Jaioslaw Waszczukjln Pro Per 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242

Transcription

Jaioslaw Waszczukjln Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
Fax:
209.247.1047
jjwl980@live.com
Superior Court of the State of Califomia
For the County of Sacramento
9
.10
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
U
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. 34-2013-00155479
The Regents Of The University of
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED
FEBRUARY 9, 2015 ANTI-SLAPP MOTION CCP
425.16
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
EXHIBITS
CaUfomia ,Ann Madden Rice . Mike Boyd,
Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher ,
Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza, Brent
Seifert, Patrick Putney , Dorin Daniliuc
and does 1-50
HON. DAVID BROWN
DEPT: S3
COMPLAINT FILED 12-4-2013
FIRST AMENDEMENT FILED 6-16-2014
SECOND AMENDEMENT FILED 9-<S0-2014
vs.
17
18
Defendants.
19
I
20
21
INTRODUCTION
22
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) states that "When an application for an order has been made to a
23
judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms,
24
any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after serx'ice upon the party of written notice ol
25
entry of the order. E.vhibit # A
26
27
28
- 1 NOTICE OF MOTION m i ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDER-^TION
Following the Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 Plaintiff timely submitting the Motion for
Reconsideration and Modification of the Court Order dated February 9, 2015 - Defendant's Anti SLAP? Motion filed on December 2, 2014 .
II
THE PLAINTIFF'S REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ORDER MODIFICATION
FIRST, the Court Order dated February 9, 2015, must be some kind of misunderstanding by
the court regarding the nature of the Plaintiffs complaint and the identities of the five individual
9
10
Defendants subjected to the mentioned court order. Plaintiff, during the court hearing on Febniarj' 6,
11
2015, stated on the record (without any intention to ofTend the court) that the Plaintiff took the
12
Court's Tentative Ruling dated February' 5, 2015 as a bad Polish joke. The PlaintiflJ"translated the
13
Tentative Ruling to mean that the Court completely ignored and did noi: read the Plaintiff s
14
Opposition to the Defendant's anti-SLAPP Motion with its 42 attached Exhibits.
15
16
SECOND, when, during the hearing, Plaintiff stated on the record that Plaintiff represented
17
and represents other UC Davis Medical Employees in their administrative complaints under LJC
18
Davis Policies PPSM 70, His Honor exhibited surprise and asked the Plaintiff: "What do you mean
19
you represent others or something similar?" Althougli Plaintiff has no a transcript of the hearing,
20
Plaintif is not quoting directly from it and doesn't remember the e.Kact words that were said; Plaintiff
21
22
23
apologizes in advance to His Honor if Plaintiff misquoted His Honor.
THIRD, the discussion during the court hearing on Febmary 6, 2015 gave Plaintiff sufficient
24
reason to doubt that the Court read Plaintiffs three coworkers' Declarations (Plaintiffs Opposition to
25
SLAPP Exhibits No 002, 003, and 004) as well as Plaintiff Exhibits No. 039,040, and 041.) In
26
particular. Exhibit 040 shows clearly how differently Plaintiffs coworker, Dereck Cole, was treated
27
28
by the Defendants than Plaintiff was treated for the same types of violations for which Plaintiff stands
- 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDER,^TION
1
accused by Defendants. When Dereck Cole was accused of violating the same Policy 1616 as
2
Plaintiff, he was served with a Letter of Expectation, which is not officially considered by UC Davis'
3
policies as a disciplinary measure, even though it, in fact, is.
4
When Plaintiff was accused of the same violations as Dereck Cole, Plaintifl' received 10
5
days' suspension without pay one year after the alleged violation occurred, then, shortly thereafter,
6
7
his employment was terminated based on Defendants' fabricated-out-of-the-blue accusations and
8
allegations by Defendants Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert .
9
Plaintiff successfully represented Dereck Cole in the latter's Letter of Expectation complaint
10
and in his contestation of his Does Not Meet Expectations Employee Performance Review
11
12
(Evaluation). Plaintiff represented other employees in contesting their negative evaluations and Letter
13
of Expectation complaints but could not represent himself because Defendants did not provide
14
Plaintiff with a performance evaluation for the last two years of his employment, even though an
15
annual evaluation is mandated by UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 (Plaintiffs Opposition to SLAPP
16
Exhibit No. 029), even after one of Plaintiff s managers verbally promised Plaintiff that "somebody
17
will give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire liim" (Plaintiffs Opposition to SLAPP Exhibits No.
18
19
008). Plaintiff (the 'Polack' referenced in the aforementioned quote) was indeed fired, but witiiout
20
any performance evaluations for the last two years of his employment. Corrective (disciplinary
21
action) under UC Davis Policy PPSM 62, in the form of Letters of Expectation, verbal warnings, and
22
written wamings, also did not apply to Plaintiffs employment. The privilege of receiving a Letter of
23
Expectation, bad evaluations, or any other form of due process was reserved only for the "American
24
25
workers" on behalf of whom Plaintiff, a Polish immigrant, successfully provided representation to
26
stop further retaliation against them. Discrimination in employment disciplinary measures probably
27
cannot be found in Appellate Court case to cite as a precedent; however, Defendants, by violating UC
28
- 3NOTICE OF .MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
Davis PPSM Policy 23 & PPSM Policy 62 thus deprived Plaintiff of any available UC Davis
2
.Administrative Remedies to resolve the dispute without court action under the provision of UC Davis
3
Policy PPSM 70. The Court in Vergos, supra,146 Cal. App. 4'^, citing Campbell v. Regents of the
4
University ofCalifomia ((2005) 35 Cal. 4th 311, 319-321), noted that the Regents "have rtilemaking
5
6
and policymaking power in regard to the University; their policies and procedures have the force and
7
effect of stahite" {Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165.)
8
Statutory hearing procedures qualify, therefore, as official proceedings authorized by law for Section
9
425.16 purposes.
10
Furthermore, if Plaintiff would have known about the Vergos v. The UC Regents case in
.11
•12
November 2012, then Plaintiff would have objected, for the record, not to have his case heard by
13
Skelly reviewer UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson in November 2012. Tollefson
14
had been sued for sexual harassment in Randy Vergos v. The Regents of University of California. On
15
November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a detailed, 23-page brief vvith Skelly Officer, UC Davis
16
Assistant Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson, who was biased against tlie Plaintiff in the same way
17
as was the Skelly Officer who presided over Plaintiffs May 2012 suspension. On page 20 of the
18
19
Skelly brief, the Plaintiff pointed out, once more, that he did not receive his employee
20
evaluations for the last two years of employment prior termination, citing Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard
21
Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). (Plaintiffs Opposition to SLAPP, pages 25-27,
22
Exhibit No. 034, page 20.)
23
Allen Tollefson also appeared as a Defendant in the 2009 05-2439 - CartM'right v. University of
24
California Davis case in tlie 9'*' United States District Court, Eastem District of California, together
25
26
27
28
with another UC Davis Associate, Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek, whom Plaintiff has met while
representing his coworker in an Administrative Remedies complaint.
FOURTH, the Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint was stipulated by parties and said
- 4NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
Stipulation sustained PlaintiffsfirstFour Causes of Action and the five Defendants subject to
2
SLAPP, just as they were in the First Amended Complaint without any objections irom the
3
Defendant. The stipulation was affinned by the Court, and Plaintiff outlined it in Plaintiffs Response
4
to Defendant's Reply Brief filed with the Court on February 2, 2014.The Court Decision declines
5
Plaintiffs Response with Exhibits as there are no statutory rights to such supplemental brief. Plaintiff
6
7
believes that the Court, at its own discretion, should accept the Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief with
the information Plaintiff provided to support his Objections to Defendant's SLAPP motion.
Supplemental Brief contained photos Exhibits which shows "Principles of Community'" of
10
Defendants from UC Davis Medical Center who were disposing massive amount of leaking machine
11
oil to the city storm drain for seven years (River) poisoning natural environment which is crime
12
13
under State and Federal Law . Defendants Mike Boyd and Charles Witcher were dii-ectly responsible
• 14 for this crime. Defendant Stephen Chilcott and Cindy Oropeza new about. Seven long years Your
15
16
Honor. (PlaintifTs Opposition to SLAPP Exhibit # 005)
FIFTH, different, new, circumstances and Appellate Court Cases apply to Defendants'
17
SLAPP than those the Court cited in its decision. Plaintiff had no chance to study all SLAPP cases
18
19
due to a battle with his former attomey about substitutions of attomey, of which the Court was aware
20
and forced Douglas Stein, by court order, to sign the substitutions. Plaintiff received the substimtion
21
from Douglas Stein on January 13, 2015 and was left with only few days to file an Opposition to
22
SLAPP, which has was filed on .fanuary 23, 2015 with 42 exhibits supporting Plaintiffs opposition.
23
SIXTH, The Defendant brought the .Anti -SLAPP against Plaintiff not as Pubhc Entity representing
24
25
public interest but as a Plaintiff employer and this legal should be should tlireaded by the court as the
26
unresolved labor and employment dispute. The five Defendants dismissed by court decision are not
27
merely the Hearing officers. Locally Designated Officials, Investigators, or hivestigatoi-y Reports.
28
- 5 NOTICE OF MOTION .AND MOTION FOR REC0NSIDER,a,TION
1
The five Defendants are cold-blooded 'Vitch hunters" who have violated not only state and federal
2
law but also Plaintiff, employee, civil and human rights for almost two years; therefore, is no CCP §
3
425.16.protection for individual defendants and Vergos, Supra, 146 Cal. App. 4'*', does notapply in
4
this case.
5
Ill
6
7
8
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Writ of Mandate-Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. CaUfomia Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
9
10
On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court of The State of
11
California, County of Sacramento, Superior Court Department 24, Case No. 34-2013-80001699
12
Plaintiff, Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang, due to denial of unemployment benefits by Employment
13
Development, then an Administrative L^w Judge, tlien Califomia Unemployment, tlien the California
14
Unemployment Insurance Benefits Appeal Board. (CUIAB). The benefits was denied based on the
15
16
untme and defaming accusations against Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant or Real Party In Interest
17
in tlie CUIAB case to the State of California Employment Development Department in December
18
2013. These accusations were the Defendant's stiategic move to impact the future wrongfu
•19
termination litigation, as outlined writing as follows:
20
21
The State of California Attorney General 2001 Third Edition Civil Rights Hand Book, on page 30,
22
states: "Under California law, if you should subsequently lose your unemployment insurance
23
case, your employer may, then be able to use that decision against you in any subsequent
24
discrimination case which you might file with some other governmental agency or in court. In
25
other words, a loss in the unemployment insurance case may prevent you from prevailing in
26
another forum under a different set of laws."
27
28
Plaintiff would not ordinarily bring the Writ of Mandate case to the present Court's attention.
However, on the same day Plaintiff filed his "Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Reply Brief,"
- 6 NOTICE OF MOTION A>JD MOTION FOR RECONSIDER.^TION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
which has since been declined by the Court, the four leading attomeys from The University of
California Office of the President General Counsel Office filed Opposition to Plaintiffs Writ of
Alandate in its desperation to prevail in the CUIAB case, Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General
Counsel Karen J. Petrulakis, UCOP ChiefDeputy General Counsel, Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP
Senior Counsel and Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel inserted into their Opposition
unbelievably outrageous and despicable lies against Plaintiff; these Hes stated that Plaintiff actively
spread hate in the workplace by telling his coworkers that all Jews should be killed. Exhibit # B If
one of the Defendants in tliis case (Charles Witcher, Dorin Daniluc, or Patrick Putney) had made the
9
abovementioned statements. Plaintiff would still react, but with a different approach, knowing that
10
Daniluc's, Witcher's, and Putney's education and history knowledge is quite different tliantliat of
11
UCOP's leading counselors with their outstanding credentials and Juris Doctorates. Plaintiff, during
12
13
14
15
the court hearing on February 6, 2015, mentioned this outrageous stupidity on the p.art of UCOP's
leading attomeys. Plaintiff also responded in a separate letter addressed to the abovementioned
UCOP attomeys on February 8, 2015, and a copy of tlie Plaintiffs letter was also sent by overnight
16
mail to His Honor and Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang to let know the court that UC Davis' "witch
17
hunt" to hunt Plaintiff down and destroy his hfe did not end with his termination on December 5,
18
2012. Plaintiff was trying hard not to bring racially related issues into lawsuits, but Plaintiff has been
19
constantly provoked by Defendants since 2005. Polish jokes, as well as incorrectly calling Nazi
20
concentration camps Polish concentration camps or Polish death camps are falsehoods that,
21
unfortunately, have become part of America's heritage and are publicized everywhere by certain
22
groups of people or organizations, as well as mainstream newspapers, and such accusations in
23
Defenadants, Oropeza's, Nichols's, and Seifert's reports are no surprise for the Plaintiff Indeed,
24
Poles and Polish-.Americans ex-pressed outrage in May 2012 at President Obama's reference earlier to
25
26
.Auschwitz as "a Polish death camp"—as opposed to a Nazi death camp by Gennan-occupied Poland.
http:/7abcnevvs.go.coiWbloes/politics/2012/05/president-obaina-causes-outrage-vvith-reference-to-
27
polish-death-camp/, http:/./en.vvikipedia.org.\viki/°/o22Polish death camp%22 controversv. If the
president of the United States of America implies that Polish people ran the death camps and
- 7NOTICE OF MOTION MJD MOTION FOR RECONSIDER.ATION
1
committed atrocities against the Jews, I am not surprised that the Defendant Danesha Nichols, Cindy
2
Oropeza or Brent Seifert or UCOP's General would make up genocide stories about Plaintiff who
3
4
born six years after War War II. On April 17, 2014, California's .Attorney General, representing the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) in a joint effort with the University of
5
California (Real Party in Interest) filed a frivolous Demurrer to defeat Plaintiff (petitioner); however,
6
7
both parties retreated and withdrew the frivolous Demurrer on June 9, 2014.
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint
8
On June 16, 2014, Plaintiffs Attomey Douglas Stein filed First Amended Complaint (FAC). Also, in
9
June, Defendant concluded the Whistle Blowing Retaliation Complaint Plaintiff filed on March 7,
10
2013, but Plaintiff received a decision from the Defendant three months later in Seprtember 2014
11
(Plaintiffs Opposition to SLAPP Exhibits No. 034,038). hi August 2014, Plaintiff's counsel
12
Douglas Stein and Defendant's Counsel Michael Pott stipulated and agi eed to amend the First
13
Amended Complaint and remove from the complaint the Defendants entitled UC Davis, UC Davis
14
Medical Center and UC Davis Health System but leave Plaintiffs First Causes of Action and five
15
16
17
18
individual Defendants, including Stephen Cliilcott, Brent, Seifert , Cindy Oropeza and Mike Boyd
Two Meet and Confer letters dated August 26, 2014 (Defendant's Counsel Michael Pott;) and August
26, 2014 (Plaintiffs Counsel Douglas Stein's eight-page response with cited statues and court cases)
shall not be ignored by tlie court; they explain why the Plaintiffs first Four Causes of Action and five
19
abovementioned Defendants should stay in the complaint. It was opportunity for the Defendant to
20
demand fiirther stipulation in regards to causes of action and list Individual Defendants in the Second
21
.Amended Complaint instead of occupying the Court's valuable time with its frivolous and oppressive
22
Anti-SLAPP Motion (Exhibit C)
23
24
25
On September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs Counsel Douglas Steinfiledthe stipulated Second
.Amended Complaint without a valid attomey license to practice law and against Plaintiffs will due
26
to improper pleadings in the complaint in regards to Plaintiffs Employee Performance Reviews for
27
2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and the February 2009 Settlement Agreement Plaintiff signed with the
28
Regents of the University of Califomia (Plaintiffs Opposition to SLAPP Exhibits No. 015 and 029)
- 8 -
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDER,ATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
The Defendant's Answers filed to Plaintiffs Second .Amended Complaint filed on October 17, 2014
contains no statements about Plaintiff s Causes of Action or the Individual Defendants with the
exception that the Individual Defendants have the right to protection from excess fines as provided in
the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.. Tlie Defendant Answer was filed against
Second Amended Complaint wluch was filed by Plaintiff s dismissed attomey Douglas Stein who at
relevant time had no valid attorney licensee to file any documents in court.
7
On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff sent a request, on his own behalf, for the Whistle Blowing
8
Retaliation Complaint Investigatory Report and related documents to the UC Office of the President
9
Public Record Act Office. Plaintiff did not understand why his .Attorney, Douglas Stein was outraged
10
by Plaintiffs PRA request, wliich is vital to the lawsuit. Plaintiff described his attorney, Douglas
11
12
13
14
Stein's, behavior both before and after Defendant filed the Anti-SLAPP Motion in the
correspondence Plaintiff filed with the Court on January 7, 2015.
On November 11, 2014, Plaintiff as Frank Gonzales Representative (Plantiifs Oppsition to
15
SLAPP Exhibit 004) sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center Hearing Officer Megan Lunsford,
16
who has been assigned to Frank Gonzales' Step II Complaint pursued under UC Davis Policy PPSM
17
70. hi the letter, Plaintiff requested to postpone the hearing until early January 2015 due to Plaintiffs
18
planned fravel to Europe; more specifically, to liis native country, Poland. Plaintiff has provided
19
representation to Frank Gonzales since November 2013 in his complaints against the same UC Davis
20
management tliat terminated Plaintiffs employment (Plaintiffs Opposition to SLAI^P Exliibit No.
21
004 - Frank Gonzales' Declaration.)
22
Plaintiff copied the mentioned request for postponement to Stephen Chilcott, Cindy Oropeza.
23
Mike Boyd, and Charles Witcher, who are among the Listed Defendants. (Exliibit D) When
24
Defendants teamed that Plaintiff was leaving the counfry, than Defendants did not waste any
25
opportunity to resolve both of tlie Plaintiffs pending cases in Superior Court by ambushing Plaintiff
26
with an Anti-SL.APP Motion, knowing that said Motion would not be opposed by Plaintiffs Attorney
27
28
during Plaintiffs absence. As Plaintiff anticipated, Douglas Stein refused to oppose Defendant's
Anti-SLAPP Motion.
- 9NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDER.ATION
1
PaUntifTs .Attorney Douglas Stein
2
On December 15, 2014, an Opposition to the Anti-SL.APP Motion should have been filed, but
3
4
5
6
nothing was done by Attomey Stein. Under Plaintiffs tlireat to report Stein to the State Bar Stein sent
the Plaintiff a text message to Plaintiff that he has known His Honor for 20 years and he will get an
extension by Ex Parte to file opposition. When Plaintiff received this text message about Attomey
Stein knowing His Honor for 20 years. Plaintiff dismissed Stein as his attomey on December 16,
7
2014 without waiting one minute longer. Plaintiff don't play such games where is not important
8
"what you know" " but who you know". Plaintiff once lived in communist country where such
9
resolutions were necessary to survive,
10
11
12
13
14
15
The Notice to Dismiss Stein did not help Plaintiff. Stein filed Ex Parte anyway and, under
false pretenses, got an extension to file tlie opposition and gain the Court's approval of the Second
Amended Complaint, which was filed on September 30, 2014 by Stein without a valid attorney
license. This was a shock for Plaintiff because Plaintiff expected that the Court would at least ask
16
Stein, "Counselor, didn't you already file an Opposition to SL.APP?" before it approved Plaintiff^s
17
invalid Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff view this fact as not the as the abuse of discretion or
18
miscarriage of justice by the court. Plaintiff was fighting Stein to amend and refilethis invalid
19
complaint since it was filed in the court and before and after it was filed on September 30, 2014 and
20
answered by Defendants on October 17, 2014. If would be a lot more proper if court would voided
21
Plaintiffs Second Amended and order Stein to amend and refile the improperly and with valid
22
attorney license complaint. The court took a short cut in regards to the Douglas Stein behavior and let
23
the Defendant's Anti -SLAPP to continue. Tliereafter Court niled in favor of Defendant in the
24
Anti-SLAPP assauh against Plaintiff and Court justified the Anti -SLAPP decision alleging
25
improper pleading against individual defendants and four causes of actions .Plauitiff" agree 100 %
26
with Court about improper pleading but Court did not give Plaintiff chance to correct the problem
27
with the complaint after Plaintiff dismissed Stein on December 16, 2014 and Court let to continue
28
- 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AJJD MOTION FOR REC0NSIDER.a,TI0N
1
2
Anti-SLAPP Defendant's blitzkrieg against Plaintiff with improperly filed and pleaded Second
Amended Complaint.
3
4
5
Even though he had been dismissed by Plaintiff, Douglas Stein did not stop acting on
Plaintiffs behalf while Plaintiff was out of the country; he continued to file documents, to wliichthe
6
opposing party's counsel naturally filed oppositions. The siege Plaintiff now faces was well planned
7
by Defendants. Plaintiff has no attomey and two cases to handle with due to these illegally filed
8
briefs and oppositions.
On January 7, 2015, the Court, by issuing an order that obligated Stein
9
to sign Substitution of Attorney, gave some relief to Plaintiff and also gianted Plaintiff a short
10
ex'tension of time to file his Opposition to the Defendant's SLAPP. Plaintiff wanted to request a
11
12
13
14
15
longer extension of time to file his Opposition and asked for permission to amend the pleading in the
Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff went to court on January 7, 2015 to be heard by the Court, not
knowing that he needs to call the day before to request a hearing. The court clerk iitformed Plaintiff
about this mle, and Plaintiff ensured he was present for the hearing on Febmary 6, 2015.
16
PlaintifTs Opposition to SLAPP
17
On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Defendant's SLAPP; one and a half
18
hours after Plaintiff filed his Objection, Defendant's counsel, Michael Pott, sent Plaintiff an e-mail
19
informing Plaintiff that he is no longer an employee of the Porter/Scott Law Firm. Mr. Pott is the
20
counselor who stipulated the Second Amended Complaint with Douglas Stein, leaving Plaintiffs first
21
Four Causes of Action and Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Mike Boyd, Cindy Oropeza, and
22
Brent Seifert as Individual Defendants in the Complaint. Plaintiff has emphasized that court affirmed
23
rv
24
25
L E G A L ARGUMENT
THIS COURT HAS THE STATUTORY POWER TO RECONSIDER A PRIOR
26
ORDER AND MODIFY, AMEND OR R E V O K E THE ORDER
27
Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a) states that "\Vhen an application for an order
has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted
28
- 11 NOTICE OF MOTION A1>JD MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service
upon the party of written notice of entry of the order
2
After reading the Court's Decision dated Febrtiary 9, 2015, Plaintiff is not sure whether court
3
abused discretion to grant the Anfi-SLAPP to the Defendants or has simply greatly misunderstood
4
what this wrongful termination case is about and who is responsible for Plaintiffs wrongftil
5
6
7
8
9
termination and why.
Second Amended Complaint
The Second Amended Complaint and all Plaintiffs Causes of .Action are liberally constmed
per CCP § 452 and four Causes of .Action should be not a subject to be:ing stmck from the complaint
10
by CCP § 425.16. Plaintiffs Objection to Defendants' SLAPP with 42 Exliibits, totaling 443 pages
11
plus other filings, shows that that this case is not feasible for an .Anti-SLAPP Motion. Thirteen
12
thousand admissible documents are waiting to be file in The University of California , Ofiice of the
13
Preesident Public Record Act Office.
14
15
Five Individual Defendants: Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza. Brent Seifert,
16
and Mike Boyd
17
18
The above-listed Defendants are cold-blooded violators of law and University of California
19
Policies. These five individuals are solely responsible for Plaintiffs wrongful termination especially
20
Defendants Cliilcott and Defendant Boyd. These individual defendants did not hesitate to hold
21
Plaintiff, like a hostage, away from his job for more than one year—violating Investigatory Leave
22
Policy—and then took from Plaintiff his job and office, which was granted him by a signed
23
Settlement-Agreement with The Regents of the University of California in Febmairy 2009. These
24
individuals are cold-blooded "witch hunters" who were preparing to seriously injure, if not kill.
25
Plaintiff at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 on May 31, 2012, as evidenced by their
26
27
criminal, sick thoughts. These five individuals are also directly responsible, by their activities, for
covering up the illegal activities of a twice-convicted child pornography felon on the company
28
- 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
2
3
•4
premises accessing illegally shop computers . Furthermore, these five individuals ;ire directly
responsible for terminating Plaintiffs employment and giving Plaintiff s job and office to the
individual who brought the aforementioned child pornography felon onto company premises instead
of issuing him a restraining order. Such activities are not beneficial to the public interest, wliich
5
should be protected by §.425.16. Rivera v. First Databank. Inc. 187 Cal. App. 4th 709: 115 Cal.
5
Rptr. 3d 1 states:"The anti-SLAPP statute's definitional focus is not the form of the plaintiiTs
7
8
9
10
11
cause of action but, rather, the defendant's activity that givesriseto his or her asserted liability
and whether that activity constitutes protected speech or petitioning." {Navellier v. Sletten
(2002) 29 Cal. 4th 82. 92 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530,52 P. 3d 7031.)
The "court must... focus on the substance of the plaintiffs lawsuit" {Peregrine Funding, Inc. v
12
Sheppard Mtdlin Richter & Hampton L L P (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4tli 658, 669-670 [35
13
Cal.Rptr.3d 31]) and determine "whether the plaintiffs cause of action itself was based on
14
an 716*716 act in furtherance of the defendant's right of petition or free speech [citations]"
15
{City of Cotati v. Cashman, supra, 29 Cal. 4th at p. 78).
16
To defame and deface Plaintiff the Defendants' accusing Plaintiff of crimes that Plaintiff
17
never committed in their reports is not protected by free speech due to defamation. It is well
18
established that defamation of an individual is not protected by the constitutional riight of free speech
19
{Beaiiharnais v. Illinois (1952) 343 U.S. 250, 254-256 [96 L. Ed. 919, 926-927]). Accusing Plainfiff
20
of promoting hate in the workplace while, at the same time Plaintiff represents other UC Davis
21
Medical Center employees in discrimination cases with the US Equal Employment Opportunity
22
23
24
25
Commission speaks for itself. Only depositions and the production of documents can establish
whether any of these Defendants are protected by the free speech. Recently, Plaintiff received
Information from the University of California, Office of the President, Ptiblic Record Act Office that
13,000.00 pages of documents were generated in Plaintiffs Whistle Blowing Retaliation Complaint
26
Investigation conducted by UCOP Investigators. Without these documents, it cannot be established
27
whether these five individual Defendants are protected by free speech. UC Office of The President
28
has requested $2600.00 from Plainfiff to provide liim with these documents. Taking into
- 13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR REC0NSIDER,^TI0N
consideration the enomious amount of generated documents and the exorbitant amount Defendant
has quoted Plaintiff to make copies of them, this wrongfiil termination could be similar to Nazir v.
3
United Airlines. Inc.. No. .A12I65I (Cal. App. Ct. October 8. 2009), where deep-pocketed
4
defendants successfiilly overwhelmed a less well-funded litigant.
5
Petition or Free Speech
6
The moving parties did not establish that their speech and writing are protected, Defendants'
7
plotting and conspiring to physically harm Plaintiff and Plainfiffs coworkers is not an official
8-
proceeding authorized by law. Covering up child pomography activities in company reports is not an
9
10
11
official proceeding authorized by law. Not investigating the suicide of an employee who was
harassed and bullied in the workplace is not an official proceeding authorized by law and does not
12
fall under the protection of CCP § 425.16. Just as with the money laundering that took place in Paul
13
for Council v. Hanyecz (2001, 2d Disfrict - 85 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 102 Cal. Rpfr. 2d 864,
14
Defendants' terrorizing o Plaintiff via psychological warfare for more than one ye£ir is not an official
15
proceeding authorized by law; indeed, the law should protect those who were harmed, not those who
16
are causing harm and suffering to others because they have CCP § 425.15 as a protective shield. Only
17
people like Chilcott, Oropeza, Nichols, Seifert, and Boyd seem to be protected by CCP § 425.15. In
18
the UC system, workers are subhuman and protection ordinarily offered by the law does not apply to
19
them at all. This is a naked tnith in this case, as well as in the case cited in the decision in Vergos,
20
Supra, 146 Cal. App. 4•^ with Plaintiffs Skelly Officer Allen Tollefson (PlaintifT's Opposition to
21
SLAPP, Exhibit No. 034.) as a Defendant in Vergos Case who sexually harassed anotiier man in
22
the relevant time .Now Allan Tollefson hold an Associate Vice Chancellor position at the UC Davis
23
This how the free speech law protects child pomography felons, se.xual harassers, psychopath's
24
supervisors who stalking their subordinates, thieves, and ottier white-collar UC criminals.
25
Unbelievable. Plaintiff never imagined before that criminal activities are protected byfreespeech
26
law. Always learning something new.
Personnel Policies for Staff Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual
("PPM") have the force and effect of state statute. {Kim v. Resents of University} of California
(2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160,165.)
27
-
14 -
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDER.ATI0N
1
As noted previously, the five individual Defendants—Stephen Chilcott, Cindy Oropeza, Danesha
2
Nichols, Brent Seifert, and Mike Boyd—are responsible for the termination of Plaintiff s
3
4
employment. All five individual Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment in violation or in
disregard of UC Davis PPSM 23 (Employee Performance Review or Evaluation Policy). Defendants
5
did not provide Plaintiff" with a performance evaluation for the last two years of his employment and
6
also deprived Plaintiff of wage increases and Administrative Remedies to resolve the conflict
7
internally by violating and disregarding UC Davis Policy PPSM 23. All five individual Defendants
8
are employed by UC Davis as Directors or Managers, three of them attorneys at law wilh JD degrees,
9
and all five violated and disregarded UC Davis Policy 62 and treated Plaintiff differently than his
10
coworkers in regards to evaluation and ottier disciplinary measures, as well as Policies, ultimately
11
firing Plaintiff from his job in violation of every possible UC Davis Policy related to evaluation and
12
corrective action. For not providing mandatory evaluation to Plaintiff for the last two years of his
13
employment and depriving him of finding another job at age 62 alone, the Court should reverse its
14
decision and hold all five Defendants accountable under for their violation of law and University of
15
16
17
18
Califomia Policies which Defendants supposed to monitor and enforced. The investigation by these
five Defendants that turned into Retaliation was never an investigation; it was a retaliation and witch
hunt and Plaintiff it clearly stated it on the record during hearing on Febmary 6, 2015 and everything
19
about UC DAVIS "WITHCH HLTNT " and WITCH HUNTERS "is in Plaintiffs Opposition to ttie
20
Defendant's Anti -SLAPP Motion included 42 exhibit which contains all infomiation's about
21
Defendants unlawflil activities , violations of law and the University ofCalifomia Policies and
22
Procedures . The First, Second, Third and Fourth Plaintiffs Cause of Action The four Causes of
23
Action and the individual Defendants were subject to stipulation between parties, in August 2014, not
24
to be removed from the Plaintiffs complaint; Plaintiff does not understand why the Court is reversing
25
history for the Defendants.
26
27
UC Davis Unofficial And Unconstitutional Policy Entitled "The Principle of Community"
28
- 15 NOTICE OF MOTION A>ID MOTION FOR RECONSIDER.^TION
1
2
3
4
The Court in the Anti-SLAPP Decision brought to the attention that Personnel Policies for Staff
Members ("PPSM") and the UC Davis Policies and Procedure Manual ("PPM") have the force and
effect of the state statute {Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160,
I65.).The Plaintiff was familiar with the Kim v. Regents case for a long time, and the Plaintiff is glad
5
that the court included this case in the Ant-SLAPP Decision. The Kim v. Regents of University of
6
California case applies to the official UC Davis PPSM Policies and PPM Policies with which the
7
Plaintiff is quite familiar due to providing representation or aid for many UC Davis Medical Center
8
employees under the provision of PPSM 70 (Complaint Resolution Policy). The Court is not aware of
9
UC Davis' unofficial UC Davis Policy which is most important Policy to hunt dovm employees. The
10
11
12
13
Policy is entitied "UC Davis' Principle of Community," Because the court did read the Plaintiffs 42
exhibits that were attached to the Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant SLAPP.then A few days ago,
the Plaintiff addressed the unconstitutional UC Davis Principles of Community in <m email dated
14
Febmary 1 Ith, 2015, to the UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor, Robeil Loessberg-Zahl. The
15
Plaintiff responded to Mr. Zahl's e-mail dated Febmary 9tti, 2015. (EXHIBIT #)This UC Davis
16
unconstitutional and unofficial manifesto entitled "UC Davis Principle of Community" (EXHIBIT #)
17
is a UC Davis .Administration tool of oppression and malicious prosecution of Christians, Jews, and
18
any employee who has complained against the cormpted UC Davis Administration protected by Anti
19
SLAPP law. Initially, this above mentioned unconstitutional UC Davis manifesto was perhaps a good
20
idea, but it most likely was not. The scenario of attacking employees with ttiis manifesto is simple.
21
The "accusation of racism, bigotry, violence; then. Policy 1616 and Policy 380-15; then, ttie Witch
22
Hunt began with a witch hunter assigned by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer, Wendy Delmendo,
23
in coordination with executives like Defendants Stephen Chilcott, Cindy Oropeza, and Mike Boyd;
24
then, they assigned harassers and witnesses-for-hire, like Defendants Witcher, Daniluc, and Putney .
25
The Court may look at ttie example used by the UC Davis .Administration as a tool of oppression and
26
27
intolerance in the (Plaintiffs Opposition to SLAPP, Exhibits No.).In charge of the UC Davis
manifesto entitied "Principles of Community" is Associate Executive Vice Chancellor Rahini Reed
28
http://occr.ucdavis.edu/Raliim bio.html. Rahim Reed is a very well educated person his only job for
-
16 -
NOTICE OF MOTION .AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
$173,000.00 is to maintain and make sure that tliis UC Davis is unconstitutional tool is in motion, is
visible, and is inflicting fear in anybody who dares to criticize the UC Davis Adniinisfration, or point
3
to a misuse of University resources, or a violation of the law.
4
In Febmary 2008, this unconstitutional manifesto and the tool of oppression were forcibly
5
incorporated into the UC Davis employee's job description. See: the Defendant Ch,arles Witcher's
6
memo dated Febmary 22nd, 2008, and the Plaintiffs response dated March I Itti, 2008, as EXHIBIT
7
#. On May 7th, 2009, Greek bom Linda Katehi was appointed chancellor by the University of
8
California's Board of Regents, effective August 17th, 2009. Il is apparent that the new UC Davis
9
10
11
12
Chancellor, Linda Katehi, fell in love with the UC Davis manifesto "Principal of Community" and
gave the green light for the Associate Executive Vice Chancellor to raise the bar forttie"Manifesto."
In Febmary 2011, Katehi, together with Rahim Reed, implemented an unconstitutional (under
13
both the Federal and Califomia State Constitutions) policy incorporated into the "Pi-inciples of
14
Community." This additional "UC Davis Principle of Community" was labeled "CHRISTIANS AS
15
A OPPRESSORS." After the protest of tiie Alliance Defense Fund—a Christian legal group
16
EXHIBIT #, the definition of Christian as oppressors was removed from the "Manifesto" entitled
17
"UC Davis Principle of Community." However, Chancellor Katehi is still in power and Rahim Read
18
still maintains the unconstitutional UC Davis Manifesto for $173, 000.00 per year, spreading hate
19
and intolerance in the UC Davis University. Labeling Christians as oppressors was nothing else bul
20
Linda Katehi's and Raliim Read's ideological invitation for religious cleansing.
21
UC Davis State of Emergency Policy 390-25
22
Plainfiffs for a long time did not know why the Defendant, Danesha Nichols, in November 2011, sent
23
a confidential report on the Plaintiff to Chancellor Linda Katehi. What the Chancellor of UC Davis
24
25
26
wanted to know about the UC Davis' Medical Power Plant worker by the name of Waszczuk, at the
time when the Plaintiff was on work-related sfress leave. EXHIBIT # Shortly after Defendant
Danesha Nichols sent a confidential Report to Katehi, the Plaintiff" unconditionally was removed
27
from job-related sick leave by Defendant Stephen Chilcott or Defendant Mike Boyd's order, which
28
was signed by Defendant Charles Witcher Apparently Katehi ordered to eliminate the Plaintiff by
- 17 NOTICE OF MOTION m O MOTION FOR RECONSIDER,ATION
1
any means using false pretenses of the UC Davis Policy PPM 390-25, which is Suspension of
2
Individuals During a Declared State of Emergency. In November 2011, Katehi ordered a gas
3
attack on protesting students, observing and marking this as the 38th anniversary of the
4
5
6
7
8
November 1973 bloody students' massacre in Athens Pol^'technics by Greek Fascist Military
Junta. In November 1973, Katehi was a student in Athens Polytechnics. The Plaintiff almost was
eliminated forever on May 31st, 2012, by Katehi's new UC Davis Police Matt Carmichael and his
Lt. James Barbour in an ill crafted provocation prepared by five individuals: the Defendants
Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Cindy Oropeza, Danesha Nichols, and Brent Seifert, along with
9
many others who were involved in the plan but are not listed as Defendants. The Plaintiff was
10
kept out of UC Davis Medical Center by the UC Davis State of Emergency Policy 390-25 for
11
over one year until the Plaintiffs employment was terminated without a valid cause on December
12
5th, 2012, at the age of 61. The above is a part only part of description of the Chancellor Linda
13
Katehi's and Rahim Reed's "Principles of Community."
14
15
In this matter, the Plaintiff would rattier say that such alleged criminal activities are falling
16
under Penal Code section 11410, which expresses the Legislature's intent that it is theriglit of every person,
17
regardless of his or her race, color, creed, religion, gender, or national ori gin, to be secme and protected
18
from fear, intimidation, and physical hanii caused bytiieactivities of violent groups and individuals. This
19
section also contains the Legislature's express finding that the advocacy of unlawful violent acts by
20
groups against other persons or groups where death and/or great bodily injury is likely, is not
21
constitutionally protected, poses a threat to the public order and safety, and should be subject to criminal and
22
civil sanctions."The Defendant's Stephen Chilcott, Mike Boyd, Cindy Oropeza, Danesha Nichols,
23
and Brent Seifert, are the participants and advocates of unlawful violent acts by j>roups against otiier
24
persons or groups where death and/or great bodily injury is likely, and is not coastitutioiiiilly protected.
25
The five individual Defendants are responsible for gross violation of UC Davis Policies
26
related to Plaintiffs termination, as well as for participating in the despicable ill-crafted provocation
27
on May 31, 2012 to murder the Plaintiff or end his employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma
28
Unit # 11, which was waiting for deliver^' of the Plaintiff after he would be shot by UC Davis Police
- 18 NOTICE OF MOTION AtJD MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
2
3
Lt James Barbour if Plaintiff will fell into trap. Lt. Barbour who was bribed by the Defendants whh
a $35,000.00 wage increase to take care of Plaintiff witti his gun. EXHIBIT No. Plaintiff'in his
documents including Whistle Blowing Retaliation Complamt and Skelly Reviewer Brief nicknamed
4
the assembled team to hami Plaintiff as the "UC Davis Death Squad". This not Plaintiff fantasy or
5
lunacy but is a naked tme what Plaintiff was dealing with in his last two years of his employment.
6
Plaintiff viewing this " UC Davis Death Squad " as an illegal terrorist organization assembled under
7
name of the University of California .
8
CONCLUSION
9
10
11
12
Based on tiie foregoing. Plaintiff requests that the court grant this motion for reconsideration
and modify, amend or revoke the Order dated Febmary 9, 2015 . Plaintiff proposing that Court
dismiss the Defendant's fiivolous and harassing Plaintiff Anti-SLAPP motion and let Plaintiffto
13
amend the Second Amended Complaint include improper pleading in Plaintiff Four Causes of Action
14
15
.If Court will gi ant this motion for reconsideration and modify the order as Plaintiff requesting than
16
thereafter Plaintiff of his own recognition will dismiss all nine individual Defendants from tiie law
17
lawsuit leaving only Tlie Regents of the University of Califomia as a Defendant. I believe that such
18
modification should satisfied all parties without fiirther battle who is protected and who is not under
19
CCP 425.16 and it will save time and court resources .
20
21
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
22
tme and correct.
23
Respectfiilly Submitted on Febmary 20, 2015
24
25
(1
26
Jaqoslaw Waszczuk, Plaintiff
27
In Pro Per
28
- 19 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONS IDER.ATION
FL-335
ATTORNEY OR P.ARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (tJame, Stale Bar numtier, end address)-
FOR COURT USE ONL Y
WASZCZUK; IN PRO PER
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY , LODI CA 95242
IAROSLAW
TELEPHONENO.: 209.663.2977
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Opônal):
ATTORNEY FOR «
FAX no. (optional):
jj^^ 1980@live.COm
jaroskw Waszczuk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF S A C R A M A N T O
STREET ADDRESS; 7 2 0 QTH S T R E E T
MAILING ADDRESS: 7 2 0 9 T H S T R E E T
CITY AND ZIP CODE: S A C R A M E N T O , 9 5 8 1 4
BRANCH NAME: C I V I L
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
CASE NUMBER:
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
34-2013-00155479
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: The Regents of University of California
(If applicable, picvide):
OTHER PARENT/PARTY;
HEARING DATE:
HEARING TIME:
PROOF O F S E R V I C E BY MAIL
DEPT
Dept. 53
NOTICE: To serve temporary restraining orders you must use personal service (see form FL-330).
1. I am at least 18 years of age, not a party to this action, and I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place.
2. My residence or business address is:
2216 Katzakian Way;
Lodi, CA 95242
3. I served a copy of the following documents (specify):
Motion for Court Order Reconsideration dated February 9, 2015Anti-SLAPP CCP 425.16 .CCP 1008 (A)
by enclosing them in an envelope AND
a. I I depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.
b. I • I placing the envelope for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown in item 4 following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for
mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of
business with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a Name of person served:"Douglais RODel
b. Address: 350 University Ave , Suite 200, Sacramanto CA 95825
c. Date mailed:
February 20, 2015
d. Place of mailing fc/fy and sfa?e;.5. I
Qaljfomia
I I served a request to modify a child custody, visitation, or child support judgment or permanent order which included an
address verification declaration. (Declaration Regarding Address Verification—Postjudgment Request to Modify a Cfiild
Custody, Visitation, or Child Support Order (form FL-334) may be used for this purpose.)
6. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
IRENA WASZCZUK
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
(SIGNATURE OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM)
Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Ccundl ol Calilornia
FL-335 (Rev. January 1, 2012)
PROOF OF S E R V I C E BY MAIL
Code ol CNil Procedure. §§ 1013.1013a
vwtw. coi^z/ace. ov
1
2
3
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
INTRODUCTION
1
II.
T H E P L A I N T I F F ' S R E A S O N S F O R R E C O N S I D E R A T I O N AND
ORDER MODIFICATION
2
III.
6
5
S T A T E M E N T OF F A C T S
6
W r i t of M a n d a t e - J a r o s l a w W a s z c z u k v. C a l i f o r n i a
7
Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board
6
8
P l a i n t i f f ' s Second A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t
8
P l a i n t i f f ' s Attorney Douglas Stein
9
9
10
P l a i n t i f f ' s O p p o s i t i o n to S L A P P
11
12
IV.
13
.11
LEGAL ARGUMENT
11
Second A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t
12
14
Five Individual Defendants:
15
N i c h o l s , C i n d y O r o p e z a , B r e n t S e i f e r t and M i k e Boyd
16
Petition F o r Free Speech
17
U C D A V I S U n o f i c f i c i a l And U n c o n s t i t u t i o i n a l
18
"The
19
U C D A V I S State of E m e r g e n c y P o l i c y 3 9 0 - 2 8
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
V.
Stephen C h i l c o t t , Danesha
P r i n c i p l e s of C o m m u n i t y "
CONCLUSION
12
.14
Policy Entitled
15
17
....19
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
3
CASES
Vergos, supra, 146 Cal. App. 4th
"
Campbell v. Regents of the University ofCalifomia ((2005) 35 Cal. 4tli 311, 319-321
4
4
5
6
7
8
Kim V. Regents of University ofCalifomia (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165
4,14,16
Jensen v. Hewlett-Paclcard Co.. 14 Cal. App. 4th 958,18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)
4
2009 05-2439 - Cartwright v. University of California Davis case in the 9* United States District
Court, Eastem District ofCalifomia
9
Rivera v. First Databank, Inc. 187 Cal. App. 4th 709; 115 Cal. Rptr. 3cl 1
13
11
Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 82, 92 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 530, 52 P. 3d 703]
13
12
Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. SheppardMullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th
10
13
14
15
16
658, 669-670 [35 Cal.Rptr.3d 31
13
City of Cotati v. Cashman, supra, 29 Cal. 4th at p. 78
13
Beauhamais v. Illinois (1952) 343 U.S. 250, 254-256 [96 L. Ed. 919, 926-927
13
Paul for Council v. Hanyecz {2001, 2d District - 85 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864,..14
17
18
19
STATUTES
Code of civil procedure §1008(a)
1,11
20
CCP §425.16
11,12,13,14,19
21
CCP§452
12
23
Penal Code Section 11410
18
24
OTHER AUTHORITIES
22
25
UC Davis Policy PPSM 23
3,4,15
3,4,15
26
27
28
4,16
1
The State ofCalifomia Attorney General 2001 Third Edition Civil Riglits Hand Book, on page 30,
states:
6
2
3
UC DAVIS PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY
15,16,17,
4
UC Davis Policy 1616
16
5
UC Davis Policy 380-15
16
6-
UC Davis Policy PPM 390-25
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17,18
LISTS OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Court Order Dated February 9, 2015.
1
Exhibit B - Plaintiff's Correspondence sent to Hon. S.Chang and D.Brown dated 2/10/2015...7
Exhibit C - Second Amended Complaint Stimulation Douglas Stein, and Michael Pott Meet and
Confer Letters
.,—
8
Exhibit D -Letter to Hearing Officer Megan Lundsford dated November 11,2014
9
Exhibit E - UC Davis Principles of Community and examples of unlawful application of this
unconstitutional UC Davis Manifesto
16
9
10
11
12
13
Exhibit F - Defendant Charles Witcher Letter dated March 11,2008 in regards to UC Davis
Principles of Community
17
Exhibit G- February 16,2011 Christian Alliance Defend Funds letter to UC Davis Chancellor
Linda Katehi and Assistant Vice Chancellor Rahini Reed .
Exhibit H - Defendant's Danesha Nichols November 2011 E -Mail Correspondence about
Confidential Report on PlaintiiTto UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi
17
14
15
16
Exhibit I - UC Davis PoUcy PPM 390-25 State of Emergency
Exhibit J - UC Davis Pohce Department L t James Barbour Wages
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IV
...18
18
EXHIBIT A
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 02/09/2015
TIME: 09:37:00 AM
DEPT: 53
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David Brown
CLERK: K. Pratchen
REPORTER/ERM:
BAlLiFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 12/04/2013
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT TYPE: Motion to Strike (SLAPP) - Civil Law and Motion - MSA/MSJ/SLAPP
APPEARANCES
Nature of Proceeding: Ruling On Submitted Matter (Motion to Strike (SLAPP)) Taken Under
Submission 2/6/2015
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert's
Special Motion to Strike the First through Fourth Causes of Action of Self-represented Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED.
This motion was continued to today's date to permit the self-represented plaintiff to file his own
opposition to the motion. Although no substitution of attorneys has yet been filed with the Court, the
court accepts the representation of plaintiff in his Dec. 29, 2014 Declaration in which declared that he
"terminated Douglas Stein as his counsel of record on Dec. 16, 2014. A substitution of attorneys
signed by both former attorney and the plaintiff is still required to be filed with the Court by
plaintiff.
At the plaintiffs request, the Court has considered none of the papers filed by his former attorney
Douglas E. Stein in opposition to this motion. The Opposition papers filed by the self-represented
plaintiff were filed and served by US Mail on Jan. 23, 2015, instead of on Jan. 21, 2015, as ordered by
the Court. Further, the service was by US Mail, rather by personal delivery, facsimile transmission,
express mail, or other means reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not
later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers are filed, as required by
Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). Moving party has therefore been deprived of at least three business days in
which to prepare their reply.
Additionally plaintiffs opposing Memorandum of Points and Authorities exceeds the 15 page limit
provided in California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113. Despite this failure to comply with the California
Rules of Court, the Court has read and considered the entire 34 page document. In future filings, absent
ex parte order permitting a longer memorandum, the self-represented plaintiff is admonished to abide by
the page limitations.
DATE: 02/09/2015
DEPT: 53
MINUTE ORDER
Page 1
Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the
University of California
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
As noted, despite these failures to comply with the Court order and the applicable statutes, the Court has
considered plaintiffs opposition papers.
The Court declines to consider plaintiffs 17 page "Response to Defendant's Reply Brief with attached
filed on Feb. 2, 2015, as there is no statutory right to such a supplemental brief.
Defendants' Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.
At the outset, the Court would note that a self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and
is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v.
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case with attorneys,
self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th
1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.
Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint sets forth eight causes of action: the l^t for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, 2'^d for tortious interference with economic advantage 3''d for harassment, failure to
prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation under FEHA, 4'*^ for whistleblower/unlawful
fetaliation, 5^^ for violation of Health & Safety Code, sec. 1278.5, 6*^ for breach of written contract, 7^*^
for wage and hour violations and 8^^ for rescission - unlawful contract.
Moving party defendants move to specially strike the l^t through 4*^ causes of action, only, as each
arises out of acts in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue
and plaintiff cannot establish a likelihood of success on the merits.
Anti-SLAPP procedure
The Court must follow a "two-step process for determining whether an action is a SLAPP." Navellier v.
Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88. First, whether the defendant has made a threshold prima facie
showing that the defendant's acts, of which the plaintiff complains, were ones taken in furtherance of the
defendant's constitutional rights of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the court
finds that such a showing has been made, then the plaintiff will be required to demonstrate that "there is
a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." The defendant has the burden on the first issue,
the threshold issue; the plaintiff has the burden on the second issue. Kay/ma Engineering & Construction,
Inc. V. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 928. "Only a cause of action that satisfies both
prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute-i.e., that arises from protected speech or petitioning and lacks even
minimal merit-is a SLAPP, subject to being stricken under the statute." Navellier v. Sletten (2002)29
Cal.4th 82, 89.
Petition or Free Speech
Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (e) provides: "As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of
petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public
issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or
judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement
or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or
judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,..."
The California legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, known as the anti-SLAPP
statute, to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits and causes of action that are brought to
chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for
DATE: 02/09/2015
DEPT: 53
MINUTE ORDER
Page 2
Calendar No.
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
redress of grievances.(See Rusheen v Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056. These provisions
apply to SLAPP suits brought against public entities and public employees. See San Ramon Valley Fire
Prot Dist V Contra Costa County Employees' Ret Ass'n (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 343, 353; see also City of
Cotati V. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal. 4th 69.
It is well established that the policies of Defendant University, including the Personnel Policies for Staff
Members ("PPSM") and UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual ("PPM"), have the force and effect of
state statute. {Kim v. Regents of University of California (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 165.)
Statutory procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for section 425.16 purposes.
{Vergos v. McNeal (2007) 35 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1399.) The constitutional right to petition includes the
act of seeking administrative action. {Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th
115.) Investigations and investigatory reports prepared in connection with an issue under consideration
or review by an official body, such as a public entity's internal investigations, are protected activities
under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Miller v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 169 Cal App.4th 1373, 1383;
Hansen v California Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitiation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1544; Briggs v.
Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity {^999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106.)
In this case, the speech by Chilcott, Boyd, Oropeza, Seifert, and Nichols that is at issue were made in
connection with the processing, investigation, hearing and deciding the v\/orkplace complaints filed by
Plaintiff and others pursuant to University policies.
The allegations of the SAC against Nichols attack her protected participation in the official investigations.
The SAC specifically alleges Nichols' communications regarding the investigation. (SAC, paras. 70 (I),
(o), (q), (s), (x), (AA)) and her investigative conclusions (SAC para. 70 (v), (KK)). Nichols was appointed
to investigate Plaintiffs whistleblower complaints, and was also appointed to conduct an investigation
into complaints of workplace violence filed by Putney and Daniliuc. All were protected petitioning
activities.
The allegations against Boyd and Chilcott are limited to their receipt of emails from Nichols relating to
the investigations, and Chilcott's sending of an email relating to the investigation of Plaintiff (SAC, para.
70(m), (x), (AA).) The emails are protected speech in connection with an investigation process.
The allegations against Oropeza and Seifert are based upon their investigation into the emails plaintiff
sent to Nichols in April 2012. Oropeza and Seifert conducted their investigation pursuant to the
University's grievance protocol and reached conclusions documented in a report.
Boyd acted as Complaint Resolution Officer ("CRO") at Step II of the University's PPSM 70 process,
hearing and deciding Plaintiffs appeal of his termination. In Vergos, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at
1399-1400, the Court held that defendant reviewer was entitled to the protection of the anti-SLAPP
statute for denying the grievance. Specifically, in Vergos, a state university employee pursued an
internal grievance against his supervisor for sexual harassment. In an administrative proceeding
authorized by the Regents of the University of California, the hearing officer denied the grievance. The
employee then filed a civil rights suit against the hearing officer, alleging that her decision had failed to
protect him from future harassment. (Id. at pp. 1390-1392, 1396-1397.) The hearing officer filed a
special motion to strike, contending that her communications were made in connection with an issue
under consideration in an official proceeding. (See § 425.16, subd. (e)(2).) The trial court denied the
motion. The Court of Appeal reversed because "[t]he gravamen of plaintiffs [claim] is [the hearing
officer's] communicative conduct in denying plaintiffs grievances. The hearing, processing, and
deciding of the grievances (as alleged in the complaint) are meaningless without a communication of the
adverse results." (146 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.) Thus, Vergos recognized that the anti-SLAPP statute
DATE: 02/09/2015
DEPT: 53
MINUTE ORDER
Page 3
Calendar No.
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
applies where liability is based on protected speech. (See Id. at pp. 1397-1399)
Moving parties have established that their speech and writings are protected as made in connection with
an issue under consideration or review by an official proceeding authorized by law. The burden
therefore shifts to plaintiffto show that he will prevail.
Probability That Plaintiff Will Prevail
Plaintiff must show a likelihood of prevailing on each of the elements of his causes of action, and must
also show a likelihood of defeating any applicable affirmative defenses. {Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994)
27 Cal.App.4th 809, 820, 824; see also Paul of Council v. Hanyecz (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1367,
overruled on other grounds in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68.)
The test to use to determine Plaintiffs probability of prevailing is similar to the standard applied to
evidentiary showings in motions for summary judgment, and the supporting facts must be demonstrated
by way of competent, admissible evidence. {Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal,App.4th
628, 654-655.) The difference between summary judgment and anti-SLAPP is that the burden is on the
opposing party plaintiffto show the likelihood of prevailing.
In order to establish the necessary probability of prevailing, plaintiff was required both to plead claims
that were legally sufficient, and to make a prima facie showing, by admissible evidence, of facts that
would merit a favorable judgment on those claims, assuming plaintiffs evidence were credited. The court
does not, however, weigh the parties' evidence, in terms of either credibility or persuasiveness. Rather,
the defendant's evidence is considered with a view toward whether it defeats the plaintiffs showing as a
matter of law, such as by establishing a defense or the absence of a necessary element. ^-800
Confacfs, Inc. v. Steinberg (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 568, 584-585.
i M For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
An essential element of pleading a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a showing of
outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of human decency. Managing personnel is not outrageous
conduct beyond the bounds of human decency, but rather conduct essential to the welfare and
prosperity of society. A simple pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient to support a
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged. If personnel
management decisions are improperly motivated, the remedy is a suit against the employer for
discrimination. Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 80.
What plaintiff has alleged, and what his evidence in opposition appears to support, are complaints
concerning personnel management by defendants. Pleading of personnel management activity is
"insufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is
alleged." {Janken, supra.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the fejcts before the court show the
likelihood of his prevailing on this cause of action.
2lld Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
Plaintiffs claim tortious interference with economic advantage against Defendants. An employee or
former employee cannot sue a current or former supervisor or employee for interfering with his or her
prospective economic advantage by inducing the employer to terminate the plaintiffs employment.
{Shepperd v. Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 339, 347; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal:3d 1, 24.)
Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority or analysis as to why the facts before the court show the
DATE: 02/09/2015
DEPT: 53
MINUTE ORDER
Page 4
Calendar No.
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
3ld for Discrimination
In the third cause of action. Plaintiff alleges violation of FEHA, both Section 12940(a) which prohibits
discrimination and Section 12940(k) which addresses the failure to prevent discrimination.
These claims are not properly pleaded against the individual Defendants as individuals cannot be sued
for discrimination under the FEHA, nor can they be sued for failing to prevent discrimination, retaliation,
and harassment (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 663- 664; see, also Janken, supra, at p. 63.) In
Janken the Supreme Court noted the "fundamental distinction" between the way the FEHA treats
harassment, on the one hand~for which supervisors may be held personally liable, and discrimination on
the other hand-for which, Janken held, individuals are not personally responsible.
i l l for Whistleblower/Unlawful Retaliation
Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action brought pursuant to Gov. Code § 8547.10 for whistleblower retaliation.
Plaintiff has not established that moving defendants' conduct was in retaliation for plaintiffs
whistleblowing.
The mere fact that Nichols, Oropeza and Seifert conducted investigations and reached conclusions with
which Plaintiff does not agree with does not establish their investigatory findings are an act of retaliation.
Nor can Boyd's decision to deny Plaintiffs grievance at the Step II level of PPSM 70 review be deemed
to be a retaliatory action. Finally, there is no allegation that Chilcott took any particular action against
Plaintiff that could be deemed to be a retaliatory action.
As a matter of law, Plaintiff has not shown that he can prevail on any of his four causes of action against
moving party defendants. Given the Court's determination the Court need not address the Regents'
other arguments based on Gov't Code 821.6. It bears noting, however, that immunity extends to
investigations even if there is a later decision not to institute administrative proceedings or to initiate a
prosecution. See Ingram v Flippo (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.
The anti-SLAPP motion is therefore granted as to moving defendants Michael Boyd, Stephen Chilcott,
Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert only, as to the l^t through 4^^ causes of action, only.
The Discovery Stay is ordered lifted.
Prevailing defendants on a motion to strike must file a separate motion to recover their attorneys' fees
and costs.
The prevailing parties shall prepare a formal order for the Court's signature pursuant to C.R.C. 3.1312.
DATE: 02/09/2015
DEPT: 53
MINUTE ORDER
Page 5
Calendar No.
CASE NO: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS
COURT RULING
The matter was argued and submitted. The matter was taken under submission.
SUBMITTED MATTER RULING
Having taken the matter under submission on 2/6/2015, the Court now rules as follows:
The Court affirms the tentative ruling.
DATE: 02/09/2015
DEPT: 53
MINUTE ORDER
Page 6
Calendar No.
EXHIBIT B
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Petitioner
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Phone: 209.663.2977
Lodi, CA 95242
Fax: 209.247.1089
E-mail: ucdinclaborchat@att.net
Febmary 10,2015
Hon: Shelleyanne W.L. Chang
Department 24-Civil Writs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 9* Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re:' Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. Califomia Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board- Writ of Mandate
Case No. 34-2013-80001699 filed on December 2,2013 followed by Wrongftil Termination
Complaint against The Regents of the University of Califomia
Dear Judge Chang,
Before Petitionerfileshis Reply Brief, Petitioner would appreciate if your Honor take five
minutes to read the enclosed letter dated February 8,2015 and addressed to the University of
Califomia Office of the President (UCOP)'s four leading counsels, including General Counsel
Charles Robinson
The above-mentioned UCOP counsels are representing the University of Califomia as Real Party
In Interest in Writ of Mandate against the Califomia Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Case No. 34-2013-80001699 Ifiledon December 2, 2013.
Petitioner sent a copy of the mentioned to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) together with
Real Party of Interest Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus which slandered the
Petitioner with outrageous accusatory statements that Petitioner was an agitator in eflbrts to kill
Jews in his place of employment.
The University of Califomia denied Petitioner's unemployment to impact Petitioner's Wrongftil
Termination complaint following Page 30 of the third edition of the State ofCalifomia Attomey
General's Civil Rights Book, which was published in 2001. The out-of-the-blue lies and
slanderous fabricated accusations were crafted during a witch hunt that was led, from March
2011 to December 2012, by UC Davis employee 'Danesha Nichols and four other employees
listed as Defendants in my Wrongftil Termination complaint against Real Party in Interest, Case
No. 34-2013-00155479, which was filed in parallel with the Writ of Mandate in December 2013.
Writ of Mandate.
I declare under the penalty ofpeijury under the laws of the State of Califomia that tiie foregoing
is true and correct.
Respectftilly Submitted on February 10, 2014, by US Overnight Mail
Petnioner, In Pro Per.
Enclosed: Letter to UC OfTice of The President General Counsel and his Staff dated Februaiy 8, 2015
Copy of the Letter to Hon. David I. Brown dated February 10, 2015-Department 53
Proof of Service.
, Writ of Mandate.
FL.335
ATTORtEY OR PARTY MTHOUT ATTORNEY (Nm. SMb Bar numbar, and aanna):
FOR COURT USE OM.y
"JAROSLAW WASZCZUK; IN PRO PER
2216 KATZAKIAN WAY, LODI CA 95242
TEUEPHONENO.
E-MAL ADORESS fOpdonaO:
ATTORNEY FOR rNarngf:
209.663.2977
FAXNO.|Qp(iana^
jjwl980@live.com
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF S A C R A M A N T O
STREET ADORESS 720 9 T H S T R E E T
MAHINQ ADDRESS 7 2 0 9 T H S T R E E T
CITYANOZPCOOE: S A C R A M E N T O , 9 5 8 1 4
BRANCH NAME: CtV|L
PETmONEIVPlAINnFF:
RESPONDENT/DEFEMlArfr:
CAÊ NUMBER.
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
The Regents of University of California
34-2013-80001699
OTHER PARENT/PARTY;
HEARIN0T1ME:
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
11:00 AM
24
NOTICE: To aeive temporary restraining orden you must uso peraonal service (see form FL-330).
1. I am at least 18 years of age, not a party to this action, and I am a resident
place.
or employed in the county where the mailing took
2. My residence or business address is:
2216 Katzakian Way;
Lodi, CA 95242
3. I saved a copy of thefollowingdocunentsfspeciiyj.
Letter to Hon. Shelleyanne W.L Chang dated 2/10/2015, Dept., 24- Civil Writs
Copy of the Letter to UCOP General Counsel Charles Robinson date 2/8/2015
Copy of the letter to Hon. David 1 Brown dated 2/10/2015
by endosing Ihem in an envelope AND
a. I I depositirig the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Seivice with the postaige fully prepaid.
b. 1 / I placing the envelope for collection and mailing on ttw date and at the place shown in item 4 fbllowing our ordinary
business practices. I am readily ^ i i a r with this business's practiceforcollecting and processing correspondence for
mailing. On the same day that corospondetv^ is placedforcollection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of
business wtth the United States Postal Service in a sesrfed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
4. The envdope was addressed and mail«j as follows:
a. Name of person sen«sd:cynthia Vroom ,UC Office of the General Counsel
b. Address:
^^^^ fnnk\\t\ Street, 8Th Floor, Oakland, CA94807
c. Date mailed: 02/10/2015
d. Place of maing (city and state;; LodI, CA
5. I
6
Ashante Norton,
Deputy Attorney General
130001 Street, Suite 125
I I served a request to modify a child custody, visitatior^ or child support judgmeit or pervnanent order \ivhich indixled an
address varlflcatton dedaraiion. (Dactaradon ftogatxBng AdtkBss V»fi1icab'or>~Posiiudgment Request to Modify a Child
Custody, VisiiaOon, or CNId Support Order (form FL-334) may be usedforttils purpose.)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caifomia that the foregoing Is true and conreoL
Date:
IRENA WASZCZUK
(TYPE OR fftlMT NAME)
Fomi Afiprewdtard K i M l U M
JudkM Caund of CaWomil
FL335tM*. Jtnuay V 2012)
(StOfMTVRE OF PERSON COMPLETVM THIS FORM)
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Cod(olCNilPracKlura.g§10l3.10138
Jaroslaw "Jerry" Waszczuk
Plaintiff, In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209-663-2977
Fa.x: 209-247-1089
E-Mail: jjwl980@live.com
Febmary 8, 2015
Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel
Karen J. Petrulakis, UCOP Chief Deputy General Counsel
Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel
Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel
University of Califomia
Office of the General Counsel
UC Office of the President
11 n Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94607-5200
Re: Case No. 34-2013-80001699 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board .-OPEN LETTER
ITirow the Jew Down the Well, Weed eaters, .Anti-Semitism and other racially motivated
statements in the Regents of The University OfCalifomia Real Party In Interest Opposition
Petition For Writ Of Mandamus
Dear University ofCalifomia Office of the President Counsels of Record.
INTRODUCTION
I am a Polish citizen that has been in exile since November 1982.1 lived and worked in United
States in four different states. I am 63 years old and I have been mairied for 43 years. I have
never broken any laws in this country. Both of my kids have four-year college degrees. They
both received honorary' awards from two different Presidents of the United States of America for
great achievement in school. My daughter Joanna was awarded by President Ronald Reagan and
my son George by President Bill Clinton. I also have two Polish Mexican grandkids. America is
the greatest country on planet earth and I love it like my own country. In my 33 years living here
I have never spent a single minute on welfare or asked the US govemment to support me and my
family with food stamps or any otiier government aid. I never was and never will be one of the
48 million food stamp recipients.
In June 1999,1 was very happy and excited to have a job with the University ofCalifomia due to
the positive image of the university. The plaintiffs daughter graduated from UC Santa Cmz as a
molecular and cellular biologist. Polish Professor Czeslaw Milosz from UC Berkeley was a
1
Case No. 34-2013-80001699 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. CUIAB
recipient of the Nobel Prize and wordsfi-omhis poem entitled "You Who Wronged" were
engraved in 1980 on the Monument to the fallen Shipyard Workers 1970, a monument to those
who were massacred in 1970 by the communist regime during tlie peaceful protests against
oppression and notorious human rights violations by the communist system.
Twelve years later in November 2011, the Greek native UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi
nicknamed "Chemical Katehi" ordered gas attacks against peacefiilly protesting students on the
UC Davis Campus, and in this way she observed and marked the 38th Anniversary of the
students massacre at Athens Pol>1;echnic by the Greek Fascist Military Junta that killed 25 people
and injured over 1,000. In 1973 Linda Katehi was a .student at Athens Polytechnic.
llie Junta that mled Greece from 1967 to 1974 abolished civil rights, dissolved political parties
and exiled, imprisoned and tortured politicians and citizens based on their political beliefs.
Furthermore, in November 2011 the same Greek native UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katelii
requested the confidential report and Danesha Nichols sent it to her.
Shortly after, Danesha Nichols sent the Confidential Report about me to Katehi. than 1 was
removed from stress related sick leave by HR and placed, without my Physician's pennission, on
Administrative Leave.
I was the subject of unlawflil use of UC Davis Policy 390-25 by UC Davis Administration under
umbrella of grossly violated the UC Davis administration Investigatory and Administrative
leave Policy for the whole year, until my employment was terminated on December 5, 2012.
The termination of my employment was done without valid cause and under false pretenses,
fabricated by individuals like Danesha Nichols, Cindy Oropeza and Brent Seifert with logistic
guidance and supervision of UC Davis Health System HR Director Steven Cliilcott and UC
Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo.
My termination of employment was preceded by unsuccessfiil attempts to provoke and kill me or
to end my employment in the UC Davis Trauma Unit #11 on May 31, 2012 by an assembled
team that 1 nicknamed in documents the "UC Davis Death Squad."
UC DAVIS G R E E K BORN CHANCELLOR LINDA KATEHI
Linda Katehi became the 6th Chancellor of the University of California, Davis in 2009,
succeeding Larry Vanderhoef
In April 2011, Linda Katehi participated, in a tell-all Interview for the Greek—USA Reporter
and was asked about her political activities in Greece during the time Greece was mled by a
Greek Fascist Military Regime.
It appears,fiômthe above mentioned interview, that the UC Davis Chancellor was more likely
than not in the same club of supporters for the Gi eek fascist military regime in 1973, with
Nikolaos Michaloliakos who is today the Greek leader of the Neo-Fascist Party Golden Dawn,
with seats in the Greek Parliament. The party is nostalgic for Nazism: its logo resembles a
2
swastika, some party officials reportedly deny that the Holocaust occuired and a video shows
party leader Nikos Michaloliakos giving a Nazi salute in the Athens City council.
Perhaps Linda Katehi is connected to Georgios Karatzaferis, a well-known Greek politician and
joumalist in Europe and former member of European Parliament. Georgios Karatzaferis is a
leader of the Popular Orthodox Rally or People's Orthodox Alarm, abbreviated as LAOS. On
different controversial remarks, Georgios Karatzaferis has publicly questioned why Jews did not
"come to work on 9/11," suggesting that they were warned to leave the World Trade Center prior
to the attack. He challenged the Israeli ambassador in Greece to come and debate on "the
Holocaust, the Auschwitz and Dachau myth" and in 2001 he stated thai "the Jews have no
legitimacy lo speak in Greece and provoke the political world. Their impudence is crass."
The logos for both parties are interesting. LAOS's logos are closely akin to the KKK's logo and
the Golden Dawn Party Logo is similar to the swastika.
I have no other explanation for Katehi's chemical attack on peacefiilly protesting students in
November 2011, but it is important to note her neo-fascist hidden from everybody ideology and
her hidden affiliation with neo-fascist parties in her native country Greece. Flistorically,
ideologies like fascism and communism are deeply rooted in Greece.
.A. TWIST IN MY LIFE IN RELATION TO MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
When I was hired by the University of Califomia in June, I never imagined that I would hear the
completely different sound of Sirtaki and that I would be dancing a different Zorba tlian Mikis
Theodorakis composed or that my Acropolis Adieu almost ended in the UC' Davis Medical
Center Trauma Unit, waiting for me at a glance on May 31, 2012.
I think that the peacefiilly protesting students in November 2011 on UC Davis Campus were
very lucky that it was 2011 and that it was in Califomia instead of Greece in 1973.1 don't like to
even think what kind of gas would be applied lo protesting students by Katehi if she was
Chancellor at Athens Polytechnic in 1973. She would probably use Zyklon B, which is still being
produced today under two different names, Cyanosil and Uragan D2.
Katehi is the twist of my life history, because for the last five years in my native country of
Poland I lived in a mountainous town forty miles from the border of Slovakia and five miles
from the Ukrainian border. Tlie mentioned town was surrounded by many villages and entirely
populated by Greeks. The Greeks were political refiigees of the Greek Civil Wai-, and were
members or sympalliizers of the defeated communist forces who fled Greece during or in the
aftermath of the Civil War of 1946-1949.
In 1976 I was transferred by the corporation I worked for in Northem Poland near the Baltic Sea
to South-East Poland, where I got a supervisor position in a cogeneration facility in a big wood
factory that employed approximately 1500 employees. At that time, Poland was mled by
3
communists and was part of the Soviet Block. Many children of these Greek communist refugees
found employment in tliis state of art wood factory that was newly built by a French company.
I made Greek friends and I was exposed to Greek culture in tlie form of food and music, such as
the gi-eat and beloved singer Eleni Tzoka niltp://en.wikipedia.org/vviki/Eleni T:j:oka) who was
born in Poland. I was often invited by my Greek fiiends to their houses, and for the first time in
my life 1 ate gyros, dolmades and lamb. I had never thought that lamb could taste so good roasted
on fire.
Workers in the factory were treated like subhuman and second class citizens by the factop>''s
communist management, and the factory's comniunisls had a similar Manifesto to the UC Davis
Manifesto entitled "UC Davis Principle of Community" that are used to hunt down UC Davis's
complaining employees.
The factory's communist management was hunting down employees that complained about
preferential.trealment and cormption, shortage of goods in the same way that Katehi's UC Davis
regime does hunting down employees that complained about gross management misconduct and
corruption in the University.
The factory's communist management used their manifesto and accused complaining employees
wilh similar investigations of being anti-govemmenl, fermenting trouble, being against ideas of
socialism and offending the Soviet Union, which was named as a best friend and ally by the
Polish Communist Constitution.
The UC Davis manifesto entitled "UC Davis Principle of Community' is a tool used lo fabricate
accusations of racism, intolerance, bigotr>' and hostility for the same purpose as communists
were using their manifesto. The witch hunt of complaining UC Davis employees about
management misconduct is done via the UC Davis Office of Chief Compliance and
Discrimination. The charge of this UC Davis gestapo ofTice is in the hands of the corrupt to the
bones Wendy Delmendo
In 1978 1 got myself in the spotlight for defending my crew for being mistreated in complaints
about benefits other employees in the office building had. They got me into their kangaroo court,
like in 2006/2007 in the UC Davis Medical Central Plant, which was repealed in 2011/2012.1
lost 25% of my monthly bonus salary as an exempt employee and supervisor for one year. I won
my wages back in an arbitration decision issued by communist corporation arbitrator. Tlie
factory CEO appealed the arbitration decision to communist labor court. The CEO, besides his
function in the factory, was elected as a high rank member oflhe Communist Party Govem
Assembly in the county.
I was called in front of a judge and the company was represented by their attorney from Ihe
Legal Department. To my disbelief, the judge who was nominated by the Communist
Government, and after reviewing my personal HR, got mad at the company lawyer and told him
to give my wages back witiiin 10 days, and if not then he would issue a fme of twenty thousand
Polish Zloly against hated by employees CEO. 1 was making at that lime three thousand Polish
4
Zlotych a month. After such an outcome I went wilh the company attomey to a restaurant and we
celebrated a victory against the communists.
When I came back to the factory the ne.xt day and news spread about my victory against the
CEO, my name got quite popular and later I was the organizer oflhe anti-communist labor
movement "Solidarity," supported by many Greek employees who worked in the factory and
stood by me, arm by arm, against the communists and communism. Shortly after Solidarity was
organized and registered as a lawful organization under communist law, I became regional
director of tliis movement. This was 1980.
On December 13, 1981, secret communist police broke into my condominium al 2:00 am night
and dragged me in my pajamasfiônithe fourth floor, witnessed by my terrified and screaming
two children and wife.
The secret police agent put me against the wall, stuck his pistol against my head and requested
thai I sign a piece of paper without letting me to read it. I refused and I cursed al him and told
him to shoot me if he had the guts. They look me to a police station and before long a police
armored vehicle escorted by two other vehicles look me west. I was happy that I was going west
because if I was going east then I would be going to the Soviet Union, the border of which was
five miles away. Everybody knew the Soviet Lliiion was there but nobody wanted to go tliere and
I did not want lo go there either. Around four o'clock in the morning I was tlirown, slil in my
pajamas, into a -5 degree Celsius prison cell with my other coworkers.
niat night, December 13, 1980, 5,000 people were arrested and imprisoned by martial law
implemented by Polish Communist Governmenl by order of Moscow.
I spent a few months in prison and I got a one way ticket to the USA via West Germany, where I
spent two weeks in a ver^' nice place set up for Solidarity activists kicked out by communists
from their own country.
Regardless of what neo fascist UC Davis Greek bom Chancellor has done t o me and what I am
going through, I did not slop loving Greek mythology, history, culture, music and the (jreek
people because the acropolis of UC Davis is being occupied by a Greek Chancellor who tliinks
she is in charge of Reichstag.
THE RE.4L PARTY OF INTEREST IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANADMUS
By reading the Real Party of hiterest in Opposition lo my Petition For Writ Of Mandamus on
Page No. 2 you will find the following statement:
It is my understanding he admitted to singing a song called "throw the Jews down the
well" in the workplace; saying "all Jews should be killed" in the workplace; referring
to Asian women as "weed eaters"; and saying that "Polish people are fed anti-
5
Semitism with their mothers' milk." AR 184-86. He attempted to justify these
statements by saying they were taken out of context.
Here again, four University of California Office of President leading legal counsels, including
"Chief' Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel Karen J. Petmlakis, UCOP ChiefDeputy
General Counsel Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel and Margaret L. Wu, UCOP
Managing Counsel tried to impress a judge from the Superior Court by removing Dinosaurs
from Danesha Nichol's lies, and the super lawyers are now saying "He admitted to singing a
song called 'Throw the Jews down the well' in the work place; saying "All Jews should be
killed."
No fiirther comments your Honor.
If I could turn the clock back to November 2011 then I would never go to an interview with
Danesha Nichols and quit the job, for the only reason being to not read her stupid made up
stalements. This is why Danesha Nichols is listed as Defendant in the Wrongful Termination
lawsuit, together with Seifert and Oropeza, because of their lies, slanderous statements and
fabricated accusations lo make cause for my termination.
I would like to remind you that you repealing the lies that were ill crafted against me in
2006/2007 by the "Witch Hunt" Task Force entitled the UC Davis Health System(UCDHS)
Equal Opportunity Committee. The UCDHS "Witch Hunt" Task Force included but was
not limited to the Chief of this Task Force, the UCDHS Executive .Associate Director and
UCDMC Affirmative Action Officer Shehon Dumisseau, PH. D., UCDHS Equal
Opportunity HR Manager Cindy Oropeza, UCDMC Executive Director Mike Boyd and
Manager of Medical Pathology Betlye Andres.
If you are not familiar wilh the 2006/2007 case then 1 will brief you.
In 2006/2007 a witch hunt took place against me and my coworker William Buckans after
we reported massive machine oil discharge to the city storm drain (river) from leaking
cooling tower fan gear bo.xes. This was going on for seven years and created enormous
safely hazard for employees, causing several accidents and despicable contamination of the
natural environment.
In the same time, my coworker reported the UCDMC Central Plant Manager's notorious
porn activities on company time, and because I was involved in investigation, I was told by
the Central Plant Manager that he would send the "Gestapo on my ass."
The Central Plant Manager kept his promise and alerted the UC Davis Health System
Gestapo, the Chief of the "Gestapo" Task Force in UCDHS, Dr. Shelton Duruisseau, who
assigned "Witch Hunter" Betlye Andreas (Gestapo stand for Secret State Police in
translation from German to English). The "UCDHS assigned Witch Hunter" who crafted
an ill report, which was copied in relevant parts by Danesha Nichols lo her phony report
issued in February 2012 and now by you, in your Opposition Of Real Party of Interest filed
in court on February 2, 2015.
Looking at your titles and your credentials in the University of Califomia Office of the President,
1 have faced opponents representing the University where my education, experience and two job
6
positions I had working in the University for 13 years were absolutely uiimatcliable lo do any
face off and to win the ongoing legal battle.
The Writ Of Mandamus is not economically sound and is not a valuable case, especially for the
University ofCalifomia, because it is a few tliousand dollars of unemployment benefits which I
am living without anyway since my employment with tlie University ofCalifomia was
terminated on December 5, 2012.
It is not difficult figure out that your one week wages combined together are a lot higher tlian the
value of unemployment I would have received for a maximum of 12 months, according to the
law, which would probably be S21,000.00, which is peanuts in comparison to how much time
and money to litigate it cost the University. The $21,000.00 is also a lot less than the University
paid me in 2011 and 2012 by holding me hostage for one year on paid InvestigatoryAdministration leave.
If I would like lo bring a racial factor lo the case then I would start with Dr. Shelton
Duruisseau and Betlye Andreos, then Danesha Nichols, then Hugh Parker as coordinator of
the Death Squad on May 31, 2012 and then Rahini Read and UCOP Chief Counsel Charles
Robinson. I am trying to stay away from racial discrimination as far as I can bul don't
push me, because I could make you racists very quickly i f y o u wish and I have good basis
to do so.
Furthemiore if any of you would like lo look into record from 2005 to the present time, then
on January 19, 2009 I wrote to Stephen Cliilcott "In regards to the statement about Jews, 1
could bring to work Menorah and wear my Yarmulke than maybe UC will stop accusmg
me of anti-Semitism."
On October 09, 2011, in my letter addressed to Members of the UC Davis Ethics and
Compliance Risk Committee, Califomia State Assembly Membersfi-omthe Committee on
Higher Education, the Committee on Labor and Employment and The Regents Of The
University of Califomia, I wrote : In conclusion of my short informational letter I v/ould like
to say that I feel like a hunted Jew by Nazis during the Holocaust. I know history very well
and remember few Yiddish words I got chance to learn from my father who spoke this
language fluently.
If any of you have ever seen the 2008 WW II movie Defiance staring Daniel Craig, my father
personally knew the brothers Bielski's (portrayed in the movie).
On AR-174 Danesha wrote "Mr. Waszczuk brought Mr. Daniluc Jewsih Rabbbifigurinefrom
Poland. "
In 2010 I visited Poland and I went to the Polish capital of Warsaw lo place flowers under
Monument to the Ghetto Heroes (littp://en.vvikipedia.org/vviki/Warsaw Ghetto Uprisin
littp://en.wikipedia.org/vviki./Tzadikg); http://en.wikipedia.org/\viki/Uprising (2001 film )and I
bought Daniliuc a quite expensive piece of art carved from wood, a Cadyk (Tzadlk)figurine(not a
Rabbi).
7
Case No. 34-2013-80001699 Jaroslaw Waszczuk v, CUIAB
When I look at my mother's photo when she was the age of the US Senator Hon. Diane
Feinstem, they both look very alike. Ms Feinstein has roots in Poland. Ifyou like lo play the
racial and anti-Semitic card then I will play you Jewish music with all tlie Klezmer bands that I
have on my hard drive. The Greek version of Hava -Nagila is my favorite version, and 1 dedicate
it to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi.
Shalom
alom
» A
Jejry Waszczuk,
Petitioner in Pro Per.
CC: Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang; Hon. David I . Brown . UC President, UC Regents
David Burkett Esq, Douglas Ropel Esq.
Enclosed are a few photos, a Greek Hava-Nagila song and the "Throw the Jew Down the Well"
link https://www.youtube.coin/watch7v~Vb3IMTJizfo Video clip which is not from "Borat:
Cultural Learning of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazahstan" as Danesha
Nichols Stated in AR-170
8
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Plaintiff
In Pro Per
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95242
Phone: 209.663.2977
Fax: 209.247.1089
E-mail: ucdmclaborchat(§att.net
February 10,2015
Hon. David I. Brown
Department 53-Civil Law and Motion
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of Sacramento
720 9"' Street
Re; Jaroslaw Waszczuk vs. the Regents of the University of Califomia.
Case No. 34-2013 00155479-CU-WT-GDS filed on December 4, 2013
Defendant Anti-SLAPP Motion filed on December 2, 2014
Court Order Dated 02/09/2015
Dear Judge Brown:
Before Plaintiff will file the Motion to Reconsider under CCP § 1008 (a), Plaintiff would highly
appreciate it if your Honor would take a minute and read the enclosed Open Letter dated
February 8,2015, that is addressed to four University of Califomia Office of the Presidents
Counsels, including General Counsel Mr. Charles.
The above mentioned attomeys are representing the University of Califomia as Real Party In
Interest in a Writ of Mandate against Califomia Unemployment Insurance Appeal Bostd Case
No: 34-2013-80001699, which I filed on December 2,2013—just two days before Plaintiff filed
his Wrongful Termination Complaint.
The University Califomia denied Plaintiffs unemployment to impact PlaintifTs Wrongful
Termination, which the University knew Plaintiff would file and vice versa U niversity sought to
impact my Writ of Mandate, in which the Petitioner Replay Brief is due on Febmary 12,2015,
by filing the Anti-SLAPP Motion. The Febmary 9,2015, issuance of the Court Order in the
SLAPP Motion is in perfect sync with the last stage of the Writ of Mandate Case.
On February 6,2015, during a hearing for Anti-SLAPP, I mentioned, for the record, that I am
being accused of agitation to kill Jews based on the imaginary lies of a UC Davis "witch hunter,"
Danesha Nichols (defendant). Danesha Nichols is one of the five UC Davis witch hunters who
are responsible for my employment termination. Defendant Nichols and four other Defendant's a
who are subjects of SLAPP set a provocation trap for an unsuccessful attempt to end my
employment with the UC Davis Medical Center in Trauma Unit #11. On May 31, 2012, the
Anti-SLAPP Court Order dated 02/09/2015 1
Trauma Unit was waiting for Plaintiff at glance if provocation would end as participated by
perpetrators to commit this heinous crime.
The Davis 11 Trauma Nursing Unit (TNU) is a 36-bed acute care specialty and telemetry
unit that primarily provides inpatient care and treatment for patients who have sustiiined blunt or
penetrating injury, as well as those who may require surgical intervention. This includes care of
the patient with suspected or confirmed intra-abdominal injuries, complex wound management,
orthopedic fractures, head/neck/face injuries, brain trauma, chest traimia and pulmonary injurv.
Perhaps Plaintiffs body would be delivered strait to UC Davis Hospital Morgue if the bribed by
$ 35,000. 00 wage increase UC Davis Police Department Lt. James Barbour and a?.signed to kill
me would miss perfect shot and Plaintiff would sustain blunt or penetrating injury on May 31,
2012.
Plaintiffs strongly disagree with court that five defendants are subject of CCP § 425.16. Plaint is
quite sure that mentioned five defendants and many others involved are belong to State or
Federal Penitentiary. Plaintiff would rather say that such alleged criminal activities instead of the
CCP 425.16 are falling under the Penal Code section 11410 which expresses the bigislature's
intent that it is therightof every person, regardless of his or her race, color, creed, religion, gender,
or national origin, to be secure and protected ftom fear, intimidation and physical harm cause<i by the
activities of violait groups and individuals. This section also contains the Legislature's express finding
that the advocacy of unlawful violent acts by groups against other persons or groups where death
and/or great bodily injury is likely, is not constitutionally protected, poses a thieat
I declare, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully
Submitted orvhebma
orvFebmary 10,2014, by overnight U.S. Mail
LespecCtully bubmittea
Jaroi
arollaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff, In Pro Per.
Enclosed: Letter to UC Office of The President General Counsel and his Staff.
Proof of Service.
CC : Hon. Hon: Shelleyanne W.L. Chang Department 24-Civil Writs
Anti-SLAPP Court Order dated 02/09/2015 2
EXHIBIT C
PORTER
I
S C O T T
ATTORNfYS
August 19, 2014
Author's c-mail: niIlL'M@ESflSJS!?iL'liCon3
VTA E-MAIL
LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS E. STEIN
305 Cranberry Lane
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Desquirel962@hotmail.com
Re:
Waszczuk v. Regents of the University of California, et al.
Sacramento Superior Court Case No, 34-2013-00155479 "
University Awnue
SuHe iOO
Sacrairicrto, CA 958«
ItL 9)6,929,1481
FAX: 916,927,3706
vwmpcrtefscott.cont
Dear Mr. Stein:
As 1 advised you during our initial telephone conference regarding this maUer,
in reviewing the First Amended Complaint I had concerns regarding some
pleading issues and informed you that I would send you a meet and confer
letter regarding those concerns. Please accept diis correspondence as my meet
and confer letter regarding several deficiencies in fhe complaint that warrant
the filing ofa demurrer unless they can be resolved by amendment. 1 hope it is
not necessary to lake that step.
PARTIES
In the FAC, Plaintiff has named The Regents of the University of Califomia,
University of Califomia Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical Center^, and
UC Davis as Defendants. The only proper Defendant is The Regents of the
University of Califomia. (Gov. Code § 811.2.) As We would therefore
appreciate it if you would file an Amended ComplainI withdrawing the
allegations against the University of California Davis Health System, UC
Davis Medical Center, and UC Davis or simply file a dismissal as to them.
CLAIMS
In the first cause of action. Plaintiff asserts a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress against the individual Defendants. An essential element of
an IIED claim is a pleading of outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of
human decency. {.Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics, (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th
55, 80.) Managing personnel, including the hiring and firing of employees, is
not outrageous conduct beyond the bounds of human decency, but rather
conduct essential to the welfare and prosperity of society. {Id.) "Pleading of
personnel management activity is insufficient to support a claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged." {Id)
(0130I356,DOCX}
PORTEfH
I
S C O T T
AT'IORNE>'S
LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS E. STEIM
August 19,2014
Page 2
As the allegations in the Complaint detail personnel mamigement activities,
Plaintiff cannot maintain his claim for IIED against the individual Defendants.
In die second cause of action, Plaintiff asserts a claim for tortious interference
with economic advantage against the nine individual Defendants. The law is
clear that an employee or former employee cannot sue a current or fo:rmer
supervisor Ibr interfering with his or her prospective economic advantage by
inducing the employer to terminate the plaintiff's emplojinent. {Shepperd v.
Freeman (1998) 67 Cal.App.4'^ 339, 347; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52
Cal .3d L24.)
In the third cause of action. Plaintiff cites two sections of the FEHA - Section
12940(a) which prohibits discrimination and Section 12940(k) which addrersses
the failure to prevent discrimination. These claims are not properly plead
against the individual Defendants as individuals cannot be sued for
discrimination under the FEHA nor can they be sued for failure to prevent
discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. {Reno v. Baird, 18 Gal.4th 640,
663-664.)
With regard to the sixth cause of action for breach of contract, it is unclear as
to which Defendants the claim is asserted against. In addition, it ap|:>ears
Plaintiff contends that Defendant breached the contract, but the terms of the
contract are unclear. If an action is based on a written contract, terms must set
out verbatim in the Complaint or a copy of the written document mus^ be
attached to the Complaint and incorporated by reference. (Otworth v. Southern
Pacific Transp. Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452.) The Complaint does not
contain the verbatim language of the contract nor is a copy of the contract
attached. This also applies to the eighth cause of action for rescission as
Plaintiff needs to plead the particulars of what contract he wants to have
rescinded.
The seventh cause of action appears to contain several claims. With regaird to
the claim for "Medical Discrimination" it is unclear whether Plaintiff is
asserting a claim for disability discrimination or medical condition
discrimination. Moreover, it is unclear what disability/medical condition, if
any, he has, This information must be plead so the court and defendant can
ascertain whether Plaintiff falls within the protected class. As for the "Failure
of Interactive Process" claim, an employer needs to engage in a timely, good
faith interactive process in response to a request for reasonable
accommodation. (Cal. Gov. § I2940(n).) Plaintiff fails to allege he ever made
a request for reasonable accommodation such that the interactive process
would have been initiated. Last, it is unclear under which statute Plaintiff
asserts his claim for "wage and hour" violations.
{013013S6.POO()
P O R T E fil I
S C O T T
ATTORNEYS
LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS E. STEIN
August 19,2014
Page 3
MOTION TO STRIKE
Last, we note that the Complaint contains many allegations that arc irrelevant
to the case. Specifically, paragraphs A through D of the Preamble and
paragraphs 14 through 18 contain information and argument pertaming to
claims made by other persons and information from newspaper articles.
We are hopeful that we can work out the above-referenced matters without the
need for court intervention. To give you time to review this correspondence
and allow us to continue the meet and confer eftbrts, we suggest that the
parties agree that you will provide a response to our meet and confer effort by
August 27, 2014, and that Defendants will file a responsive pleading hy
September 3, 2014. Ifyou need additional time lo review our correspondence,
please let me know and we can extend the time for filing a responsive pleading
accordingly.
1 look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
PORTER SCOTT
ORATION
By
MWP:wes
{013013S6.00a}
Michael W. Pott
Law Office of
DOUGLAS E. STEIN
Cormse for-at-Xaw
305 Cranberry Lane
El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762
Telephone (916) 222-6684
|
Facsimile: (916)943-0806
|
Email: de5qulrel962(aihotniall.coni
August 26, 2014
N4ichael Pott
PORTER SCOTT
350 University Ave., Suite 200
mpott@porterscolt. com
Facsimile 916.927.3706
Re:
WASZCZUK (Pronounced va-SH -chock) v UC REGENTS et. al.
Sacramento Superior Court Action 34-2013-00155479
Mr. Poll:
Introduction
Using your meet and confer letter as a guide, I researched tlie law and anal>'zed the complaint for
more than 10 hours. Generally, your client raises some valid pouits while other arguments do not
have support under the law as I understand it. Moreover, my review oflhe complaint led me lo
discover some inadvertent omissions that I propose plaintiff corrects in the Second Amended
Complaint (SAC).
As a matter of general law, please consider:
In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the court nol only Irejits the demurrer
as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also gives the complaint a
reasonable interpretation, reading il as a whole and its paits in their context. LFthe
complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless oflhe title under
which the factual basis for relief is slated, lliat aspect of the complaint is good
against a demurrer. The court is not limited lo plaintiffs' theory of recovery, but
instead must determine if the factual allegations of the complaint are adequate to
state a cause of action under any legal theory. .A, plaintiff need nol strictly adhere to
the form of action he or she has pleaded; instead, the court applies tlie more flexible
approach of examining the facts alleged to detemiine if a demurrer should be
sustained. If a complaint does not state a cause of action, but there is a reasonable
possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment, leave to amend musl be
granted. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., (1998) 19 Cal 4th 26
"It is JTom numberless diverse acts of courage and belief ttiat human history is shaped Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to
improve the lot of others, or sttikes out against injustice, he sendsforth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each otherfrom a million different
centers of energy and daring those ripples buJld a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and re.slstance." Robert F.
Kennedy. U.S. Attomey General, South Africa, June 1966.
Letter to Michael Pott
August 26, 2014
Page 2 o f 9
I will follow the order of issues as you presented them in your initial meet and confer letter. For
the sake of organization and understanding, I employ consistent headings for each issue.
Meet and Confer Positions and Proposals
Issue 1: Tlie only proper Defendant is Tlie Regents of the University of California. (Gov. Code §
811.2.)
>
Defendant's Position: Withdraw tlie allegations against the University of Califomia Davis
Healtii System, UC Davis Medical Center, and UC Davis or simply tile a dismissal as lo lliem.
>
Law and PlaintiiFs Position: Since plaintiff proposes a to file a SAC, plaintiff will remove
the incorrectly identified defendants from the SAC, except for an allegation conceming
the existence, business, and relationship to the Regents of HEALTH SYSTEMS, UC
DAVIS, and UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER
Issue 2: Can plaintiff stale a Cause of Action (COA) for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress (IIED) against supervisors and senior managers?
> Defendant's Position: Pleading of personnel management activity is insufficient lo support a
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if improper motivation is alleged.
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics. (1996) 46 Cal App. 4th 55, 80.
>
Law and Plaintiffs Position: Tliere is no authority for the general proposition a plaintiff can
never bring a COA for IIED against supervisors and senior management. To be sure, support
for an IIED COA is found the in tlie Janken case.
First, Janken is a FEHA case, nol a IIED case. Tlie HED claim was ancillary to the
FEHA COA. The Janken court held that a complaint for simple age discrimination
was insufficient to support an action against individual supervisors for
discrimination and, consequently, IIED. The court reasoned discrimination does
nol carry any malicious or outrageous connotations.
hiiportanlly, the Janken ccourt recognized lhal the FEHA identified harassment as
a separate and different wrong lhan discrimination. Under FEHA, a plaintiff can
bring a civil action for harassment against individual supervisors and senior
management.
Tlie California Supreme Court in Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership. 42
Cal 4th 1158, reaffirmed that discrimination and harassment under FEHA iire
separate and distinct, hi Jones, the Supreme Court held tliat supervisors cannot be
sued individually for discrimination and retaUation under FEHA because FEHA
defines those wrongs in similar terms.
August 26, 2014
Page 3 o f 9
Plaintiffs position is supported by CartM'right v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
(2009) U.S. Dist. LKXIS 62953, 2009 WL 2190072. Tlie facts of die present case
are more egregious and outrageous lhan the allegation in Cartwright. Moreover,
plaintiff in this case alleges IIED against the individual defendants arising from a
series of specific actions unrelated to the decision to terminate.
Plaintiffs position is also supported by Shepperd v. Freeman (1998) 67 Cal App.
4th 339, 347. In Shepperd, the platntilT sued individual co-workers and supervisors
alleging they falsified performance reviews for the purpose of getting plaintift'fired.
Fhe court held tliat, except where a statutory exception applies, an employee or
former employee cannot sue other employees based on their conduct relating to
persomiel actions. To the extent any of tlie allegations against the nine individual
defendants can be considered persomiel actions, die individual defendants are
properly parties to tlie action. No pubhc policy or rational justification exists to
dismiss a related cause of action.
Lastly, courts rightly make actions against individual co-workers, super\'isors, or
senior managers more difficuh in cases where a plaintiff does not aheady have a
basis to assert causes of action agauistthem. Bul where, as here, Government Code
§8547.10 authorizes personal liability, the policy reasons for precluding an IIED
COA do nol exist.
Parenthetically, see plaintiffs discussion regarding his statutory causes of action
that follows the issues raised by the defendant.
In the absence of controlling autliority to the contrary, plaintiff maintains hisrightto assert
an IIED claim against the individuals.
Issue 3: Can plaintiff bring a COA for Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage against
nine individual Defendants
> Defendanl's Position: flie law is clear lhal an employee or former employee cannot sue a
current or fomier supervisor for interfering witli his or her prospective economic advantage by
inducing the employer lo tenninale tlie plaintiffs employment. Shepperd v. Freeman (1998)
67 Cal App. 4th 339. 347; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal 3d 1, 24.
Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal 3d 1, 24 II is also well established that
corporate agents and employees acting for and on behalf of a corporation cannoi: be
held liable for inducing a breach of the corporation's contracl. Here, the parties
against whom plaintiff seeks recovery on this cause of action are plaintiffs
supervisors: agents of the employer who are vested with tlie power lo act for die
employer (rightly or wrongly) in terminating plaintiffs employment. For purposes
oflhis cause of action, then, these defendants stand in the place oflhe employer,
because the employer - the other party to the supposed contract - cannot act except
through such agents.
August 26, 2014
Page 4 o f 9
Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal 3d 1, 24 Thus, there is no viable "inducement
of breach of contract" or "interference with economic advantage" that is
distinguishable from a cause of action for breach of conti-act. As we have held,
however, plaintiff, a state civil service employee, does not have a contract of
employment. Plaintiff improperly seeks lo cast tliis cause of action in tort to obtain
recovery to which he is not entitled.
Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal 3d 1, 24 "[r|t is well settled in Califomia llial
public employment is not held by contract but by statute and thai, insofar as the
duration of such employment is concemed, no employee has a vested contractual
right to continue in employment beyond the time or contr^y to the temis iuid
conditions fixed by law." Nor can plaintiff state a cause of action for tortious breach
of the implied covenant of good faith, since that cause of action, in the employment
context, cannot support an award of tort damages. (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.,
supra, 47 Cal. 3d 654.)
> Law and Plaintiff s Position: Cartwright v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. An. hiterference wilh
Business Relations claim may be brought against a supervisor in his individual capacity. A
supervisor can act either on behalf of the employer or in his personal capacity. Furthemiore,
as witli the COA for IIED, tlie actual personnel decisions aie secondary to tlie actions and
behavior the individuals that comprise the cmx of the cause of action.
Moreover, this case involves a written contract. The plaintiff asserts rights differeni
than the riglits he possesses by statute. To the exlent precedent involves employees
not working under a written contract, those cases are inapposite.
Cartwright v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal An Interference witli Business Relations
claim may be brouglit against a supervisor in his individual capacity. .A supervisor
can act either on behalf of the employer or in his personal capacit y. Gov't Code
Section authorizes individuals in the lawsuit anyway
Parenthetically, see plaintiffs discussion regarding his statutory causes of action
that follows the issues raised by the defendanl.
In the absence of controlling authority to the contrary, plaintiff maintains liis right to
assert Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against the individuals.
Issue 4: Are tlie Individual defendants properly sued under the Tliird COA alleging FEHA Section 12940(a) (Prohibits discrimination) and Section 12940(k) (Failure to prevent
discrimination) nol proper vs individuals
> Defendant's Position: Individuals cannot be sued for discrimination under the FEHA nor can
they be sued for failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.. Reno v. Baird,
18 CaL 4th 640, 663-664
August 26, 2014
Page 5 of9
>
Law and Plaintiffs Position:
It is unlawftil for one employee "...because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry,
physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic infomiation, marital status, sex,
gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexiial orientation, or military' and veteran status,
to harass (another) employee...An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally
liable for any harassment prohibited by this section tlial is perpetrated by the employee., regardless
of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails
to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." Government Code Section 12940 (i)(l)(3);
See Janken v GM Electronics 46 Cal App 4th 55.
Tlie COA for violation of the FEHA is fairly interpreted as seeking recovery against
the individuals for harassment and against the employer for discrimination and
failure to prevent harassment. Plaintiff cannoi, by pleading, create a right lo assert
claims for discrimination or failure to prevent harassment against individual
defendants. Given the well-established law in this area, any motion to change or
othemise modify this CO.A is simply placing fomi over substance.
In the absence of controlling authority to the contrary or a compelling reason not considered,
plaintiff maitUains his right to assert this COA as alleged.
Issue 5: Does the Sixtli COA for breach of contract identity against which defendants the COA
applies and is the COA otherwise compliant wilh tlie law?
> Defendant's Position: If an action is based on a written contract, temis must set out verbatim
in the Complaint or a copy oflhe written document must be attached to the Complaint and
uicorporated by reference. Otrvorth v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. (1985) 166 Cal. App. 3d
452.
>
Law and Plaintiffs Position: Plaintiff will prepare and file a SAC. The SAC will identify
UC Regents and DOES 45-50 as the target defendants, attach a copy of tlie contract as an
e.xhibil, and incorporate the terms oflhe contract into the complaint.
Issue 6: Is the Eighth COA for rescission insufficient because the plaintiff does nol allege which
provisions plaintiff seeks to rescind?
>
Defendant's Position: Plaintiff needs to plead the particulars of wliich contract provisions he
wants to have rescinded.
>
Law and Our Position: Tliere is no law or authority for defendant's position.
The allegations, and basis for rescission, are clearly rooted in tlie provision that
seeks to circumvent the defmilions jinder the law of exempt vs non-exempt
employees. In addition, die allegations of the complaint sufficiently place
defendant on notice lhal the classification provision is a material aspect of the
August 26, 2014
Page 6 o f 9
contract Hence, defendant is advised that the entire contract, as a matter of law,
must be rescinded.
The allegations that plaintiff relied on the promises in the contract to accept the
contract and perfonn his part of tlie bargain are sufficient to establish promissoiy
estoppel as against the defendant wilh respect to defendants attempt lo recoup
benefits and consideration already paid or provided to plaintiff. Ih fact, plaintiff
pled estoppel in this COA.
In the absence of controlling authority to the contrary or a compelling reason not
considered, plaintiff maintains his right to assert this COA as alleged
Issue(s) 7: Tlie Seventh COA jq^pears to contain several claims.
> Defendant's Position 1: Il is unclear whether Plaintiff is asserting a claim for disability
discrimination or medical condition discrimination. It is unclear what disabilit>'/medical
condition, hifomiation must be plead so the court and defendant can ascertain whetiier Plaintiff
falls witiiin the protected class.
>
Law and PlaintifTs Position 1:
Government Code §12926 (j) provides Mental disability "... includes, but is not limited to,
all of the following.. .(2) Any other mental or psychological disorder or condition not described
in paragraph (1) that requires special education or related services...(m) "Physical disability"
includes, but is nol limited to, all oflhe following ...Having any physiological disease, disorder,
condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does bolh of tlie following: (1)
affects one or more of the following body s>'stems: neurological, immunological,
musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular,
reproductive, digestive, genitourinary', hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine."
There are two conditions identified in the complaint other typical <md usual
emotional distress allegations, llie allegations in the complaint are sufficient to
provide notice that plaintiff suffers from heait/cardiovascular disease, being a
quadruple bypass survivor, and, the connected/dependent condition of stress,
brought about by defendants. In particular, the complaint provides fair notice to
the defendant lhal their own unlawful activity relates lo a plaintiffs heart condition
and the stress related disability from August 2011 lo January 2012.
Thus, the allegations concern both medical and disability discrimination.
>
Defendant's Position 2: "Failure of Interactive Process", "...an employer needs to engage in
a timely, good faith interactive process in response to a request for reasonable accommodation.
(Cal. Gov. § 12940(n).) Plaintiff fails to allege he ever made a request for reasonable
accommodation such that the interactive process would have been initialed.
Letter lo Michael Pott
August 26, 2014
Page 7 o f 9
>
Law and Plaintiffs Position 2: Plaintiff agrees, in principal, tlial the Law generally requires
an employee's request for accommodation to trigger the employer duty to engage in the
interactive process. Here, the complaint alleges one instance where plaintiff" asked for specific
accommodation.
The facts allege that plaintiff askedfor a one hour lunch so he could walk, exercise, but the
employer did not attempt to find a way to make position available to make that work
> Defendant's Position 3: It is unclear under which statute Plaintifl" asserts his claim for "wage
and hour" violations.
>
Law and Plaintiffs Position 3: The factual allegations are sufficient to apprise defendant tliat
he is entitled to back pay for breaks. Regardless of the legal conclusions in the complaint,
defendant knows exactly where plaintiffs rights come from and the basis for plaintiff's claim.
Defendant obviously hopes the plaintiff will assert his riglits under the wrong code, £ind without
apprising the court of tlie proper basis, witli the hope of evaporating a valid claim.
Plaintiffs rights are found in FML.A as incorporated by UC Regents in the
definition of exempt and non-exempt employees as well as the public policy of the
Labor Code requirements for paid breaks as incorporated by UC Regents in the
UCOP Policies and the related PPSM issued by UC DAVIS.
Plaintiff plead sufficient facts lo put defendant on notice that his position was nonexempt as defined by tlie applicable mles, procedures, and laws. Moreover, the
defendant clearly knows plaintiff seeks damages from tlie intentional
misclasstficalion of his position. Damages are the amount plaintiff" did not receive
because UC niisclassified his position.
In the absence of controlling authority to the contrary or a compelling reason not considered,
plaintiff maintains his right to assert this COA as alleged
Issue 8: Motion to Strike Paragraphs A througli D and 14 through 18 oflhe Complaint
> Defendants Position: The Complaint contains many allegations that are irrelevant to the case.
Specifically, paragraplis A through D of the Preamble and paragraphs 14 tlii ougli 18 contain
infonnation and argument pertaining to claims made by other persoas and infomiation from
newspaper articles.
>
Law and PlaintifTs Position:
With the exception of tlie first sentence or quote in the complaint, the .allegations defendant
characterizes as irrelevant are, in actuality, the core of plaintiffs theory of liability against the
defendant. At the outset, it is important to note 1) the defendant is not claiming, and cannoi
credibly claim, the allegations in paragraphs 14 through 18 are false or untrue, 2) plaintiffs case
is, to use a vernacular, the "perfect storm'" against tlie defendant to bring to justice die unlawful
and injurious conspiracy that defendant, heretofore, has contained by defending all the claims
August 26, 2014
Page 8 of 9
either witiiin the administrative process or court as separate instances, 3) die allegations proposed
as irrelevant are, in actuality, set forth in the complaint to provide defendant with fair warning and
notice of the nature of tlie plaintiffs claims, yet the defendant objects, and 4) plaintiffs theory is
akin lo or, is in fact, includes the conspiracy and concerted actions of supei-visors and senior
management such that plaintiff must plead specific and particular facts to support his i:heor>'.
CCP Section 436 authorizes the court to "(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or
improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any
pleading not drawn or filed in conformity vvith the laws oflhis state, a court rule,
or an order oflhe court."
'"The idea seems lo be that allegations of fraud involve a serious attack on character,
and faimess to the defendant demands that he should receive the fullest possible
details oflhe charge in order lo prepare his defense.'" (Committee on Children's
Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., supra, 35 Cal. 3d 197, 216) It is not merely
notice lo the defendant. Thus "the policy of liberal constniction of tlie pleadings .
. . will nol ordinarily be invoked lo sustain a pleading defective m any material
respect.'" (Ibid.)
Tlie allegations are framed so the actions taken against plaintiff were and are part,
in furtherance of, and connected lo the actions and events identified in the
allegations tlie defendant seeks to strike from tlie complaint. Moreover, the
complaint alleges that plaintiff, al all relevant times, had knowledge of tlie facts
alleged in those allegations. There are likely many other ways tlie contents ol'the
allegations are relevant. To say or claim the allegations are not relevant is not
accurate, especially on a motion to strike, wliich could have an unintended impact
on the rest oflhe case.
Plaintiff will omit the first sentence, or quote, from the S.AC. As to the remainder of the Motion
to Strike, in the absence of controlling authority to the contrary or a compelling reason not
considered, plaintiff maintains his right to assert tbe allegations.
Issue 9: hiadvertenlly Omitted Individual Defendants on the §854 7.10 COA
>
.,///
///
///
///
Plaintiffs Position and Request: I realized 1 left out the individual defendants wilh respect to
this COA. Although I do not need your permission, technically, to conect my mistake,
professional courtesy demands that I ask for your agreement.
August 26, 2014
Page 9 of9
Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. If you have any questions or concems
please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
/S/
DOUGLAS E. STEIN
DES: des
' The plaintifT, by virtue of his background as a freedomfighterin communist Poland, his status as a political refugee
in the United States, and his consequent activism in ensuring a discrimination free and safe workplace, has been privy
to much more evidence, cases, and information than the mere sampling set forth in the complaint. After numerous
verdicts against defendant over the years, on the heels of the recent Keyzer verdict, and given the double digit number
of cases now pending and in pre-litigation, there is no better case than this at no better time thm now lo invoke the
ultimate purpose of the law to do justice.
EXHIBIT D
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Request to postpone hearing - File No: 03-PPS-021-13/14-Letter of Expectation
issued on October 21, 2013, and reissued on January 7, 2014.
20140124- Step II Appeal -LOE.pdf; 20141013- From Delmendcpdf; 20141014- PPSM
70 Step I Decision -Evaluation Appeal.pdf; 20141031- To Hadnotpdf; 20141111Requestto postpone hearing Step ll.pdf; 13-20140112 LETTER TO VICE PRESIDENT
DUCKETT,pdf
From: Jaroslaw Waszczuk [mailto:jjwl980@live.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:01 A M
To: 'Megan Lunsford'
Cc: 'Travis Lindsey'; 'Shawn Hadnot'; 'Stephen Chilcott'; 'Preeti Chaturvedi'; 'Frank Gonzales';
'David Acosta'; 'Cindy Oropeza'; 'Wendi Delmendo'; 'Charles Witcher'; 'Mike Boyd';
ann.rice@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu; Dwaine.Duckett@ucop.ed; donald.whitley@ucdmc.ucda^ds.edu;
Phyllis Reginelli; 'Preeti Chaturvedi'
Subject: Request to postpone hearing - File No: 03-PPS-021-13/14-Letter of Expectation
issued on October 21, 2013, and reissued on January 7, 2014.
Jaroslaw Waszcztik
Frank Gonzales Representative
2216 Katzakian Way
Lodi, CA 95240
209-339-1982/Cell: 209-663-2977
E-mail: ucdmclaborchat@.att.net
Fax: 209-247-1089
November 11, 2014
Megan Lunsford- Practice Manager
Complainant Resolution Officer
UC Davis Spine Center
Neurosurgery Clinic
3301 C Street, Suite 1500
Re: Request to postpone the step n appeal meeting.
File No: 03-PPS-021-13/14
Appeal Step II- Administrative Review by Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO)
Issue: Letter of Expectation issued on October 21, 2013, and reissued on January 7, 2014.
Dear Ms. Lunsford:
I spoke with Mr. Gonzales, and we would appreciate it if you postpone the hearing until early
January 2015. As I stated in my last e-mail, I will not be available in November 2014 to assist
Mr. Gonzales at the hearing and, in December 2014,1 am planning to go to Europe.
The original letter of expectation was served to Mr. Gonzales in violation of PPSM 70. It should
be voided with and ought to be the end of the story. I will refrainfromelaborating on the Plant
Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) department management's knowledge of the University of
California's policies and regulations because I would have to write another five pages of
memorandum to present you with an accurate picture of the PO&M departitient inanagers' and
supervisors' illiteracy in this matter. With 13 years of employment at the UC Davis Medical
Center and the experience of providing representation and assistance to many of my coworkers
with their complaints, I have had the liberty to observe and document that the PO&M
Department management has an outstanding record of violations of UC, state and federal
policies; abuses of power; and vicious, despicable retaliation against employees Ihat would be
unknown and unthinkable in other places of employment. I expressed some of my feelings
about these matters in my last letter to the HR labor relations consultant, Mr. ShauTi Hadnot
(forwarded).
Furthemiore, I do not know how knowledgeable you are, as an assigned Compliant Resolution
Officer (CRO), of the UC Davis policies and, more specifically, of the UC Davis Policy PPSM
70 upon wliich this complaint is based.
It is my understanding that, by scheduling the hearing in this case, you are familiar with Mr.
Gonzales' file and tliat you are well prepared for the hearing.
ITie questions are:
Whether you should conduct the step 11 complaint review without the signed response/review of
the step I complaint by the PO&M department head.
Whether you should dismiss the case and issue the decision to withdraw the letter of
expectation from Mr. Gonzales' file, as it is based on the violation of the PPSM. Mr. Hadnot's
statement in his December 26, 2013, letter that PO&M Department reviewed the step I
complaint is baseless without the attached actual signed response to the complaint of the PO&M
department head, (as an example, please see the document dated October 14, 2014; it is Mr.
Charles Witcher's step I response for Mr. Gonzales' 2013/2014 evaluation complaint step I).
Please also see the attached copy of the January 11, 2014, letter addressed to UC HR Senior
Vice President regarding this matter).
In addition to above, I would like to mention that, in last year of Mr. Gonzales' employment, he
came under vicious, despicable and unwarranted attacks from the PO&M management and the
HR labor relations department. He was ser\êd with three letters of expectations, one verbal
waming, and defamation through a bad evaluation. Per UC Davis policy PPSM 70, all of Mr.
Gonzales' complaints are the same matter and should be consolidated and heard by the CRO as
a single complaint.
At this moment, neither Mr. Gonzales nor I know whether the UC Davis Chief Compliance
Officer and Discrimination officer, Ms. Wendi Delmendo, will assign an investigator and look
into the alleged discrimination and retahation against Mr. Gonzales( see attached September 13,
Ms. Delmendo's e-mail to Frank Gonzales)
or
Whether Ms. Delmendo, together with UCDMC Discrimination Officer Cindy Oropeza, will
allow the further harassment and treatinent of Mr. Gonzales set by PO&M' HVAC Shop
Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc's standards for Mexicans(See October 13, 2014, letter addressed to
Mr. Hadnot.)
Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Rep. For Frank Gonzales
******
EXHIBIT E
Tlie Principles of Community | Office of Campus Community Relations
Office of Campus Community Relations
Page 1 of 1
limit
The Principles of Community
'The Univctsily of Calitoinia. Davis, is first and foremost an institution or learning and teaching,
c.Dmmliied lo s e r v i n g the needs of sociery. Our campus community reflects and is a part of a
iociety com pricing all r^ces. creeds and social circumstances. The surcesstiil conduci of the
univetsiiy's affairs requires that eveiy membei o f the universiry community acktiowledge and
pincticc the following baîc principles:
-
We affirm the i n h e r e n t d i g n i t y in all of u$, and we strive to maintain a c l i m a t e of j u s t i c e markedly
by respect for each other. We acknowledge that our society carries within it historical and deeptooted misunderstandings and biases, and theretbre we will endeavor to foster inutual
u n d e r s t a n d i n g among the many parts of our whole.
•
We a f f u m the right of freedom of expression within our community and affirm nur commitment
to the highest standards of c i v i l i t y and decency towards all. We recognize the right of every
individual to iliink and speak as dictated by personal Ijelief. to express any idea, and to disagree y
with or counter another's point ot view, limited only by university regulations governing time,
place and mannei. We promote open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the
bounds of courtesy, s e n s i t i v i t y and respect.
•
Wc confront iind reject all manifesiaiiuns of disciiminaitun, including those based un race,
ethnicity, gender, age. disability, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, status within or
outside the university, or any of the other differences among people which have been excuses for'"'
misunderstanding, dissension or tiatred. We <ecugni2e and c h e r i s h the rictmess contributed to our lives by our diversity. We take pride in our various achievements,
and we celebrate our differences.
•
We recognize that each ot us has an obligation to the community ot which we have chosen ro be a part. We will strive to build a true community nf s p i r i t and purpose
based on m u t u a l respect and caring.'
Contact us: occr®ucdavis.edu
To review Campnswide Administrative Policies and Regulations, please see; http;//manuals.ucdavrs.edu/.
littp://occr.iicdavis.edii/poc/
2/20/2015
UC DAVI.S MEniC.AI. CF.NTF.R: PLANT OPF.RATIOXS AND MAlN l LNANCE
April 13, 2012
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
Lodi, CA 95240
Re:
Letter of Intent lo Suspend
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that ] intend to suspend for a period often (10)
working days commencing April 25, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in violation of
UCDHS Policy 1616 - Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and UC Davis
Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of Discrimination. Additionally, your
failure to adhere to specific instructions during the investigation to refrain from engaging
in email communications with witnesses interfered with the investigation as outlined in
the report.
An allegation was made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011 and May 5, 20011 that
you engaged in behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616 - Violence and Hate
Incidents in the Workplace. It was alleged that you were disruptive and intimidating witli
Dorin Daniliuc when you pointed yourfingerin his face and used profanity on March 8,
2011. Further, on April 21, 20II you became disruptive and intimidating with Patrick
Putney during a discussion regarding your work performance. An investigation was
conducted and both these allegations were substantiated (see attached report Issue #1, #2
and #3).
Another incident involving disruption in the workplace occurred on July 12,2011 during
a routine conversation via Radio where you made a non-work related comment. Mr.
Curry called you on the telephone to ask you to limit your conversation on the Radio to
the accomplishment of the required task. You became irate and disrespectflil to Mr.
Curry. When he asked you to calm down and listen, you continued to scream into the
phone and proceeded to tell Mr. Curry "no" you will not stop and why don't you "Fire
Me, Fire Me, Fire Me". Mr. Curry continued to ask you to calm down and listen to what
he had to say. You replied "No, I won't" and you continued yelling, refusing to listen to
Mr. Curry.
In addition to the allegations noted above, there were complaints that you made
discriminatory comments regarding several protected classifications while in the
workplace. The investigation substantiated that your comments and jokes in the
workplace were in violation of UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints
of Discrimination (see attached report Issue #3 and #4).
UNrVEHSnY OF CALIFOR.NU—(Letterhead for interdepartmental use) ufiiiiiniAxii
UC DAMS MEDICAL CENTER: PLAN l OHLRyVnONS AND MAlN'l tNA.VCE
Finally, during the course of the investigation, you were repeatedly told to refi-ain from
communicating with co-workers/witnesses regarding issues being reviewed by tJie
investigator. Your continued refiisal to adhere to specific directions to cease these
communications interfered with the investigation process and is completely unacceptable.
As an employee of UC Davis Health System for twelve (12) years, you are very familiar
with the above referenced policies and you are expected to conduct yourself consistent
with the Principles of Community and refrain from making inappropriate luid ofiiensive
comments. Your continuous comments and outbursts in the workplace cannot he
tolerated. When determining what action to take, 1 took into account your years of
service and previous performance. However, your disregard for the investigation process
and your refiisal to follow direct orders cannot be overlooked and will no longer be
tolerated. Your actions imply that you believe you are above the rules that all employees
are expected to follow and I cannot subject your co-workers to your continued
discriminatory comments and outbursts. Therefore, it is my intent to suspend you for ten
(10) working days.
On an immediate and sustained basis, I expect you to:
• Follow and abide by all UC Policies and Procedures
• Show respect and remain professional at all times in the workplace
• Follow the du-ect orders given to you by a superior
• Attend classes as requested by management, specifically in regard to
communication and respectful treatment
You have the right to respond to this notice of intent to suspend either orally or in
writing. Your response must be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius, Office
Ph. U 916-734-6572 within eight (8) calendar daysfromthe date of isstxance of this letter.
The mailing address is UCDHS, Facilities Support Services Building, 4800 2"'' Ave. Rm.
# 3010, Sacramento, CA. 95817.
Sincerely,
Charles Witcher
Manager, Plant Operations & Maintenance
UCDHS
Attachment: Proof of Service
Investigation Reports (2)
Cc:
Mike Boyd (w/o attachments)
Department File
Personnel File/Records Department (via E&LR Consultant)
Employee and Labor Relations Consultant (2)
UNIVERSnV OF CAUFOIUMIA—(Luttcrhead for iriterdepartmenlal usel win mm
UC HAVrS MEDICAL CENTER: PLANT OPF.R.^^TIONS A.N D MAIXTENANCli
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am individual over the age eighteen (18) years. I am employed by the University of
Califomia, Davis Health System.
Check one of the two boxes below for either Personal Delivery or Sen/ice by US Mail:
• Service by Personal Delivery. On 4-13-2012 I personally delivered the attached
Letter of Intent to Suspend to the following employee: Jaroslaw Waszczuk, at
Sacramento, California.
[ X ] Service by U.S. Mail. On 4-13-2012 I sen/ed the attached Letter of Intent to
Suspend to the following employee: Jaroslaw Waszczuk.
Charles Witcher
Plant Operations & Maintenance
4800 2"" Avenue, Suite 1500
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and con-ect and that this
declaration was executed on 4-13-2012 at Sacramento, California.
4-13-2012
Signalure
Signaujre
Date
UNrVTERSrrv OF CAL1F0R,\1A—(Letterhead for interriepartinental iisel uBiii m-oo)
August 9, 2012
Dereck Cole
Plumber
RE Letter of Expeclalion for Inappropriate Behavior
I am issuing this letter ol expectation because of your inappropriate behavior on Tuesday. Jufy 24, 2012. You were
observed using profanity and inappropnate language when you were approached and notifted that you were working on
the Sheet ivletal table to work on a motor, this table is only to be used for sheet metal tasks .Working on a motor would
damage the smooth working surface You then told Mr. Dan Radulescu F... oft. that he was f...ing mde, f...lng arrogant
and told f ing lies and thai he was f...ing difficult lo work with
On July 25. 2012 I met with you and discussed your behavior and what te appropriate and what is inappropriate. During
our conversation you acknowledge making these statements. Keeping control of your temper and keeping things under
control were discussed, and you appeared to understand. On Wednesday. July 26, 2012 I observed niore use ol
profanity using f.. ing to describe situations and staff. When 1 approached you became arrogant and told me I was
interpreting it incorrectly. It is expected that atl communications for staff, visitors and guest meets with UC Davis
Standards, which is respectful communication.
The UC Davis Health System has a zero tolerance standard: Any dismptive behavior, act of intimWatton, threat of violence
committed against any person, property of UCDHS 4 campus is prohibited and consequences will occur.
The UC Davis Health System Principles of Community promotes open expresskin within the bound of courtesy, sensitivity
and respect. Profanity is never acceptable UC Davis Health System strives to build a tnie community of which is based
on mutual respect and caring.
On an immediate and sustained basis. I expect you to do the foik)wing:
(1)
Review the attached policy: #1616 Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace
(2)
Review the attach UCO Health System: Principles of Community.
(3)
Follow Customer Servtoe policy as referenced In your Position I}escriptk>n
(4)
I expect you to enroll in the foltowing Training and Development Courses enroll by August 31,2012.
Communication Business Etiquette eCourse #DAC-SSCOM06 or
Communication for Contracts eCourse#DAC-SSCOM017
Dealing with Conflict: Identify Your Best Strategy-Course # 01331 or
Offered September 12. 2012. i K o n 3, Room 2400
eCourse Training will completed in the PO&M Administrative Offkre. please <x)ntact Phvllls Reginelli at 7347454 to arrange a time to complete this training.
Sometimes personal issues may affect one's ability to perfonn their job. You may wish to contact the Academe and Staff
Assistance Pnagram ("ASAP-) at 752-2727.
Patnck Putney, Supervisor
Attachments:
Poik:y 1616: Violence and Hate Incidents In the Workplace
UCDHS Principles of Community
Position Description
Proof of Servfca
cc:
Charles Witcher
t)epartment File
Employee & Labor Relations Consultant
PPSM 70
BxhibitA
1/3/11
Employee Complaint Form
Comfâmantname
^
,
_
Department
PER^CKCOLE
P O & M - H V A C Shop
send correspondence to (address)
Phone' 916-919-4888
,
Job title
HVAC TECHNICIAN
1611 K l a m a t h Rlver Dr.
Rancho Cordova , CA 95670
Supervisor name
Patrick Putney
R
S S S n a name
ma
Representative
p^^^ (916) 7^)4.6012
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
209-339-1982/663-2977
Organization
NonAJC maiino address 524 Swallow Lane . Lodi. CA 9524
Scope of Complaint:
A complaint is defined as:
1) A claim by an individual empkiyee regarding a specific management act which is alleged to have
adversely affected the employee's existing terms or conditions of employment; or
2) A claim by an Individual empbyee (adversety affected by a management action) alleging that a
provision of Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) has been violat«!d.
Describe your complaint In detail, Including the following five points. Attach additional sheets if needed.
1, Managemerrt a d to tie reviewel
Letter of Expectation dated August 9, 2012
2. (Date or dates of each act
August 9, 2012
3. University policy or procedure violated (if any).
4. HoM did the management act violate policy or procedure?
The UC Policies, State and Federal law prohibits reatliation against epioyees
for complaining or filing legitimate complaints in relation to their employment.
5. How were you adversely affected?
The Letter of Ecpectation issued by Patrick Putney on August 9, 2012 is a
pure vendetta and reatliation for complaining about the overtime distribution in HVAC
shop. The unjustified and basseles Letter of Expectation is vindictive
and malicious infliction of emotional distress and deliberate harassment based
on unfounded and fabricated accusations .
PKSM70
Exhibit A
6. Resolution Requested.
Remove the Letter of Expectation from my
departmental file. I am expecting apology and
compensation for this unprovoked deliberate ill
minded act of harassment and retaOiation
Also, Z am expecting that Patrick Putney will be
restrained from the any further retaliation and
attacks against me and others. He Is a creator of the
hostile and Intolerable working condition in the HVAC
shop and he is a problem which needs to be resolved
for the benefits of all employees in HVAC shop and
PO&M Departmenl
Complainant signature
Date ^ - " \ - V ^
^"-^X'VAJ
Represenative Signature
2of2
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELE.1 • MERCEO " RIVERSIDE • SAN DIECO • SAN FHAJMaSCO l l ^ l ^ ^ ^ K n S l l 3AN1:A BAJtSARA • SANTA CRUZ
HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK MANAGEMENT
2730 STOCKTON BOULEVARD
(91© 734-2362
UC DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM
2315 STOCKTON BOULEVARD
SACRAMENTO. CAUFORNLV 93817
October 10,2012
Dereck Cole
1611 Klamath River Dr.
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Grievant:
File Number:
Issuc(s):
Dereck Cole
03-PPS-003-12/13
Article 70- LOE
Please consider this the Utiiversity's Step 1 Response to the above referenced complaintfiledunder
PPSM 70 - Complaint Resolution. Your complaint alleges that the Letter of Expectations issued
August 9, 2012 was in retaliation for complaining about overtime distribution in the PFVAC shop. .
The requested remedy is to remove the Letter of Expectations, an undisclosed amount of
compensation and the "restraint" of Patrick Putney.
Charles Witcher, Plant Operations and Maintenance Manager reviewed your complaint and
submitted a formal response, please see attached. Mr. Witcher has outlined the reasons for the
issuance of the Letter of Expectations and provided information related to the process Ibr overtime
coordination. Based on the information provided in the response, the complaint and requested
remedy is denied.
Ifyou are not in agreement, you have the right to appeal Mr. Witcher's decision to Step II of the
complaint resolution process. Your appeal must be received in our office in writing no later than
the close ofbusiness November 10,2012. If your appeal is received subsequent to tliat date it will
be considered untimely and ineligible for processing. If you choose not to tile an appeal, the PPSM
complaint will be closed on the basis set out in this response.
Best Regards,
\ ^ ; C '"~"C-V ^•
Gina Harwood, SPHR
Principal Consultant
Employee and Labor Relations
Attachment: Department Step 1 Response
Proof of Service
Cc:
Grievance File
Charles Witcher
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, 524 Swallow Lane, Lodi, CA 95240
Ociobcr8,2012
G\m Harwood, SPHR
Principal Consultanl
Bmployee and Labor Relations
UC Davis Health System
Re: Dereck Cole, Submission of Employee Complaint Form response to receiving Letter ofExpcctiihon
for Inappropriate Behavior dated August 9. 2012 and delivered lo Mr. Cole on August 9, 2012.
Dear M.s. M;ir\vood:
I reviewed llic inConnalion provided by Mr. Cole' in his appeal under PPSM 70 Exiiibit .A, BniployetComplaini Fonn, Under Scope of Complaint: Management act lo be reviewed. Letter of Expccuition
Dated August 9. 2012.
Upon reviewing the Letter of Expectation for Inappropriate Behavior issued by Senior Development
Engineer, Patrick Putney to Mr. Cole for the use of inappropriate iaiiguage and profanity in the
workplace on Tuesday July 24, 2012 and again on Thursday .luly 26, 2012 aiier being verbally
counseled about his beliavior on Wednesday .luly 25, 2012.
I reviewed llie justification for Ihe LoE which, was based on the information provided by Mr. Putney .inc!
Hud it to be justified. Mr. Cole was observed using inappropriate language in the workplace by a
coworker and was counseled as to what was appropriate behavior and proceeded lo communicate in an
inappropriate maniier using profanity the very next day. When Mr. Putney obseiA/ed this behavior on
August 26"* he removed Mr. Cole from the work space and counseled him again. .According to Mr.
Putney leading up to LoE there had been several documented occasions when Mr. Cole had been
counseicd about what was appropriate behavior in the work place.
My reviesv of Mr. Coles' claim that this Letter of Expectations was issued in "retaliation for
complaining about the unfair and preferential overtime distnbution by Patrick Putney" dues nol have
merit. The majority of the overtime availably for PO&.M skilled crafts workers is fill-in lime forolTshifl workers talcing PTO and ESL. This overtime fill-in is controlled hy the PO&M Adminislralivc
Support Unit. Administrative Support uses specific rules lhal regulates how and lo wiiom the 1111-in
overiime is olTered. Patrick Putney ha.s no supervisory control over this process.
For these reasons ! Hnd that the Letter of Expectations for Inappropriate Behavior issued to Mr. Cole
was justified by the actions and behaviors that Mr. Cole consciously chose to exhibit.
Due to a lack of any new inibrinalion thai would cause reexamination of the issuance of the Lellcr of
Expectations i see no juslillcalion to consider honoring Mr. Cole's requested resolutions.
X^harles Witcher
Manager, Plant Opcrations& Maintenance
UCDHS
UiMver-iiiy oCCiitifornia - PO&M ilSOO
SL-COIICJ Avenue,
Sdite 1500, Sncrniiiefiici. CA 9.-iS(7
PROOF OF SERVICE
VIA U.S. MAIL
On October 10, 2012 I servetJ the below document(s) by enclosing them in an
envelope and depositing the sealed envelope with the postage fully prepaid in the
United States mail in Sacramento, California. The envelope was addressed and mailed
to:
Dereck Cole
1611 Klamath River Dr.
^ Step One Response Letter and Complaint Form (s), File No. 03-PPS-003-12/13
• Step Two Response Letter and Complaint Form (s), File No
• Response to Request for Information and attachments, RFI No..
• Notice of Intent to Change Conditions of Employment in the following UCIDHS
Department/Division:
.
•
Other:
I declare under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declarajtion was executed on October 10. 2012 in Sacramento, California.
Valerie Myers
Employee & Labor Relations
Human Resources
UC Davis Health System
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
KEUUXCV • OAWI* • imVJKg • I M * H C B . I S • U t k C i U
• IU\ t*SIOt • l A K D I l C O • SAN r«A.V(
UC DA' IS HEALTH SYSTEM
2313 ST OCKTON BOUl.EV\BD
SACKA l<ENTO. CAUFOmA MtSI
2110 rroCKTOK BOULEVARU
(9lt]1)4.J]61
January 19,2013
Dereck Cole
1611 Klamath River Dr
Grievant:
File Number:
issue:
Dereck Cole
03-PPS-003-12/1I
Letter of Expectation
Dear Mr. Cole:
This letter serves as the University's Step II response to the above reference i complaint. The nomiiil procedure for
a Step n level response for PPSM employee complaint is review by a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO). Aa you
are aware Ms. Elizabeth Meyer was assigned as the CRO for this case. A S cp II meeting was held on December 5,
2012 and the response was due on January 7, 2013. At the request of Ms. \ tytt. additional time wiis granted to
issue her fonnal response.
Enclosed for your review is Ms. Meyer's decision upholding the appeal and ordering that the Letter of Expectation
be removed from your personnel file. Ms. Meyer is ordering that a notationof verbal counseling be placed in your
file in lieu of the Letter of Expectation. All other requested remedies are out of scope and denied.
In accordance with Personnel Polices for Staff Members. Article 70 - Complydim Resolution, the Complaint is not
eligible for appeal and will be closed at this time. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact our
office.
Sincerely,
Gina Harwood, SPHR
Employee and Labor Relations
f C Davis Health System
Attachments:
Cc.
Proof of Service
CRO Report
Complaint File
Charles Witcher
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER: PLANT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCK
September 25, 2012
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
Lodi, CA 95240
Re:
Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I intend to dismiss you from your position as a
Sr. Development Engineer in Plant Operations and Maintenance. The reason for this action is
your failure to adhere to UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15, Staff Complaints of
Discrimination, UCDHS 1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the
Principles of Community.
On or about April 27, 2012, you sent an e-mail to Danesha Nichols, UCDHS Investigations
Coordinator stating your disagreement with an investigation report she had issued dated
February 9, 2012. The report found that it was more likely than not that you had violated
UCDHS Policy 1616 (Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace) ("1616"), UC Davis
Policy and Procedure Manual, Section 380-15 (Staff Complaints of Discrimination) ("38015"), and engaged in insubordinate behavior in relation to the investigation. Based on these
findings 1 issued you a letter on or around April 13, 2012, informing you thzit I intended to
suspend you without pay for ten days. Attached to your April 27, 2012 e-mail was a video
slideshow entitled "Welcome to Romania". Based on the subject matter and content of the
communication, an investigation was requested to determine if the communication violated
University policies and procedures. During this time you were placed on investigatory leave-.
Brent Seifert, Employee and Labor Relations Supervisor and Cindy Oropeza, EEO Manager
conducted the investigation. During the investigation they learned of additional e-mails you
had sent to co-workers and other UC employees that were alleged to be discriminatory and
disruptive. As a result, these communications were included in the investigation.
While the investigation was pending you sent additional e-mails to co-workers and other UC
employees that contained inappropriate and discriminatory language (see attached e-mails).
The following are excerpts from these e-mail communications:
•
•
May 10, 2012 - "Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him or will
send Gestapo on his Ass"
June 6, 2012 - "because you will go straight to Hell for what you have done to me in
the last 12 months together with psychopath Putney , Witcher and HR "Devil
Advocates." and "GO TO HELL ATX OF YOU AND BUFIN THERE UNTIL YOU
EVAPORATE IN SHAME FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO ME AND
OTHERS. ."
University of Califomia - PQ&M 4800 Second Avenue, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA 95817
•
•
June 22, 2012 - PDF attachment to email titled "20120613 to Gina GaullaumeHoUeman" - "I don t know why but the Patrick Putney's working envijronment culture
in the HVAC shop is closely akin to the culture of Eastem Europe Gypsy Village from
the Borat's movie or Flea market in Gait."
September 10, 2012 - "..Dorin Danuliuc brought the Gypsy's culture from Romania,
cheating and stealingfromhis employer..."
Mr. Seifert and Ms. Oropeza concluded their investigation and issued a report dated September
20, 2012, which is attached to this Notice. The investigation report substantiated that you sent
disruptive and intimidating e-mail conmumications regarding Mr. Daniliuc's national origin in
violation of 1616. In addition, it was substantiated that you sent harassing communications
regarding Mr. Daniliuc that were in violation of 380-15.
As discussed above, on or around April 13, 2012, prior to your e-mail to Ms. Nichols, you
were issued a Letter of Intent to Suspend for ten (10) days for violation of 1616, 380-15, and
insubordinate conduct. The letter outlined my expectations that you abide by all UC policies
and procedures, show respect and remain professional at all times in the workplace, and follow
the direct orders given to you by a supervisor. After the Skelly process was completed you
were issued a Letter of Suspension on May 11, 2012 outlining the expectations noted above.
Additionally, you were provided the pertinent text from UCDHS policy 1616 and UC Davis
P&P Chapter 380-15 as part of the investigation report issued by Ms. Nichols, <uid attached to
the Letter of Intent to Suspend.
Despite my repeated efforts to address your inappropriate and discriminatory communications,
you continue to send e-mails to numerous UC Staff containing olTensive and discriminatory
language directed at several protected classifications. Your failure to follow direct orders and
the expectations set for you is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Your actions imply that
you believe you are above the rules and I cannot subject staff and your co-workers to your
continued discriminatory comments. Your blatant disregard for the policies and procedures of
this University, combined with your failure to follow directives has left me with no altemative
but to dismiss youfromUniversity employment.
You have therightto respond to this notice of intent to dismiss for Serious Misconduct either
orally or in writing. Your response must be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Allen Tollefson,
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Facilities Management. Mr. Tolleffsort can be reached at the
following: UC Davis, Facilities Services Building, Davis, CA 95616, 530-752-5418 within
eight (8) calendar daysfromthe date of issuance of this letter. You will remain on paid
administrative leave until a final determination is made.
Sincerely,
Charles Witcnef
Manager, Plant Operations & Maintenance
UCDHS
Attachment:
Cc:
Proof of Service
Investigation Report with attachments dated September 20, 2012
Letter of Intent to Suspend with attachments dated April 13, 2012
Letter of Suspension with attachments dated May 11,2012
E-mail communications dated: May 10, 2012, June 6, 2012, June 22, 2012 and
September 10, 2012
UCDHS Policy 1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace
UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15, Staff Complaints of Discrimination
Mike Boyd (w/o attachments)
Department File
Personnel File/Records Department (via E&LR Consultant)
Employee and Labor Relations Consultant (2)
Allen Tollefson, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Facilities Management
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 am individual over the age eighteen (18) years. I am employed by the University of
Califomia, Davis Health System.
Check one of the two boxes below for either Personal Delivery or Service by US Mail:
[ ] Service by Personal Delivery. On September 25, 2012 1 personally delivered the
attached Letter - J Wasczuk at Sacramento, Califomia.
[ X ] Service by U.S. Mail. On September 25, 2012 I served the attached Leiier- J
Wasczuk - by placing a true copy enclosed in a seated envelope with postage fully
prepaid for delivery by the U.S. Postal Service, addressed as follows:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on 9-26-2012 at Sacramento, Califomia.
'
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Dismiss - J Wasczuk
aJnt Name
March 23,2007
JERRY WASZCZUK
RE: Letter of Intent to Suspend, and Notice of Reassignment
The purpose of this lettCT is to infonn you that I intend to suspend you for three
working days without pay. The suspension will begin on April 3, 2007 and «;nds on
April 5, 2007. You are expected to report to work at 6:45 a.ra. on April 6, 2007 at
the location specified below. My reasons for taking this intended action are as
follows.
I am in receipt of a report dated March 8, 2007 written by University Investigator
Bettye Andreos, Department Manager, Department of Pathology and Laboratory
Medicine. A copy of that report is attached for your review. Ms. Andreos ' report
reveals that you have repeatedly engaged in troubling and utterly unacceptable
personal behavior, since the fall of 2(>06. For example, the report reveals that you
commonly used intimidating and disrespectful language when conversing with
your co-workers. You have also treated your supervisors with disrespect. See
page 5 of the Andreos report 'The investigation of the Incident of September 19,
2006" and "The Incident at the Moming Meeting of February 5, 2007."
The behavior cited above is serious. But the Investigator also foundrtiatyou
repeatedly made derisive or derogatory conunents about the race,religion,ethnic
background, or other immutable characteristics of your co-workers. Here are some
of the comments or actions attributed to you:
•
•
•
•
You referred to one of your coworkers as a "black Jew"
You called other coworkers variously, "hill-billy" or "red-neck"
You have referred to Koreans as *Sveed-eaters"
You told derogatory jokes about Jews.
The Investigator concluded, at page 11 that:
" I also find it more likely that not that Jerry Waszczuk has made hate and
biased-related comments that have created a hostile work environment.
This is based on the statements of several of his co-workers and these
statements reinforce and corroborate each other. I also personally
witnessed Jerry's explosive temper and hostile manner in my interview
with him on February 27, 2007."
UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual 290-09 sets out a clear standard for
behavior. It prohibits disruptive, intimidating, threatening or violent behavior
involving any member of the UCDHS community. The definitions are cleair.
A. Disruptive bchavior-A distuitmce, interference with or action that prevents nonnal
work functions or activities. Disruptive bcbsevioi includes, but is not limited to: yelling,
using pro&nity, waving arms or fists or veibally abusing others; making inappropriate
demands for time and attention; making unreasonable demands for action; or revising
reasonable request for identification.
B. Intimidation -An intentional act toward another person theresultof which causes the
other person toreasonablyfear for their safety or the safety of others.
C. Threatening Behavior-A verbal or written statement or a physical action that would
cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safet}' of others.
UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual 380-15 III provides:
A. Discrimination
It is the policy of the University not to engage in discrimination against or harassmiît of
any person employed by or sed;ing employment with UC on the basis of race, color,
national origin, reUgion, sex, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancerrelated or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation,
citizenship, or status as a covered veteran. This policy is imended to be consistent with tlie
provisions of applicable state and federal laws and Universitj' policies.
C. Principles of Community
It is the expectation of the University that matters conducted on its behalf by members of
the University community bs done in accord with the UCD Principles of Community. Tiiese
principles of mutual respect, freedom of expression, and nondiscrimination are published on
the Web at http.//principlcs.ucdavis.cdu/.
These principles are not new to you. Annually you receive JCAHO trainiing that
has a component on the University's Zero Tolerance Policy and you participated in
Sexual Harassment Training on July lO**" of 2002. This training deals specially
with Violence in the Workplace and Diversity.
I have given considerable thought to the proper penalty. I seriously considered
terminating your employment. However, I decided not to do that because I think
others also engaged in improper behavior—although I am convinced that your
behavior is clearly the most egregious in the plant. I have no doubt that you knew,
or you should have known, that your outbursts and insensitive comments caused
discomfort and upset to the recipients, but that did not deter you. You certainly
knew, or should have known, that derisive racially andreligiouslybased namecalling and jokes violated University policies. I also note that the Investigator
described your demeanor as hostile toward her. This lends credence to her finding
that your behavior is a principal cause of the hostile work environment existing in
Central Plant.
It is for this reason that I have decided to permanently reassign you when you
retumfromthe suspension without pay. Upon yourreturn,you willreportdirectly
to Sr. Development Engineer, Patrick Putney at the HVAC / Plumbing Shop, 4430
2"^ Ave. You will, upon yourreturn,be oriented to your new assignment. You
will find your new job description attached. Your base rate of pay and
classification willremainunchanged. This is, Jerry, a chance at afreshstart:.
But it is important that you understand my expectations. Eflfective immediately, if
you engage in disrespectful behavior toward your co-workers or your supervisors;
or if you issue any racial, religious or ethnic slurs while in the workplace, you will
be subject to further corrective action up to and including dismissal. Begiitning
today you will be on Administrative Leave With Pay at your base rate for 40 hours
per week until April 3, 2007 when your suspension without pay begins. During
this time you are not to be on the groimds of the UCDHS Central Plant or to
contact any of the operators employed there during working hours. If you need
access to Central Plant or need to contact Central Plant employees during working
hours contact Robert Taylor Ph. 734-2570 and he will arrange for your needs.
You have a right to respond to this notice of intent to suspend either orally or in
writing. Such response must be received within eight (8) calendar days ftom the
date of issuance of such notice by your OfTicial Reviewer - Robert Taylor,
Assistant Director, H&C. Mr. Taylor can be reached by telephone at 916-7342570. His mailing address is UCDMC, Administrative & Professional Services,
FSSB Suite 2100, Sacramento, CA 95817.
In the event this intended action is taken, you will have therightto request review
of the action under Personnel Policies for Staff Membeirs 70, Complaint
Resolution. If you wish to request review of the final action, you must do so in
writing as explained in the above poUcy, using the appropriate cojTiplaint form.
Your written request for review must be received in the Eimployee & Labor
Relations Office no later than 30 calendar days from the date of the letter of
suspension.
:HARLESWrCHER
Acting Manager
PROOF OF SERVICE - PERSONAL DELIVERY
I declare that on March 23, 2007,1 personally delivered the attached Letter, Intent to
Suspend, dated March 23,2007 to: Jaroslaw Waszczuk.
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Room 1512 FSSB
4800 2*^ Avenue
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this;
declaration was executed on March 23, 2007, Room 1512, FSSB 4800 2"^ Avenue,
Sacramento, CA., 95817
Charles Witcher
Acting Manager
Plant Operations & MaintenaiKe
UCDMC
A copy of this Proof of Service form along with the documents served will be placed in
your personnel fde(s).
Attachments:
1.
Investigative Report
2.
Attachments to Investigative Report
3.
Proof of Service
cc:
Shehon Ehiruisseau
Michael Sheesley
Robert B. Taylor
Departmental File
March 29, 2007
To:
Central Plant Staff
From:
SrksWit^d^^^
Acting Manager
Subject:
Notification of Investigation Conclusion and Expectations for Cenfral
Plant StafFBehavior
As 'eiJl of you are aware an investigation was perfonned to make an assessment of the
workplace environment in the UCDHS Cenfral Plant. The goals of this investigation
were to: establish thefectsaround specific incidents that occurred within the Central
Plant that contributed to a hostile work environment, to determine if University Policies
were violated duriiig these incidents, to evaluate the overall quality of the work
environment in the Central Plant and identify staff concems. This investigation wais also
tasked with determining whether the workplace climate in the UCDHS Central Plaiat is
consistent with University Principles of Community.
This investigation has concluded.
The facts surrounding specific incidents that took place in the Central Plant liave Ixjen
established. Violations of University policy by individuals arc in the process of being
addressed through the application of appropriate corrective action.
The Central Plant staff expressed concern over the requirement to monitor and operate
the Metasys system. This is a function is in your job description for all Co Gen
Operators. However, management realizes that this system has grown iind is now
occupying a greater percentage of the time spent by operators assigned to the plant
control console. We are in the process of implementing a change^ The Metasys
monitoring limction for day shift operations Mondays through Fridays will be reassigned
outside of the Cenfral Plant. This willfreeup operators time for otherfimctions.We
hope to implement this change during the month of April..
Central Plant staff also expressed concern over the change in Shift Trade. The ability to
Shift Trade has been reestablished.
The work place climate in the Central Plant must change. These changes center on staff
compliance with University policy for individual behavior and interpersonal
communications lathe work place. The culture of Teamwork needs to be embraced by
all Central Plant team members. Effective respectful commimicatbn needs to be a team
and management goal that is practiced daily. Cenfral Plant Staff needs to urderstajod and
strictly adhere to the UC Davis Principles of Community and. Zero TokTance policy as
outlined below. Inappropriate language and dismptive behavior by Cenfral Plant staff
will not be tolerated. Incidents involving violations of University polic)' will be
investigated and appropriate corrective actions applied.
The UC Davis Principles of Community provides as follows:
The University ofCalifomia Davis is first and foremost an institution of learning
and teaching, committed to serving the needs of society. Our campus commimity reflects
and is a part of a society comprising all race, creeds and social circumstances. The
successful conduct of the university's afiairsrequiresthe members of the university
community acknowledge and practice the following basic principles:
We affirm the inherent dignity in all of us, and we strive to maintain a climate of
justice marked by respect for each other. We acknowledge that our society carries wthin
it historical and deep-rooted misunderstandings and biases, and therefore we will
endeavor to foster mutual understanding among the many parts of our whole.
We affirm the right offreedomof expression within our community and ijffjrm
our commitment to the highest standards of civility and decency towards aU.. We
recognize the right of every individual to think and speak as dictated by personal belief,
to express any idea, and to disagree with or counter another's point of view, limitecl only
by university regulations governing time, place and manner. We promote open
expression of our individuahty and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy,
sensitivity and respect.
We confront and reject all manifestations of discrimination, including those based
on race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious or pohtical beliefs,
status withm or outside the university, or any of the other differences among people
which have been excuses for misunderstandmg, dissension or hatred. We recognize and
cherish therichnesscontributed to our lives by our diversity. We take pride in our various
achievements, and we celebrate our differences.
We recognize that each of us has an obligation to the community of which we
have chosen to be a part. We will strive to build a tme community of spint and purpose
based on mutual respect and caring.
UCDHS Violence in the Workplace provides as follows;
L PURPOSE
'
Thia section describes the University of Califomia, Davis, Health System's (UCDHS)
policy for preventmg and responding to disruptive, intimidating, threatening or violent
behavior involving any member of the UCDHS community (faculty, staffer students and
visitors). Guidance for preventing and responding to workplace violence is pro^/ided
through this policy, education. Mandatory Annual Training, other training programs and
in the Handbook of Workplace Violence Prevention, The Zero Tolerance Standard.
II. SETTING
Health System
UI. DEFINITIONS
A. Dismptive behavior-A disttirbance, interference with or action that prevents normal
workfimctionsor activities. Dismptive behavior includes, but is not limited to: yelling,
usmg profenrty, wavmg arms or fists or verbally abusing others; malcing inappropriate
demands for tune and attention; making unreasonable demands for action; or refusing
reasonable request for identification.
B. Intimidation -An intentional act toward another person the result of which causes the
other person toreasonablyfear for their safety or the safety of others.
C. Threatening Behavior-A verbal or written statement or a physical action that would
cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others.
D. Violent Behavior- A physical assault on a person or a physical action intended to
damage property.
IV. POLICY
A. UCDHS will not ignore, condone or tolerate dismptive, intimidating threatening or
violent behavior by any member of the University community or by {my patient, fainily
member or visitor. An individual may be removed and/or prevented from returning to the
UCDHS premises for dismptive, intimidating, threatening or violent behavior. Staff
engaged in such behavior will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and
including dismissal, under the applicable personnel pohcy or collective bargaining
agreement.
C. Employees
1. It is the responsibility of each einployee to folly understand and adhere to the Zero
Tolerance Standard and assist and cooperate in making the workplace as safe as possibiie.
Employees are also encouraged to report such behavior and communicate the potential
for such behavior until suph potential no longer exists.
2. No employee shall be subject to criticistm, reprisal,retaliationor disciplinary action
for reporting threatening behavior or an act of violence pursuant to the standard.
D. Manager/Supervisor/Department Chairs
1. Managers, supervisors and department chah-s shall strive to reduce the potentiall for
workpliace violence through appropriate and consistent application of the Zero Tolerance
Standard.
2. Managers, supervisors and department chairs shallreportviolations of the UCDHS
Zero Tolerance Standard to their respective supervisors and a member of the Violence
Prevention Committee.
3. Managers, supervisors and department chairs shall document any suspected Aaolation
of the UCDHS Zero Tolerance Standard.
4. Toinsurethoroughreviewofthematterand, if necessary, that appropriate
corrective/disciplinary action is administered, and proAade documentation of employee
related events to Labor Relations.
EXHIBIT F
UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER: PLANT OPEHATmM.S ANn MAJNTE»)ANCK
Febmary 22,2008
TO:
FROM:
All Staff
^tfharles Witcher
Manager
Plant Operations & Maiatenance
Please have each of your staff read and then sign the Principles of Community/CUlS.
Retum the signed form to Louann Kosmerl.
This document is a new requirement that must be included in all employees' job
descriptions by March 31,2008.
Please have all your formsreturnedto Louann by MARCH 15,2008, so that they £an be
sent over to HR by the due date.
Thank you.
February 2008
Principles of Community
I'orm Ibr I'mnlovees to Sign
L C DAVIS HF.ALTH SYSTEM
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY/CLAS
I acknowln^ that I hawroccnvda copy of the I 'C l>]> is I Vindpics of
Com muni ty/C. L. A .S
I understand that the Principles ofCommunity/CLAS will be pa rt of my job
description, and that I will be held accountable to acknowledge and practice
tbcm.
Hrint
Frini .Same
Same^
i
Sign Some
fj
Department
Daw
By my signature I did acknowledge that I have received a copy oflhe UC Davis
Principles ol Communiiy and CI.AS
{ did not receive any professional training in this matter and I have problem with
inierpretaiion ol'the language how the Principle of Community and CI.AS has been
wriucn.
Exaniple yo. I
Mandates required *»• current federal laws for all recipients offederid ftiitds...these
standards are the most critical level of stringency and are "itiandafed". This does
not mean they are ihe highest standards or best prttclices.
Should I understand the above siatemcni that UC has higher standards and practices
lhan practices and standards mandated hy federal laws uiid lederul luw.s and praciiccs
should be ignored or disobeyed? Or something else?
E.Kuitinle: yp.
I
Puhlk Information: Organizations are strongly suggested to provide the public with
iiiforniatitm regarding their progress in implementing die CLAS Standards. Within
this context, the organization has considerable latitude in A»//» defining the
information to he provided to fhe public and the means by wliich Ihey report il lo the
pubhc.
. For un organization wishing to provide more in-depth information lo Ihe
community, there are several alternatives suggested:
c the data ctdlected about the populations and communities served in
accordance with Standard II
c the self-assessment results gathered from Standard 9, if the selfa.ssessment toot is valid; and
- the overall description of the orf;unizutionul changes related lo the
implenetation oflhe CLAS Standards.
• In defining the means, informutiim regarding ihe efforts toward CLAS can he
provided in:
'. stand-alone reports
c patient pnhllculions
- newsletters targeted to the community
presenlalitms at conferences
z newspaper articles
c television, radio and other media: and
c postings on web sites
Two examples of reporting lo Ihe public are:
• The "Diversity Report" regularly publislied by the Harwrd Pilsrim Health
Care Health Plan. This qualitative report describes the organization's goals und
progress related to serving diverse populations.
• Quarterly and unnuui reports are pmvt'dcd by a Behavioral Health Corporailtni to
its slate clients and Ihe public. These reports are part of their peerformaiice
requirements and include Diversity-Based und Standard's-Based Data and
Information,
Core lo Ihe JCAHO Leadership Standards is a ctdlahorative working relationship
with input and the sharing of information with the community. Ihe persons served
and staff This CLAS Standard suggests very specific communicutitms regarding the
progress of Ihe organization in meeting the CLAS Standards.
What the above stuicmeni have common with my position in UCDMC and my job
description ? Please advise.
I am an Power Plant Operator ( worker) and I am not on the position to represent my
employer in regards lo ihe communication with public through mass media etc.
By my personal opinion, the Human Resources Department should provided
professional training Ibr ihe UCDMC employee prior the request lo sign the
Principles of Community and CLAS and held accountable anybody to practice them
EXHIBIT C1
T I M O T H Y J. S W I C K A R D Esq.
770 L St., Suite 950
Sacramento, Califomia 95814
Telephone: (916)449-3999
Febmary 16, 2011
Linda Katehi, Chancellor
University of California, Davis
Fifth Floor, Mrak Hall
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
chancellorffljucdaNis.edu
Rahim Reed
Associate Executive Vice-Chancellor
University of California, Davis
Office of Campus Community Relations
412 Mrak Hall
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
rreed(g)ucdavis.edu
RE: UC Davis's Discriminatory "Non-Discrimination" Policy
Dear Chancellor Katehi and Vice-Chancellor Reed:
I write on behalf of over twenty-five students in the engineering, medicine, law,
chemistry and other departments and schools, undergraduate and graduate at UC Davis
conceming the school's policy prohibiting discrimination against all other religious faiths, while
explicitly authorizing it against Christians. I am also an allied attomey whh the Alliance
Defense Fund, a legal organization dedicated to defending the First Amendment rights of
students and faculty on university campuses. Because the UC Davis policy explicitiy pennits
invidious discrimination against them, my clients wish to remain anonymous at this time. I ask
that you immediately correct this unconstitutional policy, exiending to Christian students the
same treatment received by adherents of other religious beliefs at UC Davis.
UC Davis prohibits discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, religion. See
http://www.ucop.edu/ucophomc/coordrev/ucpolicies/aos/ucappc.htmI and
http://occr.ucdavis.edu/poc/index.htnil. However, it also defines "religious discrimination" as
follows:
Religious/Spiritual Discrimination - The loss of power and privilege to those who do not
practice the dominant culture's religion. In the United States, this is institutionalized
oppressions toward those who are not Christian.
(emphasis added),
http://occr.ucdavis.edu/poc/glossary.html.
As such, UC Davis policy, while purporting to prohibit religious discrimination broadly,
actually exempts Christians from its coverage. Under this definhion it would be an affirmative
defense to a charge of religious discrimination for the perpetrator to demonstrate that ihe victim
was a Christian. Students have recently been asked to reaffirm their commhment to the
"Principles of Community," which includes in its Glossary the definition "Religious/Spiritual
Discrimination" noted above. Thus, in reaffirming their commitment to the "Principles of
Community, U.C. Davis students have agreed to discriminate only against Christians.
It is patently clear that UC Davis's definition of religious discrimination is blatantly
unconstitutional under both the Federal and Califomia State Constitutions. The policy singles
out certain faiths for official school protection from discrimination while denying the same
protection to others solely on the basis of their particular religious views. This official; U.C.D.
policy violates the Establishment, Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection Clauses of
the United States Constitution. Larsen v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 245-46 (1982) (denominational
preferences violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505
U.S. 377, 391-92 (1992) (govemment engages in viewpoint discrimination where it "liicense[s]
one side ofa debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of
Queensberry mles."); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City ofHialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540-47
(1993) (law that prohibited activity by one religion but permitted similar activity by others for
secular and other religious reasons violated the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses).
This policy also violates Article 1, Section 4 of the Califomia Consthution, which
guarantees the "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference."
In addition, this policy violates the 1959 Unmh Civil Rights Act that specifically outlaws
discrimination based on age,-sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability,
medical condition, marital status, or se.xual orientation. The Unmh Civil Rights Act is codified at
Califomia Civil Code section 51.
Moreover, the UC Davis policy is simply nonsensical given the environment on most
University campuses where Christian students, if anything, are among the most likely to be
subjected to discrimination because of their faith. A recent study of over 1200 faculty showed
that professors admitted to having a significant bias against Christian students, particularly
evangelicals. In fact, 53% admitted to having negative feelings about evangelical students solely
because of tiieir religious beliefs. http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultyReligton07.pdf
(see pages 79-81). And Mormon and Catholic students did not fare much better.
It is in contradiction to established fact to suggest, as this definition does, tliat
Christianity is "the dominant culture's religion" at any public university or here at UC Davis.
Then candidate Obama asserted that "Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian
nation." Whatever the merit of this claim, it is nonsense to think that Christianity is "dominant"
on any public university campus - UC Davis included. Indeed, a 2004 Harvard Institute of
Politics poll indicated that only 35% of college students call themselves "bom again," and 22%
identify as evangelical Christians. A 2000 study of teens by the Bama Research Group foimd
that only one out of four (26%) claim to be "committed to the Christian faith." Bama Research
Group, Ltd., "Teenagers Embrace Religion but Are Not Excited About Christianity," January 10,
2000, www.bama.org. These are not statistics of dominance.
As Mr. Reed is aware, this is not the first time that a Christian student has written to him
about the climate of discrimination at U.C. Davis and requesting that his office work to provide
protections for Christian st\idents of the kind that the OCCR provides to others. It appears that
Mr. Reed not only failed to take these concems seriously, but even approved a U.C. Davis-wide
policy of sanctioning discrimination against Christian students as evidenced by the definition of
"religious/spiritual discrimination" on his own Office's website.
The purpose of a nondiscrimination mle is to prevent irrelevant factors from being used
to punish or exclude persons from certain privileges. And specifically, religious
nondiscrimination mles ensure that religious students will be protected in the ofên hostile
university environment. Certainly, there are situations in which the application of the
nondiscrimination mle might injure the First Amendment rights of others. For example, there
will certainly be times when an atheist or Muslim student organization's expression would be
negatively impacted if they were required to permit a Christian student to serve in a leadership
position, vote to determine the group's position on an issue, etc. An atheist student group led by
one of my clients would clearly cease to be the same organization. Nondiscrimination policies,
like any other policies, should be applied rationally and taking into account the luiintended
consequences that might flow from an overly literal and rigid application of the text. UC Davis
clearly understands this as it permits fratemities and sororities, club sports, and single sex
singing groups to discriminate on the basis of gender and other groups to exclude persons from
leadership or membership if they do not share the organization's political or ideological views.
So should UC Davis pemiit groups to deny certain privileges or posts to Christian students in
order to protect those groups' First Amendment rights.
However, the outright exclusion of Christian students from UC Davis's policy is
unconstitutional. Therefore, 1 ask that you immediately revise the definition of
"religious/spiritual discrimination" so that UC Davis's protections also apply to Christian
students. As my clients are presently exposed to invidious discrimination at UC Davis solely
because of their religious beliefs, 1 ask that no later than Wednesday, Febmary 23 you confimi
this change and undertake appropriate educational efforts to ensure that UC Davis faculty and
staff are infomied that the school's policies also protect Christian students from discrimination.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Swickard, Esq.
cc:
M. Casey Mattox, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
EXHIBIT H
Elizabeth L WIsnia
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Danesha Nichols <danesha.nichols@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu>
Monday, May 14, 2012 11:28 AM
Elizabeth L Wisnia
Fw: CONFIDENTIAL-Waszczuk Summary for the Chancellor
Waszczuk Summary ll_2011.docx
Danesda
Dan6sha Nichols, J.D .
Investigations Coordinator
Human Resources, UCDHS
Ph: 916-734-3146
Fax: 916-734-3080
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/hr/
NOTICE: This email and any attachments are intended only for the individual or company to which it is addressed and
may contain Protected Health Information (PHI) and/or other information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited
from disclosure or unauthorized use under applicable law, Ifyou are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly
prohibited by the sender. Ifyou have received this transmission in error, please "reply to sender" advising the sender of
the error and delete all copies from your system.
• Forwarded by Danesha Nichols/HFUHS/UCD on 05/14/2012 11:28 AM •
EXHIBIT I
UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual
Chapter 390, Health and Safety Services
Section 25, Suspension of Individuals During Declared State of Emergency
Date: 12/10/14
Supersedes: 12/2/09
Responsible Department: Office of the Chancellor
Source Document: Policies Applving to Campus Activities. Organizations, and Students. Section 50.
Campus Emergencies
Exhibit A, Notice of Emergency Suspension
I.
Purpose
This section outlines policy regarding suspension of individuals from UC Davis properties during a
declared state of emergency. For exclusion of individuals from UCD properties under other
circumstances, refer to Section 390-20, Maintenance of Order, and Section 390-30, Disruptive
Behavior in the Workplace.
II.
Policy
A.
B.
III.
During a declared state of emergency (see Section 390-1 OV an emergency susp)ension is
warranted where there is reasonable cause to telieve:
1.
The individual has participated in a disturbance of the peace or unlawful assembly or has
acted in violation of the campus emergency orders; has committed an act of physical
violence or has threatened to commit such an act; or has committed a theft or has
damaged property; or
2.
The individual's presence on campus will lead to violation of campus emergency orders,
violence, intimidation, damage to property, or other disruptive activity incompatible with
the orderly operation of the campus.
The following positions have the authority to impose an emergency suspension:
1.
Campus Counsel
2.
Vice Provost—Academic Affairs
3.
Vice Chancellor—Human Health Sciences
4.
Vice Chancellor—Student Affairs
5.
Associate Vice Chancellor—Human Resources
Procedures
A.
When an emergency suspension is imposed, the individual who imposed the suspension must
immediately inform the Chancellor and submit a written Notice of Emergency Suspension
(Exhibit A) as soon as is reasonably possible. If the Chancellor does not affirm the suspension
within 24 hours after being informed that the suspension has been imposed, the suspension is
deemed void and a reasonable effort: shall be made to inform the suspended individual that the
suspension is void.
B.
An individual placed on emergency suspension must be given a copy of the affirmed Notice,
either by hand-delivery or mail.
C.
Suspended individuals must be informed of the procedures by which the validity of the
emergency suspension can be appealed, including the opportunity to obtain a special hearing on
the emergency suspension.
1.
Appeals on the validity of the emergency suspension should be directed to:
1 of 2
Section 290-07
12/10/14
D.
IV.
a.
The Vice Chancellor-Student Affairs for students.
b.
The Vice Chancellor-Finance and Resource Management for staff employees.
c
The Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor for academic employees and all other
persons.
2.
A hearing may be requested by either students or employees as provided for in
appropriate administrative appeal and grievance procedures set forth in this manual, the
personnel manuals, collective bargaining agreements, or applicable student discipline
procedures.
3.
Suspension will not result in loss of student or employment status, or in the
discontinuance of salary or benefits, or in other punitive measures without the opportunity
for a full hearing.
4.
If an individual is found to have been unjustifiably placed on emergency suspension,
reasonable efforts will be taken to assist an individual who has teen disadv/antaged in
employment or academic status.
Any individual placed under emergency suspension must not, during the period of suspension,
enter upon specified areas of the campus or engage in specified activities, as set forth in the
Notice of Emergency Suspension. The exclusion or restriction must be limited to the minimum
extent necessary to protect the health and safety of persons or property or to maintain the
orderly operation of the campus.
References and Related Policies
A.
B.
Office of the President:
1.
University of California Policies Applving to Campus Activities. Organizations, and
Students. Section 50, Policy on Campus Emergencies.
2.
Policy on Safeguards, Security, and Emergency Management.
UCD Policy and Procedure Manual:
1.
Section 390-10, Campus Emergency Policy.
2.
Section 390-20. Maintenance of Order.
3.
Section 390-30, Disruptive Behavior in the Workplace.
2 of 2
EXHIBIT J
First
Name
Location Year
L.ast
Naine
Title
!
'
Gross
Pay _ '
Base
Pay
Owerlii me Other P a y /
Pay
Adjstmt
UCPD L t JAMEiS BARBOUR'S $35, 000 . g ^ W A G E I N C R E A S ^ ^
Davis
2010aAMES:W. ; SARBOUR
:m6EANJ : " | ~ "
-L
88,530.32
f
Davis
I
JAMES: .W.
'BlAltBDUR'
SR.' •. :
2010;JQHN A. I l l PIKE'
Davis
JOHN A.,IH
Davis
;i2M)0HN.A.,III PIKE
Davis
2010!
i^:
PIKE
' t
l:'OUCb UbUl.hlNAMi MSP ...
. .
.
110,243.12 116,454,00
I yiATTÊW.
POLICE LIEUTENAWT MSP
•p€>UGE.LIEUTEIS!Af^T
;MSfr"¥.•>• v-e'**'- j ' - ' : •
Davis
3,740.17
Raise
0.00
0.00
0.00
-6,210.88
if
119,057.00
Demotion and Termination
\
JlC ^^^^
POLICE UEUtEi^-IANT MS^ 105,845.50 10S;S4S.5q
POLICE LIEUTENANT •
MSP
5,150.00
Ijitt!^ Deitiotlon
7p,M9.S8 8,9.35.14
Davis
Davis
77,616.005,764.32
94,113.20
119,06?.00
A
\
0.00
0.00
4 K
70,980.C
980.00
Q.O
00
23,133.20
.1,18,782.96
0.00
-5,335.04
.120,969.48
0.00
3,050.37
{Promotion
Davis
141,9.04.30
8,095.70

Jaioslaw Waszczukjln Pro Per 2216 Katzakian Way Lodi, CA 95242

Transcription

Similar documents

Divorce Packet (Self Help)

025

Saunders v. Margaritaville of Myrtle Beach, LLC, No. 4:16-cv

VA-DMV Motor Carrier Operations

- Santa Clara Law Digital Commons

Celebrating National Hispanic Heritage Month

2016 May-June - Warren County Bar Association

Kassing-Bradley v. Aargon Agency, Inc., No. 9:16-cv

Other Recent Decisions - International Foundation of Employee

Droste v. Vert Capital Corp.