Preview
1 Thomas Dimitre SBN 276924
Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law
2
PO Box 801 9/28/2020
3 Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541890 5022
4 Fax: 541 488 4601
Email: dimitre@mind.net
5
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7 COUNTY OF BUTTE
8 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No.: 19CV01226
9
Plaintiff,
10 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
vs.
11 WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVE
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE TERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION,
12
UNIVERSITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION
AND CYNTHIA DALEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, BASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TO
13 ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE
AND DEBRA LARSON, AN INDIVIDUAL
14 IPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLY
Defendant ACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC
15 12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC
12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5
16 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL
17 INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS,
18 AMOUNT: $750,000
19
20
Plaintiff, TERESA RANDOLPH, hereby brings this THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
21
against Defendants, TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF
22
23 CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, and DEBRA LARSON, as follows:
24
25
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 1
1 JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE
2
1.
3
Jurisdiction is proper in Butte County, California because Plaintiff was harmed by
4
Defendants in Butte County, California during her employment at the California State University,
5
6 Chico.
7 2.
8
Plaintiff was at all times relevant herein, an employee of the California State University,
9
Chico, (“CSU Chico”) and began employment there on June 9, 1997 and was forced to resign on
10
March 11, 2019 .
11
12 3.
13 Defendant, Trustees of the California State University, is the governing body of the CSU,
14
and is located in Long Beach, California. Defendant is a public employer.
15
4.
16
Defendant, State of California, is a public entity, acting in its higher capacity. Defendant
17
18 is a public employer.
19 5.
20
Defendant Cynthia Daley, was, at all pertinent times, an employee of the CSU Chico,
21
employed as the Professor and Director of the Regenerative Agriculture Initiative and Organic
22
Dairy Program, and Plaintiff’s supervisor.
23
24 6.
25 Defendant Debra Larson, was at all pertinent times, the Provost of the CSU Chico.
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 2
1 FACTS
2
7.
3
Plaintiff began work at the CSU Chico on June 9, 1997, and worked as an Administrative
4
Analyst Specialist,.
5
6 8.
7 Plaintiff was forced to resign her position at CSU Chico on March 11, 2019 because, but
8
not limited to, the Defendants did not engage in the interactive process or provide reasonable
9
accommodations, as requested by Plaintiff and her physician, and due to being harassed by
10
Defendants.
11
12 9.
13 In or about September, 2007 Plaintiff suffered a work related injury resulting in major
14
back surgery, a permanent disability, and permanent work restrictions. In or about October 2015,
15
Plaintiff was diagnosed with a re-herniated disc, which impacted her ability to work. Plaintiff is
16
considered disabled for purposes of California law because stress was creating increased back
17
18 pain and negatively impacting her ability to work. Plaintiff was a qualified individual who, with,
19 or without accommodation, could perform the essential duties of her job.
20
10.
21
On or about October 2015, Plaintiff’s physician recommended that the Defendants
22
provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her back pain. Those accommodations
23
24 were: not working over eight hours per day, a reduction of stress, a standing workstation, and
25
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 3
1 taking frequent breaks and walks. The Defendants approved Plaintiff’s physician’s
2
recommended reasonable accommodations.
3
11.
4
At first, the Defendants complied with the accommodation request and granted Plaintiff
5
6 reasonable accommodation to comply with her physician’s recommendations. At first, the
7 Defendant acceptably accommodated Plaintiff during the year, with the exception of the months
8
prior to and during the sustainability (“Conference”). Plaintiff had coordinated and been the lead
9
on the Conference since 2006. She had built it up from nothing into a renowned and first class
10
Conference that as the largest Sustainability Conference of its kind in North America. During
11
12 this time (about one and a half months prior to the Conference), due to the excessive work
13 demands, Plaintiff was forced to arrive early and to work late, without breaks or lunch, in order
14
to prepare for and ensure that the Conference went on. This workload violated the
15
recommendation of Plaintiff’s physician and the agreed upon reasonable accommodations, and
16
this was known to Defendants.
17
18 12.
19 Beginning in early 2018, despite multiple requests from Plaintiff, Defendants refused to
20
continue to accommodate Plaintiff, leading to a higher degree of disability, more pain, and
21
increasing recommended reasonable accommodations from Plaintiff’s physician.
22
13.
23
24 In March 2018, Plaintiff told her then supervisor, Mr. Pushnik, that she could not do
25 another Conference due to the stress that it caused, the physical negative impacts, increased back
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 4
1 pain, and the inevitable violations of her work restrictions. Plaintiff’s physical condition had
2
deteriorated during the 2018 Conference, due to Defendants’ demand that she work outside of
3
her restrictions in order to accommodate the Conference. Mr. Pushnik’s response was “Don’t
4
worry there will not be another Conference.” This reassured Plaintiff that she would be able to
5
6 work within her work restrictions.
7 14.
8
On May 10, 2018, The California State University, Chico newspaper, The Orion, posted
9
an article stating that Plaintiff (and others in her department) would lose their positions at the end
10
of May 2018 because of budget cuts. This had never been discussed with Plaintiff by anyone
11
12 from the CSU Chico. Mark Stemen, Professor in the Geography and Planning Department had
13 disclosed this information to The Orion.
14
15.
15
In response to The Orion article, and fearing for her job, Plaintiff sent an email to the
16
University President, Gayle Hutchinson, asking for a meeting, clarification and direction about
17
18 the Orion article, the future of Plaintiffs position, the future of the Conference, and stating that
19 Mr. Pushnik had told her that there would not be a Conference. The email was forwarded to the
20
Provost. The President did not respond to Plaintiff’s request.
21
16.
22
Because of the uncertainty and future of her position, and the future of the department,
23
24 Plaintiff emailed Dylan Saake, CSU Chico’s Director of Labor and Compliance, asking for some
25 clarification of what was being planned, still with no clarification. Because she’d made plans for
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 5
1 vacation but was told she’d need to move the office to Meriam Library, she wasn’t able to take
2
vacation. Not having help to make the move because the other staff in the department, Fletcher
3
Alexander, had taken dock status time off and left the Plaintiff to worry about the entire office
4
move on her own. This caused more stress, and inhibited Plaintiff’s ability to take the much
5
6 needed time off after the 2018 conference.
7 17.
8
In early August, 2018, Plaintiff was notified by Provost Larson, that since May 31, 2018,
9
her department had been reorganized and that she now reported to Daniel Grassian, Vice Provost
10
for Academic Programs. Plaintiff asked Mr. Grassian if there would be a Conference in 2019,
11
12 and he replied that he did not know. The Plaintiff was given no direction by Mr. Grassian, was
13 not given an updated job description, and was still unsure of her tasks or function within the
14
University. This caused additional undue stress and anxiety to the Plaintiff.
15
18.
16
On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff was called to a meeting with Cindy Daley, and Daniel
17
18 Grassian and was told that Ms. Daley was now her supervisor. Ms. Daley handed Plaintiff a
19 memo, stating that she was now reporting to Ms. Daley. Plaintiff was also handed a copy of a
20
new position description (“PD”). The PD did not describe any physical requirements of the new
21
position.
22
19.
23
24 As they were leaving the meeting, the Provost asked Plaintiff if they could announce the
25 changes publicly. Plaintiff said that was up to them, but she still needed time to review the
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 6
1 proposed PD. Plaintiff was concerned regarding the workload it created and whether or not her
2
new job would fall within the restrictions recommended by her doctor. Neither the Mr. Grassian
3
or Ms. Daley offered an interactive process or a reasonable accommodation.
4
20.
5
6 On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff met with Ms. Daley again with the memo and the new
7 position description. Plaintiff was very concerned that the new position description included her
8
regular conference duties (a full time job in itself), but also included new and significant
9
regenerative agriculture (“RAI”) duties, which also appeared to be full time work.
10
21.
11
12 Plaintiff asked Ms. Daley when the new RAI duties would be occurring, and Ms. Daley
13 responded during the months of September to May each year.
14
22.
15
Plaintiff responded that this was the same time frame where she did the most work for the
16
Conference (Conference was held in March each year), which already exceeded a full time job
17
18 for the months of September through May each year. Plaintiff asked Ms. Daley “Do you realize
19 that you have just doubled my workload and more importantly my stress level?” Plaintiff stated
20
that she was already working at maximum capacity (8 hours per day) and there was no way that
21
she could perform all of the additional duties on the position description and stay within her
22
physician’s restrictions. Plaintiff then told Ms. Daley that she had already blown out her back
23
24 once because she worked to excess for the Conference, and was not going to violate her
25 restrictions and the agreed upon reasonable accommodations and blow out her back again. Ms.
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 7
1 Daley did not respond, did not offer any additional staff to assist Plaintiff, nor did she agree to
2
reduce Plaintiff’s workload or modify the position description. Plaintiff reminded Ms. Daley of
3
her specific disability restrictions and told her that this position description would violate those
4
restrictions and that she would not sign or agree to it. Ms. Daley’s response was “You’ll figure it
5
6 out, I gotta go”, and left the meeting. Ms. Daley did not offer an interactive process or provide a
7 reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff.
8
23.
9
The position description was never signed by either Ms. Daley or the Plaintiff, as
10
required. Yet, the Defendants still expected Plaintiff to do the work stated on the position
11
12 description, and demanded that she do so.
13 24.
14
Plaintiff ran into Stephanie Neuhart, CSU Chico HR Classification Specialist, in the days
15
following her meeting with Ms. Daley, on or about August 28 or 29, 2018. Ms. Neuhart regularly
16
reviews and revises position descriptions as part of her job with the CSU Chico.
17
18 25.
19 Plaintiff asked Ms. Neuhart if she realized that her new PD would double her workload
20
and told Ms. Neuhart it would need to be revised, as it was an impossible workload and that it
21
violated her physician’s work restrictions of reduced stress and work of no more than eight hours
22
per day. Ms. Neutart responded “Cindy (Ms. Daley) wrote it.” Plaintiff reiterated that it needed
23
24 to be revised as it is far more than a full time job, and it would violate her physician’s restrictions
25 and recommended accommodations. Plaintiff told Ms. Neuhart that she was not going to sign it.
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 8
1 Ms. Neuhart never responded to Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the position description, or the
2
violation of her physician’s work restrictions and recommended accommodations, nor did she
3
offer Plaintiff an interactive process or reasonable accommodation. Ms. Neuhart also did not
4
notify anyone at the CSU Chico regarding Plaintiff’s potential need for an interactive process
5
6 and reasonable accommodation.
7 26.
8
In September 2018, Ms. Daley had instructed Plaintiff to start a peer reviewed journal as
9
a requirement for one of her grants. This work was a fraction of the additional work in Plaintiff’s
10
proposed PD that doubled and tripled her work load. Plaintiff told her that she had never done
11
12 that type of work before, was completely unaware of what a “Managing Editor” was responsible
13 for, didn’t feel qualified, and didn’t have time to learn about and successfully implement
14
something of this magnitude, with her PD already in excess of eight hours per day. Ms. Daley
15
directed Plaintiff to create a journal anyway and have it ready to launch before the holidays.
16
Plaintiff asked Ms. Daley for input and direction for the journal and received none. Plaintiff then
17
18 began researching the rules that applied, how to set it up, what types of articles were appropriate,
19 who should be on the review team, appropriate article submission rules and guidelines, and more.
20
This additional work added even more stress, anxiety and created more back pain for Plaintiff,
21
and further violated her physician’s restrictions and recommended reasonable accommodations.
22
27.
23
24 By September 2018, Plaintiff was required to work over eight hours each and every day,
25 and without breaks or lunch breaks for most days, in order to attempt to keep up with her
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 9
1 assigned duties. She also worked from home early and late in the day, before and after regular
2
working hours. Ms. Daley demanded that she work these hours, and Plaintiff did so for fear of
3
losing her job.
4
28.
5
6 In September 2018, Plaintiff began working on the Conference. It was a very late start,
7 and she was immediately trying to catch up to the regular schedule, and accommodate the added
8
new duties and demands for Ms. Daley. Plaintiff was required to hire students, get the conference
9
website launched, create a proposal form, create conference information pages,
10
schedule and attend meetings, coordinate room and event logistics, plan advertising, coordinate
11
12 with other campus and community members, and much more. Ms. Daley also forced Plaintiff to
13 begin working on the RAI. Additionally, as a result of this second reorganization in just four
14
months, Plaintiff was burdened with additional workload in transferring the reorganized unit to
15
the new director and RAI program. This temporarily resulted in tripling the Plaintiff’s workload.
16
29.
17
18 Ms. Daley began demanding the Plaintiff attend meetings starting at 7:00 am, began
19 contacting the Plaintiff before and after normal work hours (at early as 4:00 am, and as late as
20
7:00 pm), demanding that Plaintiff work during her lunch and break hours, demanding deadlines
21
and pushing the added duties and workload on to the Plaintiff, requiring the Plaintiff to work in
22
excess of 10-hour days to fulfill Ms. Daley’s added demands. Out of fear for losing her job the
23
24 Plaintiff tried to comply with Ms. Daley’s every demand. Plaintiff reminded Ms. Daley of her
25 work restrictions, to no avail. Ms. Daley did not offer Plaintiff the interactive process or
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 10
1 reasonable accommodation, nor did she notify any other CSU Chico employee regarding
2
Plaintiff’s need for an interactive process or reasonable accommodation.
3
30.
4
In September 2018, Ms. Daley wrote a consultant agreement proposal for Tim LaSalle,
5
6 purposely evading campus and CSU rules regarding hiring consultants. Plaintiff raised the issue
7 with Ms. Daley, explaining that her consultant agreement violated campus, CSU and other rules
8
regarding consultant. Ms. Daley’s response was that she did not care and that she just wanted
9
LaSalle’s contract renewed immediately because he’d already performed services he was waiting
10
to be paid for. The ongoing consultant agreement exceeded $100,000. Ms. Daley instructed the
11
12 Plaintiff to violate the rules and to do a “quick call for proposal” to ensure that no other
13 consultants would apply. Plaintiff protested and restated that Ms. Daley was violating the rules.
14
Ms. Daley said that since Mr. LaSalle was already working for the CSU Chico she wanted him to
15
be paid retroactively for that work. This increased Plaintiff’s stress levels.
16
31.
17
18 The Plaintiff had been asked to perform some duties relating to donations,
19 sponsorships\and event logistics for Ms. Daley. In September 2018, the Plaintiff pointed out that
20
specific University policy required written documentation of all donations. Plaintiff also pointed
21
out that events needed to obtain alcohol permits. Ms. Daley responded to say “that sounds like a
22
bunch of red tape. We’ve never filled out those forms and we’re not going to start now. I really
23
24 don’t care if the University gets credit for my donations.” Plaintiff’s stress levels increased again.
25
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 11
1 32.
2
Ms. Daley asked the Plaintiff to prepare a proposed budget projection for the new
3
organization, which the Plaintiff did to a point but asked Ms. Daley to meet with her to discuss
4
some of the budget figures that did not make sense. The Plaintiff had been told by Jennifer Mays
5
6 that the Provost had asked Ms. Daley several times for accurate projections and corrections
7 because what she had previously submitted on her own didn’t make sense to the Provost either,
8
and weren’t in an acceptable budgetary format commonly used by the University. Ms. Daley
9
continued to refuse to meet with the Plaintiff about the budget and stated “"my budget is none of
10
administrations business and quite frankly, I'm getting a little VP'd out!"
11
12 33.
13 Beginning in September 2018, Plaintiff had ongoing conversations with Jennifer Mays,
14
Interim Associate Vice Provost for Budget and Academic Resources, and after reviewing
15
documents relating to creation of the Center for Regenerative Agriculture, the Plaintiff was then
16
told that her position was only funded until 2021, and that after that date she would be out of a
17
18 job as her job duties would be absorbed by other, non-university, non state funded, employees.
19 This created added stress and anxiety for the Plaintiff and the vulnerability of her position and
20
retirement planning at CSU Chico. This added to Plaintiff’s stress levels.
21
34.
22
In September 2018, fearing more violations and disregard for policy were sure to come,
23
24 the Plaintiff contacted Jennifer Mays and Pamela Hollis (Executive Director of Finance and
25 Administration for the Vice President of University Advancement) requesting to meet with them
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 12
1 to discuss the violations, the ignored processes, problems created, and multiple budget concerns
2
with Ms. Daley in order to document and resolve the pending issues, and provide the needed
3
budget information for the Provost for the senate committees review.
4
35.
5
6 The meeting took place at the beginning of November 2018, and in attendance were
7 Plaintiff, Ms. Daley, Jennifer Mays, Pamela Hollis, and Eileen Chavez. Ms. Chavez had been
8
complaining about the records being provided by Ms. Daley. During this meeting the Plaintiff
9
opened the discussion about Ms. Daley’s refusal to adhere to donations policies and processes,
10
and the concerns with the proposal for Tim LaSalle, as well as other processes that she had not
11
12 complied with per campus policy, and the resulting difficulties to the Plaintiff and others in the
13 meeting as a result. All of the participants at the meeting agreed with Plaintiff’s assessment and
14
told Ms. Daley that she needed to correct the problems identified by Plaintiff. Following this
15
“whistleblower” meeting Ms. Daley began to be very hostile and retaliatory towards Plaintiff in
16
her actions and behavior. Plaintiff’s stress, anxiety and back pain increased.
17
18 36.
19 Ms. Daley’s behavior and attitude continued to become more hostile towards Plaintiff.
20
Plaintiff discussed in detail with Jennifer Mays the violations and inappropriate behavior of Ms.
21
Daley who recommended she request a meeting with Daniel Grassian. Plaintiff also told Ms.
22
Mays that Ms. Daley’s demands were violating her physician’s restrictions. No interactive
23
24 process or reasonable accommodations were offered. Plaintiff requested a meeting with him to
25 discuss her concerns, but Mr. Grassian declined. He suggested that Plaintiff meet instead with
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 13
1 John Unruh, dean of the College of Agriculture and Ms. Daley’s supervisor.
2
37.
3
Ms. Daley attempted to revise the entire layout of the Conference into an agriculture
4
regenerative soils conference, changing, for example, the themed layout and the schedule layout,
5
6 and more. This created even more work and distress for the Plaintiff given the late start due to
7 the lack of communication and decision making on the part of administration.
8
38.
9
Numerous meetings were held with students and other campus members regarding the
10
direction of the Conference beginning in September 2018 and continuing. Ms. Daley was not
11
12 happy with these discussions and began bullying the Plaintiff and students about the Conference.
13 After one meeting, Ms. Daley called Plaintiff, very upset that there was push back from the
14
students and said, “you need to get them all on board.” The Plaintiff explained that the
15
conference was mostly being funded by the students’ funds, and that they played a major role in
16
planning and execution of it. This only angered Ms. Daley more. The bullying and harassment
17
18 continued, and Plaintiffs stress, anxiety and back pain increased even more.
19 39.
20
At one meeting with the students who were working on the Conference, Ms. Daley told
21
the Plaintiff that she didn’t know what Plaintiff did, or what the students did. Plaintiff then had
22
all of the students tell her what they were doing in preparation for the Conference. Plaintiff did
23
24 the same.
25
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 14
1 40.
2
Plaintiff worked in fear of losing her job in order to try and fulfill Ms. Daley’s
3
impossible demands to have the peer reviewed journal online and active by November 7, 2018.
4
Ms. Daley’s demands and refusal to accommodate Plaintiff only increased Plaintiff’s stress,
5
6 anxiety and back pain.
7 41.
8
In early October, 2018, Ms. Daley then accused Plaintiff of not scheduling her
9
appointments correctly. As a result, Plaintiff found out that Ms. Daley was not using the campus
10
standard – Outlook Calendar – and that was why she didn’t get the appointments that Plaintiff
11
12 had made for her. Ms. Daley’s lack of communication, lack of efficiency, her refusal to follow
13 campus procedures and state policies, her lack of concern for Plaintiff’s well-being, and her
14
refusal to accommodate the restrictions placed on Plaintiff’s work by her physician, was causing
15
extreme anxiety and stress for Plaintiff.
16
42.
17
18 On October 4, 2018, at an open public meeting, Defendant employee Carl Pittman stated
19 that the ISD department was being dissolved because there were personnel problems in the
20
department. Plaintiff was the only employee left in the ISD department at the time of the meeting,
21
and is the only employee who Pittman could have been referring to. Pittman was referring to
22
Plaintiff as being the “problem” and the reason that an entire department was being dissolved – a
23
24 department that was respected nation wide for its annual sustainability conference. This
25 information had been disclosed to Mr. Pittman by Provost Larson. Plaintiff, as the only employee
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 15
1 left in the ISD, and the person most responsible for the great success and the stellar reputation of
2
the annual sustainability conference, was not aware of any such “personnel problems.” Plaintiff
3
was humiliated, disrespected, embarrassed and her professional reputation at the University was
4
severely damaged. Defendants used these untruths, in part, to damage Plaintiff’s reputation, to
5
6 negatively impact her health and to constructively discharge her.
7 43.
8
During this time Plaintiff was unable to stand during her work (as recommended by her
9
physician), because she was instructed to sit to record and take notes during personnel interviews,
10
and Plaintiff was often not allowed to take rest breaks or lunch breaks. Ms. Daley’s unreasonable
11
12 work demands along with her inefficiencies, lack of direction, and knowledge about how to
13 proceed continued to make Plaintiff’s stress worse and increased her back pain.
14
44.
15
In October 2018, Ms. Daley hired two non- University employed outreach specialists and
16
immediately began excluding Plaintiff from department business, the Conference and website
17
18 communications and meetings, all of which were Plaintiff’s job duties. No notification was made
19 to Plaintiff regarding these changes. Ms. Daley made it Plaintiff’s job to orient the two new non
20
state hires to the office, train them add them to Box, grant them access to campus email,
21
computers, office space, and Plaintiff’s job-required platforms. Ms. Daley then began excluding
22
Plaintiff from communications and logistics relating to her assigned duties and started meeting
23
24 with the two University employed outreach specialists, other department staff and consultants
25 without her, resulting in restricting Plaintiff’s abilities to perform duties she’d been assigned.
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 16
1 This caused further anxiety, stress, frustration, and physical pain to Plaintiff.
2
45.
3
Ms. Daley continued to have her budget, reports and invoicing scrutinized by the
4
University, because the University was having major problems getting accurate information
5
6 (including accurate submissions of proposals and invoicing) from Ms. Daley. Ms. Daley
7 continued to refuse to meet with Plaintiff to discuss the budget so that Plaintiff could create an
8
accurate report for submission. Ms. Daley’s response was “my budget is none of the
9
administration’s business and quite frankly, I’m getting a little VP’d out!” Plaintiff continued to
10
point out ongoing and systemic violations of campus, Chancellor’s Office, and state policies and
11
12 state statutes to Ms. Daley. Plaintiff’s stress continued to increase.
13 46.
14
Ms. Daley’s response was that “I’ve never worried about getting forms completed for
15
donations and I’m not going to start now. I really don’t care if the University gets credit for these
16
donations. This is just a bunch of red tape and I’m not going to worry about it.”
17
18 47.
19 In early October 2018, Plaintiff also notified Mr. Saake, regarding the problems being
20
caused by Ms. Daley, including but not limited to Ms. Daley’s violation of campus policies, and
21
how the workload that Ms. Daley was pushing on Plaintiff greatly exceeded her physicians
22
restrictions and the reasonable accommodations granted by the University to Plaintiff. Mr. Saake
23
24 did not respond to Plaintiff’s concerns and did not invoke the interactive process or provide
25 Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation.
26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 17
1 48.
2
Ms. Daley then planned an event for November 14-16, 2018, where alcohol would be
3
served. The event was scheduled to occur on campus, but the campus was closed on November
4
8, through November 25, 2018, due to the Camp Fire. Ms. Daley rescheduled the event for the
5
6 Oxford Suites although all University business was ordered to cease by CSU Chico President
7 Hutchinson. In November, Plaintiff explained the need for Ms. Daley to obtain a different
8
approval to serve alcohol off campus, and that she didn’t have approval for that. Plaintiff also
9
explained that Ms. Daley would need a permit from the state Alcohol and Beverage Control
10
department. Plaintiff recommended that Ms. Daley contact Stephen Cummings, Director of
11
12 University Public Engagements, for “special approval”. Ms. Daley never received special
13 approval for serving alcohol off campus, or to host a campus event during the emergency closure,
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.
17
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
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 18
1 50.
2
On or about December 3rd the Plaintiff was notified that her office would be moving to
3
Holt Hall the first week of January. This added even more stress and anxiety to the Plaintiff,
4
especially with the campus holiday closure just two weeks away. Although she had let Ms. Daley
5
6 and others know that another move during the most crucial phase of the conference, and just
7 after the fire catastrophe closure, would be difficult and require even more work, she was told,
8
that despite her doctor restrictions, her stress and related back injury, and the reasonable
9
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
11
12 increasing her stress level.
13 51.
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. Daley said “Oh, ok” and
21
left.
22
52.
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
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 19
1 students and to Plaintiff’s stress levels. Plaintiff also discussed that she was being worked well
2
over the eight hour per day restrictions given to her by her doctor, that she was not allowed rest
3
or meal breaks, or time to take walks, that her stress levels were quickly increasing, and that the
4
University was violating the reasonable accommodations that had been agreed to. Despite
5
6 Plaintiff advising Mr. Unruh that he and the University would be liable for these violations, Mr.
7 Unruh took no action on Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the Defendants’ refusal to reasonable
8
accommodate her. He did not initiate an interactive process or provide Plaintiff with a reasonable
9
accommodation, nor did he contact anyone else at the University to do so.
10
53.
11
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, alcohol 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 54.
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 Daley’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
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 20
1 remedy the issues raised by Plaintiff.
2
55.
3
Mr. Unruh also stated that he agreed that the reorganization was not working and said
4
that he would talk to Mr. Grassian to try and come up with a solution.
5
6 56.
7 Ms. Daley somehow found out about the meeting that Plaintiff was having with Mr.
8
Unruh, and though not invited, listened outside, at the door, during the entire meeting. When
9
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 57.
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 eliminating the
17
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
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION,
27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE
TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE,
28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B),
DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 21
1 had not mentioned that she was going to shut down the website. This devastated the Plaintiff, as
2
well as the students working on the conference. They all were perplexed and afraid for the
3
future of the conference, and their jobs. Plaintiff’s stress level was greatly increased.
4
60.
5
6 Michal Hanson, lead conference student, asked Plaintiff what she could do regarding the
7 Conference website being shut down and decided to include the topic on the Campus
8
Sustainability Committee agenda, which she was a member of. She later told Plaintiff that when
9
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
11
12 what had happened or why. Larson and Daley blamed Plaintiff and told the students that Plaintiff
13 had cancelled the world renowned conference. Larson and Daley both knew that this was not
14
true. Ms. Daley immediately texted Plaintiff and accused her of causing a “shit storm.” Again,
15
Plaintiff’s anxiety, stress and back pain increased.
16
61.
17
18 Later on December 14, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to HR, Dylan Saake, asking for a
19 transfer to Robin McCrea’s position as an accommodation for her disability. Ms. McCrea was
20
retiring at the end of the month. This was a request for a lateral transfer into the same
21
classification. Plaintiff made it clear that she was making this request due to her supervisor’s
22
unwillingness to accommodate her disability. The request was denied with no reason given. No
23
24 interactive process was conducted and no reasonable accommodation given. This lack of
25 responsiveness from Human Resources greatly increased Plaintiff
Preview
1 Thomas Dimitre SBN 276924 Thomas Dimitre Attorney at Law 2 PO Box 801 9/28/2020 3 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541890 5022 4 Fax: 541 488 4601 Email: dimitre@mind.net 5 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 COUNTY OF BUTTE 8 TERESA RANDOLPH, Case No.: 19CV01226 9 Plaintiff, 10 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR vs. 11 WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVE TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE TERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION, 12 UNIVERSITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION AND CYNTHIA DALEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, BASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TO 13 ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE AND DEBRA LARSON, AN INDIVIDUAL 14 IPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLY Defendant ACCOMMODATE, VIOLATION OF CGC 15 12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC 12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 16 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL 17 INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, 18 AMOUNT: $750,000 19 20 Plaintiff, TERESA RANDOLPH, hereby brings this THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 against Defendants, TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STATE OF 22 23 CALIFORNIA, CYNTHIA DALEY, and DEBRA LARSON, as follows: 24 25 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 1 1 JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE 2 1. 3 Jurisdiction is proper in Butte County, California because Plaintiff was harmed by 4 Defendants in Butte County, California during her employment at the California State University, 5 6 Chico. 7 2. 8 Plaintiff was at all times relevant herein, an employee of the California State University, 9 Chico, (“CSU Chico”) and began employment there on June 9, 1997 and was forced to resign on 10 March 11, 2019 . 11 12 3. 13 Defendant, Trustees of the California State University, is the governing body of the CSU, 14 and is located in Long Beach, California. Defendant is a public employer. 15 4. 16 Defendant, State of California, is a public entity, acting in its higher capacity. Defendant 17 18 is a public employer. 19 5. 20 Defendant Cynthia Daley, was, at all pertinent times, an employee of the CSU Chico, 21 employed as the Professor and Director of the Regenerative Agriculture Initiative and Organic 22 Dairy Program, and Plaintiff’s supervisor. 23 24 6. 25 Defendant Debra Larson, was at all pertinent times, the Provost of the CSU Chico. 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 2 1 FACTS 2 7. 3 Plaintiff began work at the CSU Chico on June 9, 1997, and worked as an Administrative 4 Analyst Specialist,. 5 6 8. 7 Plaintiff was forced to resign her position at CSU Chico on March 11, 2019 because, but 8 not limited to, the Defendants did not engage in the interactive process or provide reasonable 9 accommodations, as requested by Plaintiff and her physician, and due to being harassed by 10 Defendants. 11 12 9. 13 In or about September, 2007 Plaintiff suffered a work related injury resulting in major 14 back surgery, a permanent disability, and permanent work restrictions. In or about October 2015, 15 Plaintiff was diagnosed with a re-herniated disc, which impacted her ability to work. Plaintiff is 16 considered disabled for purposes of California law because stress was creating increased back 17 18 pain and negatively impacting her ability to work. Plaintiff was a qualified individual who, with, 19 or without accommodation, could perform the essential duties of her job. 20 10. 21 On or about October 2015, Plaintiff’s physician recommended that the Defendants 22 provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her back pain. Those accommodations 23 24 were: not working over eight hours per day, a reduction of stress, a standing workstation, and 25 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 3 1 taking frequent breaks and walks. The Defendants approved Plaintiff’s physician’s 2 recommended reasonable accommodations. 3 11. 4 At first, the Defendants complied with the accommodation request and granted Plaintiff 5 6 reasonable accommodation to comply with her physician’s recommendations. At first, the 7 Defendant acceptably accommodated Plaintiff during the year, with the exception of the months 8 prior to and during the sustainability (“Conference”). Plaintiff had coordinated and been the lead 9 on the Conference since 2006. She had built it up from nothing into a renowned and first class 10 Conference that as the largest Sustainability Conference of its kind in North America. During 11 12 this time (about one and a half months prior to the Conference), due to the excessive work 13 demands, Plaintiff was forced to arrive early and to work late, without breaks or lunch, in order 14 to prepare for and ensure that the Conference went on. This workload violated the 15 recommendation of Plaintiff’s physician and the agreed upon reasonable accommodations, and 16 this was known to Defendants. 17 18 12. 19 Beginning in early 2018, despite multiple requests from Plaintiff, Defendants refused to 20 continue to accommodate Plaintiff, leading to a higher degree of disability, more pain, and 21 increasing recommended reasonable accommodations from Plaintiff’s physician. 22 13. 23 24 In March 2018, Plaintiff told her then supervisor, Mr. Pushnik, that she could not do 25 another Conference due to the stress that it caused, the physical negative impacts, increased back 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 4 1 pain, and the inevitable violations of her work restrictions. Plaintiff’s physical condition had 2 deteriorated during the 2018 Conference, due to Defendants’ demand that she work outside of 3 her restrictions in order to accommodate the Conference. Mr. Pushnik’s response was “Don’t 4 worry there will not be another Conference.” This reassured Plaintiff that she would be able to 5 6 work within her work restrictions. 7 14. 8 On May 10, 2018, The California State University, Chico newspaper, The Orion, posted 9 an article stating that Plaintiff (and others in her department) would lose their positions at the end 10 of May 2018 because of budget cuts. This had never been discussed with Plaintiff by anyone 11 12 from the CSU Chico. Mark Stemen, Professor in the Geography and Planning Department had 13 disclosed this information to The Orion. 14 15. 15 In response to The Orion article, and fearing for her job, Plaintiff sent an email to the 16 University President, Gayle Hutchinson, asking for a meeting, clarification and direction about 17 18 the Orion article, the future of Plaintiffs position, the future of the Conference, and stating that 19 Mr. Pushnik had told her that there would not be a Conference. The email was forwarded to the 20 Provost. The President did not respond to Plaintiff’s request. 21 16. 22 Because of the uncertainty and future of her position, and the future of the department, 23 24 Plaintiff emailed Dylan Saake, CSU Chico’s Director of Labor and Compliance, asking for some 25 clarification of what was being planned, still with no clarification. Because she’d made plans for 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 5 1 vacation but was told she’d need to move the office to Meriam Library, she wasn’t able to take 2 vacation. Not having help to make the move because the other staff in the department, Fletcher 3 Alexander, had taken dock status time off and left the Plaintiff to worry about the entire office 4 move on her own. This caused more stress, and inhibited Plaintiff’s ability to take the much 5 6 needed time off after the 2018 conference. 7 17. 8 In early August, 2018, Plaintiff was notified by Provost Larson, that since May 31, 2018, 9 her department had been reorganized and that she now reported to Daniel Grassian, Vice Provost 10 for Academic Programs. Plaintiff asked Mr. Grassian if there would be a Conference in 2019, 11 12 and he replied that he did not know. The Plaintiff was given no direction by Mr. Grassian, was 13 not given an updated job description, and was still unsure of her tasks or function within the 14 University. This caused additional undue stress and anxiety to the Plaintiff. 15 18. 16 On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff was called to a meeting with Cindy Daley, and Daniel 17 18 Grassian and was told that Ms. Daley was now her supervisor. Ms. Daley handed Plaintiff a 19 memo, stating that she was now reporting to Ms. Daley. Plaintiff was also handed a copy of a 20 new position description (“PD”). The PD did not describe any physical requirements of the new 21 position. 22 19. 23 24 As they were leaving the meeting, the Provost asked Plaintiff if they could announce the 25 changes publicly. Plaintiff said that was up to them, but she still needed time to review the 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 6 1 proposed PD. Plaintiff was concerned regarding the workload it created and whether or not her 2 new job would fall within the restrictions recommended by her doctor. Neither the Mr. Grassian 3 or Ms. Daley offered an interactive process or a reasonable accommodation. 4 20. 5 6 On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff met with Ms. Daley again with the memo and the new 7 position description. Plaintiff was very concerned that the new position description included her 8 regular conference duties (a full time job in itself), but also included new and significant 9 regenerative agriculture (“RAI”) duties, which also appeared to be full time work. 10 21. 11 12 Plaintiff asked Ms. Daley when the new RAI duties would be occurring, and Ms. Daley 13 responded during the months of September to May each year. 14 22. 15 Plaintiff responded that this was the same time frame where she did the most work for the 16 Conference (Conference was held in March each year), which already exceeded a full time job 17 18 for the months of September through May each year. Plaintiff asked Ms. Daley “Do you realize 19 that you have just doubled my workload and more importantly my stress level?” Plaintiff stated 20 that she was already working at maximum capacity (8 hours per day) and there was no way that 21 she could perform all of the additional duties on the position description and stay within her 22 physician’s restrictions. Plaintiff then told Ms. Daley that she had already blown out her back 23 24 once because she worked to excess for the Conference, and was not going to violate her 25 restrictions and the agreed upon reasonable accommodations and blow out her back again. Ms. 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 7 1 Daley did not respond, did not offer any additional staff to assist Plaintiff, nor did she agree to 2 reduce Plaintiff’s workload or modify the position description. Plaintiff reminded Ms. Daley of 3 her specific disability restrictions and told her that this position description would violate those 4 restrictions and that she would not sign or agree to it. Ms. Daley’s response was “You’ll figure it 5 6 out, I gotta go”, and left the meeting. Ms. Daley did not offer an interactive process or provide a 7 reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff. 8 23. 9 The position description was never signed by either Ms. Daley or the Plaintiff, as 10 required. Yet, the Defendants still expected Plaintiff to do the work stated on the position 11 12 description, and demanded that she do so. 13 24. 14 Plaintiff ran into Stephanie Neuhart, CSU Chico HR Classification Specialist, in the days 15 following her meeting with Ms. Daley, on or about August 28 or 29, 2018. Ms. Neuhart regularly 16 reviews and revises position descriptions as part of her job with the CSU Chico. 17 18 25. 19 Plaintiff asked Ms. Neuhart if she realized that her new PD would double her workload 20 and told Ms. Neuhart it would need to be revised, as it was an impossible workload and that it 21 violated her physician’s work restrictions of reduced stress and work of no more than eight hours 22 per day. Ms. Neutart responded “Cindy (Ms. Daley) wrote it.” Plaintiff reiterated that it needed 23 24 to be revised as it is far more than a full time job, and it would violate her physician’s restrictions 25 and recommended accommodations. Plaintiff told Ms. Neuhart that she was not going to sign it. 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 8 1 Ms. Neuhart never responded to Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the position description, or the 2 violation of her physician’s work restrictions and recommended accommodations, nor did she 3 offer Plaintiff an interactive process or reasonable accommodation. Ms. Neuhart also did not 4 notify anyone at the CSU Chico regarding Plaintiff’s potential need for an interactive process 5 6 and reasonable accommodation. 7 26. 8 In September 2018, Ms. Daley had instructed Plaintiff to start a peer reviewed journal as 9 a requirement for one of her grants. This work was a fraction of the additional work in Plaintiff’s 10 proposed PD that doubled and tripled her work load. Plaintiff told her that she had never done 11 12 that type of work before, was completely unaware of what a “Managing Editor” was responsible 13 for, didn’t feel qualified, and didn’t have time to learn about and successfully implement 14 something of this magnitude, with her PD already in excess of eight hours per day. Ms. Daley 15 directed Plaintiff to create a journal anyway and have it ready to launch before the holidays. 16 Plaintiff asked Ms. Daley for input and direction for the journal and received none. Plaintiff then 17 18 began researching the rules that applied, how to set it up, what types of articles were appropriate, 19 who should be on the review team, appropriate article submission rules and guidelines, and more. 20 This additional work added even more stress, anxiety and created more back pain for Plaintiff, 21 and further violated her physician’s restrictions and recommended reasonable accommodations. 22 27. 23 24 By September 2018, Plaintiff was required to work over eight hours each and every day, 25 and without breaks or lunch breaks for most days, in order to attempt to keep up with her 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 9 1 assigned duties. She also worked from home early and late in the day, before and after regular 2 working hours. Ms. Daley demanded that she work these hours, and Plaintiff did so for fear of 3 losing her job. 4 28. 5 6 In September 2018, Plaintiff began working on the Conference. It was a very late start, 7 and she was immediately trying to catch up to the regular schedule, and accommodate the added 8 new duties and demands for Ms. Daley. Plaintiff was required to hire students, get the conference 9 website launched, create a proposal form, create conference information pages, 10 schedule and attend meetings, coordinate room and event logistics, plan advertising, coordinate 11 12 with other campus and community members, and much more. Ms. Daley also forced Plaintiff to 13 begin working on the RAI. Additionally, as a result of this second reorganization in just four 14 months, Plaintiff was burdened with additional workload in transferring the reorganized unit to 15 the new director and RAI program. This temporarily resulted in tripling the Plaintiff’s workload. 16 29. 17 18 Ms. Daley began demanding the Plaintiff attend meetings starting at 7:00 am, began 19 contacting the Plaintiff before and after normal work hours (at early as 4:00 am, and as late as 20 7:00 pm), demanding that Plaintiff work during her lunch and break hours, demanding deadlines 21 and pushing the added duties and workload on to the Plaintiff, requiring the Plaintiff to work in 22 excess of 10-hour days to fulfill Ms. Daley’s added demands. Out of fear for losing her job the 23 24 Plaintiff tried to comply with Ms. Daley’s every demand. Plaintiff reminded Ms. Daley of her 25 work restrictions, to no avail. Ms. Daley did not offer Plaintiff the interactive process or 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 10 1 reasonable accommodation, nor did she notify any other CSU Chico employee regarding 2 Plaintiff’s need for an interactive process or reasonable accommodation. 3 30. 4 In September 2018, Ms. Daley wrote a consultant agreement proposal for Tim LaSalle, 5 6 purposely evading campus and CSU rules regarding hiring consultants. Plaintiff raised the issue 7 with Ms. Daley, explaining that her consultant agreement violated campus, CSU and other rules 8 regarding consultant. Ms. Daley’s response was that she did not care and that she just wanted 9 LaSalle’s contract renewed immediately because he’d already performed services he was waiting 10 to be paid for. The ongoing consultant agreement exceeded $100,000. Ms. Daley instructed the 11 12 Plaintiff to violate the rules and to do a “quick call for proposal” to ensure that no other 13 consultants would apply. Plaintiff protested and restated that Ms. Daley was violating the rules. 14 Ms. Daley said that since Mr. LaSalle was already working for the CSU Chico she wanted him to 15 be paid retroactively for that work. This increased Plaintiff’s stress levels. 16 31. 17 18 The Plaintiff had been asked to perform some duties relating to donations, 19 sponsorships\and event logistics for Ms. Daley. In September 2018, the Plaintiff pointed out that 20 specific University policy required written documentation of all donations. Plaintiff also pointed 21 out that events needed to obtain alcohol permits. Ms. Daley responded to say “that sounds like a 22 bunch of red tape. We’ve never filled out those forms and we’re not going to start now. I really 23 24 don’t care if the University gets credit for my donations.” Plaintiff’s stress levels increased again. 25 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 11 1 32. 2 Ms. Daley asked the Plaintiff to prepare a proposed budget projection for the new 3 organization, which the Plaintiff did to a point but asked Ms. Daley to meet with her to discuss 4 some of the budget figures that did not make sense. The Plaintiff had been told by Jennifer Mays 5 6 that the Provost had asked Ms. Daley several times for accurate projections and corrections 7 because what she had previously submitted on her own didn’t make sense to the Provost either, 8 and weren’t in an acceptable budgetary format commonly used by the University. Ms. Daley 9 continued to refuse to meet with the Plaintiff about the budget and stated “"my budget is none of 10 administrations business and quite frankly, I'm getting a little VP'd out!" 11 12 33. 13 Beginning in September 2018, Plaintiff had ongoing conversations with Jennifer Mays, 14 Interim Associate Vice Provost for Budget and Academic Resources, and after reviewing 15 documents relating to creation of the Center for Regenerative Agriculture, the Plaintiff was then 16 told that her position was only funded until 2021, and that after that date she would be out of a 17 18 job as her job duties would be absorbed by other, non-university, non state funded, employees. 19 This created added stress and anxiety for the Plaintiff and the vulnerability of her position and 20 retirement planning at CSU Chico. This added to Plaintiff’s stress levels. 21 34. 22 In September 2018, fearing more violations and disregard for policy were sure to come, 23 24 the Plaintiff contacted Jennifer Mays and Pamela Hollis (Executive Director of Finance and 25 Administration for the Vice President of University Advancement) requesting to meet with them 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 12 1 to discuss the violations, the ignored processes, problems created, and multiple budget concerns 2 with Ms. Daley in order to document and resolve the pending issues, and provide the needed 3 budget information for the Provost for the senate committees review. 4 35. 5 6 The meeting took place at the beginning of November 2018, and in attendance were 7 Plaintiff, Ms. Daley, Jennifer Mays, Pamela Hollis, and Eileen Chavez. Ms. Chavez had been 8 complaining about the records being provided by Ms. Daley. During this meeting the Plaintiff 9 opened the discussion about Ms. Daley’s refusal to adhere to donations policies and processes, 10 and the concerns with the proposal for Tim LaSalle, as well as other processes that she had not 11 12 complied with per campus policy, and the resulting difficulties to the Plaintiff and others in the 13 meeting as a result. All of the participants at the meeting agreed with Plaintiff’s assessment and 14 told Ms. Daley that she needed to correct the problems identified by Plaintiff. Following this 15 “whistleblower” meeting Ms. Daley began to be very hostile and retaliatory towards Plaintiff in 16 her actions and behavior. Plaintiff’s stress, anxiety and back pain increased. 17 18 36. 19 Ms. Daley’s behavior and attitude continued to become more hostile towards Plaintiff. 20 Plaintiff discussed in detail with Jennifer Mays the violations and inappropriate behavior of Ms. 21 Daley who recommended she request a meeting with Daniel Grassian. Plaintiff also told Ms. 22 Mays that Ms. Daley’s demands were violating her physician’s restrictions. No interactive 23 24 process or reasonable accommodations were offered. Plaintiff requested a meeting with him to 25 discuss her concerns, but Mr. Grassian declined. He suggested that Plaintiff meet instead with 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 13 1 John Unruh, dean of the College of Agriculture and Ms. Daley’s supervisor. 2 37. 3 Ms. Daley attempted to revise the entire layout of the Conference into an agriculture 4 regenerative soils conference, changing, for example, the themed layout and the schedule layout, 5 6 and more. This created even more work and distress for the Plaintiff given the late start due to 7 the lack of communication and decision making on the part of administration. 8 38. 9 Numerous meetings were held with students and other campus members regarding the 10 direction of the Conference beginning in September 2018 and continuing. Ms. Daley was not 11 12 happy with these discussions and began bullying the Plaintiff and students about the Conference. 13 After one meeting, Ms. Daley called Plaintiff, very upset that there was push back from the 14 students and said, “you need to get them all on board.” The Plaintiff explained that the 15 conference was mostly being funded by the students’ funds, and that they played a major role in 16 planning and execution of it. This only angered Ms. Daley more. The bullying and harassment 17 18 continued, and Plaintiffs stress, anxiety and back pain increased even more. 19 39. 20 At one meeting with the students who were working on the Conference, Ms. Daley told 21 the Plaintiff that she didn’t know what Plaintiff did, or what the students did. Plaintiff then had 22 all of the students tell her what they were doing in preparation for the Conference. Plaintiff did 23 24 the same. 25 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 14 1 40. 2 Plaintiff worked in fear of losing her job in order to try and fulfill Ms. Daley’s 3 impossible demands to have the peer reviewed journal online and active by November 7, 2018. 4 Ms. Daley’s demands and refusal to accommodate Plaintiff only increased Plaintiff’s stress, 5 6 anxiety and back pain. 7 41. 8 In early October, 2018, Ms. Daley then accused Plaintiff of not scheduling her 9 appointments correctly. As a result, Plaintiff found out that Ms. Daley was not using the campus 10 standard – Outlook Calendar – and that was why she didn’t get the appointments that Plaintiff 11 12 had made for her. Ms. Daley’s lack of communication, lack of efficiency, her refusal to follow 13 campus procedures and state policies, her lack of concern for Plaintiff’s well-being, and her 14 refusal to accommodate the restrictions placed on Plaintiff’s work by her physician, was causing 15 extreme anxiety and stress for Plaintiff. 16 42. 17 18 On October 4, 2018, at an open public meeting, Defendant employee Carl Pittman stated 19 that the ISD department was being dissolved because there were personnel problems in the 20 department. Plaintiff was the only employee left in the ISD department at the time of the meeting, 21 and is the only employee who Pittman could have been referring to. Pittman was referring to 22 Plaintiff as being the “problem” and the reason that an entire department was being dissolved – a 23 24 department that was respected nation wide for its annual sustainability conference. This 25 information had been disclosed to Mr. Pittman by Provost Larson. Plaintiff, as the only employee 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 15 1 left in the ISD, and the person most responsible for the great success and the stellar reputation of 2 the annual sustainability conference, was not aware of any such “personnel problems.” Plaintiff 3 was humiliated, disrespected, embarrassed and her professional reputation at the University was 4 severely damaged. Defendants used these untruths, in part, to damage Plaintiff’s reputation, to 5 6 negatively impact her health and to constructively discharge her. 7 43. 8 During this time Plaintiff was unable to stand during her work (as recommended by her 9 physician), because she was instructed to sit to record and take notes during personnel interviews, 10 and Plaintiff was often not allowed to take rest breaks or lunch breaks. Ms. Daley’s unreasonable 11 12 work demands along with her inefficiencies, lack of direction, and knowledge about how to 13 proceed continued to make Plaintiff’s stress worse and increased her back pain. 14 44. 15 In October 2018, Ms. Daley hired two non- University employed outreach specialists and 16 immediately began excluding Plaintiff from department business, the Conference and website 17 18 communications and meetings, all of which were Plaintiff’s job duties. No notification was made 19 to Plaintiff regarding these changes. Ms. Daley made it Plaintiff’s job to orient the two new non 20 state hires to the office, train them add them to Box, grant them access to campus email, 21 computers, office space, and Plaintiff’s job-required platforms. Ms. Daley then began excluding 22 Plaintiff from communications and logistics relating to her assigned duties and started meeting 23 24 with the two University employed outreach specialists, other department staff and consultants 25 without her, resulting in restricting Plaintiff’s abilities to perform duties she’d been assigned. 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 16 1 This caused further anxiety, stress, frustration, and physical pain to Plaintiff. 2 45. 3 Ms. Daley continued to have her budget, reports and invoicing scrutinized by the 4 University, because the University was having major problems getting accurate information 5 6 (including accurate submissions of proposals and invoicing) from Ms. Daley. Ms. Daley 7 continued to refuse to meet with Plaintiff to discuss the budget so that Plaintiff could create an 8 accurate report for submission. Ms. Daley’s response was “my budget is none of the 9 administration’s business and quite frankly, I’m getting a little VP’d out!” Plaintiff continued to 10 point out ongoing and systemic violations of campus, Chancellor’s Office, and state policies and 11 12 state statutes to Ms. Daley. Plaintiff’s stress continued to increase. 13 46. 14 Ms. Daley’s response was that “I’ve never worried about getting forms completed for 15 donations and I’m not going to start now. I really don’t care if the University gets credit for these 16 donations. This is just a bunch of red tape and I’m not going to worry about it.” 17 18 47. 19 In early October 2018, Plaintiff also notified Mr. Saake, regarding the problems being 20 caused by Ms. Daley, including but not limited to Ms. Daley’s violation of campus policies, and 21 how the workload that Ms. Daley was pushing on Plaintiff greatly exceeded her physicians 22 restrictions and the reasonable accommodations granted by the University to Plaintiff. Mr. Saake 23 24 did not respond to Plaintiff’s concerns and did not invoke the interactive process or provide 25 Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation. 26 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 17 1 48. 2 Ms. Daley then planned an event for November 14-16, 2018, where alcohol would be 3 served. The event was scheduled to occur on campus, but the campus was closed on November 4 8, through November 25, 2018, due to the Camp Fire. Ms. Daley rescheduled the event for the 5 6 Oxford Suites although all University business was ordered to cease by CSU Chico President 7 Hutchinson. In November, Plaintiff explained the need for Ms. Daley to obtain a different 8 approval to serve alcohol off campus, and that she didn’t have approval for that. Plaintiff also 9 explained that Ms. Daley would need a permit from the state Alcohol and Beverage Control 10 department. Plaintiff recommended that Ms. Daley contact Stephen Cummings, Director of 11 12 University Public Engagements, for “special approval”. Ms. Daley never received special 13 approval for serving alcohol off campus, or to host a campus event during the emergency closure, 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. 17 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 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 18 1 50. 2 On or about December 3rd the Plaintiff was notified that her office would be moving to 3 Holt Hall the first week of January. This added even more stress and anxiety to the Plaintiff, 4 especially with the campus holiday closure just two weeks away. Although she had let Ms. Daley 5 6 and others know that another move during the most crucial phase of the conference, and just 7 after the fire catastrophe closure, would be difficult and require even more work, she was told, 8 that despite her doctor restrictions, her stress and related back injury, and the reasonable 9 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 11 12 increasing her stress level. 13 51. 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. Daley said “Oh, ok” and 21 left. 22 52. 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 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 19 1 students and to Plaintiff’s stress levels. Plaintiff also discussed that she was being worked well 2 over the eight hour per day restrictions given to her by her doctor, that she was not allowed rest 3 or meal breaks, or time to take walks, that her stress levels were quickly increasing, and that the 4 University was violating the reasonable accommodations that had been agreed to. Despite 5 6 Plaintiff advising Mr. Unruh that he and the University would be liable for these violations, Mr. 7 Unruh took no action on Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the Defendants’ refusal to reasonable 8 accommodate her. He did not initiate an interactive process or provide Plaintiff with a reasonable 9 accommodation, nor did he contact anyone else at the University to do so. 10 53. 11 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, alcohol 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 54. 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 Daley’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 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 20 1 remedy the issues raised by Plaintiff. 2 55. 3 Mr. Unruh also stated that he agreed that the reorganization was not working and said 4 that he would talk to Mr. Grassian to try and come up with a solution. 5 6 56. 7 Ms. Daley somehow found out about the meeting that Plaintiff was having with Mr. 8 Unruh, and though not invited, listened outside, at the door, during the entire meeting. When 9 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 57. 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 eliminating the 17 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 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL/CONSTRUCITVETERMINATION, 27 DISCRIMINATION,HARASSMENT AND RETALIATIONBASED ON A DISABILITY, FAILURE TOENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVEIPROCESS, FAILURE TO REASONABLYACCOMMODATE, 28 VIOLATION OF CGC12940 (A), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), CC12945.2(L)(2), CALIF. LABOR CODE 1102.5 (B), DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AMOUNT: $750,000 - 21 1 had not mentioned that she was going to shut down the website. This devastated the Plaintiff, as 2 well as the students working on the conference. They all were perplexed and afraid for the 3 future of the conference, and their jobs. Plaintiff’s stress level was greatly increased. 4 60. 5 6 Michal Hanson, lead conference student, asked Plaintiff what she could do regarding the 7 Conference website being shut down and decided to include the topic on the Campus 8 Sustainability Committee agenda, which she was a member of. She later told Plaintiff that when 9 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 11 12 what had happened or why. Larson and Daley blamed Plaintiff and told the students that Plaintiff 13 had cancelled the world renowned conference. Larson and Daley both knew that this was not 14 true. Ms. Daley immediately texted Plaintiff and accused her of causing a “shit storm.” Again, 15 Plaintiff’s anxiety, stress and back pain increased. 16 61. 17 18 Later on December 14, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email to HR, Dylan Saake, asking for a 19 transfer to Robin McCrea’s position as an accommodation for her disability. Ms. McCrea was 20 retiring at the end of the month. This was a request for a lateral transfer into the same 21 classification. Plaintiff made it clear that she was making this request due to her supervisor’s 22 unwillingness to accommodate her disability. The request was denied with no reason given. No 23 24 interactive process was conducted and no reasonable accommodation given. This lack of 25 responsiveness from Human Resources greatly increased Plaintiff