIDA’s Professional Standards. Underline added.)

Realizing that it was impossible for them conduct (or even attempt) the
“broad and comprehensive self-study” that CIDA expected to produce the PAR,
Polgar’s team (of administrators) directed her to plagiarize an old PAR (which I
had_prepared for the Program’s 2010 accreditation review), and resubmit_a
retrofitted version of it to CIDA as the 2016 report—without my knowledge or
approval.

When Polgar informed her team (of administrators) that the University’s only
copy of the 2010 PAR was a digital (PDF) document that I had encrypted with a
password, she was directed to break the document's encryption, edit it, put her
name on the outcome, and submit it as the Program’s 2016 PAR. She did!

The resulting PAR was, of course, a plagiarized fraud. It was presented to
CIDA as if it was the outcome of a bona fide, current assessment of the Interior
Design Program, which, in reality, had never occurred. No evaluation had been
done or even attempted of the Program’ ta Mt, strengths” and “weaknesses”, or its

10 of 54
Melissa Bard
‘California State University
August 16, 2017
Page 11

compliance with CIDA’s academic and professional standards. And the
administration knew this, of course.

The PAR that the “accreditation team” submitted to CIDA reported on
committees that never existed; meetings that were never held; reviews and
observations that never took place. It was almost entirely a work of fiction;
sophomorically assembled gallimaufry of falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Submitting this document (of which existence I was not informed until after
it was submitted) to a public accreditation organization was a disgrace for a
public institution. Not just unethical, improper, but potentially illicit— if not
unlawful.

7. Employment and Civil Rights Abuses at CSU-Fresno

During the years of 2014, 2015 and 2016, I was a witness to, and a
participant in adjudicating complaints of bias, discrimination and harassment
and retaliation, which were initiated by members of the Interior Design faculty
against several members of the CSU-Fresno administration. Additionally, on
several occasions (since 2011) I voiced strong grievances against administrative
misconduct and employment abuses at CSU-Fresno, which have contributed,
over the years, to the emergence of a work environment saturated with
vindictiveness and hostility. As a result_of my protected activities, I have
experienced a progressively hostile work environment, and_an_ unmistakable
pattern of harassment and retaliation—and abuses of my contractual, civil and
employment rights. This hostility has escalated and intensified recently.

For example, following months of hoax job offers and manufactured
complaints, last March, I received a surprise request from Xuanning Fu (the
University’s Dean of Undergraduate Studies) to clear my office of furniture
(which had been in my office since May 2011), allegedly to fulfill an “order to
comply” from the “State Fire Marshall” that had been issued a year earlier (in
March 2016)!

ll of 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page 12

Fu’s request came via a University employee (Michael Burgess), who would
later allege that was referred to Fu (by the Department of Art and Design)
because I was “out of the country on sabbatical”! (Which was FALSE. Since I
joined CSU-Fresno in 2006, I have neither requested nor received any sabbatical
leaves). Burgess refused to reveal the identity of the administrator(s) who
misinformed him about my whereabouts, or explain why it took him, Martin
Valencia, and Xuanning Fu over a year to enforce an “order to comply”—or
even to advise me of its existence! To date, no one has been able to identify any
code-violations in my office, or even quote the ones cited in the alleged Fire-
Marshall's report!
Few weeks later (April 17, 2017), another email from Fu surprised me with
news of abrupt changes to my fall 2017 work schedule. As a result of those
changes, a course that I had been teaching (and developing) for years was
suddenly rescheduled (to the spring semester), and I was asked (three weeks
before the end of the academic year) to develop a new course for instruction in
fall 2017 (which is clearly impossible!) Notably, those changes was without any
consultation whatsoever. Additionally, a University organization I had been
advising for several years (the CSU-Fresno chapter of American Society for
Interior Designers) was suddenly reassigned to another advisor starting Fall
2017: Holly Sowles!

Fu did not provide any basis for those surprise changes (on which he
evidently colluded with the Chair of Department of Art and Design, Martin
Valencia. Their timing, however, clearly points to a pattern of harassment.

While prudence and good judgment obligate deans and chairs to consult
with members of the faculty on academic matters, the University’s regulatory
frameworks require it. | repeatedly advised Fu that it was “neither possible nor
would it be prudent for me to attempt to develop—in days— an entirely new
course” for fall 2017, and that developing a course while it is being taught is
unadvisable. It is certainly not in the students’ interest, and it clearly multiplies
my workload for the semester.

To this day, Fu has not addressed those concerns!

Rots
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page 13

STATEMENT OF FACTS
INTRODUCTION

On May 12, 2017, an email from Xuanning Fu? relayed to me news that
Holly Sowles, a recently-appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Art
and Design (hereafter “Art and Design” or “Department”), was assuming a new
leadership position in the University, as a Program Coordinator for the Interior
Design Program (hereafter “Program” or “Interior Design”) a four-year term,
starting Fall 2017 and ending in Spring 2021.

Fu’s email surprised me. Its sender was the University’s Dean of
Undergraduate Studies, who knew, of course, that Sowles’s new “position” was
not a bona fide University position. It is not recognized or codified in any of the
University’s regulatory or contractual frameworks. It has no description.
Nothing tells us how that job is done, what responsibilities are assigned to it,
how it will be evaluated, how it relates to other functions on campus.

To understand what is happening here, it is necessary to look first at how
Sowles was appointed to CSU-Fresno, and whether she actually met the
University’s required qualifications for her position.

1 FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE AND SHAM HIRING PRACTICES:
THE HOLLY SOWLES CASE

In August 2016, Sowles was appointed to a full-time teaching position at
CSU-Fresno. Sowles’s appointment was the outcome of résumé fraud, gross
negligence and serious administrative misconduct. Sowles holds neither the
academic nor the professional qualifications to hold her tenure track position.

2 Fu currently serves as my Dean and Chair, per the terms of a “Settlement Agreement”
reached with CSU-Fresno on December 17, 2012. The terms of this Settlement permanently bar
the Chair of the Department of Art and Design, the Dean of the College of Arts and
Humanities, among other individuals, from any involvement in, any relationship with, and any
responsibilities whatsoever relative to my employment at CSU-Fresno — which includes, among
other things, my work schedule and teaching assignments, evaluations, employment files, ete.
This injunction is comprehensive and permanently binding to the University.

13 of 54
Melissa Bard
California State University
August 16, 2017
Page 14

1. Holly Sowles’s Fraudulent Résumé

In her application to CSU-Fresna, Sowles committed several acts of résumé
fraud. The evidence tells us that Sowles falsified her academic credentials. She
made-up _her educational background, and lied about her earned degrees.
Sowles’s professional résumé is also, for the most part, a work of fiction. She
made up her work experience, misrepresented the dates, and_ grossly
exaggerated the scope of her past employment, and lied about her professional
xpertise and accomplishments.

Specifically, Sowles claims (and in the past has claimed) that she possesses
the following academic credentials*:
a Some education in Interior Design that Sowles alleges to have
attempted or completed at the University of Idaho (as a result of
which Sowles does not report any earned degrees.)

A “Bachelor of Science in Interior Design” degree from the
University of Central Oklahoma, which Sowles alleges to have
completed between 1982-1985.

A “Master of Fine Arts (MFA) in Painting and Drawing, Art
History” from Boise State University, which Sowles alleges to
have completed between 1993-1995.

A “Master of Arts (MA) in Interior Design” from Washington
State University, which Sowles presented as a post-professional
degree that she completed between 2013-2016.

Those claims are patently FALSE. With the exception of her “Master of Arts
(MA) in Interior Design” from Washington State University (which is not a
“post-professional” terminal degree), Sowles does not hold_any of the above
degrees.
—
3 A copy of Sowles’s professional résumé is attached as Annex-A-

l4 of 54
Melissa

Case Info

Judge

Gaab, Kimberly Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 18, 2021

Case Filing Date

October 23, 2020

County

Parties

Board of Trustees of California State of University Defendant
Castro, Joseph I. Defendant
Fu, Xuanning Defendant
Hamm, Daryl L. Defendant
Jimenez-Sandoval, Saul Defendant
Kharbawy, A. Sameh El Plaintiff
Zelenzy, Lynnette Defendant
Jesse Maddox Attorneys for Defendants
Nathan Jackson Attorneys for Defendants
Andrew Hillier Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jason Taylor Attorney
Renee Smith Attorney
David Graulich Attorney
Kevin Schwin Attorney
Andrew Eitingon Attorney
Andrew Lo Attorney
Jesse Judnick Attorney
Maureen Spangler Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: A. Sameh El Kharbawy vs. Board of Trustees of California State of University

Preview

Case Info

Parties