You are on page 1of 197

1 Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

Susan J. Sheridan (State Bar Number: 108851) Superior Court Of CaSifor


2 Ian M. Silvers (State Bar Number: 247416) Sacramento
655 University Avenue, Suite 110
3 Sacramento, CA 95825 8S/07/2QGe
Telephone: (91 6) 488-5388 elutta s) rf
4 Facsimile: (916)488-5387
*/?tt
ssheridan@sheridanlawassociates.com Bv £<?XX Dftp.
5 Case M umber:
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CICI MATTIUZZI
* *3f$irPi nnns*|£%'t&,
%tro-zuiKf-utJUda *f
7 -
Department
8 Assignments
c se
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA f Management 44
Law and Motion 53
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO Minors Compromise 16
10
CICI MATTIUZZI, ) Case No.
11 )
Plaintiff, ) Complaint for Retaliation and
12 ) Discrimination:
V. )
13 ) 1. Retaliation in Violation of
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, ) California Labor Code Section
14 SACRAMENTO, MIROSLAV MARKOVIC, ) 3610;
and DOES 1 through 50. inclusive, ) 2. Retaliation in Violation of
15 ) California Government Code
Defendant. ) Section 12940(h);
16 ) 3. Gender Discrimination in
) violation of California
17 ) Government Code Section
) 12940(a);
18 ) 4. Negligent Supervision and
) Retention;
19 ) 5. Assault;
) 6. Battery; and
20 ) 7. Intention Infliction of Emotional
) Distress
21
99
zz

23 Cici Mattiuzzi alleges as follows:


24
25 Parties to the Action
26 1. Cici Mattiuzzi ("Mattiuzzi") is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint
27 was, a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.
28 ///
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation i
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 2. Defendant California State University Sacramento ("CSUS") is now, and at all

2 times relevant to this action was, conducting business under the laws of the State of California,

3 County of Sacramento, and was Mattiuzzi's employer.

4 3. Defendant Miroslav Markovic ("Markovic") is now, and at all times relevant to

5 this action was, an individual and a Full Professor with tenure in the CSUS College of

6 Engineering and Computer Science ("College of Engineering").

7 4. Mattiuzzi presently does not know the true names and capacities of the Defendants

8 sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and therefore sues these

9 Defendants by fictitious names. Mattiuzzi will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the
10 true names and capacities of these Defendants when determined. Mattiuzzi is informed and

11 believes and based thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is culpable in

12 some manner through their acts and/or omissions for the occurrences and events alleged and that

13 damages as alleged were proximately caused by such acts and events.

14 5. At all times relevant, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, employee

15 and/or employer of each other, and in doing the acts alleged was doing so within the scope of their

16 authority as such agent, servant and employee and with the permission and consent of each other.

17
18 Mattiuzzi's Initial Employment and Job Classification

19 6. Mattiuzzi began her employment at CSUS in May of 1978 in the Campus Career

20 Center, as a Career Counselor responsible for the Schools of Business and Engineering. Her
21 employment classification was Student Affairs Assistant II ("SAA II"), a staff position without
22 academic standing.

23
24 Director of Career Services for the College of Engineering Appointment

25' and First Request for Reclassification

26 7. In September of 1984, Mattiuzzi became the Director of Career Services for the
27 College of Engineering and was still classified as SAA II, a staff position without academic
28 standing. The President of CSUS created this position for Mattiuzzi in the College of Engineering
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 2
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 and requested that she be reclassified to a position with academic standing ("SSP-AR") which paid

2 more, provided greater benefits and the opportunity for tenure.

3 8. On July 10, 1985, the College of Engineering was notified that Mattiuzzi's

4 reclassification review was complete and that she would not receive the classification with
5 academic standing as requested by the President.

6
7 Second Request for Reclassification

8 9. On October 12, 1987, Dean Donald Gillott ("Dean Gillott"), Dean of the College
9 of Engineering, wrote to Betty Moulds, Dean of Faculty and Staff Affairs, and requested that

10 Mattiuzzi be reclassified as follows:

11
12
As I study the classification review of the position occupied by Cici as
13 conducted by Susie and compare that review with the detailed study of
Cici's responsibilities, I am convinced that the Student Services
14 Professional Series (Academic Related) is an appropriate classification for
Cici.
15
16 As her supervisor I must ensure that she is properly classified. With the
extensive study I have just completed, I am absolutely convinced that the
17 AR classification is proper, and I request Cici be placed in the SSP-AR
series.
18
19
20 10. On December 17, 1987, Jacqueline Holston, ("Holston"), Employment
21 Coordinator at CSUS, informed Mattiuzzi that Dean Gillott' s request to reclassify her had been
22 denied by Human Resources. Mattiuzzi questioned this denial and complained to both the Dean of
23 the College of Engineering and Holston that men hired as Career Counselors in the Campus
24 Career Center after she was hired were reclassified into positions with academic standing. This
25 occurred during the same period of time that Mattiuzzi's classification was under review.
26 Mattiuzzi also complained that men in Student Services positions with responsibilities similar to,
27 but less significant than hers, were classified in positions with academic standing.
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Mattiuzzi was advised by the Dean to be patient and stated that he would continue to pursue the
2 appropriate classification for her.
3
4 Mattiuzzi's Job Duties as Director of Career Services
5 11. Mattiuzzi is responsible for professional and career development programs for the
6 College of Engineering. In this role she instructs a regular series of classes, counsels students,
7 advises faculty, produces a weekly newsletter to 10,000 subscribers, maintains a web-based
8 information system, develops conferences, oversees visits by recruiters and produces an annual
9 Career Day that serves over 100 employers and 2000 College of Engineering students and
10 graduates.
11 12. Mattiuzzi established and sustained productive working relationships with many
12 private sector employers and governmental agencies in the Greater Sacramento Area. These
13 relationships resulted in partnerships including, but not limited to, Hewlett Packard, Agilent, and
14 Intel. These relationships also resulted in the donations of computer equipment from
15 Apple, Cisco, and DST and the receipt of development funds from companies, including,
16 Chevron, Union Pacific, Caltrans, and the Department of Water Resources.
17 13. Mattiuzzi created a Career Services Office ("Office") for the College of
18 Engineering students and graduates. The Office has brought regional and national attention to
19 CSUS and has been repeatedly acknowledged as a model by the Accreditation Board for
20 Engineering and Technology ("ABET") and the American Council for Construction Education
21 ("ACCE"). The Office has enhanced the stature of the College of Engineering within the industry
22 and established goodwill for CSUS nationwide.
23 14. In addition to providing a range of career preparation and information services, the
24 Office assists students and graduates with internships and job placement in the Greater
25 Sacramento Area, and throughout the state and nation. In placing students and graduates,
26 Mattiuzzi is responsible for ensuring compliance with College of Engineering procedures and
27 CSUS policies. She is responsible for the oversight of the interactions between students and
28 faculty and private sector employers and governmental agencies.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 4
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Markovic, a Full Professor With Tenure in the College of Engineering
2 15. On May 28, 1991, Dean Gillott called a meeting with Mattiuzzi to discuss the
3 unsolicited calls they had both received from an Engineering Manager at Bentley Nevada
4 ("Bentley"), a private sector employer that hired College of Engineering students. This
5 Engineering Manager reported receiving 12-15 calls from Markovic about Peter Robino
6 ("Robino"), a College of Engineering student who had applied for a job with Bentley.
7 Markovic had called the Engineering Manager and repeatedly accused Robino of cheating in
8 his class and warned Bentley not to hire him.
9 16. The next day, Mattiuzzi informed Robino of these calls. Robino told Mattiuzzi
10 that he was shocked because Markovic had encouraged him and told him that he would try to
11 get him a local job at Hewlett Packard.
12 17. On May 30, 1991, Robino told Mattiuzzi that Markovic had invited him to travel
13 with him and had offered to pay his tuition to obtain a masters degree. Mattiuzzi told Robino
14 that this was completely inappropriate and advised him to write a memo to Dean Gillott about
15 the behavior of Markovic. Mattiuzzi is informed and believes that Markovic learned that she
16 was responsible for advising Robino to write his memo to Dean Gillott.
17 18. Later that day, Robino called Mattiuzzi to inform her that Markovic was
18 loitering outside his friend's house and that Markovic had also written a letter to another friend
19 of Robino's in which he made inappropriate comments about Robino.
20 19. On May 31, 1991, Dean Gillott called a meeting with Mattiuzzi, Robino and
21 Stephanie Leiberman ("Leiberman"), the CSUS Affirmative Action Officer, to discuss
22 Robino's memo, the calls to Bentley and the behavior of Markovic.
23 20. During that meeting Dean Gillott called the Engineering Manager at Bentley,
24 who confirmed that Markovic called Bentley 12-15 times to complain about Robino. He
25 informed Dean Gillott that Markovic also visited the Bentley office twice to speak with
26 company officials to tell them not to hire Robino.
27 21. On June 4, 1991, Markovic left a threatening letter to Robino on Robino's car.
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 22. On June 6, 1991, Mattiuzzi reported the threatening letter to Leiberman and
2 Donna Selnick ("Selnick"), legal counsel for CSUS. Both Leiberman and Selnick suggested to
3 Robino that he hire legal counsel and schedule a mental health counseling appointment with the
4 CSUS Health Center. They advised him to find another place to stay where Markovic could
5 not find him.
6 23. Mattiuzzi was informed and believes that Markovic was told that the next time
7 he engaged in inappropriate behavior he would be terminated. Markovic thereafter was placed
8 on a leave of absence, after which he returned to his position as a Full Professor with tenure,
9 which shocked many students and faculty.
10
11 Mattiuzzi's Appointment as a Part-Time Faculty Lecturer B
12 and Third Request for Reclassification
13 24. In August of 2001, in addition to continuing as the Director of Career Services,
14 Mattiuzzi was appointed as a Part-Time Faculty Lecturer B, a position with academic standing.
15 25. In September of 2001, Mattiuzzi requested a reclassification based on the
16 increased duties and responsibilities as the Director of Career Services. These included:
17 developing an Outcomes Assessment Process for tracking alumni career success (in response to a
18 new mandate from ABET; writing a section of the accreditation report; developing new curricula
19 in response to accreditation board concerns; undertaking new teaching assignments; developing
20 partnerships with industries and outside government entities; developing methods and systems for
21 data collection and the electronic delivery of student services; and developing a weekly career
22 newsletter for faculty, students and alumni.
23 26. On March 27, 2002, Mattiuzzi's request for reclassification was denied.
24 27. Mattiuzzi questioned this denial and complained to both the Dean of the College
25 of Engineering and Margaret Blair ("Blair"), the Classification/Compensation Manager who
26 denied the reclassification, that men in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities
27 were classified in positions with academic standing. Mattiuzzi received no response to her
28 complaint.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 6
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 PG&E Complaints About Markovic
2 28. For 30 years PG&E has had an established pattern of providing internships to
3 students and jobs to graduates from the College of Engineering. Mattiuzzi is and has been
4 responsible for overseeing this process.
5 29. On April of 2002, Frank Tizedes ("Tizedes"), a College of Engineering graduate
6 and PG&E engineer responsible for hiring and supervising PG&E engineers, called Mattiuzzi.
7 He informed her that there was a serious problem with Markovic, who was threatening to smear
8 PG&E's name unless it worked exclusively through him to place College of Engineering
9 student interns and to hire graduates.
10 30. Mattiuzzi told Tizedes that Markovic's behavior was inappropriate, and advised
11 him and Michael Messina, Head of College Relations at PG&E, to speak with the Dean of the
12 College of Engineering, the Department Chair of the Electrical and Electronic Engineering
13 ("EEE") Department and legal counsel for CSUS.
14 31. On May 23, 2002, Messina met with Dean Braja Das ("Dean Das"), who
15 replaced Dean Gillott as the Dean of the College of Engineering. Also attending were Dr.
16 Yousif, a Professor in the EEE Department, Greg Lemler, Director of Substation Engineering at
17 PG&E, and Markovic. Shortly thereafter, Dean Das informed Mattiuzzi that he would handle
18 the PG&E problem and that he did not want her involved.
19 32. Mattiuzzi was later informed that PG&E concluded that working with Markovic
20 was "too high of a risk."
21
22 Complaints to Legal Counsel, the Vice President of Human Resources
23 and the Director of Faculty Affairs
24 33. On November 24, 2002, S.K. Ramesh ("Chair Ramesh"), the EEE Department
25 Chair, sent a memo to legal counsel Selnick informing her of students' complaints about the
26 behavior of Markovic. The letter was also sent to David Wagner ("Wagner"), Vice President
27 of Human Resources, and Sheila Orman, Director of Faculty Affairs. He stated that in addition
28 to the students listed in his memo:
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 7
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Other students have spoken to me in confidence about an escalating
2 pattern of intimidation that they have perceived in his classes. It is
imperative that this matter be treated confidentially as these students are
3 enrolled in Dr. Markovic's classes and are fearful of reprisals that may
affect their professional future and career prospects in the industry.
4
5
6 See Exhibit 1.
7
8 34. In response to this memo, Chair Ramesh requested a meeting with Selnick and
9 Mattiuzzi to discuss the behavior of Markovic. Selnick informed them that nothing could be
10 done about Markovic's behavior and Mattiuzzi understood that it was because of his status as a
11 Full Professor with tenure.
12
13 Markovic Defamed Mattiuzzi

14 35. On February 12, 2003, Nathan Laye ("Laye"), a College of Engineering student,
15 provided Mattiuzzi with a letter he sent to CSUS President Donald Gerth ("President Gerth")
16 and Chair Ramesh regarding the behavior of Markovic. In this letter Laye explained that he had
17 asked Markovic if Mattiuzzi would be helpful to him in securing employment. He reported
18 Markovic's response as follows:
19
20 Dr. Markovic replied with a tirade. He said that she would be of no help
21 and that he believed she had essentially slept or prostituted her way into
the position of ECS career counselor.
22
I had assumed that Dr. Markovic was merely sexist, but later came to
23
think that he might be a loose cannon and a potential danger to students.
24
25
26 See Exhibit 2.

27 Ill
28 III
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 36. On February 19, 2003, Chair Ramesh wrote to President Gerth acknowledging
2 receipt of Exhibit 2. He informed President Gerth that he had met with Selnick three months
3 earlier in November of 2002 and provided her with Exhibit 1. In his letter, Chair Ramesh also
4 informed President Gerth that he had provided the letter to the EEE Department and the Faculty
5 and Staff Affairs Department. See Exhibit 3.
6

7 Additional Student Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic


8 37. On May 4, 2003, a group of College of Engineering students sent a letter to
9 Chair Ramesh regarding their concerns about the threatening behavior of Markovic. Their
10 letter read in part as follows:
11
12
13 Shortly after PG&E made the initial presence on the CSUS campus, two
power students were approached by Dr. Markovic and were asked if they
14 would supply him with the names of "electronic" students who applied
to PG&E. He followed this request by stating that "electronic" students"
15
should not be applying for positions with a power company as it steals
16 jobs from the "power" students.
17 He concluded by adamantly stating that he would do something about
18 the situation.

19 Other students and I were alarmed and outraged to hear of this. We're
extremely concerned that he will attempt to sabotage our chances of
20 obtaining positions with PG&E" as he claimed that "'electronic' students
21 should not be applying for positions with a power company as it steals
jobs away from the 'power' students.
22
A power student was cornered last week by Dr. Markovic for the names
23 of the "electronic" engineering students recently given job offers at
24 PG&E

25 His behavior is unethical and unprofessional and should not be allowed to


prevail. We, as students, feel as if we have no power in this situation and
26 are furious that a professor would try to limit our chances of employment
27 that we have worked so hard for.

28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Mainly we are furious that we were put into a situation such as this while
2 at a professional institution. His lack of respect and misuse of power as
an educator reflects poorly on the Electrical Engineering Department at
3 California State University, Sacramento. Dr. Markovic should be held
liable for his actions with appropriate consequences.
4
5
6 See Exhibit 4.
7
8 Mattiuzzi's Complaints to CSUS Affirmative Action Officer Peter Lau
9 38. On September 7, 2003, Mattiuzzi wrote to CSUS Affirmative Action Officer
10 Peter Lau ("Lau"). In her letter she stated as follows:
11
12
1. In early spring of this year (2003), I delivered to you a copy of a letter
13 addressed to the campus president from a CSUS alumnus, Nathan Laye,
who said that Professor Miroslav Markovic was making derogatory,
14 sexual comments about me to students. As you will recall, I had
received a blind copy and was shocked by what was being said about me.
15
16 2. When I spoke to you, I asked if I needed to complete any forms or to
file any paperwork for your office to receive this as a complaint of
17 sexual harassment. You indicated that no paperwork was necessary and
that the delivery of this letter to you constituted a complaint.
18
19 3. Following that discussion with you, it seemed to me that my
supervisor was hostile towards me.
20
21 5. On Wednesday August 27th, when I returned to Campus, Braja Das
came into my office. Without any pleasantries or introductory
22 comments, he began railing at me in a loud vituperative manner. In this
context, I could not immediately grasp his point, but I came to
23 understand that he had decided not to sign my contract to teach CS 194
24 for the coming semester, as scheduled. I am a Unit 4 staff and have had
a contract to teach this course for the past six semesters as a Unit 3,
25 Lecturer B. This contract represents a $3000+/year source of income for
me.
26
27 6. I believe that Dean Das' decision to withhold this contract was in
retaliation for my having filed the sexual harassment complaint. I
28 believe that this is an act of reprisal on his part. (09/10/03. Subsequent to
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 10
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
my having prepared this letter, and two hours before the class was
1 scheduled to meet, Dean Das emailed me and said I would in fact be paid
2 to teach the course, as per instructions from Campus Personnel. The
immediate issue resolved, but the larger concern remains.
3
4
5 See Exhibit 5.
6
7 Dean's Das Did Not Speak with Mattiuzzi for 3 years

8 39. After Mattiuzzi's repeated complaints about the behavior of Markovic, Dean
9 Das, her supervisor, did not speak to her for three years.
10
11 Fourth Request for Reclassification

12 40. On April 4, 2007, Mattiuzzi again requested a reclassification to a classification


13 with academic standing.
14
15 Markovic Threatened Mattiuzzi

16 41. On or about May 21, 2007, Mattiuzzi was warned by Ben Schaffer ("Schaffer"),
17 an IT employee, that Markovic had threatened her after computer equipment had been

18 delivered to her by mistake. When Markovic learned of this mistake, he told Schaffer that he
19 would retrieve it directly from Mattiuzzi himself. His tone and temperament caused Schaffer to
20 be alarmed which led him to warn Mattiuzzi. On May 30, 2007, Schaffer provided Mattiuzzi
21 with a written memo which detailed the situation as follows:
22

23 *He asked me about a retractable mouse that I had been using in the past.
24 I made a light hearted comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it.

25 *In response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade:
26
He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch"
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 11
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
He said that I was a young employee and that he would
1 handle getting my mouse back
2
3
4 See Exhibit 6.
5
6 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau
7 42. On October 9, 2007, Mattiuzzi again wrote to Lau about the behavior of
8 Markovic and enclosed Exhibit 6. She also sent this letter to Dean Emir Macari ("Dean
9 Macari"), who replaced Dean Das as the Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Suresh Vadhva
10 ("Chair Vadhva"), Chair of the EEE Department, and Barbara Peterson ("Peterson"), her union
11 representative. Mattiuzzi informed Lau as follows:
12
13
For the seventh time I find myself writing to complain about Dr.
14 Miroslav Markovic. Three times I have come to you about his harassing
behavior towards me to request you take action. Four times I have come
15 to you and previous persons in authority regarding harassing behavior
16 towards students and major employers.

17 I have never received a response and I have no idea what action has been
taken in the past.
18
19 Attached please find a document given to me in late May. I was made
aware that Dr. Markovic was speaking in a hostile and threatening
20 fashion about me once again.
21 In the spring when the event surfaced, three people in this College, all in
22 positions of authority, told me that it would serve no useful purpose to
complain because no action would be taken. Upon my return to work for
23 the fall semester, I find the problem distracting and I feel unsafe in my
work environment. A little over a week ago my office had been entered
24
and my computer was on when I came to work. Things were moved
25 around. I checked with the IT support staff and the student assistants
who work for me, and none of them had been in my office during the
26 previous period. While I cannot prove that Dr. Markovic was in my
office, I am aware, as you are aware, that Dr. Markovic has on other
27
occasions destroyed labs and student projects.
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 12
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
I find the continuing harassment embarrassing and humiliating, Once
1 again I am requesting assistance resolving the problem.
2
3
4 See Exhibit 7.
5
6 Concerns About Mattiuzzi's Safety
7 43. After Chair Vadhva received Exhibit 7, he met with Mattiuzzi to discuss her
8 safety. After their discussion, Mattiuzzi emailed him as follows:
9
10
As you suggested I am working on having the lock on my office changed
11 and I am going to work on figuring out how to juggle my schedule so I am
not coming in at 7 am to an empty building. It may be safer not being
12 alone in the building at that hour with Dr. Markovic. It is unnerving to find
13 him coming up the stairs behind me at that hour.

14
15
See Exhibit 8.
16
17 44. After Dean Macari received Exhibit 7, he also met with Mattiuzzi to discuss the

18 behavior of Markovic. He informed her that, "I have been told you have a personality conflict

19 with Markovic" and "I don't want to know about anything that happened before I got here."

20 45. After that meeting, Mattiuzzi emailed Dean Macari as follows:

21
22 Thank you for speaking with me on Tuesday regarding the letter that I
23 wrote in complaint of the continuing harassment directed at me by Dr.
Markovic. After I spoke with you, I told Lynne, who supervises a number
24 of students that I had written the letter, she indicated that she is also very
concerned about his behavior and is uncomfortable with him. She told me
25 that she was aware that Dr. Markovic had been "hitting" on a number of
26 male students recently and that he had gone into a racist tirade directed at a
foreign student, calling him a terrorist.
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 13
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
Dr. Vadhva also spoke to me after receiving his copy of the letter and a
1 phone call from Paul, my husband. Dr. Vadhva is aware of Dr. Markovic
2 and he suggested that I change the locks and that I alter my comings and
goings here. I usually come in at or before 7 am.
3
After Dr. Markovic was reprimanded in the early 90s for stalking a student
4
he was admonished that the next time he engaged in inappropriate behavior
5 he would be terminated. That is according to Gwen. It has happened on
numerous occasions since.
6
7
8 See Exhibit 9.
9
10 CSUS Claimed to Take Action in Response

11 to Mattiuzzi's Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic

12 46. On October 22, 2007, in response to Mattiuzzi's numerous complaints about the

13 behavior of Markovic, Lau emailed her as follows:

14
15 Action has been taken regarding your complaint against Prof. Markovic.
I believe there will not be any more harassment directed towards you.
16 Please inform me as soon as possible in case you encounter any more
harassment from Prof. Markovic.
17
18
19 See Exhibit 10.

20
21 47. In response to Exhibit 10, Mattiuzzi's union representative, Peterson, wrote to Lau

22 on October 25, 2007, as follows:

23
24 It has recently come to my attention that a member of Unit 4, Cici
25 Mattiuzzi has come to you and your predecessors seven times with
complaints about the ongoing and escalating harassment directed towards
26 her and certain CSUS students by Dr. Miroslav Markovic.
27 I am sure you can understand, given the long history of abuse here, that she
28 expected something more from you than an email message stating that you
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 14
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
believe there will be no more harassment directed towards Ms. Mattiuzzi.
1 I'm sure she has received similar assurances throughout her long ordeal. I
2 am deeply concerned not only for our Unit 4 but for the students involved
as well.
3
I ask, therefore, that as Ms. Mattiuzzi's union representative, I be provided
4
with the results of the current and all past investigations into the complaints
5 as well as the actions you have taken to ensure a safe and healthful
environment for all concerned.
6
7
See Exhibit 11.
8
9
10 48. On November 16, 2007, Lau wrote to Mattiuzzi and informed her that Dean

11 Macari had investigated her complaints himself and that his investigation was complete. Lau

12 explained that Dean Macari represented that he took action to prevent any further occurrences.

13 Lau repeated:

14
15 As I said in my email, should you encounter any more harassment from Dr.
16 Markovic, please inform me as soon as possible.

17
18
See Exhibit 12.
19
20
21 Legally Required Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

22 49. In January of 2008, as required by law of all supervisors at CSUS, Mattiuzzi

23 participated in a sexual harassment training online workshop.


24 50. This training included a definition of sexual harassment to include both economic
25 and environmental sexual harassment. The training materials defined environmental sexual
26 harassment as including the following:
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 15
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 actions that create adverse working conditions but do not result in a
2 "tangible employment action." It encompasses jokes, comments, slurs,
emails, touching, pictures or any behavior that seriously interferes with an
3 employee's work environment" (emphasis added)
4
5 See Exhibit 13.

6
7 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

8 51. On January 30, 2008, Mattiuzzi and her husband, Paul Mattiuzzi ("Paul"), met

9 with Lau in his office. Mattiuzzi informed Lau of the disturbing information that she continued to
10 receive about the behavior of Markovic and she realized that reporting sexual harassment to CSUS

11 was futile. Mattiuzzi told Lau that the fourth request for a reclassification was pending and she

12 was concerned that it would be denied in retaliation for making complaints about Markovic.

13 Mattiuzzi complained to Lau that she had been retaliated against in the denial of the three prior

14 requests for reclassification and that each was also based on gender discrimination. During that

15 meeting, Mattiuzzi gave Lau a letter summarizing her concerns as follows:

16
17 I have recently been told that Dr. Gonan, a professor in EEE has received a
18 complaint from a student about being harassed by Dr. Markovic and that
the student is unwilling to file a formal complaint.
19
On January 10, 2008 a student told me that Dr. Markovic has invited him
20
to his home on numerous occasions to work on Markovic's car.. .This type
21 of personal involvement with a student may not be appropriate. It is
definitely reminiscent of Dr. Markovic's involvement with Peter Robino.
22 You will recall that this was a situation in which Markovic ingratiated
himself with a student over a period of time, apparently attempted to
23
develop a distinctly inappropriate relationship, and then stalked him and
24 actively sought to disrupt the student's employment. The Robino matter is
well documented.
25
As you know, I was recently required to complete the CSUS sexual
26
harassment on-line workshop. The workshop's instruction is that if a staff
27 member has reason to believe that any type of harassment is taking place, it
must be reported. My experience, however, is that the effort is futile and
28 that effective action will not be taken by the campus. In addition, my
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 16
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
experience is that negative consequences will follow from having made the
1 report. The workshop also stressed that making negative comments about
2 another employee could be actionable. So I am in a position of having to
decide whether or not I should warn a student about a faculty member who
3 might be grooming him as prey, as he has done before. Either way, I am
subjected to conflict that should not be present in my work environment.
4
And, it necessarily brings back to mind the fact that Markovic has directed
5 hostility towards me, and that he is still just down the hall. And it brings
back to mind the fact that my former supervisor immediately stopped
6 communicating with me in almost any way, after that supervisor learned
that I had filed a complaint about Markovic. Before communications with
7
that supervisor ceased, he subjected me to an irrational harangue. In
8 addition, he stopped supporting my reclassification and tried to remove an
area of responsibility. I was directly told that my supervisor thwarted my
9 reclass after I reported the 2003 event.
10
11
See Exhibit 14.
12
13
14 Affirmative Action Officer Lau Opened an Investigation into
15 Mattiuzzi's Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic
16 52. On January 30, 2008, Lau informed Mattiuzzi that he opened a 60 day
17 investigation into her continued complaints about the behavior of Markovic.
18 Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic
19 53. On February 22, 2008, Paul emailed Lau and informed him that Markovic was
20 harassing students again as follows:
21
22
Cici heard yesterday from a former student/alumni who is known to have
23 been harassed by the professor whose name you know.

24 The alumni has a student assistant working for him in the industry. The
25 student assistant was upset at work and described the experience of a
fellow student who was being pressured by the professor to travel with him
26 to Hawaii. It was distressing to them both, and the student advised his
friend to make a report to the campus police.
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 17
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
The alum who spoke to Cici told her that this situation is widely known in
1 his industry, that it is assumed that the problem is well known on campus
2 (i.e. "everybody knows"), and that it is assumed that the campus will never
respond effectively. In other words, this is an issue that reflects negatively
3 on the CSUS community.
4
As I said before, even though the sexual harassment itself is not directed
5 towards Cici, it creates a hostile work environment. Contributing to the
hostility of the workplace is a common belief that the campus responds
6 immediately to racial and hate speech, while ignoring and tolerating sexual
harassment and gender hate speech.
7
8
9 See Exhibit 15.
10
11 54. That same day, Paul called Chair Vadhva to request that he move Markovic to an

12 office on a different floor in order to protect Mattiuzzi. Chair Vadhva told him that he did not

13 have the authority to do so.

14 55. On February 24, 2008, Mattiuzzi received an email from David Black ("Black"), a

15 College of Engineering graduate. Black informed her that Unnamed Student A, a College of

16 Engineering intern with whom Black worked the previous summer, complained to Black about the

17 behavior of Markovic towards Unnamed Student B in the College of Engineering. Black's email,

18 which Mattiuzzi forwarded to Lau, noted as follows:

19
20 Dr. Markovic had offered to purchase a laptop (for the student) and offered
to take the student to Hawaii during the summer so that they could spend
21 some time on the beach and grade papers together.
22
The student filed a complaint with campus authorities.
23
It is very sad that this type of behavior has been tolerated throughout the
24 years at CSUS. The fact that Dr. Markovic is a tenured professor does not
give him the right to sexually harass unsuspecting young students. I
25
personally find this behavior intolerable and cannot understand why CSUS
26 has not stepped in to permanently diffuse the situation."

27
28 See Exhibit 16.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 18
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Affirmative Action Officer Lau Requested
2 Witness Contact Information from Mattiuzzi
3 56. On March 18, 2008, Mattiuzzi received an email from Lau in which he informed
4 her that he had completed preliminary interviews, but was unable to interview Black and
5 Unnamed Student C, another former student of Markovic. Lau informed her that he would notify
6 the Dean and Provost and would begin the formal investigation the next week. See Exhibit 17.
7 57. Mattiuzzi responded to Lau's email and provided the contact information for
8 Unnamed Student C, but stated that he:
9
10
may not want to talk as he is the student who was fixing Markovic's car at
11 Markovic's house and didn't know that it was inappropriate. I believe it is
the same situation as Peter Robino.
12
13
14 See Exhibit 17.

15 Denial of Mattiuzzi's Fourth Request for Reclassification

16 58. On April 11, 2008, one year after the fourth request for a reclassification to a

17 position with academic standing, Mattiuzzi was notified that her request was denied.

18 59. Mattiuzzi questioned this denial and complained to both the Dean of the College

19 of Engineering and Blair that men in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities were

20 classified in positions with academic standing. In response, the Dean told her not to claim gender

21 discrimination and assured her that he would get her reclassified to a position with academic

22 standing.

23
24 Affirmative Action Officer Lau Requested

25 Additional Witness Contact Information

26 60. On April 30, 2008, Lau emailed Mattiuzzi and asked her for contact information

27 for Unnamed Student B, who was subjected to inappropriate behavior by Markovic similar to that

28 directed towards Robino. Mattiuzzi provided him with this information. See Exhibit 18.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 19
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Mattiuzzi's Union Representative Requested
2 an Update on Lau's Investigation
3 61. On May 1, 2008, Peterson emailed Lau and asked for an update on the status of the
4 investigation and the actions that had been taken to deal with this "very serious situation." Lau
5 replied that he had learned of new information which required him to interview additional
6 witnesses, which had delayed the completion of his investigation. See Exhibit 19.
7
8 Mattiuzzi's Union Representative Again Requested
9 an Update on Lau's Investigation
10 62. On June 3, 2008, Peterson again emailed Lau and requested the results of his
11 investigation. In response, Lau emailed Mattiuzzi and Peterson and informed them that he had
12 completed his investigation and that he expected to be finished by June 9, 2008. See Exhibit 20.
13
14 Affirmative Action Officer Lau Provided
15 the Results of His Investigation
16 63. On June 4, 2008, Lau wrote a letter to Mattiuzzi in which he detailed the results of
17 his investigation and concluded:
• 18
19 At this time, I do not have enough evidence to proceed with a formal
20 complaint against Prof. Markovic.

21
22 See Exhibit 21.
23
24 Markovic Threatened to Shoot Lynne Onitsuka
25 64. On July 15, 2008, Lynne Onitsuka ("Onitsuka"), an IT employee, performed
26 routine work on Markovic's computer. In response, Markovic went into a rage and' told her in a
27 very hostile tone "I'm going to get a gun and shoot you." Onitsuka, who was pregnant at the time,
28 ///
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 20
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 did not file a police report as she feared it would prompt further threats from Markovic and place
2 her in greater danger.
3
4 Missing Email from Mattiuzzi's Email Account
5 65. When Mattiuzzi returned to CSUS for the fall of 2008, she discovered that her
6 outgoing email from January through August of 2008 was missing from her computer and the
7 CSUS server. This email included all of the information that Mattiuzzi had submitted to Lau
8 for his investigation into the behavior of Markovic.
9 66. Onitsuka restored Mattiuzzi's emails and informed her that she had never seen a
10 similar situation where an entire time period of outgoing email was missing from the CSUS
11 server.
12
13 Paul's Complaints to CSUS President Gonzales
14 67. On August 27, 2008, Paul emailed President Alexander Gonzales ("President
15 Gonzalez") regarding the behavior of Markovic and the treatment Mattiuzzi had received from
16 CSUS. He informed Gonzales as follows:
17
18 I'm a CSUS alum, and as a psychologist, I'm a colleague of yours.
19
My wife Cici is also an alumni, and for the past 30 years she has been a
20 CSUS employee.
21
She came home after her first day back at work after summer vacation and
22 in tears, she told me about how demoralized she is working on the campus.

23 Last Spring, she went through the process of seeking reclassification, for
24 the third time. And once again, her application was denied for reasons that
can only be viewed as bogus and arbitrary. As a forensic psychologist, I
25 happen to be an expert in the task of interpreting data relative to criteria. I
am routinely examined live in Court in a process that can be likened to an
26 "oral defense on steroids." It is from this perspective that I am confident
27 that Cici meets the criteria for a reclassification and that the final decision
involved what are politely referred to as "extra-criterial" considerations.
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 21
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
Also last Spring, Cici learned that the campus has no intention of paying
1 any serious attention to her complaints against E&CS Professor Markovic.
2 This is a guy who has for years been sexually harassing students and
otherwise abusing staff members.
3
Despite her complaints, it has remained "no never mind" that he continues
4
to do so.
5
Cici never sought to expose Markovic. She never had an agenda with him.
6 Students and graduates came to her with complaints about Markovic and
she did what you told her she should do in the training she completed. It's
7
her issue because she is the person in E&CS to whom people bring their
8 complaints.

9 Today, on her first day back on campus, Cici learned that a valued staff
10 member is intending to resign. The staff member's reason is that he can no
longer stand the ongoing abuse he receives from Markovic.
11
Cici came home demoralized. She knows that CSUS provides her with no
12 prospect for advancement, that CSUS is intent on ignoring her contribution
13 to the campus, and that CSUS is intent on turning a blind eye towards
complaints from women on campus.
14
15
16 See Exhibit 22.

17
18 Intentional and Forceful Bumping Incident

19 68. On August 28, 2008, while at a fall reception for faculty and staff, Markovic

20 intentionally and forcefully bumped into Mattiuzzi on his way to the drink table. He made no

21 attempt to apologize or make any excuse for his actions. In fact, he said nothing to Mattiuzzi.
»

22 Moments later, he again intentionally and forcefully bumped into her, and again said nothing.

23 69. That same day, Paul emailed Markovic and instructed him to stay away from

24 Mattiuzzi. He told him that if he failed to do so, he would obtain a Temporary Restraining Order.

25 Paul also sent this email to Lau, Dean Macari, and Chair Vadhva. See Exhibit 23.

26 70. After Dean Macari provided Kent Porter ("Porter"), Associate Vice President of

27 Human Resources, with Paul's email to Markovic, Porter asked Macari:

28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 22
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Does Cici want to pursue this matter since apparently there was physical
2 contact? Is she willing to speak with someone about the incident? We
need specifics to determine how to proceed. Also, were there any
3 witnesses to the "bump?" Please advise.
4
5
See Exhibit 24.
6
7
8 71. On September 2, 2008, Paul responded to Exhibit 24 by informing Porter of the
9 continued behavior of Markovic as follows:
10
11
This is not a matter for Cici to pursue. It's your problem.
12
13 This goes back to May of 1991 when Markovic stalked and harassed a
graduating student who had spurned his advances, and when he intervened
14 with that student's employer, trying to retaliate by derailing his career. Cici
became involved because in her position, she is the one the employer
15
contacted.
16
Cici was drawn into it again in 2002 when Markovic sent bizarre and
17 intimidating letters to PG&E and when students were complaining about
18 being bullied by him. I believe that was the first time she heard a student
say that they felt physically threatened. It was in the context of that
19 incident that a student documented comments Markovic had made about
Cici, indicating that she had (in the student's words) either "slept or
20 prostituted her way" into her position.
21
In 2007 when a staff member came to her and warned her about Markovic,
22 it was not because Markovic had called her a bitch, it was because the staff
member thought she might be at risk.
23
24 Cici has pursued this before. There is no reason she should pursue it again.
The final outcome of her complaints is that he seems to have been
25 emboldened. If you bump into a person twice (and make no effort at all to
at least pretend it was an accident), that's intentional and it's a message.
26
27
28 See Exhibit 25.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 23
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 72. On September 5, 2008, at the request of Dean Macari, Greg Revelez ("Revelez"),
2 in the CSUS Public Safety Department, called Mattiuzzi to discuss the August 28, 2008 intentional
3 bumping incident. She informed him of the long history of harassment by Markovic and that
4 CSUS had done nothing about it. She told him that it was her role as the Director of Career
5 Services to report College of Engineering student complaints to the administration and that she
6 had done so repeatedly regarding the behavior of Markovic. Mattiuzzi informed Revelez that she
7 was harassed by the continuing and recent behavior of Markovic and that he had forcefully
8 bumped into her to send her a message that he could do what he wanted because he was a Full
9 Professor with tenure. She further informed him that she was retaliated against as a result of
10 reporting his behavior. Revelez discouraged Mattiuzzi from filing a police report and told her that
11 it was a Human Resources Department problem.
12 73. On September 19, 2008, Porter emailed Mattiuzzi to follow up on the intentional
13 bumping incident by Markovic as follows:
14
15 Since the incident last month involving Miroslav Markovic that was
16 brought to the attention of the College Dean, who in turn contacted Human
Resources and Public Safety, it is my understanding that you have not
17 spoken with anyone to formally report the incident.
18
The University does not treat such matters lightly. We are concerned and
19 we wish to properly deal with this matter. To do so, however, we need to
obtain from you specific information about the incident. You should
20 expect to be contacted by Greg Revelez, an investigator from our Public
Safety Department.
21
22 Your kind cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you have any
questions or concerns, you are welcome to contact either Mr. Revelez (278-
23 7245) or me.
24
25
See Exhibit 26.
26
27 I/I

28 III
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 24
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 74. On September 23, 2008, Mattiuzzi informed Porter that she had spoken to

2 Revelez who told her that the incident did not involve a Penal Code violation, that it was a

3 civil offense and remained a problem for the Human Resources Department.

4 75. Porter followed up:

5
6 If you had spoken with Mr. Revelez and provided him with the details
7 about the incident, he could have assessed whether the incident was a
matter for Public Safety. If Mr. Revelez would have assessed the incident
8 to be an administrative matter for HR to address, however, at least by now
my office would have more information about what happened than it
9
currently has.
10
Regardless of whether the incident might be criminal or civil or something
11 else, the University needs specific information from you about the incident.
Without specific information, HR cannot initiate any action. I would
12
respectfully invite you to meet with a representative from HR to tell us
13 what happened, or if you prefer, you can submit a written statement
describing the incident. In either case HR would need as much specific
14 information about the incident as you can provide.
15
You are welcome to contact me if you have questions or concerns, or if you
16 would like to schedule a meeting.

17
18
See Exhibit 27.
19
20
21 Mattiuzzi and Onitsuka Reported Shooting Threat

22 76. On September 24, 2008, Onitsuka informed Mattiuzzi that Markovic had

23 previously threatened to shoot her. Together, Mattiuzzi and Onitsuka called Porter and reported

24 this threat. Onitsuka told him that she was afraid for her safety and for that of her unborn child. In

25 response, Porter asked each of them how tall they were compared to Markovic. Mattiuzzi told him

26 that she was five foot one, Onitsuka was five foot four, and that Markovic was over six feet tall.

27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 25
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Mattiuzzi Emailed Porter Again About Markovic's Intentional Bumping
2 77. That same day, Mattiuzzi emailed Porter and again informed him that she had
3 spoken to Revelez more than two weeks ago and provided him with all the details of the incident.
4 She addressed Exhibit 27 as follows:
5
6 I am not sure why you are using the word "if in your email. As I indicated
7 in the last email I did speak to Greg Revelez. I spoke with Greg over two
weeks ago. He called me at the behest of Dean Macari. I did give him all
8 of the details. It was he who indicated that it was administrative.
9
For the record- in my own words- the email you received from my
10 husband, Paul Mattiuzzi, is extremely accurate. Pull out the records. This
campus does not take harassment seriously.
11
12 In addition to my own observations, I have repeatedly heard from students
and staff that this campus does not take harassment seriously. I have
13 wished to believe otherwise I have written 7 or 8 formal letters and I have
been pulled into numerous investigations. At this point I am demoralized.
14 My husband and I are offended by the response of the campus on
15 numerous occasions regarding harassment issues. Filing a complaint on
this campus causes one to lose credibility and to feel more isolated and
16 more harassed.
17 Recently, Dr. Markovic threatened a pregnant staff member, shouting that
18 he was going to shoot her. Her response is that since no one heard him so
no one will believe that it happened. She does not plan to report it, she
19 does not believe anyone will do anything and that it will put her in further
danger. I learned this this morning. She told me that she is afraid all of the
20 time here. So am I. She said to me "I am glad that you are complaining, I
21 don't think I can". She too has observed the harassment of young males at
Dr. Markovic's hands.
22
The staff member who told me Dr. Markovic made threats towards me and
23 was extremely fearful told me that he was told he should not have told me
24 "because it just makes me angry."

25 The student who heard the comments at the same time said he continues to
be afraid for me. He told me this recently even though the event happened
26
over a year ago.
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 26
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
When I shared the threat event with another person in management here he
1 said "he is a full professor", indicating that no full professor will ever be
2 removed no matter how significant the threat of harassment.

3 The reason I choose not to write out a formal complaint regarding the
bumping incident to HR is because in my last meeting with Peter Lau, in
4
January of 2008, he indicated that although he would reluctantly
5 investigate my complaint, there was very little that the university could do.
"The best we can hope for is that he might take early retirement."
6
I cannot begin to tell you how disruptive this continues to be to my work
7
and my life.
8
9
10 See Exhibit 28.

11 Mattiuzzi Reported Markovic's Harassment of an International Student

12 78. On September 24, 2008, Mattiuzzi sent Porter a second email in which she

13 reported an incident involving Markovic and an international student in the College of

14 Engineering. Mattiuzzi informed Porter as follows:

15
16 He said he, like others, was afraid to complain.
17 This is relentless. The situation is getting worse and the incidents are more
18 extreme and more frequent. I do believe he is becoming bolder and more
aggressive.
19
20
See Exhibit 29.
21
22
Mattiuzzi Learned Markovic Threatened to Shoot a
23
Second IT Employee and Reported it to the Police
24
79. On October 2, 2008, an IT employee told Mattiuzzi that Markovic had "threatened
25
to shoot him and make his wife a widow." Mattiuzzi called Porter twice but was unable to reach
26
him. She then called her union, which referred her to a labor attorney that instructed her to call the
27
police, which she did. Officer Nguyen responded and took a report from Mattiuzzi, who told him
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 27
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 that Markovic threatened to shoot the IT employee. She also reported that she was concerned

2 because of the previous threats of violence by Markovic and the intentional bumping incident.
3 She informed Officer Nguyen that she had already reported these matters to the CSUS
4 Administration and the CSUS Police Department.
5
6 Mattiuzzi Reported Second Shooting Threat to Porter

7 80. That same day, Mattiuzzi emailed Porter and informed him of the September 30,

8 2008 threat by Markovic to shoot an IT employee and reminded him about Markovic's threat to
9 shoot Onitsuka. Mattiuzzi also informed him that she filed a police report against Markovic and
10 stated as follows:
11
12
13 I find it incredibly difficult to perform my work under the stress of the
continued outbursts of Dr. Markovic against my fellow staff and the
14 intimidation he directs towards me. Once again, I do not feel safe in my
work environment.
15
16
17 See Exhibit 30.

18
19 81. On October 6, 2008, Mattiuzzi received an email from Chair Ramesh after he

20 learned of Markovic's recent threats to shoot CSUS employees. Chair Ramesh informed her that

21 he brought his concerns about the behavior of Markovic to the attention of the CSUS President

22 and legal counsel on more than one occasion. He also stated as follows:

23
24
As far as I know no action was taken on this matter as of the time I left
25 Sacramento State in 2006. My concern then and now is for the welfare of
our students, faculty and staff and it is imperative that appropriate steps are
26 taken to ensure their safety at all times.
27
28 See Exhibit 31.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 28
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Dean Macari's Refusal to Address Markovic's Conduct
2 82. Throughout the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, Mattiuzzi complained numerous
3 times to Dean Macari about the behavior of Markovic. On each occasion, he informed her that, "I
4 am staying out of this."
5
6 Mattiuzzi Lost the Right to Teach Classes
7 83. On November 4, 2008, Dean Macari informed Mattiuzzi that she could no longer
8 teach the engineering classes she had developed and taught for 25 years. He told her that she
9 had no computer access to class lists and student records, but that she could teach the classes
10 under the names of the 5 different Department Chairs. During that meeting, Dean Macari also
11 addressed her longstanding complaints about the behavior of Markovic and told her to "drop
12 it", "move on" and to "not mess with Markovic." Dean Macari told her that he had pushed it
13 too far when he attempted to get her reclassified which had angered Joseph Sheley ("Sheley"),
14 Provost and'Vice President for Academic Affairs. He told her that Sheley told him to "drop it"
15 and that she was not going to be reclassified.
16
17 Complaint to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
18 84. Mattiuzzi timely filed a complaint against CSUS for retaliation, gender
19 discrimination, and sexual harassment with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing
20 ("DFEH") on November 18, 2008. A Notice of Case Closure letter was issued on November 21,
21 2008, and the DFEH Complaint and was served on CSUS on December 19, 2008.
22
23 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau
24 85. On December 10, 2008, Mattiuzzi again wrote and complained to Lau that she
25 personally had been harassed by Markovic and she addressed other disturbing events. She told
26 him that she was hesitant to complain again since she had previously complained with no results.
27 She concluded her summary of previous events with the following:
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 29
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 It seems that the campus cannot figure out if the threatening and
2 intimidating behavior that Dr. Markovic displays is a police matter or a
human resources matter. In the mean time staff are left to wonder if
3 anyone is in charge of sorting out this type of problem or cares about
protecting staff from threats and intimidation.
4
5 Six staff members on this floor have observed threats and tirades or been
directly threatened or intimidated by Dr. Markovic. Three staff members
6 of the College of Engineering and Computer Science filed police
reports in October of 2008. We have heard nothing.
7
8 As you have observed in your previous investigations, it is very difficult to
get students, faculty and staff to come forward for fear of reprisals. The
9 fact that the three of us have come forward and that a student shared his
10 numerous observations with Office Nguyen is remarkable. The climate of
fear and intimidation, and previous inaction by the university are difficult
11 obstacles to overcome.

12 I trust that you find my letter helpful as you once again are called upon to
13 investigate the hostile work environment here in the College of
Engineering and Computer Science.
14
15
16 See Exhibit 32.

17
18 Letter to President Gonzales and Investigation into the Behavior of Markovic

19 86. On December 16, 2008, Mattiuzzi's legal counsel wrote to President Gonzalez and

20 outlined the behavior of Markovic. See Exhibit 33.

21 87. Later that month, Lau informed Mattiuzzi that Kira King ("King"), an independent

22 investigator, had been hired to conduct an investigation into her complaints about Markovic.

23 88. On January 7, 2009, Mattiuzzi met with King and provided her with numerous

24 documents including Exhibit 23 and a November 4, 2008 email from James Wilson ("Wilson"), a

25 former employee in the EEE Department. Wilson detailed inappropriate and threatening behavior

26 of Markovic as follows:

27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 30
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 He made threats to students so that they would drop his class and lower his
2 class size to his satisfaction. There is one instance that sticks out in my
mind in which he told a student he would hit him in the head with a
3 baseball bat if he returned for another lecture.
4
Even students that were allowed to stay in Dr. Markovic's class were
5 subjected to verbal abuse and often times had their grades adversely
affected.
6
Dr. Markovic had made attempts to contact companies that were hiring
7
some former students to have them 'blacklisted' from being hired.
8
After the department chair had decided to let another professor use the
9 same lab Dr. Markovic uses for instructional purposes, Dr. Markovic flew
10 into a rage and removed all of the electrical equipment from the lab and
tossed it into the bushes behind the building. The sprinklers ruined the
11 equipment all weekend long and when it was discovered the following
Monday, nearly $30,000 in electrical equipment was considered a total
12 loss. The police were called and a report was filed, but no action was taken
13 against Dr. Markovic.

14 I hope this brief narrative illustrates that Mrs. Mattiuzzi's experiences are
not unique and that it is part of a larger pattern in the way Dr. Markovic has
15 treated colleagues.
16
17
18 See Exhibit 34.

19
20 Mattiuzzi Informed that College of Engineering Department Chairs
21 Must be the Faculty of Record for her Classes
22 89. On January 13, 2009, Mattiuzzi received an email from Dean Macari informing her
23 that she would no longer be the faculty of record for classes she had taught for 25 years. Dean
24 Macari stated as follows:
25
26
Starting with this semester, ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of
27 record for workshops we offer to our ECS students (CE 194, ME 194, EEE
28
194 and CSC 192) Career Planning.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 31
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
This is in compliance with the new regulations of Bargaining'Unit 4.
1
2 Students do enjoy and get a lot of these workshops and I want to make sure
that we continue with our tradition of focusing on what is best for our
3 students.
4 Thanks for all your work and I look forward to continuing to work with
you for many years to come.
5
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
6
7
8 See Exhibit 35.
9
10 90. In response to Exhibit 35 and previous discussions Mattiuzzi had with Dean
11 Macari, Mattiuzzi emailed him and stated as follows:
12
13
You indicated that in an effort to comply with the agreements with Unit 4
14 (sic), "ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of record" for these
classes. I have spoken with representatives of both Unit 3 and 4. This
15
solution does not meet their approval.
16
Be that as it may, I have no problem continuing to teach these classes,
17 consistent with my job description. These classes are essential to the
18 academic mission of the College. They are essential components of a
student services program developed in the College over the course of 25
19 years and under the leadership of four different Deans. These classes
cannot simply be described as "workshops" as you suggested in your note.
20 And they are not simply something that "students enjoy," as you also
21 suggested. These classes have been and continue to be an integral part of
the student services program in which I work.
22
Removing me as instructor of record would substantially alter my job
23 description and the terms of my employment.
24
I have been repeatedly denied reclassification and promotion for arbitrary
25 reasons, irrespective of the stated criteria and specifically in response to
gender discrimination.
26
27
28 See Exhibit 36.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 32
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Mattiuzzi Compelled to Notify Department Chairs
2 that She Had No Access to Class Lists

3 91. On January 29, 2009, Mattiuzzi was compelled to inform 5 different CSUS
4 Department Chairs that she no longer was able to access her class lists. She apologized for any
5 inconvenience this caused them as follows:
6
7
I notice that I can no longer access my classes on My Sac State.
8
I have 4 classes that are cross listed in all engineering majors and one CS
9 class. I teach a total of 5 classes with 13 classes feeding into those 5. I will
need you to print me updated class rosters each week for the next three
10
weeks. Many students are adding my class and I am not able to update the
11 lists.

12 I know that this is an inconvenience to each of you. It is also very difficult


for me. I am sorry for this problem. I expect that at some point the
13
problem will be resolved one way or another.
14
15
16 See Exhibit 37.

17
18 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

19 92. On February 4, 2009, Mattiuzzi wrote to Lau and complained for the tenth time

20 regarding the behavior of Markovic. She informed Lau of a conversation she had with Unnamed

21 Student D, a College of Engineering graduate currently employed by PG&E. Unnamed Student D


22 also reported complaints made by Unnamed Student E. The letter detailed the discriminatory

23 behavior of Markovic towards women, including as follows:

24
25 Dr Markovic repeatedly stated in class that he "hates women" and that
"women do not belong in engineering." She stated that Dr. Markovic
26 continuously belittled and degraded women in the class and held women to
a different standard than men.
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 33
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Both women went to numerous persons in a position of authority on this
2 campus and were told that they "should just graduate and get out of here."
They were told that there was nothing that could be done.
3
4
See Exhibit 38.
5
6
7 Dean Macari's Attempt to Shut Down the

8 Investigation into Markovic's Conduct

9 93. On March 23, 2009, Onitsuka informed Mattiuzzi that Dean Macari was trying to

10 "shut down the investigation."

11
12 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

13 94. On March 23, 2009, Mattiuzzi wrote to Lau after she received an email from

14 Shalveena Dayal ("Dayal"), a College of Engineering student, and again complained about the

15 behavior of Markovic. Dayal informed Mattiuzzi that that during class Markovic:

16
17 "shakes chairs and throws pens in a threatening way" creating a climate of
18 fear and anxiety in his class. She indicated that he displays anger in his
office hours by throwing pens.
19
20
See Exhibit 39.
21
22
23 95. On March 24, 2009, Mattiuzzi wrote to Lau to inform him that she learned
24 Markovic had threatened to shoot Chetan Krishna ("Krishna"), an international student. Krishna
25 told her that he was discouraged by the CSUS Police from filing a formal report in order to protect
26 his future employment opportunities. Krishna spoke to King during her investigation and
27 informed her of Markovic's threat and the discouragement by the CSUS Police Department. See
28 Exhibit 40.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 34
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 96. On March 25, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed Exhibit 40 to President Gonzales, King,

2 Lau, Peterson, and CSUS Affirmative Action Officer Maria Santos.

3
4 Second Meeting with King

5 97. On March 31, 2009, after providing her with Exhibit 40, Mattiuzzi again met with

6 King.
7
8 Assault Complaint Against Markovic By a CSUS Employee

9 98. On April 2, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed King and Lau regarding a call she had

10 received from a CSUS employee who previously worked in the College of Engineering. The
11 employee informed Mattiuzzi that she had been assaulted by Markovic and stated as follows:
12
13 He shoved his hand in her face and pushed her out of his way as he was
14 exiting the elevator with his bicycle. He spoke harshly to her and shoved
her.
15
She reported "the assault" to multiple people in the Dean's office including
16
the office manager.
17
No report was written and she was not instructed to go to Peter Lau or any
18 other person in a position of authority in the administration.
19
20
See Exhibit 41.
21
22
23 Mattiuzzi Communication with the Regional Staff Representative
24 for the California Faculty Association About her Improper Classification
25 99. On April 27, 2009, Mattiuzzi spoke with Jason Conwell ("Conwell"), the Regional
26 Staff Representative for the California Faculty Association, to discuss her improper classification.
27 Conwell asked her to provide documentation regarding the classes she taught under the names of
28 the 5 different Department Chairs.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 35
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 100. On April 28, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed Conwell and provided the information he
2 requested. Her email, which was also sent to Lau, King and Peterson, stated as follows:
3
4
As I mentioned to you yesterday it is very difficult to run my classes as
5 they are now structured. I have 13 classes listed across 4 disciplines of
engineering and computer science. I actually teach 5 classes but they are
6 cross listed for the convenience of the students.
7
I have taught these classes for 30 years.
8
In past years these classes have been listed under my name exclusively.
9 This semester for the first time the classes are all listed under the respective
10
department chairs.

11 It should be noted that if I were correctly classified as an SSP AR this


would never have happened. Because the university refuses to correctly
12 classify me as an SSP AR I am required to operate in this fashion or
13 discontinue the classes all together. That is an unacceptable option
particularly in the midst of a recession. This class is an integral part of my
14 job and and the College of Engineering and has been for three decades.
15 For me this semester's change has created a logistical nightmare. As you
16 requested I am documenting this by way of this email.

17 Some of the difficulties I am experiencing with this change include:


Removal of access privileges to class lists
18 Failure to receive book ordering email regarding the textbook from the
19 book store
Denial of access to the computer system for classes, students, class lists and
20 grading. I have no updated lists for the class without pestering the
secretaries in four departments or the secretary in the Dean's office for the
21 info which they are instructed to print for me. It became so embarrassing to
22 me after the third or fourth week of the semester- I stopped doing it.
I have no student ID numbers for grading. Many students finish the class
23 after the semester ends. This means that I will have to have department
chairs do the final grades as well as any and all change of grades that occur
24
up to one year later after the class has ended. I will have to repeatedly
25 pester department chairs to do the change of grade forms as the students
complete the class assignment or make up for missed classes.
26
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 36
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 This entire semester has been embarrassing, humiliating and infantilizing.
2
I am attaching my recently updated resume with my educational
3 background, professional work experience, publications, papers, programs
and projects so you can understand my continuing dismay with the failure
4
to correctly classify me.
5
6
See Exhibit 42.
7
8
9 Mattiuzzi Escorted to her Car
10 101. Throughout the 2008 - 2009 academic year, Mattiuzzi was escorted to her car by
11 students who were concerned for her safety.
12
13 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau
14 102. On May 6, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed Lau after she went home sick. She also sent
15 her email to Edmundo Aguilar ("Aguilar"), legal counsel for CSUS, and President Gonzales. The
16 email stated as follows:
17
18 I visited my doctor because I am distressed and depressed in response to
19 Dr. Markovic's frightening behavior. I am routinely worried and afraid
while at work. I do not go out of my office without being wary. I
20 constantly worry that he will hurt students or other staff. Every time I host
a major event, bringing people to the campus or students together, I am
21
concerned he might come in shooting. I cannot ignore the threat that exists.
22 As you know, I have repeatedly been told about his having harassed,
abused and intimidated students. This knowledge continues to weigh on
23 me and constitutes a hostile work environment.
24
I have a right to a healthy work environment. You have a responsibility to
25 provide it. In a healthy work environment, employees do not have to listen
to endless horror stories. I cannot escape exposure to such stories. I cannot
26 escape my thoughts about these episodes at home or in the gym or even in
27 my sleep. And it is made the worse by the failure of the administration to
make good on its duty to me as an employee.
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 37
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 I have been told by my Dean to "just forget about it.. .move on."
2
Right now, the campus is expecting to receive millions of dollars in a
3 "smart grid" proposal funded by the Federal Stimulus package. Markovic
has been written in to this proposal as if nothing about his status on campus
4
is ever going to change. And if he is part of the team, he will have an even
5 more powerful perch from which to prey upon students. Already it seems,
he has again been told that he can act with impunity.
6
7
8 See Exhibit 43.
9
10 King's May 15,2009 Investigation Report
11 103. On May 15, 2009, Lau sent Mattiuzzi the results of King's report, which concluded
12 as follows:
13 a. The August 28, 2008 incident was an accidental bumping;
14 b. There was no evidence of any retaliation by CSUS against Mattiuzzi as a result
15 of her complaints about the behavior of Markovic;
16 c. CSUS hired women into classifications with academic standing; and
17 d. CSUS adequately investigated past complaints about the behavior of Markovic.
18 See Exhibit 44.
19
20 Onitsuka Reported Continued Fear of Markovic
21 104. On May 21, 2009, Onitsuka informed her supervisor, Michael Wimple
22 ("Wimple"), Director of the College of Engineering and Communications Services, that she
23 continued to suffer from anxiety attacks, distress and nightmares as a result of Markovic's threat.
24 She stated as follows:
25
26
Due to the continued anxiety attacks and nightmares related to the threat
27 last summer from Dr. Miro Markovic that he would get a gun a shoot me, I

28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 38
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
am going to start a series of depression classes and therapy sessions with a
1 psychologist. It is unfortunate that this incident is having such long term
2 effects.

3
4
See Exhibit 45.
5
6
7 Reopened Investigation

8 105. On July 9, 2009, Mattiuzzi learned that CSUS reopened the investigation with a

9 new investigator, Deborah Allison.


10
11 Relocation of Faculty to Accommodate the Removal of Markovic

12 from the Work Area of Mattiuzzi and Onitsuka

13 106. Mattiuzzi was informed that Dean Macari recently requested three faculty

14 members relocate their offices to accommodate the removal of Markovic from the work area of

15 Onitsuka and Mattiuzzi. Markovic initially agreed to move, but after the three faculty members

16 relocated to new offices, he refused to move.

17
18 California Government Tort Claims Act Claim

19 107. Mattiuzzi timely filed a Government Tort Claims Act Claim against CSUS and

20 Markovic on July 29, 2009.

21
22 First Cause of Action

23 Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code Section 3610

24 (Against CSUS)

25 108. Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

26 reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.

27 109. Mattiuzzi was at all times relevant an employee of CSUS.

28 110. The wrongful treatment of Mattiuzzi by CSUS was in violation of California Labor
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 39
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Code Section 6310(a)(l). California Labor Code Section 6310(a) makes it unlawful for an

2 employer to "...discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the
3 employee has... made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies

4 having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or
5 health, his or her employer, or his or her representative."
6 111. Further, pursuant to California Labor Code Section 6310(b) "Any employee who

7 is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner


8 discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because
9 the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to. . .his or her employer, or his or her
10 representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or her employment or place

11 of employment... shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work
i
12 benefits caused by the acts of the employer. . ."
13 112. During the course of Mattiuzzi's employment at CSUS, she repeatedly reported
14 health and safety issues, specifically regarding Markovic and his treatment of employees and

15 students at CSUS, including but not limited to:

16 a. Markovic' s May 14, 2007 threat to physically retrieve a computer mouse from

17 Mattiuzzi;

18 b. Her October 1 1 , 2007 complaint to Dean Macari that Markovic was "hitting on

19 male students" and "had gone into a racist tirade directed at a foreign student,

20 calling him a terrorist";


21 c. Her January 30, 2008 complaint to Lau that Markovic had engaged in conduct
22 with a student similar to Markovic's prior conduct with Robino;

23 d. Her February 24, 2008 complaint to Lau, which forwarded Black's email that
24 Markovic was "sexually harassing young unsuspecting students" including

25 Unnamed Student B;
26 e. Markovic's July 15, 2008 threat to shoot Onitsuka;
27 f. The August 28, 2008 intentional bumping incident;
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 40

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination


1 g. Markovic's September 30, 2008 threat to shoot an IT staff member and to make

2 his wife a widow;

3 h. Markovic's September 30, 2008 threat to shoot Krishna;

4 i. Markovic's threat to a student that he would "hit him in the head with a

5 baseball bat if he returned for another lecture";

6 j. Her December 10, 2008 complaint to Lau that she had been personally harassed

7 by Markovic;

8 k. Her February 4, 2009 complaint to Lau regarding Markovic's treatment of

9 female students; and

10 1. Her May 6, 2009 complaint to Lau of the unsafe working environment created

11 by Markovic.
12 113. As a result of Mattiuzzi's legally protected activity of complaining about these

13 health and safety issues, CSUS retaliated against her by, including but not limited to, denying her
14 reclassification to a position with academic standing, preventing her from teaching classes she had

15 taught for 25 years, deleting her outgoing email from January through August of 2008 and

16 refusing to address the dangerous situation posed by the continued actions of Markovic against

17 CSUS employees and students.

18 1 14. As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained special

19 damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

20 Court.
21 115. As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained general
22 damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

23 Court.
24 116. As a direct and proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has incurred

25 attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional
26 limits of this Court.
27 Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 41
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Second Cause of Action
2 Retaliation in Violation of Violation of Government Code Section 12940(h)
3 (Against CSUS)
4 117. Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by
5 reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.
6 118. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment and
7 Housing Act, Mattiuzzi is a covered employee and CSUS is a covered employer as defined
8 therein.
9 1 1 9. The wrongful treatment of Mattiuzzi by CSUS was in violation of the California
10 Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Section 12900, et seq.
11 California Government Code Section 12940(h) makes it an unlawful employment practice "to
12 discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any
13 practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted
14 in any proceeding under this part."
15 120. Mattiuzzi engaged in the legally protected activity of complaining about sexual
16 and national origin harassment and gender discrimination towards herself and other CSUS
17 employees and students including, but not limited to:
18 a. Laye's February 12, 2003 letter which Mattiuzzi delivered to Lau in the spring
19 of 2003;
20 b. Her October 11, 2007 complaint to Lau that for the seventh time she was
21 complaining about Markovic's harassing behavior towards her;
22 c. Her October 11, 2007 complaint to Dean Macari that Markovic was "hitting on
23 male students" and "had gone into a racist tirade directed at a foreign student,
24 calling him a terrorist";
25 d. Her January 30, 2008 complaint to Lau that Markovic had engaged in conduct
26 with a student similar to Markovic's prior conduct with Robino;
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 42
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 e. Her February 24, 2008 complaint to Lau, which forwarded Black's email that

2 Markovic was "sexually harassing young unsuspecting students" including

3 Unnamed Student B;

4 f. Markovic's sexually harassing behavior towards other students at CSUS;

5 g. Her December 10, 2008 complaint to Lau that she had been personally harassed

6 by Markovic;

7 h. Her February 4, 2009 complaint to Lau regarding Markovic's treatment of


8 female students; and
9 i. Her complaint after each denial of her requests for reclassification that men
10 in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities were classified in
11 positions with academic standing.

12 121. As a result of Mattiuzzi's complaints, she was subjected to retaliation by CSUS,


13 including but not limited to, denying her reclassification to a position with academic standing,
14 preventing her from teaching classes she had taught for 25 years, deleting her outgoing email from
15 January of 2008 through August of 2008 and refusing to address the dangerous situation posed by

16 the continued actions of Markovic against employees and students.

17 122. As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained special

18 damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this
19 Court.
20 123. As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained general
21 damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this
22 Court.
23 124. As a direct and proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has incurred
24 attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional
25 limits of this Court.
26 Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 43
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Third Cause of Action
2 Gender Discrimination in Violation of Government Code Section 12940(a)
3 (Against CSUS)
4 125. Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by
5 reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.
6 126. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment and
7 Housing Act, Mattiuzzi is a covered employee and CSUS is a covered employer as defined
8 therein.
9 127. The wrongful treatment of Mattiuzzi by CSUS was in violation of the California
10 Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code, §12900, et seq. Government
11 Code Section 12940(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice "For an employer, because of
12 ... sex ... of any person ... to discharge the person from employment... or to discriminate against
13 the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment."
14 128. At all times herein mentioned, Mattiuzzi was qualified for and should have
15 received an academic related classification. The fact that Mattiuzzi is a woman was a substantial
16 factor in the repeated decision by CSUS to deny her requests for reclassification.
17 129. The facts on which Mattiuzzi bases her allegation that she was discriminated
18 against include, but are not limited to, the following:
19 a. The denial of her requests for reclassification to an academically related
20 position in 1985, 1987, 2002 and 2008 although she met the academically
21 related classification criteria;
22 b. Men hired after her as Career Counselors were classified as academically
23 related but she, as a woman, was not; and
24 c. Men in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities were classified
25 in positions with academic standing.
26 130. As a direct or proximate result of the conduct of CSUS, Mattiuzzi has sustained
27 special damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of
28 this Court.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 44

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination


1 131. As a direct or proximate result of the conduct of CSUS, Mattiuzzi has sustained
2 general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of
3 this Court.
4 132. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of CSUS, Mattiuzzi has incurred
5 attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional
6 limits of this Court.
7 Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.
8
9 Fourth Cause of Action
10 Negligent Supervision and Retention
11 (Against CSUS)
12 133. Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by
13 reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.
14 134. CSUS owed a duty of care to Mattiuzzi as an employee to provide her with a safe
15 and secure workplace and also to encourage the reporting of credible threats of violence in the
16 workplace.
17 135. CSUS breached its duty of care when it failed, and continues to fail, to allow the
18 unsafe working conditions caused by the repeated and known threatening behavior of Markovic.
19 CSUS failed, and continues to fail, to property investigate the complaints of Markovic's behavior.
20 CSUS has allowed this unsafe working environment to continue by failing to address Markovic's
21 actions and threats of violence which have been ongoing for years.
22 136. As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained special
23 damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this
24 Court.
25 137. As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained general
26 damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this
27 Court.
28 Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 45
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Fifth Cause of Action

2 Assault

3 (Against Markovic)

4 138. Mattiuzzi alleges as against Markovic as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

5 reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.

6 139. CSUS has allowed Markovic to continue to harass, threaten and abuse employees

7 and students without repercussions despite numerous complaints by Mattiuzzi and others.
8 140. With this knowledge, on August 28, 2008, Markovic forcefully bumped into

9 Mattiuzzi twice with the intent of intimidating her and causing her apprehension of immediate
10 injury.

11 141. As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered

12 special damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of

13 this Court.
14 142. As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered
15 general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of

16 this Court.
17 143. The acts of Markovic were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify

18 an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess

19 of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.


20 Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against Markovic as follows.
21
22 Sixth Cause of Action

23 Battery

24 (Against Markovic)

25 144. Mattiuzzi alleges as against Markovic as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

26 reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.


27 145. CSUS has allowed Markovic to continue to harass, threaten and abuse employees
28 and students without repercussions despite numerous complaints by Mattiuzzi and others.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 46
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 146. With this knowledge, on August 28, 2008, Markovic forcefully bumped into

2 Mattiuzzi twice, without her consent, with the intent of harming or offending Mattiuzzi.
3 147. As a result of Markovic's conduct Mattiuzzi was harmed and offended.
4 148. As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered
5 special damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of

6 this Court.
7 149. As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered

8 general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of
9 this Court.
10 150. The acts of Markovic were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify
11 an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess
12 of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

13 Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against Markovic as follows.


14
15 Seventh Cause of Action

16 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

17 (Against CSUS and Markovic)


18 151. Mattiuzzi alleges as against Defendants as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

19 reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.

20 152. During the course of her career at CSUS, Mattiuzzi has been subjected to extreme

21 and outrageous acts including, but not limited to:


22 a. An unsafe working environment, caused by the actions of Markovic, which

23 CSUS allowed to continue;


24 b. Retaliation for complaining of an unsafe working environment, sexual
25 harassment, national origin harassment, gender discrimination, and improper
26 actions by Markovic;
27 c. Assault, battery and sexual harassment by Markovic; and
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 47
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 d. Gender discrimination by CSUS regarding Mattiuzzi's requests for
2 reclassification.

3 153. Mattiuzzi was at all times mentioned herein, an employee of CSUS.

4 154. At relevant times mentioned herein, CSUS's agents and employees took the

5 actions alleged within the course and scope of such agency and with the permission and consent of

6 CSUS.
7 155. Markovic engaged in the extreme and outrageous behavior including, but not
8 limited to, assaulting and battering Mattiuzzi and creating an unsafe working environment for
9 Mattiuzzi and others.
10 156. Defendants' conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of
11 causing Mattiuzzi to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.
12 157. As a result of this conduct, Mattiuzzi has suffered, and continues to suffer
13 humiliation, mental anguish and physical and emotional distress.
14 158. As a direct or proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mattiuzzi has sustained
15 special damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

16 Court.
17 159. As a direct or proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mattiuzzi has sustained

18 general damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this
19 Court.
20 160. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Mattiuzzi has incurred
21 attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional
22 limits of this Court.
23 161. The acts of Markovic were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive and justify
24 an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess
25 of the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
26 Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS and Markovic as follows.
27
28
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 48
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 Prayer
2 As To The First Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code
3 Section 3610
4 1. For special damages according to proof;
5 2. For general damages according to proof;
6 3. For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
7 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
8 As To The Second Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of California Government
9 Code Section 12940(h)
10 1. For special damages according to proof;
11 2. For general damages according to proof;
12 3. For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
13 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
14 As To The Third Cause of Action: Gender Discrimination in Violation of California
15 Government Code Section 12940(a)
16 1. For special damages according to proof;
17 2. For general damages according to proof;
18 3. For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
19 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
20 As To The Fourth Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision
21 1. For special damages according to proof;
22 2. For general damages according to proof; and
23 3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
24 As To The Fifth Cause of Action: Assault
25 1. For special damages according to proof;
26 2. For general damages according to proof;
27 3. For exemplary or punitive damages; and
28 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Sheridan
& Associates
Law Corporation 49
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
1 As To The Sixth Cause of Action: Battery
2 1. For special damages according to proof;
3 2. For general damages according to proof;
4 3. For exemplary or punitive damages; and
5 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
6 As To The Seventh Cause of Action: Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress
7 1. For special damages according to proof;
8 2. For general damages according to proof;
9 3. For reasonable attorney' s fees and costs of suit incurred herein;
10 4. For exemplary or punitive damages against Markovic; and
11 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
12
Dated: August 7, 2009. Respectfully submitted,
13
Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation
14
C? /~) ~ /^
15
Bv: H 679 0
(Jt^y, (^/U^^
16 Susan J. Slteridan (State Bar Number: 108851)
Attorney for Plaintiff
17 CICI MATTIUZZI
G \M\Mattiuzzi, CiCi\P!eadings\Complamt ver 6
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sheridan
o Associates
<x * , .
Law Corporation 50
Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination
Exhibit 1
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

Memo
To: Donna Selnick, University Counsel
From: S K. Ramesh, Department Chair - _'
CC: David Wagner and Sheila Orman, FSA
Date: 11/24/02

Re: Dr Miroslav Markovic

The purpose of this memorandum is to make you aware of student concerns regarding Dr Markovic's
conduct and interactions with them. Students who were selected to attend employment interviews with
PG&E have expressed serious concerns about Dr. Markovic's behavior. PG&E is a utility company
that hires significant numbers of CSUS graduates and is eager to build a long-term relationship with the
University. I became aware of Dr Markovic's e-mail correspondence with PG&E in May 2002 and have
taken steps to reassure PG&E of the University's commitment to build a long-term relationship with
them (see attachments)

The following students have contacted me in person or by e-mail to voice their concerns

i (in person)

(by e-mail and telephone)

(in person)

Other students have spoken to me in confidence about an escalating pattern of intimidation that they
have perceived in his classes It is imperative that this matter be treated confidentially as these
students are enrolled in Dr Markovic's classes and are fearful of reprisals, that may affecl their
professional future and career prospects in the industry Thank you for your attention to this matter

1 6000J Street. Sacramento. California 95819-6019 • (916) 278-6873 • (916) 278-7215 FAX
Tin. CnufORNiA SIATI UmvhKsrrv • Sakcrsfieki • Chico • Dormngut: Hilb, • Fresno • Fullmon • Hayurard • Humboldl • Long Bejch • Los Angeles • Maritime Acadenrj
Monterey Bjy • Northndge • Pumona • Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego « San Francisco • Sartjose • San Lim Obispo • San Marcos • Sonoma - Stanislaus

1.1
Attachment A : E-Mail Message from Student
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:57:03 -0800
From: . <• ^ @hotmail.cQm>
To: rameshs@csus.edu
Subject: From:. .(CSUS student)

Dear Dr. Ramesh:

My name is . I am an Electrical & Electronic


Engineering with concentration in Power. Recently, I interviewed with
PG&E on campus. They called me back for second interview. I was so
happy because this is my first second interview. However, I talked with
Dr. Markovic that I would miss his class (Will be my first miss in his
class), he told me right a way that he would fail two of my classes from
him if I should go to the second interview. So I need you advise fast.
I tried to see you at your office but you was not there. So email is my
only option. The interview will be next week Tuesday, this is the reason
I have to hurry to get answer. So piease help me. I will try to see you
again later. Thank you.

Note: Incase you want to talk with me, my cellphone # is

Sincerely,

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

Attachment B: Dr. Markovic's e-mail message to PG&E in May 2002 and response
from Shan Bhattacharya to Dean Das
From: Braja Das [dasb@ecs.csus.eduj
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:22 AM
To: 'rameshs'
Subject: FW: Proposed meeting

SK:
FYI.
Braja

1.2
—Original Message-
From: Bhattacharya, Shan [mailto:SxB4@pge.com]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:50 PM
To: 'dasb@csus.edu'
Cc: Johnson, Sue (SCJ1)
Subject: FW: Proposed meeting

Mr. Das:
It was nice meeting you on the CSUS campus a few weeks ago. As I mentioned
to you, I am looking forward to maintaining my contact with you and your,
staff on an on-going basis. Accordingly, I asked our director of Substatiqn
Engrg. to follow up with your staff to explore the possibilities of student
projects. He has been setting up contacts with some of your faculty members
(including Dr. Markovic) in the Power Programs. The attached e-mail shows
that this effort may have uncovered professional jealousy among your faculty
that you should be aware of. This experience, however isolated it is,
negatively affects the hiring supervisor's interest in reaching out to your
faculty.

Even with this initial setback, we are committed to re-e.stablish a healthyi


relationship between PG&E and CSUS. I would appreciate receiving your
guidance in this area. ,

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,
Shan Bhattacharya

Original Message
From: markovic [mailto:markovic@csus.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:58 AM
To: Lemler, Gregg; Bhattacharya, Shan
Subject: Proposed meeting

Hello Mr. Lemler:

How are you today?

I heard your taped message from last Friday regarding my original


request

1.3
of meeting with you.

It is beyond my ability to understand what you are trying to do. I have


asked
Mr. Battacharya to facilitate a meeting between me and you, nothing
else.

Your lengthy preparation to include all those people that you are
listing is not
only necessary but puzzling.

Those other people neither did call you no ask for a meeting. They care
about
power engineering program at the CSUS and cooperation with PG&E as much
as an alley cat may care for a marriage license. Your Personnel
Department
is as good as a gallon of dehydrated water to a thirsty man in a
desert. Why
are you wasting your time? Your move to include them is like calling
Osama
bin Laden to help US in fight against the terrorism. Your plan to
include some
other persons from the College of Engineering is like asking a banjo
player to help
wind orchestra in performing a better wind music.

If you want to meet with me and hear what my students are concerned
about,
I shall be glad to meet with you and talk about that like one
professional person
can talk to the other. I don't need any entourage and make a big
production
out of something that doesn't exist.

Anything else is sheer waste of time, mirrors and smoke screens.


Please, include
me out of it.

After a full year of hard trying to talk to somebody from your company
who is in postion to listen and change the things as they are, now I am
gradually becoming able to understand why the PG&E Company is having
such a hard time in surviving as a viable organization.

Sincerely,
Dr. Markovic

1.4
Attachment C: E-mail from PG&E following May 23rd meeting regarding; a partnership
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:50:42 -0700 ;
From: "Messina, Michael" <MJM7@pge.com> i
To: 'S. Ramesh' <rameshs@ecs.csus.edu>
Cc: "Bhattacharya, Shan" <SxB4@pge.com>, '"dasb@csus.edu1" <dasbj@csus.edu>,
'"yousifs@csus.edu"' <yousifs@csus.edu>, "Lemler, Gregg" ',
<GLL1@pge.com>, '
"Leder, Steve" <Sx!_2@pge.com>
Subject: RE: PG&E - CSUS Partnership ;

Dear Dr. Ramesh:

On behalf of Shan Bhattacharya, Gregg Lemler, and PG&E's College Relations


team, I offer our sincere thanks for the time and attention you and your
colleagues afforded Gregg and I during our May 23 visit to CSU Sacramento.
!
Special thanks to you for your efforts in arranging a most enjoyable,
informative, and productive meeting. It was a pleasure meeting both you and
Dr. Yousif, and to once again have Dr. Das participate in our discussion.

Gregg and I left campus with a better understanding of CSUS's Power Program,
a great sense of energy regarding the many mutual support opportunities
discussed, and the satisfaction of knowing that we'd taken another step
toward personalizing the relationship between our two organizations. The
energy and receptivity demonstrated by the CSUS team is a great source of
encouragement. \

Thank you as well for your follow-up message summarizing the points of our
discussion. I believe you have very accurately captured not only the topics
covered, but, the related agreements and commitments as well. Gregg and I
will follow-up with Shan, our respective workgroups, and other key
stakeholders to ensure that we capitalize on the appropriate identified <
opportunities. Toward that end, you can expect to be hearing from one or
both of us in the coming weeks.

Thanks again, and best regards,

Michael

Michael Messina ;
College Relations Supervisor
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
415.972.5322
for information about programs and career opportunities, visit us at:
http://www.pge.com/005_career/005d_college_recruit.shtml

1.5
-Original Message-
From: S. Ramesh [mailto:rarneshs@ecs.csus.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:29 PM
To: Messina, Michael
Cc: Bhattacharya, Shan; Lemler, Gregg; Hauntsman, Debra; Brodhead, Devon;
Tizedes, Frank; Rothenberg, Petra; S. Ramesh
Subject: Re: PG&E - CSUS Partnership

Dear Gregg and Michael

Thank you for visiting with us this afternoon. I hope you found the meeting
useful. We are looking forward to building stronger ties between our College
and PG&E in the days ahead.

I've listed a brief summary of the Action Items (Timelines/Owners) for your
review. Please feel free to edit and make any changes that you deem
necessary.

1. Goal: Build a closer relationship with the CSUS College of Engineering


and Computer Science:

a. Shan Bhattacharya will be joining the College Level IAB (letter in the
works/Dean Das) b. Gregg Lemler and perhaps one additional member from PG&E
to serve on EPEI and provide feedback and input to Power Engineering program
(Gregg Lemler-PG&E, Ramesh-CSUS, by mid August 2002) c. PG&E reps on EPEI to
attend semi-annual meeting of EPEI (date: TBD in November 2002)

2. Goal: Promote Career opportunities for EE's, ME's and CE's at PG&E

a. Mike Messina, PG&E will inform Cici Mattiuzzi, Director, Career Planning
and Placement, CSUS College of Engineering and Computer Science of
opportunities to be advertised in weekly electronic newsletter and bulletin
board (during the academic year). Also plan on attending annual career fair
in March 2003.

3. Goal: Promote Co-Op's and internships at PG&E

a. Mike Messina, PG&E , to contact Carol Hopfe, ECS Co-Op Program


Coordinator, to advertise opportunities. Carol may be reached at
916-278-7220 or by e-mail at hopfec@ecs.csus.edu

4. Goal: Sponsor Senior Projects in Power Engineering

1.6
Gregg Lemler (PG&E) will identify suitable projects and work with Dr. Gonen
(gonent@ecs.csus.edu or 916-278-6756) from CSUS to identify appropriate
students. (Fall 2002)

5. Goal: Curriculum Enhancement i

Gregg Lemler (PG&E) or other representative from PG&E will work with Power
faculty to identify areas of interest. A Preliminary area that was
identified today was Capacity Planning. PG&E representatives to present a
list of areas at Fall EPEI meeting. '
i

6. Goal: Student Scholarship Programs ;

PG&E to consider renewing focused scholarships for high achieving power


engineering students through EPEI. Target approx. $ 1,500/student. Present
proposal at Fall EPEI meeting (PG&E representative) listing desired
qualifications.

7. Goal: Equipment Support

CSUS Power faculty to identify critical equipment needs along with


development plans (Fall EPEI meeting) :

8. Goal: Offer courses of contemporary interest to PG&E engineers

PG&E to identify specific topical areas of interest. In response, CSUS Power


faculty to develop and offer short courses/seminars etc., of value to
practicing engineers. :

Best wishes

Ramesh

S. K. Ramesh Tel : (916) 278-7955


Department of Electrical Engineering FAX : (916) 278-721 5
California State University
Sacramento, CA 95819-6019.

Internet : rameshs@ecs.csus.edu
*

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Messina-, Michael wrote:

1.7
> Dr. Ramesh:
>
> Thank you so much for agreeing to meet with us, and for taking the
> time to make arrangements for our visit to CSU Sacramento on Thursday,
> May 23. We are delighted at
the
> opportunity to meet
> with you and the the assembled "Power Faculty.'1 As you know, Shan
> Bhattacharya and I met last month with Dr. Das and Dr. Markovic to
> discuss avenues toward a stronger, mutually productive
> relationship between our company and the University, we are very pleased
to
> be back on campus
> so soon to continue that dialog.
>
> I am looking forward to meeting you and the others, and also pleased
> to introduce Gregg Lemler at that time. Gregg is our Director of
> Sub-Station Engineering, and represents Shan's Engineering
> and Planning organization. Gregg welcomes the opportunity to serve as
> Company liaison to the
> University, and is a key stakeholder in PG&E's recruitment process.
Together
> with College Relations,
> members of Gregg's team are actively recruiting electrical, civil, and
> industrial engineering students at CSUS.
>
> We recognize a long and positive relationship with CSUS, with many a
> University alum among the staffs of our Engineering and Planning, and
> Operations Maintenance and Construction organizations,
> That said, we feel strongly that with more frequent contact and continuous
> dialog, the future holds
> many more mutually beneficial opportunities for both our organizations,
and
> the engineering students
> at CSU Sacramento.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> Michael Messina
> College Relations Supervisor
> Pacific Gas and Electric Company
> 222.5322-415.972.5322
> for information about programs and career opportunities, visit us at:

I.8
http://www.pge. com/005_career/005d_college_recruit.shtml

Attachment D: Dr. Markovic's November 18 e-mail message to PG&E and response


from Mr. Steve Leder on .behalf of PG&E
From: Leder, Steve [SxL2@pge.com] !
Sent: Thursday, November 21;, 2002 3:21 PM ;
To: Markovic@gaia.ecs.csus.edu I
Cc: dasb@csus.edu; s.ramesh@ieee.org; Bhattacharya, Shan; Johnson, Sue
(SCJ1); Lernler, Gregg; Messina, Michael; Brodhead, Devon !
Subject: Sacramento State and PG&E j

Dr. Markovic:
i
Shan Bhattacharya, PG&E's vice president of engineering and planning,
has asked me to res^md to your e-mail message dated November 19 (attached). It
concerns me that PG&E's interaction with some CSU Sacramento students may have
inadvertently created? difficulties for you. The students, faculty and staff, and entire CSU
Sacramento campus community is important to us. It is neither our intent nor desire to
trouble or inconvenience any member of that community as we conduct pur
recruitment activities.

PG&E representatives who visit the various universities and interact with
students either on or off campus, do ;
so in accordance with guidelines which are given to us by the respective
schools and/or departments. While we
always do our best to comply with the general guidelines o1j the 24
universities where we recruit, the information
provided is usually limited to advisories about final exams, <days when
classes are not in session, etc. Beyond that, '
it is very difficult for us to know the various class, exam, and/or work
schedules of the many students we meet.
That said, when we contact students to arrange time with them, we
make no demands, but rather, we offer them ;
choices.

On-Campus Interviews \
PG&E's on-campus interview days are determined through' discussion
;
with the Career Center. We advise the
Sacramento State University Recruitment Programs representative of the
number of interview rooms (and interview schedules) we require, and the University
tells us what days are available to us. Once confirmed, students are invited to sign-up
for interviews at a time that best suits their schedule. The Career Center and PG&E
work together to try to accommodate the needs of interested students.

1.9
On-Site (second round) Interviews
PG&E's identifies multiple on-site interview days to afford students
scheduling options. These interview days are
scheduled in a manner intended to balance PG&E's business needs
with the individual needs of the many students
seeking employment opportunities with us. We offer scheduling options,
and rely on the students to manage their
various educational and personal commitments and obligations in a
responsible and professional manner.

PG&E is committed to conducting all university related business in a


manner consistent with the wishes of the
institutions where we recruit. Our policies and programs are designed to
ensure that we act in the student's best
interest, and maintain that their academic endeavors remain paramount
to our employment needs. Toward that end,
we schedule regular meetings with university faculty and staff to ensure
a successful partnership that provides mutual
benefits. We have met often with various representatives of CSU
Sacramento, most often in fact with the College of
Engineering and Computer Science where we have enjoyed a long
standing positive relationship. We will be on-campus
again in the Spring for that purpose. \ hope that you can find time in your
schedule to be a part of our on-going dialog;
your thoughts are important to us.

Again, I'm concerned that our actions may have caused you some
inconvenience, but, hope that my comments have
shed some light on both our intentions and recruitment practices. If you
wish more information or have additional issues
you wish to address, please feel free to contact our College Relations
department directly.

Sincerely,

Steve Leder
Director
Professional Staffing and Diversity

cc: Dr. Braja M. Das


Dr. S. K. Ramesh
Shan Bhattacharya
Sue Johnson
Gregg Lemler

1.10
Devon Brodhead
Michael Messina

From: Markovic, Miroslav [mailto:Markovic@gaia.ecs.csus.edu]


Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:02 PM
To: Bhattacharya, Shan
Cc: 'mjm@pge.com1
Subject:

Hello Mr. Bhattacharya:

I am appealing to you to convey my grave concerns to


your Personnel Department for its deliberate disregard of my classes and
my College of Engineering and Computer Science's standards.

Your Personnel Department should know that the attendance of my lectures


is mandatory. If a student decides to leave on his/her own without my
permission, the return into the class is not allowed. This rule
is a part of my syllabus.

If your Personnel Department deliberately demands from some of my


students to leave my classes in order to be interviewed by'your ,
company on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I object adamantly to that practice,
because I know that the interviews could be done as well on Mondays, ,
Wednesdays, and/or Fridays. ^ :

On Tuesdays and Thursdays, I have two classes and two labs to ;


teach. If a student misses those lectures, there is no room
in my schedule for make up of the missed sessions. <- |

For several years, I have tried my best to accommodate the unreasonably


demands of your Personnel Department, but it doesn't work any more.

My University had never disturb a normal work of your company. And it wijll
not even try to inconvenient anybody in your company, while your people are
working.

Therefore, I am requesting and demanding a full reciprocity.

1.11
Through you, I am asking your Personnel Department not to deliberately
disrupt
my classes. They are sacred for me and my student.

I would appreciate your full attention to this serious matter.

Sincerely,

Dr. Markovic of CSU, Sacramento

I Page 11

1.12
Exhibit 2
2ti03:
2870lS!EHpganE#475
Gresham, OR 97030

Dr. Donald R Gerth


President
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Dr. Gerth,

I am writing to discuss recent actions of Dr. Miroslav Markovic.

In November, I spoke with Dr. Ramesh, the Chair of the FKF, department regarding these
incidents. I wanted to follow up that oral conversation with a written statement.

I have taken several classes from Dr. Markovic during the past three semesters. He has
always been good instructor as fat as academics are concerned. However, his recent
.personal behavior regarding students and industry has been erratic and frightening, and it
•eclipses any iO'fhis instructional abilities.

Dr. Markoyic's actions .during the fell semester of 2002 have undermined the efforts of
students seeking, employment for. after graduation; and have created bad relations between
potential employers and the College. This has created a great deal df stress for several
students, inchiding myself.

In October 2002, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) conducted several on-campus
interviews of .electrical engineering students. Two of these students, x-v >•• • and
jtvere subsequently chosen for secondary interviews that were conducted at
PGE's corporate offices in San Francisco. The secondary interviews lasted afl day, and
happened to conflict with Dr. Markovic's classes.

A professor should be expected to allow students who are hi the process of obtaining
employment in their chosen field of industry to miss class for interviews. Such was not the
case with Dr. Markovic. He announced in class that students who went to interviews
during class time would be failed. In what seemed like a rant, he said that industry needs
to respect academia, and that PG&E needed to change its interview dates to avoid
interfering with his class times. (He repeated these statements in the next class period.)

At first, I just thought Dr. Maricovic was simply frustrated for some unknown reason, and
that he was venting in .front of the class: However, in subsequent conversations with Mr
_>.and Mr.^ 1 learned that Dr. Markovic had said that he would make good on
his threats and that he would not pass them if they went to the interviews. Mr.
actually went to Dr. Markovic's office to plead bis case, and he received the same
response: "Attend the interview and you will fail this class."

2.1
This caused both of them considerable mental stress. Mr. said to me: "The reason
I go to school is to get a job. I cant get the job if I don't go to the interviews and I cant get
the job if I dont pass the class." Mr and Mr continued to be upset about
this situation until after graduation.

Dr. Markovic's statements were also quite upsetting to me, for several reasons. First, his
actions caused a lot of stress for my classmates and me. I felt that this behavior crossed the
line and that he was bullying and brow beating students. Second, a few weeks before this
incident, I had informed Dr. Markovic that I would be missing class for an interview with a
company. At the time, he seemed to have no problem with it. However, after his
statements in class regarding the PG&E interviews, I became concerned that I would not
pass the class. I continued to worry about this for a number of weeks before graduation

On 11-19-2002, Dr. Markovic took written roll in a manner I'd never seen him use before.
He sent apiece of paper around the class and asked us all to write down our names. At the
end of this process, he made a verbal comment that Mr. • and Mr .were
absent '(This was the day of their PGE interviews.)

On several later occasions, Dr. Markovic made comments in class that seemed to be a
veiled threat, relating to this same issue.

Near the end of the semester, when the instructor comment sheets were distributed to the
class, Dr. Markovic told us that he had conflicts with staff and with the College in the past
He said that he had weathered these difficulties without problem, and that "negative
comments about instructors are often reflected back on the writer." I took this to be a
threat to the class that negative comments regarding Dr. Markovic would do no good, and
may come back to haunt us. (I considered this a very real threat. In the Electrical
Engineering specialty of power engineering, there are very few instructors available for the
area. Dr. Markovic teaches most of the power classes. I have heard, but cannot
substantiate, that Dr Markovic would give very low grades to those who somehow got on
his bad side.)

I also believe that Dr. Markovic is a detriment to CSUS in Ms relations with company
recruiters. During a SDGE interview that I attended, the recruiter commented negatively
about Dr. Marfcovic's attitude and behavior. (Dr. Markovic himself stated in class that he
had communication with several recruiters and had written several letters regarding when
they could conduct interviews. To me it sounded more fike harassment of the recruiters
and their superiors; Either way, I feel that this would make a potential employer less likely
to bother to recruit at CSUS.)

There are a few other things that have caused me to be concerned about Dr. Markovic's
behavior.

In the week of 12/7/2002, Dr. Markovic said that per a memo from the CSUS president
(Dr. Gerth), he could not see students during finals week outside of class "due to safety

2.2
reasons" and "because accidents had occurred at other campuses." I don't know if such a
memo exists, but it sounded like he was saying that students might have reason to be
concerned about Ms mental stability, and that others might have considered him to be some
kind of a safety threat.

Finally, during an office visit, about two semesters ago, I asked Dr. Markovie about several
career issues. One question was whether or not the ECS career counselor, Cici Mattiuzzi,
might be helpful in securing employment. I had expected a simple yes or no answer on
whether or not she could help. Dr. Markovic replied with a tirade. He said that she would
be of no help, and that he believed that she had essentially slept or prostituted her way into
the position of ECS career counselor. I was so surprised by this response that it stuck hi
my mind for a long time. (I did aot mention this conversation to anyone until speaking
with Dr. Ramesh regarding Dr. Markovic's student relations. I had assumed that Dr.
Markovic was merely sexist, but later came to think that he might be a loose cannon and a
potential danger to students. I could not imagine a professor speaking about a staff
member in that way.)

I should say again that as far as technical knowledge is concerned, Dr. Markovic is an
excellent instructor.

However, ,in liglit of the behaviors I have observed, his propensity to intimidate students,
and his erratic and sometimes frightening actions, I'm wondering if he should be removed
from his position.

Cordially,

Nathan Laye

cc: Dr. S.K Ranresh

2.3
!/alfian Laye CERTIFIED MAIL
|§70NE Hogan Rd E#47S
Iresham, OR 97630
,&"-**
rH:>
O ri x
h
FS MEtSfl
7001 2510 OOOt flQ40 i<833 "-•' 844733!

SKRamesh
•TUH1 Department of Electrical Engineering
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

04 14 imfift

to
Exhibit 3
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

February. 19; 2003

President Donald R. Gerth


CSUS

Dear President Gerth:

I just received a copy Mr. Nathan Laye's letter to you, dated February 12,2003, regarding Dr. Miroslav
Markovic of the EEE department The purpose of this letter is to update you on the steps that I have
taken to address student concerns about this situation

As soon as I became aware of the student concerns regarding Dr. Markovic's actions and behavior, I
met with Donna Selnick, University Legal Counsel, on November 15m 2002. Following that meeting. I
submitted a letter with supporting documents to Donna, with copies to Dean David Wagner and Sheila
Onman in Faculty and Staff Affairs, conveying student concerns about Dr. Markovic's behavior. My
letter of November 24th and the supporting documents were hand delivered by the EEE Office Assistant
prior to the Thanksgiving Break, to the office of the University Legal Counsel and Faculty & Staff Affairs.
We are awaiting a response.

If I can provide any further information please feel free to contact me

Sincerely,

,u.
S. K. Ramesh
Professor & Chair

6000J Street, Sacramento, California 95819-6019 • (916) 278-6873 - (916) 278-7215 FAX

THE CoiroanA STATI UNTVUSITY • Bakersfield • Chko • Domlnguez HlDs • Fresno • Fuflcmm • Haywud • Humholdl • Long Beach • U» Angeles • Maritime Academy
Monterey Bay • Nonhrldge - Pomona - Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Franosco • San Jose - San I.UTS Obispo • San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus

3.1
Exhibit 4
May 4, 2003

Dr. S. K. Ramesh
Chair, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

This written statement is in regard to the actions and behavior of Dr. Miroslav

Markovic at California State University, Sacramento that my colleague and

I, I find inappropriate.

Our chosen field of study at CSUS is Electrical/Electronic Engineering in which

we plan to obtain a Bachelor's degree in the Spring and Summer of 2003. Dr. Markovic

teaches classes that focus on Electncal/Power Engineering; therefore, we have only had

him once as an instructor for Electromechanical Conversion (EEE 130),

Since graduation is approaching, job hunting was done early in the semester.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company had made an impressionable presence at the CSUS

campus early in the semester making it clear that they planned to hire many college

graduates within the immediate future. PG&E made no discrimination between

"electronic" or "power" concentration majors. Therefore both and I applied for entry

level positions within the company. After several weeks of interviewing and talking to

the company, a few other students and I were offered positions. Students from both

fields of "electronic" and "power" engineering were hired as it was made clear that both

were needed within the company. We were all excited about the job offers. It made us

realize that all of the hard work put forth in the last several years had finally paid off.

Shortly after PG&E had made the initial presence on the CSUS campus, two

power students were approached by Dr. Markovic and were asked if they would supply

4.1
him with the names of the "electronic" students who applied to PG&E. He followed this

request by stating that "electronic" students should not be applying for positions with a

power company as it steals jobs away from the "power" students. He stated that only

"power" students are qualified for positions with "power companies". He concluded by

adamantly stating that he would do something about the situation.

Other students and I were alarmed and outraged to hear of this. We're extremely

concerned that he will attempt to sabotage our chances of obtaining positions with

PG&E. At this point, I felt it was necessary to talk to you, as I did. After speaking with

you, you told me to document the situation. As time passed our classes consumed us, as

they always do, and the situation took a state of low priority.

The situation remained low priority until last week. A power student was

cornered last week by Dr. Markovic for the names of the "electronic" engineering

students recently given job offers by PG&E. That same day another power student who

Dr. Markovic knew was offered a position with PG&E was cornered by the professor and

was asked to give the name and phone number of the person who hired him at the

company. The student said that he felt very uncomfortable to be put in that situation. He

was taking a class by the professor and did not want to jeopardize his grade but at the

same time did not want to give him any information.

This latest event by Dr. Markovic is deemed as "over the top" by many of the

"electronic" and "power" engineering students. His behavior is unethical and

unprofessional and should not be allowed to prevail. We, as students, feel as if we have

no power in this situation and are furious that a professor would try to limit our chaaces

of employment that we have worked so hard for.

4.2
As of now, we don'I know what Dr. Markovic will do concerning PG&E and the

list of students that he obtained. We feel as if the company will ignore any input from the

professor but at the same time we don't want to underestimate him. Mainly, we are

furious that we were put into a situation such as this while at a professional institution.

His lack of respect and misuse of power as an educator reflects poorly on the Electrical

Engineering Department at California State University, Sacramento. Dr. Markovic

should be held liable for his actions with appropriate consequences.

Sincerely,

Those who support the findings within this letter and the viewpoints expressed.

4.3
Exhibit 5
September. 7,. 2003

Peter I ,au
Affirmative Action Officer
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Dear Peter,

1. In early spring of this year (2003), I delivered to you a copy of a letter addressed to the campus
president from a CSUS alum, Nathan Laye, who said that Professor Miroslav Markovic was making
derogatory, sexual comments about me to students. As you will recall, I had received a blind copy and
was shocked by what was being said about me.

2. When I spoke to you, I asked if I needed to complete any forms or to file any paper work for your office
to receive this as a complaint of sexual harassment You indicated that no paperwork was necessary and
that the delivery of the letter to you constituted a complaint

3. Following my discussion with you, it seemed to me that my supervisor was hostile towards me. For
that reason, later in the semester, I asked you whether my boss had been informed about the complaint f
had made; you assured me that that would not be the case. I then asked you if you actually knew who
my supervisor was, and you expressed surprise when I told you that my boss is Braja Das, Dean of the
College of H&CS. You said that you would get back to me about this situation.

4. I had not heard from you by the end of the spring semester, and I spent the summer away from the
campus as I am an academic year employee.

5 On Wednesday August 27th, when I returned to the campus, Braja Das came into my office. Without
any pleasantries or introductory comments, he began railing at me in a loud and vituperative manner.
In this context, I could not immediately grasp his point, but I came to understand that he had decided not
to sign my contract to leach CS 194 for the coming semester, as scheduled. I am a Unit 4 staff and have
had a contract to teach this course for the past six semesters as a Unit 3, Lecturer B. This contract
represents a $3000+/ year source of income for me.

6. 1 believe that Dean Das' decision to withhold this contract was in retaliation for my having filed the
sexual harassment complaint. I believe that this is an act of reprisal on his part (09/10/03: Subsequent
to my having prepared this letter, and two hours before the class was scheduled to meet. Dean Das
emailed me and said I would in fact be paid to teach the course, as per instructions from Campus
Personnel. The immediate issue resolved, but the larger concern remains.)

7 1 would appreciate a response to this letter.

Sincerely,

Cici Mattiuzzi
278-7091/ cici@csus.edu

5.1
Exhibit 6
To whom it may concern:

During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred:

*Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at
the time this occurred.

*He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted
comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it.

*ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade:
• -He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch"
-He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back

-Ben Schaffer

6.1
Exhibit 7
October 9, 2007;
Pelcrl.au
Affirmative Action Officer
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Dear Peter,

For the seventh time I find myself writing to complain about Dr Miroslav Markovic. Three times 1 have come to
you about his harassing behavior towards me to request that you take action. Four times I have come to you and
previous persons in authority regarding harassing behavior towards students and major employers.

I have never received a response and I have no idea what action has been taken in the past. I just know that the
behavior does not stop I am aware that past department chairs in the department that Dr Markovic reports to have
on numerous occasions come to you and your predecessors seeking relief from Dr. Markovic. 1 believe that there is
a failure to protect individuals from this type of behavior on this campus.

Attached please find a document given to me in late May. I was made aware that Dr Markovic was speaking in a
hostile and threatening fashion about me once again.

[n the spring when the event surfaced, three people in this College, all in positions of authority, told me that it would
serve no useful purpose to complain because no action would be taken. Upon my return to campus for the fall
semester, I find the problem distracting and I fee] unsafe in my work environment A little over a week ago my
office had been entered and my computer was on when I came to work. Things were moved around. I checked with
the IT support staff and the student assistants who work for me, and none of them had been in my office during the
previous period. While I cannot prove that Dr Markovic was in my office, I am aware, as you are aware, that Dr
Markovic has on other occasions destroyed labs and student projects.

! find the continuing harassment embarrassing and humiliating. Once again I am requesting your assistance with
resolving the problem.

1 would appreciate a response to this letter.

Sincerely,

Cici Mattiuz.d
916-278-70917 cicifflcsus edu

cc Emir tvlacari, Dean College of Engineering and Computer Science


Suresh Vadhva, Chair, Electrical Engineering
Barbara Peterson, Vice President, Academic Professionals of California

7.1
I'o whom it may concern.

During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred-

"Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at
ihc lime this occurred.

*He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted
comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it.

•*ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade:
-He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch"
-He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back

-Ben Schaffcr

7.2
Exhibit 8
Date: Tue, 16:04:59 -0700
To: vadhva """
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: your advice
Cc:
Bcc: apcnvp@pacbell.net
X-Attachments:
Suresh, i

Thank you for your advice this morning. I appreciate your


kindness and concern. As you suggested I am working on
having the lock on my office changed and I am going to work
on figuring out how to juggle my schedule so I am not
coming in at 7 am to an empty building. It may be safer
not being alone in the building at that hour with Dr.
Markovic. It is unnerving to find him coming up the
stairs behind me at that hour.
Cici

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949
email cici@csus.edu
web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web


address!

8.1
Exhibit 9
Date: Thu, .Wi^^iggWl3:53:57 -0700
To: emacari
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: update: corrected copy
Cc:
Bcc: apcnvp@pacbell.net
X-Attachments:
Emir,

Thank you for speaking with me on Tuesday regarding the


letter that I wrote in complaint of the continuing
harassment directed at me by Dr. Markovic. After I spoke
with you, I told Lynne, who supervises a number of students
that I had written the letter, she indicated that she is
also very concerned about his behavior and is uncomfortable
with him. She told me that she was aware that Dr. Markovic
had been "hitting on" ,a number of male students recently
and that he had gone into a racist tirade directed at a
foreign student, calling him a terrorist.
Dr. Vadhva also spoke to me after receiving his copy of the
letter and a phone call from Paul, my husband. Dr Vadhva
is- aware of Dr Markovic and he suggested that I change the
locks and that I alter my comings and goings here. I
usually come in at or before 7 am.
After Dr. Markovic was reprimanded in the early 90s for
stalking a student he was admonished that the next time he
engaged in inappropriate behavior he would be terminated.
That is according to It has happened on numerous
occasions since.
Cici

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street

9.1
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949
email cici@csus.edu
web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web


address!

9.2
Exhibit 10
Paul Mattiu/2i|lfe«8:02 A 3700, Fwd: Your concern.
To: paul
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Your concern.
Cc:

X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAALbcGEeCVICEnZdsbZJhbACOVAEBAQEHBAYJIIEn
X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,302,11 88802800";
d="scan'208";a="117409907"
Subject: Your concern.
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:39:09 -0700
Thread-Topic: Your concern.
Thread-Index: AcgSqT7cs3oPUPVvQZCji+Od/+vMkg==
From: "Lau, Peter" <peter.lau@csus.edu>
To: "Mattiuzzi, CiCi" <cici@saclink.csus.edu>
X-Virus-Status: No
X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.90.2/4545/Wed Oct 17
14:05:57 2007

Cici:

Action has been taken regarding your complaint against Prof. Markovic.
I believe there will not be any more harassment directed towards you.
Please inform me as soon as possible in case you encounter any more
harassment from Prof. Markovic.

Peter Lau
Director, Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
California State University, Sacramento
916.278.6907

Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may


contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is
solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized
interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate
applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
destroy all copies of the communication.

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu> .„ .


Exhibit 11
Local 1002, LIUNA, AFL-CIO

roara Perersen, Northern Vice President 10770 Oakon Way, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 (916)851-9449 Fax (916) 851-9449 af>^vp@pacbell.net

Peter Lau, Director


Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
California State University, Sacramento .
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Dear Mr. Lau:

It has recently come to my attention that a member of Unit 4, Cici Mattiuzzi has
come to you and your predecessors seven times with complaints about the on-
going and escalating harassment directed towards her and certain CSUS students
by Dr. Miroslav Markovic.

I'm sure you can understand, given the long history of abuse here, that she
expected something more from you than an email message staling that you
believe there will be no more harassment directed towards Ms Mattiuzzi. I'm
sure that she has received similar assurances throughout her long ordeal. I am
deeply concerned not only for our Unit 4 member but for the students involved as
well.

I ask, therefore, that as Ms. Mattiuzzi's union representative, I be provided with


the results of the current and all past investigations into these complaints as well
as the actions you have taken to insure a safe and healthful work environment for
all concerned.

. Petersen
Vice President
CSUS Chief Steward

Cc: Maria Santos


EdPurcell
Cici Mattiuzzi
Office 5040 Partridge Drive, Oakland, CA 94619-3514 (510) 482-1155 Fax (510) 482-1160 apc@apc1002.ors www.dpd002.org

11.1
Exhibit 12
California State University, Sacramento
Office of Human Resources
6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032
http //www csus edu/hr

November 16, 2007

To: Cici Mattiuzzi


College of Engineering & Computer Science

From Peter Lau, Director


Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

Re: Harassment Complaint

This is a follow-up to my Oct. 19, 2007 email to you. I have discussed your complaint
with Dean Macari. Dean Macari has decided to investigate the complaint himself. He
has informed me that he has concluded the investigation, and has taken action to prevent
any further occurrence of similar behavior from Dr. Markovic. As I said in my email,
should you encounter any more harassment from Dr. Markovic, please inform me as soon
as possible.

Sincerely yours,

Peter Lau, Director


Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

, v AUf-ORNiA S T A T t UNivtRSlTY Bakersfield ChanneMslands • Chico • Domtnguez Hills - Ease Say • Fresno • Fulierton • Humboldt • Long Beach • Lo*Ano**U»<, • Maritime Academy Man
Pomortd • Sacramenio
Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San
Sanjose
Jose • San Luis Obtspo San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus
12.1
Exhibit 13
ASKCSU POLICY GLOSSARY CONTENTS MAIN PAGE

Economic & Environmental Harassment


DEFINED
The language of sexual harassment has evolved. Today courts talk about it in terms of economic
and environmental harassment.
• Economic Harassment is any persistent or severe action that results in a "tangible
employment action." This can mean that the recipient of the harassment loses pay or
experiences some significant change in workload, assignments or hours of work.

• Environmental Harassment includes actions (that create adverse working conditions but
do not result in a "tangible employment action." It encompasses jokes, comments, slurs,
emails, touching, pictures or any behavior that seriously interferes with an employee's work
environment.

In reality, environmental harassment is more common than economic harassment. In cases of


environmental harassment, the focus is on the environment rather than on a tangible economic
loss suffered by the recipient.

of 2 1/15/08 11:03 AM

13.1
Exhibit 14
January 30,2008

Peter Lau ' <


Affirmative Action Officer
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Dear Pctci,

As in the past, I continue to receive information about Dr. Markovic that is disturbing and unsettling and
that causes me to experience stress in the work environment.

I have recently been told that Dr. Gonan, a professor in EEE has received a complaint from a student about
being harassed by Dr. Markovic and that the student is unwilling to file a formal complaint. My
understanding is that this was brought to Dr. Gonan's attention last semester.

On January 10th, a student told me directly mat Dr. Maikovic has invited him toiisitome on-numerous
occasions to work on Markovic's car. The student is quite unaware of the implications. This type of
personal involvement with a student may not be appropriate. It is definitely reminiscent of Dr.Markovic's
involvement with Peter Robiiio. You will recall that this was a situation in which Markovic ingratiated
himself with a student over a period of time, apparently attempted to develop a distinctly inappropriate
relationship, and then stalked him and actively sought to disrupt the student's employment The Robino
matter is well documented.

As you know, I was recently required to complete the CSU sexual harassment on-line workshop. The
workshop's instruction is that if a staff member has reason to believe that any type of harasssieat is taking
place, it must be reported. My experience, however, is that the effort.is futile and that effective action will
not be taken by the campus. In addition, my experience has been that negative consequences will follow
from having made the required report The workshop also stressed that making negative comments about
another employee could be actionable. So I am in the position of having to decide whether or not I should
warn a student about a faculty member who might be grooming him as prey, as he has done before. Either
way, 1 am subjected to a conflict that should not be present in my work environment. And, it necessarily
brings back to mind the fact that Markovic has directed hostility towards-me, and that he is still just down
the hall. And, it brings back to mind the fact that my former supervisor immediately stopped
communicating with me in" almost any way, after that supervisor learned that I had filed a complaint about
Maffcovic. Before communications with that supervisor ceased, he subjected me to an irrational 'harangue.
In addition, he stopped supporting my reclassification and tried to remove an area of responsibility. I was
directly'told that my supervisor thwarted my reclass after I reported the ,2003 event

Indeed, the workshop itself and the requirement that I take it gives reason for me to experience distress.
The workshop's injunctions put me in a bind. The workshop's assertion that matters such as this will
be resolved correctly defies reality as I know it

Sincerely,

Cici Mattiuzzi
916-278-7091/ cici@csus.edu

14.1
Exhibit 15
Original Message
From: paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d. [mailto:pgm8693@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Lau, Peter; wagnerdl@csus.edu; apcnvp@pacbell.net
Subject: harrassment on campus, hostile work environment
TO: Peter Lau
Peter:

I want to let you know that it is happening again.


The information is third hand but reliable.
Cici heard yesterday from a former-student/alum who is known to have
been harassed by the professor whose name you know.

Cici was in contact with this alum for a completely unrelated purpose
(scheduling him as a guest speaker). As an aside, he said "I guess
you know ..." and proceeded to describe a recent incident.
This alum had a student assistant working for him in industry. The
student assistant was upset at work and described the experience of a
fellow student who was being pressured by the professor to travel with
him to Hawaii. It was distressing to them both, and the student
advised his friend to make a report to the campus police.
The alum who spoke to Cici told her that this situation is widely
known in his industry, that it is assumed that the problem is well
known on campus (.i.e., "everybody knows"), and that it is assumed
that the campus will never respond effectively. In other words, this
is an issue that reflects negatively on CSUS in the community.
The fact that this continues creates distress for Cici. In addition,
15.1
it is exceedingly disruptive to me and requires unimaginable restraint
on my part.
And as I said before, even though the sexual harassment itself is not
directed towards Cici, it creates a hostile work environment.
Contributing to the hostility of the workplace is a common belief that
the campus responds immediately to racial insensitivities and hate
speech, while ignoring and tolerating sexual harassment and gender
hate speech.
I am meeting with an attorney on Wednesday the 27th for an initial
consultation.

paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d.


Criminal Forensic Psychologist
'(916) 485-0285

15.2
Exhibit 16
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:38:19-0800
To: peter.lau@csus.edu
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Dr. Markovic
Cc: apcnvp@pacbell.net, wagnerdl@csus.edu
Bcc:
X-Attach merits:

X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:Ao8CAEaFwUdMYD4Yb2dsb2JhbACCOzKNbgEKBAQEBQoRBYEP
X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,398,1199692800";
d="scan'208,217";a="130056239"
From: "David Black" <dave.black@comcast.net>
To: <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: Dr. Markovic
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:56:28 -0800
Thread-Index: Ach3OHzNYrvHAdW8RXq2YfxEOGoz3A==
X-Virus-Status: No
X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.92/5977/Sun Feb 24 13:56:54
2008

Cici,

During the summer of 2007, I worked with a CSUS intern named . He informed me that he
was a student of Dr. Miroslav Markovic and that there had been some strange behavior exhibited by Dr.
Markovic involving another male power student. .was close friends with the power student and was
told that Dr. Markovic had offered to purchase a laptop (for the student) and offered to take the student to
Hawaii during the summer so that they could spend some time on the beach and grade papers together.
The student did not feel comfortable with the situation because he was also a student of Dr. Markovic and
approached L with advice on what to do. advised his friend to notify campus security about the
situation because he thought that this behavior was not appropriate. The student filed a complaint with
campus authorities ana_ was under the impression that an investigation had begun and that Dr.
Markovic would be reprimanded for his inappropriate behavior.

That is all that can remember from what ;told me last summer concerning Dr. Markovic. It is very sad
that this type of behavior has been tolerated thrbughout the years at CSUS. That fact that Dr. Markovic is a
tenured professor does not give him the right td sexually harass unsuspecting young students. I personally
find this behavior intolerable and cannot understand why CSUS has not stepped in to permanently 'diffuse
the situation. An educational facility should foster and support a harassment free environment as does any
professional work place.

Sincerely,

Dave Black P.E.


CSUS EE Power Graduate, 2003

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023
16.1
Exhibit 17
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@gaia ecs.csus edu>
Subject: Re: Keeping you informed.
Date: March 18, 2008 11.30:38 AM PDT
To: "Lau, Peter" <peter.lau@csus edu>
Cc: apcnvp@pacbell.net

Peter,

I sent you David Black's info and I confirmed that it was correct. I had no problem getting
through to him. He indicated he would call you.
Contact info for -. current student:
i@saclink.csus.edu
i@vohoo. com

may not want to talk as he is the student who was fixing Markovic's car at Markovic's house
and didn't know that it was inappropriate. I believe it is the same situation as Peter Robino.
Cici

Cici:

I want to keep you informed as to what I am doing. I have done some preliminary interviews. A
couple of the addresses you gave me are incorrect so I have been unable to contact David Black
and
Next week I am going to initiate the formal investigation, which means I'll notify the Dean and
the Provost as part of the procedure. I'll talk to a couple more witnesses before I notify Prof.
Markovic.
Peter Lau
Director, Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
California State University, Sacramento
916.278.6907
Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or
legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s).
Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable
laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023
phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949
email cici@csus.edu
web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

17.1
Exhibit 18
Lau, PeterJ|f|fg8Ji38 AM -07'" Re: Contact info.
To: "Lau, Peter" <peter.iau@csus.edu>
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: Re: Contact info.
Cc:
Bcc:
Attachments:

- EEE major- ' - _ .


email addresses -. @saclink.csus.edu / ^juno.com

Cici:

Do you have contact information for former student

Peter Lau
Director, Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
California State University, Sacramento
916.278.6907

Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception,
review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
destroy all copies of the communication.

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949
email cici@csus.edu
web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu> ,g ,


Exhibit 19
Lau, Pete^^^^j^;51 AM •" ^0, Re: mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu,msar @ calstate.edu
From: "Lau, Peter" <peter.Iau@csus.edu>
To: "apcnvp@pacbell.net" <apcnvp@pacbell.net>
CC: "mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu" <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: RE: mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu,msantos@calstate.edu

Barbara and Cici:

As Cici already know, new information has come up and I need to interview additional witnesses. Some of the new
witnesses do not work for Sac State nor do they go to school here at this time. They may not even live in the Sacramento
area. Thus it will take some time to gather up more evidence. Thank you for your patience.

Peter Lau, Director


Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
SAC 162
CSU Sacramento
916.278.6907 _
From: Barbara Petersen [mailto:apcnvp@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:48 AM
To: Lau, Peter
Subject: mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu,msantos@calstate.edu

Good Morning Peter,

I am writing to you today as the union representative for Ms Cici Mattiuzzi. Ms Mattiuzzi has given you written permission
to communicate with me regarding her complaint.

On January 30. 2008 you notified Ms Mattiuzzi that you were initiating a level 1 investigation and that that process would
take 60 days. On March 1 8, 2008 you notified Ms Mattiuzzi that you would start your investigation the following week.
Here we are at the beginning of May and neither Ms Mattiuzzi nor I have received any communication from you as to the status
of your investigation.

What is the status of your investigation? What, if any, actions have you taken to deal with this very serious situation? I expect
a timely answer to my inquiry.

Barbara Petersen
APC Labor Relations Representative
916-851-9449

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>


Exhibit 20
Lau, Peteig^i)$p:24 PM -07^ Re: Investigation
' ffFF-°, **- \^I-C—UA—fliJ «M <J

From: "Lau, Peter" <peter.Iau@csus.edu>


To: "apcnvp@pacbell.net" <apcnvp@pacbell.net>
CC: "mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu" <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: RE: Investigation

Cici and Barbara:

I have completed my investigation. I am in the process of writing up my findings. It will take several days. I anticipate I
will finish by next Monday.

Peter Lau, Director


Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action
SAC 162
CSU Sacramento
916.278.6907
From: Barbara Petersen [mailto:apcnvp®pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:09 AM
To: Lau, Peter
Cc: mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu; msantos@calstate.edu
Subject: Investigation

Good Morning Peter,

At the beginning of May you indicated that your investigation would be complete by May 30, 2008. Please provide me with
the results of that investigation. My mailing address is 10774 Oakton Way, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670.

Thank you,

Barbara Petersen
APC Labor Relations Representative
916-851-9449

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <matthizc@ecs.csus.edu> ~n


Exhibit 21
California State University, Sacramento
Office of Human Resources
6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032
http://www.csus.edu/hr

June 4, 200$

Ms. Cici Mattiuzzi


College of Engineering and Computer Science

Dear Ms. Mattiuzzi:

I am completed-my ffivestigation into your complaint against Professor Miroslav


Markovic. You made two allegations against Prof. Markovic:

1. You alleged that Prof Markovic attempted to develop inappropriate personal


relations with students.
2. You alleged that Prof. Markovic created a harassing work environment for you.

My investigation found, the following:

1. On your first allegation, I have talked to a number of witnesses, including current


professors and staff in the College of Engineering, and current and former
students. Of all the witnesses, only one has any direct experience with the type of
behavior you alleged. This witness, who is a former student, confirmed some of
the facts as told to me by others. However, this witness did not indicate to me
that there was any inappropriate action on the part of Dr. Markovic. This witness
experienced no attempt from Dr. Markovic in trying to develop any inappropriate
relationship with him.

Aside from this one individual, other witnesses who I have talked to could only
provide me with second hand information and rumors. Some of this information
went back a number of years. No one else had any direct, or current information
to support your allegation.

2. Your second allegation concerned verbal harassment against you by Prof.


Markovic. As you know, my office and the Dean's office have investigated theije
complaints. The most recent incident was investigated by Dean Macari. He had
confirmed the incident and had taken action based on his investigation. I
understand that he had also discussed his finding with you. You did not allege
any new incident since that time.

IMC CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVfcRSITY: Batersfield • Channel Islands • Chico • Dommguez Hills - EasiBay • Fresno • Fullenon - Humboldt • Long Beach • Los Angeles • Maritime Academy . M, ,„„.,.„
• Pomona • Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Jose • San Luis Oblspo • San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus

•21.1
At this time, I do not haWesotOogk evidence to proceed wrfli a fennai complaint against
Prof. Markovic.
Sincerely yotirs, • • >.„•

Peter Lau,
Director, Equal Opporturaty/AfBrmalive Action

21.2
Exhibit 22
"paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d." <ma2z@surewest.net>
For Dr. Alex Gonzalez ... please forward
August 27, 2008 5:29:57 PM PDT
infodesk@csus.edu

Dr. Gonzales:

I'm a CSUS alum, and as a psychologist, I'm a colleague of yours.

My wife Cici is also an alum, and for the past 30 years, she has been a CSUS employee.

She came home today after her first day back at work after summer vacation, and in tears, she told me about how demoralized she is working on
the campus. This should have been a good day.

On her first day back, her first task was to chair a Department meeting in the College of Engineering and Computer Science. She had no
business chainng such a meeting. That task is way outside her pay grade. But the fact is that in E&CS, she is routinely recognized and relied
upon to perform tasks that far exceed her personnel classification. She was asked to chair the meeting because she is recognized as being an
effective professional and an independent subject matter expert.

Last Spring, she went through the process of seeking reclassification, for the third time. And once again, her application was denied for reasons
that can only be viewed as bogus and arbitrary. As a forensic psychologist, I happen to be an expert in the task of interpreting data relative to
criteria. More so than any academician facing a journal review board or defending a dissertation, I am routinely examined live and in Court in a
process that can be likened to an "oral defense on steroids." It is from that perspective that I am confident in saying that Cici met the criteria for
reclassification and that the final decision involved what are politely referred to as °extra-criterial considerations." I think you Know what that
means in less polite language.

Also last Spring, Cici learned that the campus has no intention of paying any serious attention to her complaints against E&CS Professor
Markovic This is a guy who has for years been sexually harassing students and otherwise abusing staff members. If s well documented.

Despite her complaints, it has remained "no never mind" that he continues to do so. He's a professor, so what can you do? The students he has
assaulted want to get on with their lives, or they are embarrassed, and so they are not going to step into any mess on the campus they left
behind. Never mind that he remains a threat.

Cici never sought to expose Markovic. She never had an agenda with him. Students and graduates came to her with complaints about Markovic
and she did what you told her she should do in the training you insisted she complete. Ifs her issue only because she is the person in E&CS to
whom people bring their complaints. Never mind that he has slandered her repeatedly. Never mind that in an ideal world, the things Markovic
has said about Cici would provide a basis for a complaint.

Today, on her first day back on campus, Cici learned that a valued staff member is intending to resign. The staff member's reason is that he can
no longer stand the ongoing abuse he receives from Markovic.

Cici came home demoralized. She knows that CSUS provides her with no prospect for advancement, that CSUS is intent on ignoring her
contribution to the campus, and that CSUS is intent on turning a blind eye towards complaints from women on campus.

I want you to know that I am entirely prepared to provide you with a complete history of the events involved in Cet's feelings of demoralization. It
goes way back and before your tender.

But for now, you should know that I am disappointed in CSUS's performance in recognizing employee contributions and in responding to
complaints about staff behavior.

Sincerely

paul g mattiuzzi, ph.d

22.1
Exhibit 23
"paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d." <pgm8693@gmail com>
Markovic: putting you on notice
August 28, 2008 9:12'21 PM PDT
markovic@gaia ecs.csus.edu
emacari@csus.edu, vadhva@gaia.ecs.csus.edu, peter.lau@csus.edu

Markovic.

I don't know if you think you were being clever this afternoon when you bumped into my wife Cici, not once but twice, and with
purpose and intention.

The fact that you decided to annoy, harass and intimidate her is a matter that the campus could deal with. Or perhaps, as you
seem to have learned, the campus will not.

You should know, however, that you just stepped over a line (a line that is written in the law) and now you have to deal with me

This is a warning and you are only going to hear it once.

Don't you ever again come anywhere near my wife. Don't you ever speak to her and don't speak about her If as today you happen
to be in a room where you are both present for some meeting, stay on the other side of the room. If you see her walking down the
hall, turn around, walk away and wait till she passes. If you see her, don't even look at her. And again, dont you dare come
anywhere near her.

Here is what will happen, I will march down to the Sacramento Superior Court and file a "Petition for Injunction Prohibiting
Harassment and Application for Temporary Restraining Order." I work in jails and in courts and with sociopaths, so I am down there
all the time anyway, and I know how to fill out and file the forms. If s about what1 s called "Civil Harassment." Be aware that if you
slur her name again, even behind her back, that constitutes actionable harassment.

To make the case for the order, I will air your dirty laundry. And I will ask for a "stay away order," barring your presence at her
place of work (the Engineering Building). I am in the business of persuading judges and juries, and for me, this is a no-brainer.

You will have your hearing in front of a Judge, and you will have a chance to explain yourself. Good luck.

Don't reply to this message and dont contact me. You will not hear from me again,

paul mattiuz?i

23.1
Exhibit 24
Paul Mattiuzzi, 9/2/08 7:18 AM ^00, Fwd: FW: Somewhat importar .. FW: Markovic:
To: paul
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Somewhat important FW: Markovic: putting you on notice
Cc:

Reply-To: <emacari@ecs.csus.edu>
From: "Emir Macari" <emacari@ecs.csus.edu>
To: '"Cici Mattiuzzi'" <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: FW: Somewhat important FW: Markovic: putting you on notice
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:49:44 -0700
Organization: CSUS
Thread-Index: AckJjW9aFvsWvAVXQYyTqtkQyeUAZgAAj63gABRSWVAAAVzPkA==
X-Virus-Status: No
X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV .0.92/811 6/Fri Aug 29
07:39:23 2008

From: Porter, Kentrmailto:porterk(5)saclink.csus.edu]


Sent: Friday;^^^^^f^7:15 AM
To: emacari@ecs.csus!edu
Cc: barnettkj@csus.edu; Wagner, David L; Sheley, Joseph; Lau, Peter
Subject: RE: Somewhat important FW: Markovic: putting you on notice
Importance: High

Emir -
Thank you for this information. Does Cici want to pursue this matter since apparently there was
physical contact? Is she willing to speak with someone about this incident? We need specifics to
determine how to proceed. Also, were there any witnesses to the "bump?" Please advise.
Kent
Kent R. Porter
Associate Vice President, Human Resources
California State University, Sacramento
Tel (916) 278-6169
FAX (916) 278-7153
Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception,
review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
destroy all copies of the communication.

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu> 24 i


Exhibit 25
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-ResUlt: AkMBAIYuvUjRVcbzlGdsb2JhbACCNDCPLD4BAQEBCQMKBxEDmj0wCYZBAQJshCo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,317,1217833200";
d="scan'208";a="148048848"
DKIM-Signature: v=l; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
bh=QL4uTx554nnTm3YYjPB25VVuyZFzSELPiQPocHehfzs=;
b=rgiyA9k64lqmLUTY0PjXMJiTuvrGVrG/9oYKBJ08b8nz5rkjfC3vtTQs6C2AjT0t+p
tQqoJHN8gD8NZsMn/4gQCuxHwmw43UvuYxPXDpmTu4vLESxBzpO/q/f88Y6AOWFeEMKh
rMBnRaYRNWWByiKwr6XPWb0Xw4g4+ybWV3PX0=
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:18:29 -0700
From: "paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d." < >
To:
Subject: Re: FW: Somewhat important FW: Markovic: putting you on notice
Cc: , , ,
X-Virus-Status: No
X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.92/8141/Tue Sep 2
08:52:21 2008
Kent:
This is not a matter for Cici to pursue. It's your problem.
This goes back to May of 1991 when Markovic stalked and harassed a graduating student who had
spurned his advances, and when he intervened with that'student's employer, trying to retaliate
by derailing his career. Cici became involved because in her position, she is the one the
employer contacted. Before Cici could respond, the employer contacted Dean Gillott, who also
turned to Cici for assistance.
Cici was drawn into it again in 2002 when Markovic sent bizarre and intimidating letters to PG&E
and when students were complaining about being bullied by him. I believe that was the first
time she heard 'a student say that they felt physically threatened. It was in the context of
that incident that a student documented comments Markovic had made, about Cici, indicating that
she had (.in the student's words) either "slept or prostituted her way" into her position.
In subsequent years, students would come to her with their concerns about Markovic. She always
faced the conflict: tell the students that he's a sexual predator (that could be deemed
harassment according to her mandatory on-campus training) or instead, fail to warn them.
Whether she complained or didn't, it created distress on her part and constituted a hostile
work environment. While not directed towards her, his episodes of explosive behavior on campus
were of a similarly distressing nature.
In 2007, when a staff member came to her and warned her about Markovic, it was not because
Markovic had called her a bitch, it was because the staff member thought she might be at risk.
In January 2008, it was only by coincidence that Cici learned that Markovic was once again
"chicken hawking" a student. On her first day back at work last week, a staff member came to
her and told her about being intimidated by Markovic. Again, it was not about her, but it was
unsettling none-the-less and a reminder that it's a hostile work environment.
Cici has pursued this before. There is no reason she should pursue it again. The final outcome
of her complaints is that he seems to have become emboldened. If you bump into a person once,
that could be an accident. If you bump into a person twice Cand make no effort at all to at
least pretend that it was an accident), that's intentional and it's a message. And because the
person has to decide whether to pursue it, and has to decide whether to talk about it, and is
confronted with the demand to produce evidence, and has to wait and watch to see if anything
happens, it's like mission accomplished. It's a clever, common and devious move.

25.1
What's different this time is not that it was physical, but that it was direct and intentional,
We are no longer talking about the broad and ambiguous definition of hostile work environment.
Whether you choose to restrain him or not, I will. I've defined the behavior to which I will
respond and I've outlined the intended action steps. It will happen off-campus and in public.
My petition to the Court will include the history. It will include an argument that an
injunction is necessary because he has been given license-by the campus,
paul mattiuzzi

25.2
Exhibit 26
Page 1 of 1

From "Porter. Kent" «mailto ponerk<&$3<->in.k < »i«> Kji^portfrK jS&g':iini : :-.i.

To "Mattiuzzi. CiCi" «mailto cJaSisaclink cm *clu>ricu.gsacim>< csus tn .>

CC' "<mailto ij^rnollkigicsus odu>burn?ftKi;gcMi3,edu" «mailto banMii>.*., ,i .

"Revelez, Gregorio"

«mailto gnu^saclink csu«,sau>3nng;sariiiik cius 6*.i>,


H
<mailtoa(Tiac«n@(»cs csus cdu>t?rnacsn^ec5.csu5 eclu" «marfto -vr.t 7

"Wagner. David L" «maclto wagnej.diSsl'yrri?!! C?uj..aiu>w_a3n9rcl!i-'k/raii qsus,e<iii>

Date Fn. 19 Sep 2008 08 20 09 -0700

Subject Follow-Up to Report of Incident

Thread-Topic Follow-Up to Report of Incident

Thread-Index ActeazPAsf+l8Z28R7W2OZ|+aqWUkA==

Accept-language en-US

accepUanguage en-US

X-vlrus-Status No

X-Virus-Checker-Version damassassm 1 2 4 with damdscan / ClamAV 0 92/8287/Fn Sep 19 01 13 26 2008

Dear Cid •

Since the incident late last month involving Miroslav Markovic that was brought to the attention of the College Dean, who in turn contacted Human Resources and Public
Safety, it is my understanding you have not spoken with anyone to formally report the incident

The University does not treat such matters lightly We are concerned and we wish to properly deal with this matter To do so, however, we need your assistance We
need to obtain from you specific information about the incident. You should expect to be contacted by Greg Revelez, an investigator from our Public Safety Department

Your kind cooperation in this matter is appreciated If you have any questions or concerns, you are welcome to contact either Mr Revelez (278-7245) or me

Sincerely,

KentR Porter

Associate Vice President. Human Resources

California State University, Sacramento

Tel (916)278-6169

FAX (916) 278-7153

Confidentiality Notice This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged Information It is solely for the use of the intended recipient
(s) Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Pnvacy Act If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication

26.1

http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=lqygpcgurkovy 8/4/2009
Exhibit 27
Cici -
If you had spoken with Mr. Revelez and provided him with details about the incident, he could have assessed whether the
incident was a matter for Public Safety. If Mr. Revelez would have assessed the incident to be an administrative matter
for HR to address, however, at least by now my office would have more information about what happened than it
currently has.
Regardless of whether the incident might be criminal or civil or something else, the University needs specific information
from you about the incident. Without specific information, HR cannot initiate any action. I would respectfully invite you
to meet with a representative from HR to tell us what happened, or if you prefer, you can submit a written statement
describing the incident. In either case HR would need as much specific information about the incident as you can provide.
You are welcome to contact me if you have questions or concerns, or if you would like to schedule a meeting.
Sincerely,

Kent R. Porter
Associate Vice President, Human Resources
California State University, Sacramento
Tel (916) 278-6169
FAX (91 6) 278-71 53

Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended rea'pient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

27.1
Exhibit 28
Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>
RE: Follow-Up to Report of Incident
• §eptember;^4;'2008;8:48:36 AM PDT
"Porter," Kent" <p'orterk@saclink.csus.edu>
griii@saclink.csus.edu, emacari@gaia.ecs.csus.edu

Kent,

I am not sure why you are using the word "if" in your email. As I indicated in the last email I
did speak to Greg Revelez. I spoke with Greg over two weeks ago. He called me at the behest of
Dean Macari. I did give him all of the details. It was he who indicated that it was
administrative.

1. He wanted to know if anyone witnessed the bumping event. Cnot that I am aware)
2. Then he wanted to know if there was a verbal threat, (no)
3. Then he told me that it didn't rise to the level of a criminal matter. He seemed frustrated.
He said it was an administrative HR issue not a matter for Public Safety. I reminded him at this
point that he called me- I did not initiate the call.
Perhaps it was unclear in my last email that I was paraphrasing Greg's comments.
For the record- in my own words- the email you received from my husband, Paul Mattiuzzi, is
extremely accurate. Pull out the records. This campus does not take harassment seriously.
In addition to my own observations, I have repeatedly heard from students and staff that this
campus does not take harassment seriously. I have wished to believe otherwise I have written 7 or
8 formal letters and I have been pulled into numerous investigations. At this point I am
completely demoralized. My husband and I are offended by the response of the campus on numerous
occasions regarding the harassment issues. Filing a complaint on this campus causes one to lose
credibility and to feel isolated and more harassed.
Recently, Dr Markovic threatened a pregnant staff member, shouting that he was going to shoot her.
Her response is that since no one heard him so no one will believe that it happened. She does not
plan to report it, she does not believe anyone will do anything and that it will put her in
further danger. I learned this this morning. She told me that she is afraid all of the time
here. So am I. She said to me "I am glad that you are complaining, I don't think I can". She
too has observed the harassment of young males at Dr. Markovic's hands.
The staff member who told me that Dr. Markovic made threats towards me and was extremely fearful
told me that he was told he should not have told me "because it just makes me angry."
The student who heard the comments at the same time said he continues to be afraid for me. He
told me this recently even though the event happened over a year ago.
When I shared the threat event with another person in management here he said "he is a full
professor", indicating that no full professor will every be removed no matter how significant the
threat or harassment.
When I discussed the 2007 issue with the proper authority he told me he was "aware that I have a
personality conflict with Dr. Markovic".
During this last go around, Peter Lau spoke with numerous alumni who after finally getting their
careers to a level that they were no longer afraid that Dr Markovic could harm them told their
stories. He wrote me that those events occurred too long ago.
A staff member in the Dean's Office asked me why I would complain. When she complained that she
was stalked and harassed by a CSUS staff member she was told by HR "but he planted the trees
here."
28.1
A professor who is now in administration told me to change my hours so that I am not in the
building alone with Dr Markovic. He told me he was afraid for my safety and that I should stop
complaining because Markovic is a "loose cannon".
The reason I choose not to write out a formal complaint regarding the bumping event to HR is
because in my last meeting with Peter Lau, in January of 2008, he indicated that although he would
reluctantly investigate my complaint, there was very little that the university could do. "The
best we can hope for is that he might take early retirement."
I cannot begin to tell you how disruptive this continues to be to my work and my life.

Cici

28.2
Exhibit 29
cici mattiuzzi <cici@surewest.net>
.. Thank you and another event
September 24, 2008 526:46 PM POT
porterk@saclink.csus.edu
Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>

Dear Kent,

Thank you for speaking to me and Lynne today. I appreciate your willingness to listen.
I ran into an international student on the way out today who was quite upset. I asked him what
was wrong and he indicated that he was being abused and belittled by Dr Markovic for being a
foreigner. He indicated that he didn't understand why the university would tolerate this and that
it is common knowledge among the Indian students. He said he, like others, was afraid to
complain. It was very much like what Lynne had told you. The student is from India and speaks
perfect, clear English. Markovic ridiculed him by saying he could not understand him and to
"learn English". I told him to send email to me with all of the information and I would get the
information to the right person. He said he would but that he didn't want to have his name used.
I expect email from him tomorrow morning.
This is relentless. The situation is getting worse and the incidents are more extreme and more
frequent. I do believe that he is becoming bolder and more aggressive. I tried the number on
your email but it was not a direct line. I realized that you had not given that to me.
I am writing from home to preserve my memory.
Cici Mattiuzzi

29.1
Exhibit 30
Porter, Kent, 10/2/08 12:08 PT V700, filed police report and new in nt
To: Kent_Porter
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: filed police report and new incident
Cc: vadhva, emacari
Bcc: dansiegel@siegelyee.com, lynne-ecs.csus.edu, paul, brannanp, wimple
Attachments:

Kent Porter, VP Human Resources

Kent,

I just finished filing a police report for the bumping event that occurred on August 28th. I was prompted
to do so because of a new-disturbing incident that happened this week on Tuesday 9/30/08. The police
have given me a case number - 08-0581 for the incident.

I have been informed this morning that Dr. Markovic, in another outburst, threatened to shoot an IT staff
member and his wife on Tuesday. I do not have the details, but Lynne, who you spoke with last Wednesday
(9/24) on speaker phone was upset by the event. As you will recall Lynne is the pregnant staff member
who was threatened (7/15) by Markovic. He said that he was going to shoot her in a verbal tirade. She
was afraid to file a report for fear that she would be in greater danger if she did so.

The police officer indicated that the other two members in the ECS IT staff would have to share their
experience directly with the police. He advised me to have call directly.

Officer Nguyen (278-6851), who took the report today indicated that he could take the report but that it
did not rise to the level of a criminal complaint unless he verbal threatened me or physically assaulted
me. He indicated that it was a Civil matter.

Both Officer Nguyen and I recorded our conversation.

I find it incredibly difficult to perform my work under the stress of the continued outbursts Dr.
Markovic against my fellow staff and the intimidation he directs towards me. Once again, I do not feel safe
in my work environment.

I left a phone message with your staff member Lorena at 278-6779. She indicated that you would call
me at 11 am. I left a message with her last week also. I have not heard from you so I am putting this in
writing.

Cici

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949
email cici@csus.edu
web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu> -ft .


Exhibit 31
From: S K Ramesh <s.ramesh@csun.edu>
DateflfelQ^'C'^f'S'-iSSiSS PM PDT
To: "cici@surewest.net" <cici@surewest.net>
Cc: "pgm8693@gmail.com" <pgm8693@gmail.com>
Subject: Dr. Markovic

Cici and Paul

I was saddened to hear about the recent threats by Dr. Markovic towards
you and other members of the staff. During the time I was at Sacramento
State there was more than one occasion where his behavior and
interaction with our students raised serious concerns. I brought these to
the attention of Donna Selnick (University Legal Counsel) and the Office of
Faculty Affairs in November 2002 and subsequently to the President's
Office in February 2003.

As far as ,l,fen©wm©:a£^©n was taken on this mailer as of the time I left


Sacramento State in 2006. My concern then and now is for the welfare of
our students, faculty and staff and it is imperative that appropriate steps
are taken to ensure their safety at all times.

Sincerely,

Ramesh

S. K. Ramesh, Ph.D.
Dean,
College of Engineering and Computer Science &
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
California State University, Northridge
CA 91330-8295
Tel: 818-677-4501 Fax: 818-677-2140
e-maii: s.ramesh@csun.edu

31.1
10,200'8'

Peter Lau
Affirmative Action Officer
CSU, Sacramento

Dear Peter,

I am writing once again to inform you about me behavior of Dr. Miroslav Markovic. I have personally
experienced harassment and I am aware of four other very disturbing events. I hesitate to complain since I
have complained to no avail so many times in the past and I have been involved in so many investigations
since the first stalking incident in 1991. I will outline the latest events in this letter.

On Thursday, August 28th, I was at a fall reception for faculty and staff. I did not notice that Professor
Markovic was there until he forcefully bumped into me on his way to the drink table. He passed without
saying anything and without making any pretense that this was an accident. The room was not so crowded
chat bumping was understandable. A number of moments later, on his way back past me, he again
forcefully bumped into me and made no effort to dismiss his actions as accidental. Once might be an
accident, twice is a pattern I have never had direct contact with Dr. Markovic in the past. I have not
spoken to him in many years.

I perceived this as an intentional effort to annoy, harass and intimidate me, and as a direct message. He is
aware that I had complained about him and reported the student harassment incident during the previous
semester and other incidents in the more distant past and that nothing was done. I perceived him as having
put me on notice that he can act with impunity. My view is that he has been emboldened by the failure of
the campus to restrain him and that he is in fact more threatening by virtue of having been granted license.

What was different about the above is that it was it was an intentional, deliberate and direct act of physical
harassment taken against me. It was subtle but devious. It left me in the position of having to decide
whether to pursue it and talk about it, and if so, with a demand to produce "evidence," and to be left
wondering again if anything will be done in response. As an act of harassment, it was "mission
accomplished"

1 decided not to complain. My husband decided to act otherwise. My husband wrote a very pointed email
lo Markovic and informed him that if he harassed me again in any way, he would pursue a TRO and
protective order. This is the first time that I felt that anyone was acting on my behalf in dealing with Dr.
Markovic.

1 am aware that some of his actions are subtle and ambiguous and that they give rise to innocent
explanations. But taken together with the history, even if it is dismissed as simply boorish, impolite and
inconsiderate, his behavior serves to create a hostile work environment that causes me to be substantially
distressed and disturbed.

After my husband's pointed email to Dr. Markovic, which was copied to various campus authorities, I
received email from Associate VP of HR, Kent Porter requesting that I speak to the campus police. I had
done so pnor to receiving Kent's email. My boss, Dean Emir Macari, after learning of the incident with
Dr. Markovic, contacted the campus police to have them follow up. I spoke to Officer Greg Revelez
Officer Revelez indicated that it was a "human resources" rather than a "criminal matter" and therefore
not a police matter and "should be handled by the HR department". I did not feel that filing a police
report was going to be productive after speaking to Officer Revelez. (I later filed a police report as I
indicate below).

Later in early September, after the bumping incident. I was informed that Dr. Markovic had verbally
harassed the campus telephone installer:, Brandon had come to the building to replace all of
the old phones and Dr. Markovic was excessively unhappy about the change. Several staff members and a
student assistant observed a most ugly and humiliating tirade and spoke to me about it at length. One

32.1
individual told me that he was inclined to search for a job elsewhere given the constant tirades. He
indicated that "a faculty member on tkis campus could do anything and not be held accountable". 1
encouraged staff to report the incident They indicated that it would be a waste of time given the campus'
response lo numerous other reports about Dr. Markovic.

On Wednesday the 24th of September, I was visibly upset about the bumping experience with Dr Markovic
and the continuing hostile environment. A fellow staff member who is pregnant, Lynne Onitsuka, asked
why 1 was upset and then proceeded to tell me that on July 15th, while she was fixing his computer Dr.
Markovic had gone into a rage over her routine work on his computer and among other things and in
exceedingly harsh tones, said to her: "I'm going to shoot you," (This happened when she was 6 months
pregnant).

Although she stated that she was afraid for her safety and that of her unborn child, Lynne had not reported
the incident because she felt she had good reason to believe that,any complaint to campus authorities 1)
would be futile, 2) that it would put her in greater danger, 3) that she would jeopardize her pregnancy and
4) that she believed that complaining would impede her career on this campus. (She is the sole income
earner in her family). She further indicated that none of the male IT staff members are witling to go into
Dr. Markovic's office to update his computer because they are afraid of him. This was not the first
incident for her, but it was the most disturbing.

On the same day as my conversation with her (9/24) and at my urging, Lynne Onitsuka, agreed to speak to
Kent Porter, the VP of HR He had seemed concerned and had called me to discuss the bumping incident
that day (9/24) after I had emailed him about the threat to Lynne. She happened to come into my office
while I was on the phone with Kent and I asked if she would share her experiences with Kent She and I
spoke at length (for 45 minutes to an hour) on the phone to Kent Porter about the fears that we have and
gave him detailed information on the bumping incident and the "threat to shoot incident" described above
During our long phone conversation with Kent Porter, Lynne shared the long history of her observations
of Dr. Markovic's tirades with the IT staff, and her observations of his sexual harassment of engineering
male students, as well as all of the information in the preceding paragraph. We both indicated to Kent
during our discussion that we are afraid all of the time, f indicated to Kent that I am afraid when I am
with -students for their safety as well as my own.

On Thursday, October 2nd I learned of a second shooting threat. On September 29th Dr. Markovic went
into a rage and threatened to "shoot " 01*4 "make his wife a widow". The day 1
learned of the second shooting threat, I immediately called Kent Porter and left two urgent messages that
we were afraid and that another threat had been made. To this day I have not received a returned call from
Kent Porter I contacted my union, which referred me to a labor attorney. I told the attorney about the
second shooting threat and he instructed me to immediately uhang up and call the police". I hung up and 1
made a police report to the campus police (Officer Douglas Nguyen) of my bumping incident. The two IT
staff members, Lynne Onitsuka and - also filed police reports of the shooting threats.

Officer Nguyen came and took my report and later that day he came back and took Lynne's report. I was
later told that an international student who had witnessed numerous incidents, was in the room when Lynne
gave her report and it was decided that he should not give a report because of his international status and
his hope of remaining in this country for employment after graduation.

' __has filed a police report. He did so after check with me. The technical staff believed that
if they filed reports or complained that it would put me in jeopardy. He told me that they had discussed the
.situation in a staff meeUng and it was presumed that if they complained the campus administration might
take retaliatory action against me.

Dr Markovic's behavior serves to create a hostile work environment that causes me to be substantially
distressed and disturbed. The intensity and frequency of the complaints from staff and students and the
warnings from students and faculty who fear for my safety have reached a new level of intensity since my
return to campus this fall. Dr. Markovic's behavior and threats are alarming to me and to others.

32.2
This letter is the forth time I have personally given this information to a campus authority. To enumerate.
1) to Officer Greg Revelez (phone conversation); 2) to Associate Vice President of Human Resources, Kent
Porter (phone conversation and in email copied to appropriate authorities); 3) to Officer Douglas Nguyen in
a formal police report; 4) and now in writing to you.

It seems that the campus cannot figure out if the threatening and intimidating behavior that Dr. Markovic
displays is a police matter or a human resources issue. In the mean time staff are left to wonder if anyone is
in charge of sorting out this type of problem or cares about protecting staff from treats and intimidation.

Six staff members on this floor have observed threats and tirades or been directly threatened or intimidated
by Dr. Markovic. Three staff members of the College of Engineering and Computer Sciencefiled police
reports in October 2008. We have heard nothing. I have been unable to get a copy of the police report
although I have asked three times.

As you have observed in your previous investigations, it is very difficult to get students, faculty and staff to
come forward for fear of reprisals. The fact that three of us have come forward and that a student shared
his numerous observations with Officer Nguyen is remarkable. The climate of fear and intimidation, and
previous inaction by the university are difficult obstacles to overcome.

I trust that you find my letter helpful as you once again are called upon to investigate the hostile work
environment here in the College of Engineering and Computer Science.

Sincerely,

Cici Mattiuvczi
916-278-7091/ cicifficsus edu

Maria Santos, Senior Director, Employee Relations, CSU


Alexander Gonzalez, President, CSUS
James McGIamery, Attorney at Law
Barbara Peterson, Labor Representative, APC

32.3
Exhibit 33
LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES E. McGLAMERY
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 600
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone (916) 446-623S
Facsimile (916) 446-6218
Paralegal (916) 489-79SS

gDecember 16, 2008 '

Dr. Alexander Gonzalez


President CSUS
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Re: Cecilia Mattiuzzi

Dear Dr. Gonzalez:

I have been retained by a long-term employee of California State University Sacramento


(hereafter "CSUS"), Cecilia Mattiuzzi, with regards to issues of sexual harassment, gender-
based discrimination and personal safety, caused by a professor at CSUS.

Ms. Mattiuzzi has attempted to resolve her concerns through informal and formal
complaints with the Affirmative Action Office, however, these complaints have not resulted
in any resolution of this severe problem. In fact, since Ms. Mattiuzzi made her concerns
known to the Affirmative Action/Human Resources Departments, she has experienced
retaliation in the form of reduction of her job duties.

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the basis of our conclusions that CSUS has
violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. We would like to resolve this
matter without resorting to litigation; however, we are prepared to pursue this matter in a
court of law if necessary to obtain a fair and just resolution on behalf of Ms. Mattiuzzi.

The following sets forth a summary of the factual issues that compelled Ms. Mattiuzzi to
retain my office for assistance; and, a discussion of pertinent evidence that supports her
claims of harassment and retaliation, followed by a discussion of the pertinent law and a
demand for resolution.

SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ISSUES AND EVIDENCE

Ms. Mattiuzzi has worked for CSUS since 1 978. She is the Director of Career Services in
the College of Engineering and Computer Science. Her contributions to CSUS during her
tenure with the College of Engineering and Computer Science have been substantial. Her
Employee Performance Evaluations have been "outstanding." The following comments
from her evaluator and Supervisor, Dean of College Engineering, Emir Macari, reflect Ms.
Mattiuzzi's dedication and service to CSUS:

33.1
"Ms. Mattiuzzi is an outstanding employee. Her work quality, quantity,
professionalism and contributions to the campus and CSUS community are
all exceptional. She runs a unique and exemplary program that is of great
benefit and demonstrated efficacy. In this position, she has developed
sophisticated programs that are essential to our recruitment, retention and
graduation rates. The benefits of the Career Services Office that she runs
provide the campus with a solid and beneficial connection with the local
community.

'The benefits that students receive are considerable. She has pioneered in
the design, development, and implementation of sophisticated career
services, alumni networks, alumni tracking web-based services that extend
the reach of our career Services Office well beyond what might be expected
from resources dedicated.'"

The Professor that is the subject of this letter is Milosic Markovic (hereafter referred to as
"Markovic"). In 1991, Ms. Mattiuzzi learned of allegations that Markovic had stalked and
harassed a graduating student who had spumed his advances and, tried to retaliate
against that student by derailing his career. Ms. Mattiuzzi became involved because she
was contacted by the student's employer to inform CSUS about Markovic's conduct.

In early Spring of 2003, Ms. Mattiuzzi delivered a copy of a letter from a CSUS alumnus,
who had expressed significant concerns about the behavior of Professor Markovic. This
alumnus, a former student of Markovic, noted in the letter that Markovic had displayed
behavior toward students that was erratic and frightening and "eclipses any of his
instructional abilities." That alumnus also revealed that when the alumnus asked Markovic
about whether Ms. Mattiuzzi, as the Career Counselor, might be helpful in securing
employment for that alumnus (who at that time was a student), Markovic replied with a
defamatory tirade against Ms. Mattiuzzi. Markovic stated that Ms. Mattiuzzi would be of
no help, and that Markovic believed that Ms. Mattiuzzi had slept or prostituted her way into
the position of ECS Career Counselor. The alumnus also expressed the belief that
Markovic "might be a loose canyon and a danger to students." A copy of this letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

Shortly after Ms. Mattiuzzi delivered the letter that is attached as Exhibit "A" to the
Affirmative Action Department in the Spring of 2003, Braja Das, former Dean of the College
Engineering and Computer Sciences, began to act in a hostile fashion towards Ms.
Mattiuzzi. This hostility continued after the Summer break when Dean Das verbally
attacked Ms. Mattiuzzi on August 27, 2003. Dean Das informed Ms. Mattiuzzi that he had
decided not to sign her contract to teach CS 194 for the upcoming semester, as scheduled.
Ms. Mattiuzzi was convinced that the decision by Dean Das to withhold this contract was
retaliation for her submitting the letter from the CSUS alumnus to Braja Das. That issue
was ultimately resolved when Dean Das received instructions from Campus Personnel that
the Contract was to be renewed and that Ms. Mattiuzzi would be allowed to teach the
course. Unfortunately, however, Dean Das continued to be angry at Ms. Mattiuzzi for her

33.2
report of this harassment. He did not speak to Ms. Mattiuzzi at all during the last three
years of his tenure at CSUS, despite the fact that he was her direct supervisor and their
paths frequently crossed.

Markovic's intimidating, threatening and abusive behavior has by no means been limited
in its scope to Ms. Mattiuzzi and a few students. A thorough and complete investigation
would reveal that the following individuals either have knowledge of harassment have been
victims of harassment by Markovic, or can attest to the continuing gender-based
discriminatory practices at CSUS.

(1) Lynn Onitsuka, IT Consultant for CSUS, has filed a police report this year
against Markovic for threatening her, particularly stating, "I am going to get
my gun and shoot you. Tell your husband he better get a new wife." This
statement was made while Ms. Onitsuka was six months pregnant.
Furthermore, Department records should verify that approximately six to
eight students, or student assistants, have experienced romantic or sexual
advances by Markovic. Ms. Onitsuka feels that Markovic has created a very
uncomfortable and intimidating work atmosphere.

(2) Ben Schaffer, Systems Analyst for CSUS, heard the May 2007 tirade of
Markovic toward Ms. Mattiuzzi, including Markovic's reference to Ms.
Mattiuzzi as a "bitch." (See Exhibit "B," attached hereto).

(3) Suresh Vadhva, current Chair of the EEE Department, has knowledge about
the numerous outbursts and threats by Markovic.

(4) S. K. Ramesh, former Chair of the EEE Department, and currently the Dean
at CSU Northridge is also aware of the threats, outbursts and harassment by
Markovic. Dr. Ramesh became extremely frustrated by the lack of action by
CSUS to take remedial action against Markovic. (See Exhibit "G").

(5) James Wilson, former Secretary of the EEE Department observed several
years of Markovic's intimidating and harassing conduct.

(6) ', Associate Electrical Engineer, and a former Engineering


student of Markovic knows about incidents of harassment by Markovic.

(7) was a student who was dropped by Markovic from his class
when she was pregnant, because she was sick and missed class. Ms.
has knowledge about how Markovic routinely belittled the women in
class and how Markovic favored men. She reported this information, but was
informed that the Campus would not take any action.

33.3
(8) Nathan Laye is an alumnus CSUS who wrote the letter attached as Exhibit
"A."

(9) David Black is an alumnus of CSUS and heard Markovic make derogatory
comments about Ms. Mattiuzzi. Mr. Black also has information about sexual
harassment by Markovic.

(10) Barbara Peterson, Union Representative, has expressed concern about the
lack of affirmative action on the part of CSUS to take effective remedial
action to end harassment and possesses knowledge of gender-based
discrimination against Ms. Mattiuzzi.

(11) Amir Macari, Dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science, and
Ms. Mattiuzzi's Supervisor has knowledge about Ms. Mattiuzzi's claims of
gender-based discrimination and harassment.

As noted above, Markovic again attempted to destroy the reputation of Ms. Mattiuzzi during
the week of May 14, 2007. At that time, Markovic referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch" to
Ben Schaffer and two student assistants. (See Exhibit "B" attached hereto).

On October 9, 2007, Ms. Mattiuzzi wrote to Peter Lau, Affirmative Action Officer for CSUS.
in that letter, Ms. Mattiuzzi noted that it was the seventh time she was writing to complain
about Markovic. Three of those times concerned harassing behavior by Markovic toward
Ms. Mattiuzzi. Four of those times concerned harassing behavior by Markovic towards
students and major employers. Ms. Mattiuzzi noted, "I have never received a response and
I have no idea what action has been taken in the past. I just know that the behavior does
not stop." (See Exhibit "C" attached hereto).

In November of 2007, Ms. Mattiuzzi received a letter dated November 16, 2007, from Mr.
Lau, which noted that Mr. Lau had discussed Ms. Mattiuzzi's complaint with Dean Macari,
who decided to investigate the complaint himself. Mr. Lau noted, "He [Dean Macari] has
informed me that he has concluded the investigation, and has taken action to prevent any
further occurrence of similar behavior from Dr. Markovic (See Exhibit "D" attached hereto).
Neither the scope of this investigation, nor the form of remedial action, was relayed to Ms.
Mattiuzzi.

On January 30, 2008, Ms. Mattiuzzi again wrote to Mr. Lau, expressing serious concerns
about the behavior of Markovic. In this letter, Ms. Matttuzzi revealed that she continued
to receive information about Markovic "that is disturbing and unsettling and causes me to
experience stress in the work environment." Ms. Mattiuzzi noted that Dr. Gonan, a
Professor in Engineering, had received a complaint from a student about being harassed
by Markovic, but that the student was unwilling to file a formal complaint. Ms. Mattiuzzi

33.4
further stated that a student told her on January 10-2008, that Markovic had invited the
student to his home on various occasions to work on Markovic's car. Ms. Mattiuzzi noted
that this action was reminiscent of Markovic's involvement with another student. (See
Exhibit "E" attached hereto).

On February 25, 2008, Dave Black, a CSUS) Engineering graduate, wrote to Ms. Mattiuzzi,
informing her about another incident of inappropriate behavior by Markovic. This
inappropriate behavior was directed towards a CSUS intern. (See Exhibit "F" attached
hereto).

On May 1, 2008, Union Representative, Barbara Peterson, wrote to Peter Lau, asking
about the status of the investigation that Mr. Lau had told Ms. Mattiuzzi he was conducting.
Mr. Lau noted in a response email that new information had come up and he needed to
interview additional witnesses.

In a letter dated June 4, 2008, to Ms. Mattiuzzi, Mr. Lau indicated that he had completed
his investigation into her complaint against Markovic. Mr. Lau noted that he had talked to
"a number of witnesses, and only one, a former student, 'confirmed some of the facts'."
With regards to Ms. Mattiuzzi's allegation of harassment against her by Markovic, Mr. Lau
noted that Dean Macari had investigated that allegation, "confirmed the incident" and had
taken action based on his investigation. Ms. Mattiuzzi was not informed of the scope of
this investigation, nor was she informed of any remedial action.

On August 28,2008, Markovic encountered Ms. Mattiuzzi and went out of his way to bump
her two times. This caused her to fear for her personal safety. Ms. Mattiuzzi reported this
incident to Campus Police and the Affirmative Action Office; yet, no action has been taken
against Markovic regarding that incident.

ANALYSIS OF THE LAW

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act expressly prohibits workplace
harassment based on sex. Government Code Section 12940(j)(1) dictates that, "It shall
be an unlawful employment practice for an employer... because of... sex... to harass
an employee ... harassment of an employee ... by an employee other than an agent or
supervisor shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have
known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An
entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring."

Sexual harassment is defined as conduct of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to:

(A) Verbal harassment, e.g., epithets, derogatory comments or slurs on a basis


enumerated in the act; or

33.5
(B) Physical harassment, e.g., assault, impeding or blocking movement, or any
physical interference with normal work or movement, when directed at an
individual on a basis enumerated in the act. (See California Government
Code Section 129400), California Code Regs. Tit. 2, Section 7287.6(b)(A-D)
and 7291.1(f)(1)).

Conduct that is not sexual in nature, but is otherwise based on a person's gender, will also
constitute sexual harassment in violation of California and Federal law. For example, in
Fuller v. City of Oakland (9th Cir. 1995) 47 F.3d 1522, the Court found that repeated "hang-
up" telephone calls, intrusion into the employee's personnel files, and threats to plaintiff
and her boyfriend's physical safety violated Title VII. In Accardi v. Superior Court (1993)
17 Cal.App.4th 341, 350, the Court held that comments that women do not belong in the
workplace created an actionable claim of hostile work environment under the Fair
Employment and Housing Act.

In Hall v. Gus Construction Company (8th Cir. 1988) 842 F.2d 1010, 1014, the Court held
that a sexual harassment, hostile environment claim was established under Title VII where
female traffic controllers at all male construction sites were subjected to name calling; male
crew members urinated in one female employee's water bottle and another in plaintiffs car,
gas tanks; and, the defendant failed to fix the truck females were forced to drive until one
of the males had to drive it. Finally. Birschtein v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.
(2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001-1002, the Court held that a male co-worker's repeated
acts of staring at his female co-worker, after being rebuked for his prior harassment of her,
may qualify as actionable sexual harassment.

Incidents of sexual harassment directed towards employees in the workplace other then
the complainant, but observed or known to the complainant, are admissible to determine
whether a reasonable person in the complainant's position would find the conduct severely
hostile or abusive. A reasonable person may also be offended by knowledge that other
workers are being sexually harassed in the workplace, even if he or she does not
personally witness that conduct. Bevda v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 65 Cal.App.4th 511,
519. It is not a defense to a hostile environment claim that the harasser did not intend the
behavior to be offensive or harassing. (See Ellison v. Bradv [9th Cir. 1991] 924 F.2d 892,
961).

Once an employer receives a report of sexual harassment, an employer is required to


investigate the claim promptly and thoroughly. (See American Airlines v. Superior Court
[2003] 114 Cal.App.4th 881, 890; EEOC Compliance Manual CCH, Section 615, If 3114,
pg. 3284). Furthermore, the Fair Employment and Housing Act imposes on employers an
obligation to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment.
(California Government Code Section 12940(j)).

Under both State and Federal law, effective action is action that satisfies the twin purposes
of ending the harassment and deterring future harassment by the same offender or others.

33.6
(See e.g., Swenson v. Potter [9th Cir. 2001] 271 F.3d 1184, and Ellison v. Brady T9lh Cir.
1991] 924 F.2d 892, 881, held, continued counseling, warnings and an attempt at informal
separation were insufficient when it was apparent that these disciplinary measures were
ineffective in terminating the harasser's behavior). While it may be reasonable for an
employer not to want to discipline a highly productive employee, the employer is statutorily
obligated to do so if harassment occurs. If the only appropriate remedy is to separate the
harasser and victim, the employer may be required to demote or transfer the harasser,
even if it is an "unreasonable" management decision to do so - under no circumstances
can the victim be penalized in response to a finding of harassment. Steinerv. Showboat
Operating Company (6th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 1459.

Our concern regarding the harassment issue focuses on three areas: (1) CSUS did not
take reasonable steps to prevent harassment against Ms. Mattiuzzi and other employees
and students from taking place; (2) CSUS did not conduct thorough and complete
investigations into the allegations of harassment by Markovic after complaints of
harassment were made; and, (3) CSUS did not take effective remedial action to end the
harassment by Markovic against Ms. Mattiuzzi and others, once CSUS Management
learned of this harassment. Markovic continues to threaten, intimidate and frighten
employees, including the heinous act of threatening to get his gun and shoot a female
employee while she was in the middle of her pregnancy. Without question, a Sacramento
Jury would be outraged by the fact that the Campus allowed Markovic to conduct himself
in such an arbitrary and capricious fashion.

We are also concerned with retaliation that Ms. Mattiuzzi has experienced because she
reported the harassment against herself and others at CSUS. The courts have held that
an employee engages in "protected activity" and may not experience any adverse
employment action for that "protected activity," when the employee opposes in good faith
the harassment of a co-worker (Hernandez v. Space Labs Medical, Inc. [9th Cir. 2003] 343
F.3d 1107, or opposes in good faith the perceived sexual harassment of another, even if
this belief is mistaken. See Flait v. North American Watch Corporation [1992] 3
Cal.App.4th 467, 477).

In late October, or early November of this year, Human Resources and Campus
Administration for CSUS declared that Ms. Mattiuzzi would no longer be allowed to teach
the Career Planning class that she has taught for 30 years. Ms. Mattiuzzi was told by her
Supervisor that he has been informed by the Provost and Human Resources that now, only
employees in academic-related classifications can teach. Ms. Mattiuzzi has been seeking
to be reclassified to Student Services Professional Academic-rRelated Services (SSPAR)
for approximately 25 years. Ms. Mattiuzzi's Supervisor supports this reclassification and
the APC Union has stated that it does not object to her reclassification. We consider the
removal of Ms. Mattiuzzi's teaching responsibilities by Human Resources to be retaliation
for submitting complaints about Professor Markovic's illegal activities. The refusal to
reclassify Ms. Mattiuzzi's position, when such reclassification is fully warranted, constitutes
at a minimum, gender-based discrimination, in violation of the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act.

33.7
Ms. Mattiuzzi has experienced significant distress and trauma, including nightmares,
sleeplessness, and anxiety as a result of the harassment and retaliation that she has
experienced.

IV.

DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION

In order to resolve this case without resorting to litigation, and in exchange for signing a
Release of all Claims for all acts or omissions that have taken place to the date that the
settlement and release agreement is signed, the following must take place:

Dr. Markovic should be terminated. At an absolute minimum, he should be


transferred out of Riverside Hall and, away from the staff so that Ms.
Mattiuzzi and other staff members do not have regular contact with him.

Ms. Mattiuzzi must be reclassified as a SSP AR III. There is no legitimate


reason why this reclassification cannot take place.

Sexual Harassment training for the faculty and staff must occur.

Ms. Mattiuzzi must be reimbursed for all attorneys fees.

Payment of $50,000.00 must be made to compensate Ms. Mattiuzzi for the


severe emotional distress that she has been subjected to, and to help cover
costs of therapy and counseling, which we estimate, at this point, to be
approximately $7,500.00 to $10,000.00.

We filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and


Housing and have obtained a "Right-to-Sue" letter, allowing us to resolve this matter in the
Sacramento Superior Court, if necessary. As previously noted, we would like to resolve
this matter without resorting to Court intervention, if possible. If, however, we are not able
to resolve this matter informally, through either discussions, a meeting, or mediation, we
will pursue this matter in Court.

We would like to remind CSUS that there must be no retaliation against Ms. Mattiuzzi for
reporting these acts of harassment. This includes, but is not limited to, changes in work
assignments, transfers or changes in work schedules.

33.8
Please contact me or have CSUS University General Counsel contact me within two weeks
from the date of this letter to discuss these issues. We look forward to hearing from you
and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

James E. McGlamery, Esq.


Enclosures
JEM:mdd

33.9
2870NEHogaa.E#475
Gresham, OR 97030

I>r. DosaM R. Gerth


President

6000 J Stteet
Sacsafaent-e, CA 95819

Dr. Gertfa,

I am writing to discuss recent actions of Dr. Miroslav Markovic.

In Noveaaber, I spoke with Dr. Kamesh, liie Chair of the KEE department regarding these
incidents. I wanted to follow up that oral conversation with a written statement.

I have taken several classes from Dr. Markovic during die past three semesters. He has
always bees, good instructor as far as academics are concerned. However, his recent
industry V^£ been erratic ^v« fiigHtemog, ftrxj it

Dr. Markoyip's actions daring the1 fall semester of 2002 have uaderMned tfeb efforts of
studeats seefcbjg;eraployjaeal •fee after-'- graduation; arxj have created bad relations between
poteatial ea^loyers and the CoSege. This has created a great deal of stress for several
students, including myself.

In October 2002, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) conducted several on-campus
mterviews of .electrical eogmeeriug stodents. Two of these students, Z^LJ:- ^— L__aad
TOPTP stife>se{|ueGdy chosen for secondary interviews that were coadtieted at
PGE's cefj^Qfafee offices in San Praaeiseo. The secondary interviews lasted all day, and
happened to conflict with Dr. Markovic's classes.

A professor should be expected to allow students who are in the process of obtaining
employment hi their chosen field of industry to miss class for interviews. Such was not the
case whii Dr. Markovic. He anBO«aaced in class that students who west to interviews
during class time would be failed. In what seemed Kke a rant, he said that industry needs
to respect aeaderaia, and that PG&E needed to change its interview dates to avoid
interfering with his class tones. (He repeated these statemeots in the next class period.)
>

At fast, I just thought Dr. Maifcovic was simply frustrated for some unknown reason, and
tiiat fee was vesting in front of the class. However, in subsequent conversations with Mr.
( pad j8dSr_ I learned ttmt Dr. Markovic had said that he would make good on
his t&reats aad that he would not pass them if they went to the interviews. Mr. ,
actually !?sfent to Dr. Markovic's office to plead his case, and he received the same
response: "Attend the interview and you wiD fail this class."

33.10
This caused both of them considerable mental -stress. Mr.., said to me: "The reason
I go to scfcoolistp getajob. I can* get the job if I dont go to the interviews and I cant get
the job if I desalt pass fee dass." Mr. and Mr contimed to be upset about
this situation mail after graduation.

Dr. Maricovic's statements were also quite upsetting to me, for several reasons. First, his
actions caused a lot of stress for my classmates and me. I felt that this behavior crossed the
line and that he was bullying and brow beating students. Second, a few weeks before this
incident, I Ired informed Dr. Markovic that I would be missing class for an interview with a
company. At the time, he seemed to have no problem with it. However, after his
statemeats in dass regarding the P<3&£ interviews, I became concerned that. I would not
pass the dass. I contiE»edto wony abont this for a number of weeks before graduation.
On 11-19-2002, Dr. Maaiovic took written roll in a manner I'd never seea him use before.
He sent a^peee-ofgajiier around tfie class asd asked us aH to write dowc 0£ff names. At the
end of tihis process, he made a veitoal comment tj«tf Mr _aad Mr ;w?eFe
absent '("Etas w#s tfa^ day of theit PG£ interviews.)

On several later occasions, Dr. Maitovic made comments in class that seemed to be a
vefled threat, relating to this same issue.
Near the end of the semester, when the instructor comment sheets were distributed to the
class, Dr. Markovic told us that he had conflicts with staff and with the College in the past
He said that he had weathered these difficulties without problem, and that "negative
comments about instructors are often reflected back on the writer." I took this to be a
threat to the class that negative comments regarding Dr. Markovic would do no good, and
may coose back to haunt us. (I considered this a very real threat. In the Electrical
Engineering speciafcy of power engineering, there are very few instructors available for the
area. Dr. Maricovie teaches most of the power classes. I have heard, bat carniot
sufestaatiate, titat Dr. Markovic would give very low grades to those who somehow got oa
bis bad side.)

I also believe that Dr. Markovic is a detriment to CSUS in his reJatioas with company
recruiters. Daring a SBCHB interview that I attended, the recruiter commented negatively
about Dr. Mafcfco'vic's attitude aM behavior. (Dr. Maifejvie himself stated in class thai he
had coiorBtfflieaiiem wifli seares-al recruiters and :had written several letters regardiag when
they could .eoadact interviews. To me it sounded more Eke harassment of the recruiters
aad their sapejriors. E&her way, I feel that this would make a potential employer less likely
to bother to recruit at CSUS.)

There are a few other things that have caused me to be concerned about Dr. Maricovic's
behavior.

In the week of 12/7/20€>2, Dr. Markovic said that per a memo from the CSUS president
(Dr. GeriiX he could sot see students during finals week outside of dass "due to safety

33.11
reasons" aad "because aeektesis to/t occurred at other campuses." I don't know if such a
mem© exists, bta it sounded Kfee be was- saying, that students might have reason to be
coneeiBed about IMS menial stab3&y, and that others might have considered him to be some
kind of a safety threat

Finally, during aa office, visit about two semesters -ago, I asked Dr, Markovie about several
career issoejs. One qaestiod was -cyke&er or not the ECS career eoBasei&r, Cici
naght be keJp&l in seeming exoi^ojffleat. I had expected a simpie yes or no answer OB
wfaedier or IK* she co«M help. I>. Markovic replied with a tirade. He said that she would
be of no help, and that he beEeved that she had e^entiafly slept or prostituted her way into
tfce positioa of ECS career counselor. I was so surprised by this response that h stuck hi
my trcmd for a long time. (I did not mention this conversation to asyone until speaking
with Dr. Ramesh regardiag Dr. Markovic's student relatioHS. I bad assumed that Dr.
Markovic was merely sexist, but later came to think that he might be a loose cannon aad a
potential daager to students. I could not imagine a professor speaking about a staff
member in that way.)

I should say again that as far as technical knowledge is concerned, Dr. Markovic is an
excellent instructor.

However, in light of the behaviors I have observed, his propensity to intimidate students,
and his erratic and sometimes fiighteaiog actions, I'm wondering if he should be removed
from his position.

Cordially,

Nathan Laye

cc: Dr. SJKRamesh

33.12
Laye
i§70 NE Hogan Rd E#475
Iresham, OR 97030

7001 2S10 QQOb flOHQ 4833


\

SK Ramesh
Dcpattuient of Electrical Engineering
CSU, Sacramento
6000.1 Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

11,1 Illillll liullll


To whom it may concern:

During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred:

"Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at
the time this occurred.

"He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted
comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it.

*ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade:
-He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch"
-He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back

-Ben Schaffer

33.14
October 9, 2Q©7
•ii » fr* • •»

Peter Lau
Affirmative Action Officer
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Dear Peter,

For the seventh time I find myself writing to complain about Dr Miroslav Maikovic. Three times 1 have come to
you about his harassing behavior towards me to request that you take action. Four times I have come to you and
previous persons in authority regarding harassing behavior towards students and major employers.

1 have never received a response and I have no idea what action has been taken in the past. I just know that the
behavior does not stop. I am aware that past department chairs in the department that Dr Markovic reports to have
on numerous occasions come to you and your predecessors seeking relief from Dr. Markovic. 1 believe that there is
a, failure to protect individuals from this type of behavior on this campus.

Attached please find a document given to me in late May. I was made aware that Dr Markovic was speaking in a
hostile and threatening fashion about me once again.

In the spring when the event surfaced, three people in this College, all in positions of authority, told me that it would
serve no useful purpose to complain because no action would be taken. Upon my return to campus for the fall
semester, I find the problem distracting and I feej unsafe in my work environment A little over a week ago my
office had been entered and my computer was on when I came to work. Things were moved around. I checked with
the IT support staff and the student assistants who work for me, and none of them had been in my office during the
previous period. While I cannot prove that Dr Markovic was in my office, I am aware, as you are aware, that Dr
Markovic has on other occasions destroyed labs and student projects.

! find the continuing harassment embarrassing and humiliating. Once again I am requesting your assistance with
resolving the problem.

I would appreciate a response to this letter.

Sincerely,

Cici Mattiuzzi
916-278-7091/ cicifficsus edu

cc Emir Macari, Dean College of Engineering and Computer Science


Suresh Vadhva, Chair, Electrical Engineering
Barbara Peterson, Vice President, Academic Professionals of California

33.15
To whom it may concern:

During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred:

*Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at
ihe time this occurred.

"He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted
comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it.

*ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade:
-He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch"
-He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back

-Ben Schaffer

33.16
California State L jrsity, Sacramento
Office of Human Resources
6000 j Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032
httpy/www.csus.edu/hr

November 16, 2007

To. Cici Mattiuzzi


College of Engineering & Computer Science

From. Peter Lau, Director


Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

Re: Harassment Complaint

This is a follow-up to my Oct. 19, 2007 email to you. I have discussed your complaint
with Dean Macari. Dean Macari has decided to investigate the complaint himself. He
has informed me that he has concluded the investigation, and has taken action to prevent
any further occurrence of similar behavior from Dr. Markovic. As I said in my email,
should you encounter any more harassment from Dr. Markovic, please inform me as soon
as possible.

Sincerely yours,

Peter Lau, Director


Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

«'. . AUI-ORNIA STATt UNIVtHSlfY Bakersfield • Channel Islands • Cnieo • Domingue* Hills • East Say • Fresno • Fullerton • Humboldt • Long Beach • LosAngeles • Maritime Acadtmy • Mo->
<iO"n'idae • Pomon* • Socramenio • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Jose • San Luis Obisoo • San Marcos • Sonoma • Scanislaus
33.17
January 30, 2@©8

Peter Lau
Affinnativc Action Officer
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819

Dear Peter,

As in the past, I continue to receive information about Dr. Markovic that is disturbing and unsettling and
that causes me to experience stress in the work environment.

I have recently been told that Dr. Gonan, a professor in EEE has received a complaint from a student about
being harassed by Dr. Markovic and that the sTnQent is'unwilling to file a formal complaint. My
understanding is that this was brought to Dr. Gonan's attention last semester.

On January I Oth, a student tofd me directly that Dr. Masfcovic has nrafeekksa 6s>Ais.fea»e OB Hssjerous
occasions to work on Markovic's car. The student is quite unaware of the implications. This type of
personal involvement with a student 'may not be appropriate. It is definitely reminiscent of DrMarkovic's
invotveraeat with Peter ^obiao. You will recall that this was a situation in which Markovic ingratiated
himself with a student over a period of time, apparently attempted to develop a distinctly inappropriate
relationship, and then stalked him and actively sought to disrupt the student's employment The Robino .
matter is well documented.

As you know, I was recently required to complete the CSU sexual harassment on-line workshop. The
workshop's instruction is that if a staff member has reason to believe that any type of harassment is taking
plaee, it must be reported. My experience, however, is that the effort is futile and feat effective action will
not be taken by fee campus. In addition, my experience has been that negative conseqaeaees-will follow
from having made the required report The workshop also stressed that making negative comments about
another employee could be actionable. So I am in the position of having to decide whether or not I should
warn a student about a faculty member who might be grooming him as prey, as he has done before. Either
way, 1 am subjected to a conflict that should not be present in my work environment. And, it necessarily
brings back to mind the fact that Markovic has'directed hostility tow^s-me, and that he is still just down
the hall. And, it brings back to mind the fact that my former supervisor immediately stopped
communicating wife me in almost any way, after that supervisor learaed feat I bad fifed a cemptaJHt about
M&3eevic. Before communications with mat supervisor ceased, he subjected me to an irratSSraafteajsaBigue.
In addition, he stopped supporting my reclassification and tried to remove an area of responsibility. I was
dircctlytote tketiay supervisor thwarted my recfess after I reported tfese,2©83 etflM.

Indeed, the workshop itself and the requirement that I take it gives reason for me to experience distress.
The workshop's injunctions put me in a bind. The workshop's assertion mat matters such as this will
be resolved correctly defies reality as I know it

Sincerely,

Cici Mattiuzzi
916-278-7091/ cici@csus.edu

33.18
From: mattiuzc@gaia.ecs.csus.edu
Subject: Fwd: Dr. Markovic
Date: February 25, 2008 7:39:18 AM PST
To: cici@surewest.net

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:38:19 -0800


To: peter.lau@csus.edu
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Dr. Markovic
Cc: apcnvp@pacbell.net, wagnerdl@csus.edu
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:Ao8CAEaFwUdMYD4Yb2dsb2JhbACCOzKNbgEKBAQEBQoRBYEP
X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,398,1199692800";
d="scan'208,217";a="130056239"
From: "David Black" <dave.black@comcast.net>
To: <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
Subject: Dr. Markovic
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:56:28 -0800
Thread-Index: Ach3OHzNYrvHAdW8RXq2YfxEOGoz3A==
X-Virus-Status: No
X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.92/5977/Sun Feb 24 13:56:54
2008

Cici,

During the summer of 2007,1 worked with a CSUS intern named __^ He informed me that he
was a student of Dr. Miroslav Markovic and that there had been some strange behavior exhibited by Dr.
Markovic involving another male power student was close friends with the power student and was
told that Dr. Markovic had offered to purchase a laptop (for the student) and offered to take the student to
Hawaii during the summer so that they could spend some time on the beach and grade papers together.
The student did, not feel comfortable with the situation because he was also a student of Dr. Markovic and
approached iwith advice on what to do. • ladvised his friend to notify campus security about the
situation because he thought that this behavior was not appropriate. The student filed a complaint with
campus authorities and_l was under the impression that an investigation had begun and that Dr.
Markovic would be reprimanded for his inappropriate behavior.

That is all that can remember from what told me last summer concerning Dr. Markovic. It is very sad
that this type of behavior has been tolerated throughout the years at CSUS. That fact that Dr. Markovic is a
tenured professor does not give him the right td sexually harass unsuspecting young students. I personally
find this behavior intolerable and cannot understand why CSUS has not stepped in to permanently 'diffuse
the situation. An educational facility should foster and support a harassment free environment as does any
professional work place.

Sincerely,

Dave Black P.E.


CSUS EE Power Graduate, 2003

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 33.19
From: S K Ramesh <s.ramesh@csun.edu>
Datef©Gfober 6; 20©i 3:33:38 PM PDT
To: "cici@surewest.net" <cici@surewest.net>
Cc: "pgm8693@gmail.com" <pgm8693@gmail.com>
Subject: Dr. Markovic

Cici and Paul

I was saddened to hear about the recent threats by Dr. Markovic towards
you and other members of the staff. During the time I was at Sacramento
State there was more than one occasion where his behavior and
interaction with our students raised serious concerns. I brought these to
the attention of Donna Selnick (University Legal Counsel) and the Office of
Faculty Affairs in November 2002 and subsequently to the President's
Office in February 2003.

As far as l.k-n-ow no action was taken on this ma<tfeer as of the time I left
Sacramento State in 2006. My concern then and now is for the welfare of
our students, faculty and staff and it is imperative that appropriate steps
are taken to ensure their safety at all times.

Sincerely,

Ramesh

S. K. Ramesh, Ph.D.
Dean,
College of Engineering and Computer Science &
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
California State University, Northridge
CA 91330-8295
Tel: 818-677-4501 Fax: 818-677-2140
e-maii: s.ramesh@csun.edu

33.20
Exhibit 34
Forwarded message
From: cici mattiuzzi <cicima2z(o)/gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Markovic Statement
To: kiraking@,sbcglobai,net

Forwarded message
From: James Wilson <james.i .wilson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 4,2008 at 1:15 PM
Subject: Markovic Statement
To: cicima2z(o),gmail.com

My name is James Wilson, and from November 2005 to February 2007,1 was
the Administrative Support Coordinator in the Electrical and
Electronic Engineering Department at Sacramento State University.
During that time, there were numerous incidents that occurred
involving Dr. Miroslav Markovic that were disturbing, if not
frightening.

The beginning of every semester was sure to bring complaints into my


office as Dr. Markovic adhered to a self imposed policy of only 12
students per class. Even after being warned by the department, and
pleaded with to admit more students into his classes, he steadfastly
refused. Not only did he refuse, but he made threats to students so
that they would drop the class and lower his class size to his
satisfaction. There is one instance that sticks out in my mind in
which he told a student he would hit him in the head with a baseball
bat if he returned to another lecture. Complaints ranged from verbal
harassment to sexual harassment. The threats were so common at the
beginning of every semester that, sadly, the staff became accustomed
to hearing them and would joke about what the next student through the .,. .
i
door would have to say about their experiences trying to add a course
of Dr. Markovic's.

Even students that were allowed to stay in Dr. Markovic's class were
subjected to verbal abuse and often times had their grades adversely
affected. Of those that were brave enough to come forward with grade
appeals against Dr. Markovic, they were always afraid that their
appeal would enrage him enough to try to derail their careers. Dr.
Markovic had made attempts to contact companies that were hiring some
of his former students to have them "blacklisted" from being hired.
Once he gained a reputation for doing that, it was sufficient to scare
many of his prospective students away and to keep those that were
subject to his abuse silent.

Imagine being an undergraduate student and having to withstand being


berated and threatened, and knowing that you had to put up with it or
face receiving a bad grade or even having your career threatened after
graduation.

Dr. Markovic's demeanor also presented problems for the Electrical and
Electronic Engineering Department as a whole as well. As a senior
member of the Faculty, he was one of the few members eligible to serve
on the department's, Retention, Tenure and Promotion committee. As a
member of that committee, he had sway over whether junior faculty
members would receive tenure within the department. Since junior
faculty almost always served on committees such as the Grade Appeals
Committee, the department was left with the political decision of what
to do with the constant flow of grade appeals that Dr. Markovic's
students generated. Junior faculty felt uncomfortable with the
position of determining to grant a student a grade appeal, fearing
that overturning one of Dr. Markovic's grades would affect their
chances of tenure within the department, and hence, jeopardize the 4
to 6 years of hard work that they had put in to try to be awarded
tenure as a professor.

Although Dr. Markovic can come across as a soft spoken, humble and
almost genteel person, he has a capricious side that has been well
documented by students through complaints and grade appeals.

Dr. Markovic was rarely seen at mandatory department meetings (over


the almost two years I was there, he attended two meetings to my
knowledge), and frankly was not missed. No one in the department,
from the department chair to the faculty wanted to confront him about
why he did not attend the mandatory meetings. His temper for
exploding when questioned about his actions, or in this case,
inaction, was well known by all the faculty, and most people just left
him alone.

As you can see, not only students are afraid of Dr. Markovic, but his
colleagues as well are afraid of him, either via intimidation or
actual threats that he has levied. And not without reason. At one 34 2
point, Dr. Markovic was in a dispute ^ v^er lab use with another
professor. After the department chair had decided to let another
professor use the same lab Dr. Markovic uses for instructional
purposes, Dr. Markovic flew into a rage and removed all of the
electrical equipment from the lab and tossed it into the bushes behind
the building. The sprinklers ruined the equipment all weekend long
and when it was discovered the following Monday, nearly $30,000 in
electrical equipment was considered a total loss. The police were
called and a report was filed, but no action was taken against Dr.
Markovic.

I hope this brief narrative illustrates that Mrs. Mattiuzzi's


experiences are not unique and that it is part of a larger pattern in
the way Dr. Markovic has treated colleagues.

Regards,
James .1. Wilson

34.3
Exhibit 35
Subject: ECS Career Planning Class
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:55:10 -0800
Thread-Topic: ECS Career Planning Class
Thread-Index: Acll ++WaOWnlovHARM+NgiaOdayKjQ==
From: "Macari, Emir" <emacari@zeus.ecs.csus.edu>
To: "Cici Mattiuzzi" <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>T <ecschairs@ecs.csus.edu>
X-Virus-Status: No
X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV
0.92/8861/Tue Jan 13 08:09:19 2009

Dear Cici,

Starting with this semester, ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of record
for the workshops we offer to our ECS students (CE 194, ME 194, EEE 194 and
CSC 192) Career Planning.

This is in compliance with the new regulations of Bargaining Unit 4.

Students do enjoy and get a lot of these workshops and I want to make sure
that we continue with our tradition of focusing of what is best for our students.

Thanks for all your work and I look forward to continuing to work with you for
many years to come.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best wishes,

Emir

Emir Jose Macari, Dean


College of Engineering and Computer Science
Riverside Hall 2014
California State University, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023
(916) 278-6127 phone
(916) 278-5949 fax
emacari@csus.edu
http://www.ecs.csus.edu

35.1
Exhibit 36
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@gaia.ecs.csus edu>
Subject: response to your email re: ECS career classes
Date: January 20, 2009 11 43:29 AM PST
To: emacari@csus.edu
Cc: jamesmcglamery@yahoo.cxDm, kiraking@sbcglobal.net, alexg@csus.edu

Emir:

I am writing in response to your note and our discussion regarding CE 1 94, ME 194, EEE 1 94 and CSC 192 - the classes I
ordinarily teach and have taught for 25 years as a regular part of my job description.

You indicated that in an effort to comply with agreements with Unit 4 (sic), "ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of
record" for these classes. I have spoken with representatives of both Unit 3 and Unit 4. This solution does not meet with
their approval.

Be that as it may, I have no problem continuing to teach these classes, consistent with my job description. These classes
are essential to the academic mission of the College. They are essential components of a student service program
developed in the the College over the course of 25 years and under the leadership of four different Deans. These classes
cannot simply be described as "workshops," as you suggested in your note. And they are not simply something that
"students enjoy," as you also suggested. These classes have been and continue to be an integral part of the student
services program in which I work.

Last semester, I had 59 students enrolled. For this semester, there are 34 students currently registered (early January).
Historically, my classes fill during add/drop. Given the early enrollment figures, and given the current economic crisis, I
expect unusually high numbers of registrations for this Spring's semester.

Ordinarily, I attract a number of students who are simply seeking to fulfill their two-unit career planning requirement in CS.
More often, students enroll in my classes to obtain the information and skills necessary to translate their academic training
into a career action plan.
\s
In these classes, I am not simply providing information I have gathered in the absence of extensive academic research and
professional training. These classes depend on the fact that I am an authoritative and independent subject matter expert
in the fields of career development, labor market economics, and the ever changing technologies and industries associated
with engineering and computer science. In these classes, I rely on my extensive and ongoing research program relating to
hiring trends and hiring practices in the fields of engineering and computer science. For these classes, I have developed
curricula and written a textbook that is published and in it's third edition. I am working on a second book.

ABET accreditation teams have repeatedly noted that the CSUS College of E&CS provides a model of excellence with
respect to its career services office. They review our program and they say that it is model to be emulated, particularly
citing the credit classes. The benefit to the College and to our students is recognized.

Removing me as the instructor of record would substantially alter my job description and the terms of my employment.
Canceling these classes would do great harm to the students and to the College's student service program. You suggested
that perhaps I could teach these classes "after hours." That is not an option.

The current problem is not the result of Unit 3 demands. The current problem is that I have for years been working "out of
class" and beyond the expectations for my classification. This is not just about the classes I teach. The entire College of
E&CS Career Services Program depends on my continued willingness to work beyond my classification level.

I have repeatedly sought to be classified correctly. I greatly appreciate the energy and enthusiasm you have expended in
seeking to rectify and resolve this administrative error.

On October 14th, 2008, President Alexander Gonzalez signed off on the campus Affirmative Action report, where it was
noted that: "promotion and advancement at the University are encouraged and will continue to be based solely on explicit
criteria."

36.1
His assertion notwithstanding, I have repeatedly been denied reclassification and promotion for arbitrary reasons,
irrespective of the stated criteria, and specifically in response to gender discrimination.

CICI

36.2
Exhibit 37
Original Message
From: Cici Mattiuzzi [mailto:mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:09 PM
To: ecschairs@ecs.csus.edu
Subject: need updated student rosters
Importance: High

Hi,

I notice that I can no longer access my classes on My Sac State.

I have 4 classes that are cross listed in all engineering majors and
one CS class. I teach a total of 5 classes with 13 classes feeding
into those 5. I will need you to print me updated class rosters each
week for the next three weeks. Many students are adding my class and
I am not able to update the lists.

I know that this is an in convenience to each of you. It is also


very difficult for me. I am sorry for this problem. I expect that
at some point the problem will be resolved one way or another.

Thank you for your assistance.

Cici

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>


37.1
Exhibit 38
fe'braary 4, 2009*

Peter Lau
Affirmative Action Officer
CSU, Sacramento
^
Dear Peter,

I am coming to you for the 10th time to inform you about the disturbing behavior of Dr.
Miroslav Markovic. I spoke on Friday, January 30th, to a recent graduate in Electrical
Engineering who now works for Pacific Gas and Electric. Her name is ] ' , She
and ' •• were students in Dr Markovic's EEE 145 class and were falsely accused
of cheating. According to Madeline Fish, Director of the Minority Engineering Program, both
students had A's and B's in all of their classes and received a D in Dr Markovic's class.

c told me that Dr Markovic repeatedly stated in class that he "hates women" and
that "women do not belong in engineering". She stated further that Dr. Markovic
continuously belittled and deg-Faeted the women in the class and held the women to a
different standard than the men. She indicated that she andj worked feverishly to
deliver to Dr Markovic what he required, but even when it matched the work of the men in
class, their work was given a failing grade. She stated that Dr Markovic gave more.points
to the men and called the women cheaters.

_,also indicated that Dr. Markovic requires all students in his class to purchase the
course text directly from him and to pay in cash ($65). The text is an assembled
compilation (i.e., photocopied) and not a published work or a compilation sold through the
bookstore.

______ told me that the semester after they took his class, Dr Markovic demanded that
the women provide him with copies of their Sr. Project documents. When they refused, he
pressured them with repeated, menacing phone calls. There is no apparent academic
reason for him to have needed access to their work from another class according to

Both women went to numerous persons in a position of authority on this campus and were
told that they "should just graduate and get out of here". They were told that there was
nothing that could be done.

jndicated that she is willing to make statements about the treatment she and.
received at the hands of Dr. Markovic. She stated that there are other women at PG&E that
she has met who have been belittled or harassed by Dr Markovic. She also indicated that
she is very familiar'with a male stalking incident. She is willing to document the above.

I am providing this information to you consistent with my responsibilities.

Cici Mattiuzzi

38.1
Exhibit 39
?:March 23, 2009

Peter Lau, Affirmative Action Officer

CSU, Sacramento

Dear Peter,

Once again I am coming to you to inform you about the behavior of Dr. Miroslav
Markovic. This oast week I spoke to Shalveena Dayal (Shalve) .
; ^ who was referred to me through Mariana Rivera of the
Minority Engineering Program regarding her treatment in Dr. Markovic's classes. She
has taken 3 classes from Dr. Markovic. She is currently in EEE 131 and took EEE
143 and EEE 145 last semester.

Shalve indicated that she fainted in class in the fall of 2008 because she was afraid
to ask Dr Markovic to leave his class. She was in a 3-hour lab and felt ill but
because of the intimidating climate she felt that Dr Markovic would belittle and
ridicule her if she asked to leave. She stated that Dr. Markovic "does not make
sense" and that "he shakes chairs and throws pens in a threatening way" creating a
climate of fear and anxrety in class. She indicated that he displays anger also in his
office hours by throwing pens. She stated that he frequently tells students that they
are too stupid and should change their majors. She indicated it is very
uncomfortable in class. She stated that if a student asks to leave he very angry.
Shalve further states that she received a lower grade than the men in 145 spite of
the fact that she did better in class and understood the material better. She got a C+
and men who did poorly got a B-. When she asked the men what they got in the
class they indicated that they were amazed that they had received a B- and they
were surprised to have received such a high grade.

Shalve is currently taking EEE 131 from Dr. Markovic. She indicated that she would
not be taking it but she absolutely must have the class for her major. She is
currently the only woman in the lab. She stated that Markovic holds women to a
different standard than he hold the men indicating that the women are graded
differently.
It should be noted that when women receive lower grades they frequently receive
lower offers at graduation. Both government and private industry use GPA to decide
on starting salaries.
Once again, I am providing this information to you consistent with my
responsibilities.

Cici Mattiuzzi

39.1
40
fft'arch 24, 2009-f'f

Peter [,au, Affinnative Action Officer


CSU, Sacramento

Dear Peter,

li has recently come to my attention that I was incorrect in my letter dated December 10, 2008. I told you that Dr.
Markovic threatened to shoot two people. IB fact, he threatened to shoot three people.
T
in his tirade on September 29th, Dr Markovic not only threatened to shoot , he also threatened Chetan
Krishna, the international student from India who was in the room at the time.

i'o correct the record, he.threatened to shoot three individuals: staff members Lynne Onitsuka and ' , and
student Chetan Krishna.

Fioin my original letter of December 10, 2008:

On Thursday, October 2nd I learned of a second shooting threat. On September 29th Dr. Markovic went into a
rage and threatened to "shoot ". ' '• • ' • and "make his wife a widow". The day I learned of the
second shooting threat, I immediately called Kent Porter and left two urgent messages that we were afraid and
that another threat had been made. To this day I have not received a returned call from Kent Porter I contacted
my union, which referred me to a labor attorney. I told the attorney about the second shooting threat and he
instructed me to immediately "hangup and call the police". I hung up and I made a police report to the
campus police (Officer Douglas Nguyen) of my bumping incident. The two IT staff members, Lynne Onitsuka
and ' also filed police reports of the shooting threats.

Officer Nguyen came and took my report and later that day he came back and took Lynne's report. I was later
told that an international student who had witnessed numerous incidents, was in the room when Lynne gave
her report and it was decided that he should not give a report because of his international status and his hope of
remaining in this country for employment after graduation.

Chetan Krishna was the student who was discouraged from filing a formal police report to protect his ability to obtain
employment. Me informed me on Thursday, March 19th of the shooting threat he experienced when he told me that he-
had been called and had spoken with the campus's investigator, Kira King. Chetan was not merely an observer of Dr
Markovic's tirades, as I had believed; he was also a victim of Dr. Markovic's threats.

1 found myself overcome with sadness after Chetan's revelations. I returned to my office hi tears and unable to work.
Che fact that he was threatened is horrifying. The fact that he was discouraged from disclosing the facts is even more
horrifying

i am providing this information to you consistent with my responsibilities (as outlined in the campus mandatory
harassment reporting training) and to create an accurate record of the events of fall 2008.

Cici Mattiuxzi

CO
Mana Santos, Senior Director, Employee Relations, CSU
Alexander Gonzalex, President, CSUS
James McGlamery, Attorney at Law
Kira King, Attorney at Law
Barbara Petersen, Labor Representative, APC

40.1
Exhibit 41
From: cici mattiuzzi <cici@surewest.net>
Subject: Earlier unreported assault by Markovic
Date: April 2, 2009 7:28:08 AM PDT
To: Kira King <kiraking@sbcglobal.net>, peter.lau@csus.edu
Cc: "James E. McGlamery" <jamesmcglamery@yahoo.com>
Bcc: cici@csus.edu

Kira,

I received a call yesterday from : .who worked in the College of Engineering and
Computer Science several years ago and she told me she was assaulted by Dr Markovic. He shoved
his hand in her face and pushed her out of his way as he was exiting the elevator with his
bicycle. He spoke harshly to her as he shoved her. She was new and young and was seriously
frightened by him. No action was taken according to her. She later found out that he thought she
was a student as if that justified "the assault". She still works on campus and she is still
frightened by Markovic. She stated that she walks away when she sees him to avoid him. She
further stated that Markovics "hates women".

She reported "the assault" to multiple people in the Dean's office including the office manager.
She believes the Dean was informed. No report was written and she was not instructed to go to
Peter Lau or any other person in a position of authority in the administration. She stated that
when she left the College of Engineering and Computer Science the then dean- Braja Das stated that
she was a "trouble maker".

's husband works in the College and was aware of my law suit.
Contact info:

@csus.edu

Cici

41.1
42
From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@gaia.ecs.csus.edu>
Date: April 28, 2009 10:50:37 AM PDT
To: "Jason Conwell" <iconwell@calfac.org>
Cc: peter.lau@csus.edu. Jamesmcglamerv@vahoo.com. kiraking@sbcqlobal.net. apcnvp@pacbell.net
Subject: thank you and

Jason,

As I mentioned to you yesterday it is very difficult to run my classes as they are now structured. I have 13
classes listed across 4 disciplines of engineering and computer science. I actually teach 5 classes but they are
cross listed for the convenience of the students.

CE 194- Four sections


EEE 194 - Four sections
ME 194 - four sections
CS 192-one section

I have taught these classes for 30 years. I wrote a book in 2006 and I have a new book close to publishing date.
Previously I taught Career Planning for Engineers as Engineering 194 and Computer Science Career Planning
as CS 192. The class became part of every engineering discipline a number of years ago allowing students to
take the class (and see it) under each of the respective engineering and CS majors.

In past years these classes have been listed under my name exclusively. This semester for the first time the
classes are all listed under the respective department chairs.

It should be noted that if I were correctly classified as an SSP AR this would never have happened. Because the
university refuses to correctly classify me as an SSP AR I am required to operate in this fashion or discontinue
the classes all together. That is an unacceptable option particularly in the midst of a recession. This class is an
integral part of my job and and the College of Engineering and has been for three decades.

For me this semester's change has created a logistical nightmare. As you requested I am documenting this by
way of this email.

Some of the difficulties I am experiencing with this change include:


Removal of access privileges to class lists
Failure to receive book ordering email regarding the textbook from the book store
Denial of access to the computer system for classes, students, class lists and grading. I have no updated lists for
the class without pestering the secretaries in four departments or the secretary in the Dean's office for the info
i 42.1
which they are instructed to print foi .ae. It became so embarrassing to me arid the third or fourth week of the
semester-1 stopped doing it.
I have no student ID numbers for grading. Many students finish the class after the semester ends. This means
that I will have to have department chairs do the final grades as well as any and all change of grades that occur
up to one year later after the class has ended. I will have to repeatedly pester department chairs to do the change
of grade forms as the students complete the class assignment or make up for missed classes.
Students hoping to take the class in the upcoming semester have repeatedly asked me why I will not be teaching
the class in the Fall of 2009 since they cannot see my name on the schedule of classes.

This entire semester has been embarrassing, humiliating and infantilizing.

I was recently interviewed, rather extensively, by the local public television station for a 30 minute program on
demand for the graduates of the College of Engineering and Computer Science. One of the highlights of the
program was explaining how students in technical fields can take a one unit course specifically designed to plan
and manage their professional careers. I also spoke with 350 potential students and their parents about the
College of Engineering and Computer Science Career Services Office and the care with which we deliver
innovative, cutting edge career services and career planning classes.

I am attaching my recently updated resume with my educational background, professional work experience,
publications, papers, programs and projects so you can understand my continuing dismay with the failure to
correctly classify me.

Cici

Cici Mattiuzzi
Director, Career Services Office
College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949
email cici@csus.edu
web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

42.2
Cici Mattiuzzi
CSU, Sacramento • College of Engineering & Computer Science
6000 J Street •Sacramento, CA 95819
(916) 278-7091 • cici@csus.edu
http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• Employment and Labor Market Information
• Employment Systems Development
• Career Counseling and Vocational Choice
• Career and Employment Related Classes, Workshops and Seminars
• Disabilities and Employability in Technical Fields
• Transferability of Skills and Technical Expertise

EDUCATION
Master of Arts in Social Science
Concentration: Economics
California State University, Sacramento. December 1981

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology


California State University, Sacramento. June 1974

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Director, Career Services
College of Engineering & Computer Science
California State University, Sacramento
September 1984 to present

Consultant: Labor Market, Career/Vocational, Employment Issues


May 1984 to present

Career Counselor, Schools of Business and Engineering


Career Development and Placement Center
California State University, Sacramento
May 1978 to August 1984

Employment Development Officer


Employment Development Department
State of California
July 1974 to May 1978

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Secretary, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Sacramento Chapter
Employment Editor, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Sacramento Circuit
Member, Executive Committee, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Honorary Member, Golden Key International Honour Society
Outstanding Staff Award, CSUS College Of Engineering and Computer Science 1999

42.3
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
• Book: The Serious Job Seeker, Publishing Date, June 2009
• Web Site: seriousjobseeker.com, April 2009
• "Moving On: Leaving campus is not always easy!" Career Updates, April 2009
• "What are your salary requirements? Never answer this question!" Career Updates, April
2009
• "Leaving Gracefully" IEEE Circuit, May 2009 and Career Updates, March 2009
• "Slobs Don't Get Jobs!" Career Updates, March 2009
• "Networking Your Way to the Perfect Job!" Career Updates, February 2009
• "Economic Pain is Less Severe for College Degreed Technical Professionals" Career
Updates, February 2009
• "Erroneous Assumptions" Career Updates, October 2008
• "Healthcare - It is Infrastructure" Career Updates, October 2008
• "Economic Shock Waves Change Everything" IEEE Circuit, October 2008 and Career
Updates, September 2008
• "Multidimentional Engineers" Career Updates, September 2008
• "Equal Pay: Not Just a Women's Issue" Career Updates, May 2008
• "Employers Enticing Employees to Join and Stay" Career Updates, May 2008
• "Do You Qualify?" Career Updates, April 2008
• "Sorting the Offers- Career/Life Planning" Career Updates, April 2008
• "Economic Uncertainty- Is a Storm Brewing?" Career Updates, March 2008
• "State Dominates Hiring for Engineers and Computer Scientists! How to Study for State
Exams" Career Updates, February 2008
• "Economy Melt Down Provides Opportunity and Pitfalls" Career Updates, November 2007
• "The Perfect Candidate Has the Right Stuff Career Updates, November 2007
• "What Way is the Wind Blowing?" Career Updates, September 2007
• "Job Seeking is the First Job a New Grad Needs Master!" Career Updates, May 2007
• "Figuring Out What You Want to Do in Life" Career Updates, March 2007
• "What is a Good Reference and What Should You Give Your References?" Career Updates,
February 2007
• "Got Help?" Emir Jose Macari & Cici Mattiuzzi Sacramento Bee, February 2007
• Book: The Ultimate Career Planning Manual for Engineers and Computer Scientists,
Published by Kendall Hunt, January 2006
• "Drug Testing: a Costly Prescreening" IEEE Circuit, April 2006
• "Blog Alert" Career Updates, April 2006
• "Planned to Perfection" Sacramento Bee, February 19,2006
• "Huge Public Works Project for California?" Career Updates, November 2005
• "Got Balance?" Career Updates, November 2005
• "What Distinguishes CSUS Students" Career Updates, October 2005
• "Life Guarding Your Future" Career Updates, September 2005
• "Why Training is Important for Career Success" Career Updates, May 2005
• "Embrace Change!" Career Updates, May 2005
• "Following Up Works!" Career Updates, March 2005
• "Fear of Applying" Career Updates, March 2005
• "Develop a Professional Image!" Career Updates, March 2005
42.4
• "Advice for Foreign Students" Career Updates, November 2004
• "Do You Have a Question" Career Updates, November 2004
• "Dangers of Globalization" IEEE Circuit Newsletter, October 2004
• "Direct Contact is Required for Job Seeking" Career Updates, May 2004
• "Job Seeking is a Forty Hour Per Week Job!" Career Updates, May 2004
• "Why a Summer Job is the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread" Career Updates, April 2004
• "Bad Times Don't Last Forever" Career Updates, February 2004
• "Get Help!" Career Updates, February 2004
• "Must Walk on Water" Career Updates, February 2004
• "Lets Get Rolling on the Day" Career Updates, December 2003
• "Goal Setting and Time Management" Career Updates, October 2003
• "Where Will the Jobs be When the Economy Improves?" Career Updates, September 2003
• "Show Up on Time!" Career Updates, September 2003
• "Being Positive is Efficient" Career Updates, May 2003
• "Costly Errors that Kill Job Offers" Career Updates, May 2003
• "Enthusiasm Gets the Job" Career Updates, May 2003
• "The Winds are Changing", Career Updates, March 2002
• "Layoffs Effecting Demand" Career Updates, September 2002
• "Networking Your Way to a Job" Career Updates, October 2002
• "How Bad is the Economy?" Career Updates, October 2002
• "High Tech Jobs Leaving the Country" Career Updates November 2002
• "Sacramento's Best Sources for Company Info" Career Updates, November 2002
• "Technical Interviews Done Right!" Career Updates, December 2002
• "Closing the Loop: Industry Site visits for Program Outcomes Assessment" ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10-13,2001, Reno, NV (with SK Ramesh, PhD)
• "Industry Visits as an Assessment Tool" ASEE Conference, June 2001, Albuquerque, NM
(with Fred Reardon, PhD)
• "You Want Some Help?" Sacramento Circuit, March 1997.
• "The Candy Bar Question" Sacramento Circuit, October 1996.
• "Could it Get Any Better?" (Annual survey of technical employers) Sacramento Circuit,
June 1996.
• "Is that Salary Negotiable?" Sacramento Circuit, April/May 1996.
• "The Occupational Outlook to 2005. What is Hot!" Sacramento Circuit, February/March
1996
• "Will You be Left in the Dust?" Sacramento Circuit, December 1995.
• "Just do it! (Stop Procrastinating)." Sacramento Circuit, November 1995.
• "Time to Move?" Sacramento Circuit, October 1995.
• "The Market for Engineers is Flying." (Annual Survey of Technical Employers) Sacramento
Circuit, March/April 1995.
• "So You Think You are Stressed? Who cares..." Sacramento Circuit, February 1995.
• "Portfolios for the Professional Job Search." Sacramento Circuit, November 1994.
• "Predicting the Future." Sacramento Circuit, January 1994.
• "A Ticket to Ride: the importance of professional activities." Sacramento Circuit,
February/March 1996
• "Shoot Yourself in the Foot: mistakes job seekers make." Sacramento Circuit,
September/October 1993.
• "Can You Thrive in the New Organizational Structure of the 21st Century?" Sacramento
Circuit, April/May 1993.
42.5
• "Have you considered self-employment?" Sacramento Circuit, January/February 1993.
• "Electronics Engineers Find Opportunity in the Transportation Field," Sacramento Circuit,
October/November 1992.
• "How to Take Advantage of an Improving Market," Sacramento Circuit, September 1992.
• "What if the Unthinkable Happens to You?" Sacramento Circuit, May/June 1992.
• "Job Seeking in the Midst of a Recession," Sacramento Circuit, March/April 1992.
• "How To Do a Job Fair," Sacramento Circuit, January/February 1992.

PAPERS, PROGRAMS & SELECTED ADDRESSES


"Patent Your Idea!" IEEE Special Workshop for Engineering Students and Professionals, April
27, 2009
"The Search for Talent: Attracting and Retaining Technology Professionals" Sacramento Area
Regional Technology Alliance (SARTA), CTO/CIO Roundtable, April 9, 2009.
"Quality Software Development Conference" College of Engineering and Computer Science,
October 2008.
"Computer Security Seminar- Emerging Field" College of Engineering and Computer Science,
January 2008.
"Sacramento Regional Engineering Workforce Summit" College of Engineering and Computer
Science, January 2007.
"Last Shot at Improving Writing Skills of Computer Science Majors" Reading and Writing
Across the Curriculum Conference, February 2006.
"The Five Elements of Good Career Planning" Key Note Address, Golden Key National Honour
Society, March 2001.
"The Future and How to Plan Yourself into It" IEEE Spring Workshop, February 2000.
"Engineering in the Millennium" IEEE Spring Workshop, February 1999.
"Why Choose Engineering or Computer Science" High School Invitational CSUS, February
1998.
"Career Management in the 90's and Beyond: Thriving in a Climate of Constant Change."
Sacramento Chapter Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, January 1994.
"Job Hunting in A Shifting Economy," Society of Women Engineers, Regional Conference
February 6, 1993.
"Preparing for a Tough Market: What Can You do to Make Yourself More Marketable?"
Golden Key National Honor Society, Statewide Conference, April 4, 1992.
"Job Seeking Techniques Forum," IEEE Spring Workshop, May 16, 1993.
"Getting an "Attitude": How to Handle the Stress of a Job Loss and Job Search in a
Recession." Alumni Job Club Seminar, March 9, 1992.

PROJECTS
• ABET Industrial Visit Reporting System
• Interview Advantage System
• Interview Scheduling System
• Career Services homepage http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career
• Job Environment Tracking System -Computerized Job Listings
• Alumni Tracking System
• Coordinate the Annual CSUS College of Engineering and Computer Science Career Day
• Conduct annual employer survey of regional hiring plans
• Editor, Career Updates Weekly Newsletter, distributed electronically to 10,000 students and technical
42.6
Professionals throughout California.

42.7
43
from Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@ecs.csus.edu>
to peter.lau@csus.edu
cc jamesmcglameiy@yahoo.com,
aguilare@csus.edu,
alexg@csus.edu
date Wed,!®^ 6,- 2fi09.,at 2:16 PM
subject endless anxiety
mailed-by ecs.csus.edu

Reply

Follow up message
Peter,

1 went home sick with anxiety on Monday. I visited my doctor because I am


distressed and depressed in response to Dr. Markovic's frightening behavior. I am
routinely worried and afraid while at work. I do not go out of my office without
being wary. I constantly worry that he will hurt students or other staff. Every time I
host a major event, bringing people to the campus or students together, I am
concerned that he might come in shooting. I cannot ignore the threat that exists. As
you know, 1 have repeatedly been told about his haviBg harassed, abused and
intimidated students. This knowledge continues to weigh on me and constitutes a
hostile work environment

I contacted you Monday after Lynne Onitsuka spoke with me. Lynne maintains a
cheery disposition and she makes an effort not to let it show how this situation
affects her. Her demeanor might make some think that she is not troubled or
distressed by the hostility present in our work environment I know this is not the
case. In late March, I received a phone call at home from her husband. He told me
that she has been depressed about work and that the situation weighs on her
constantly.

43.1
The reason I called most recently was to tell you that Lynne has been instructed to
go to Markovic's office and to fix his computer. She told me that she was not happy
about having to do so, but that she felt powerless and that she was afraid to refuse
or to protest She told me she does not feel comfortable talking to her supervisor
about her concerns. Markovic causes her distress (as you know, he has threatened
to shoot her) and when she has complained to her supervisor, Mike Wimple, he has
told her to "just suck it up." She said because she is too afraid to go into Markovic's
office on her own, she would be bringing a student assistant along with her.

I was distressed on Monday because it just doesn't stop. You have known and the
campus has known for months and for years that Markovic scares people. You know
that he threatens and insults staff and abuses students. He is a noxious presence.
People have been hurt and people are in pain, and the administration has failed to
intervene. It is unconscionable that Wimple would send Lynn back into Markovic's
office - as if he doesn't know - and even more unconscionable and irresponsible for
the administration to have failed to have instructed Wimple to refrain from doing so.
irrespective of whatever process the campus believes it must pursue, the campus
had an immediate responsibility (by which I mean at least nine months ago) to
mitigate the threat and the harm.

I have a right to a healthy work environment You have a responsibility to provide


it. In a healthy work environment, employees do not have to listen to endless horror
stories. I cannot escape exposure to such stories. I cannot escape my thoughts
about these episodes at home or in the gym or even in my sleep. And it is made all
the worse by the failure of this administration to make good on its duty to me as an
employee. I did not attend the recent ceremony at which I would have received my
30 year award. The thought of being thanked by the campus for my service, while
knowing that the campus has in every way failed to respond to my complaints - the
thought of it made me sick.

i have been told by my Dean, "just forget about it... move on." I can't do that The
stories 1 have heard from students are gut wrenching. What am I supposed to do
when an alum comes to me and tells me that her career has consistently been off
track because Markovic cheated her out of the grades she deserved? What am I
supposed to say when I hear that the young student that Markovic stalked and
preyed upon 17 years ago has never gotten over it? Do I just "forget about it" when
I hear that a staff member has been terrorized? What do I do when a manager at
PG&E says to me, out-of-the-blue, "I hear Markovic's doing it again?"

43.2
And how can I perceive my work environment as being healthy after complaining
and finding that I have become "radioactive." As I have told you, some years ago
when I complained about Markovic, Dean Braja Das didn't speak to me for three full
years. For the past six months, Dean Emir Macari has said hardly a word to me at
all. I am no longer included in the planning of major projects and events that have
employment implications. It's happening again. The victims are the problem.

! am upset not just because the campus has failed in its duty. It goes beyond that
Right now, the campus is expecting to receive millions of dollars in a "smart grid"
proposal funded by the Federal stimulus package. Markovic has been written in to
the proposal as if nothing about his status on campus is ever going to change. And if
he is part of the team, he will have an even more powerful perch from which to prey
upon students. Already, it seems, he has again been told that he can act with
impunity.

In fact, I do not believe that he will remain on the "smart grid" team. It seems more
likely that he will in someway derail the project Just last week, I was speaking with
a PG&E manager (not the same one I mentioned above). He said that he had heard
that Markovic has continued to be a problem (it's well known in the large alumni
community at PG&E). In speaking with me, he recalled the events in 2003 when
PG&E was engaged in discussions with CSUS to create a large and significant
partnership. He recalled that Markovic had been calling relentlessly and displayed
rude and aggressive behavior with a number of PG&E staff and that PG&E requested
a meeting to resolve the issue (believing that there must have been some
misunderstanding). During that meeting, Markovic was abusive towards a PG&E
manager and a VP, and Braja Das stood by and watched. PG&E withdrew their
proposal, viewing it as too risky to partner with CSUS.

1 interact with the community on behalf of the campus on a regular basis. I am


embarrassed when people off campus ask about this. I help recruit students and I
talk to parents about why they should send their kids here to CSUS. I feel depressed
at the at the prospect of answering the question of why didn't the campus do
anything to protect my child. Do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen.

This continuing situation has the potential to embarrass the campus well beyond
Che confines of Riverside Hall.

Cici

43.3
Cici Mattiuzzi

Director, Career Services Office


College of Engineering & Computer Science
CSU, Sacramento
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091
fax: 916-278-5949

email cici@csus.edu
web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

43.4
Exhibit 44
California State University, Sacramento
Office of Human Resources
6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032
http://www.csus.edu/hr

S-MaylS, 206$ "*

Ms. Cici Mattiuzzi


College of Engineering & Computer Science
(Also sent via email)

Dear Ms. Mattiuzzi:

I have completed my review of your harassment and retaliation complaint. An investigation was
conducted by Ms. Kira King under Chancellor's Office Executive Order 928
(http://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-928.html). In order to sustain a finding of violation of
University policy:

1. To be unlawful harassment, the conduct must be:

a. Unwelcome;
b. Directed at gender, race or other protected categories, or in sexual harassment cases,
be sexual in nature;
c. Offensive to both the recipient and to a "reasonable person"; and
d. Severe or pervasive.

2 To be unlawful retaliation an employee must suffer an adverse employment action for


engaging in protected activities.

The following summarizes the findings by Ms. King:

1 You alleged that Dr. Miroslov Markovic harassed you by intentionally and forcefully
bumping into you twice at a department event.

Based on the description of event, the witness interviews, and the fact that an intentional
and/or aggressive move would have been noticed by others, particularly Dr. Oldenburg, Ms.
King concluded that the event was accidental. This finding was further supported by your
police statement by which you stated that it might have been an accideitf at the time.

2. You alleged that the University retaliated agaiast you fer raJsiag,claims against Dr.
Markovic. Specifically you alleged that you were removed ^fe>m year teaebiag duties and
were deaied reclassifibatKTs is&? the SSF-AR ciassMeation because you filed complaints
against Dr. Markovic.

'• •'"' HNivfKM'* ililtpnheld • ChannelIsland-. • Chico • DominyuezHills • EasiBay • Fr«no • Fullenon • Humboldt • Lonq Beach • LosAngtilei • M^nnm*Aimlrmy • MUM I
it !'..M'on, • (,,jd.viu m. '<aii Bcrn.ml'nu • San Diego • San Francistu • San Jose • *Un Luis Ohispo • San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus

44.1
Ms. King concluded that there was HO-evidence of any coaaeetkra between the removal of
your teaching position and your c©B3f>kints against Dr. Markovic. This was based on the
following facts:

a. The July, 2008 collective bargaining agreement between CSU and APC prohibited
Unit 4 employees from teaching for-credit courses as part of their job assignment.
The parties agreed to a one-time continuation of teaching duties by Unit 4 employees
for the Fall semester, 2008 only.
b. You were not the only Unit 4 employee whose teaching assignment was modified or
eliminated under the collective bargaining agreement.
c. The two employees you indicated have continued to teach are either not in Unit 4, or
have not taught for-credit courses since this prohibition was agreed to.

Ms. King also concluded that there was no evidence supporting a fmding of retaliation in
the decision to maintain you current classification. This was based on the following
facts:

a. Ms. Margaret (Blair) Georgie was not aware of your complaints against Dr.
Markovic.
b. Neither Ms. Elizabeth Redmond nor Mr. David Wagner had any input into Ms.
Georgie's decision that your SSP TV classification was appropriate.
c. Neither Ms. Redmond nor Mr. Wagner discussed your allegations of harassment
against Dr. Markovic with Ms. Georgie.
d. Ms. Georgie was not toM by former Dean Das that he had withdrawn his support of
your 2002 reclassification effort.
e. Your 2007 application for reclassification was processed in a timely manner. It was
categorized as a "Management Scheduled" application and was thus not subject to the
180 day deadline as an "Employee Initiated" application.

3. You alleged that the University refiises to hire women into the SSP-AR classification.

The University currently employs 16 SSP-AR classified employees. Eight are females, and
eight are males. Since SSP-ARs were removed from Unit 4 in the early 1990s, no SSP has
been reclassified to SSP-AR.

4. You alleged that the University failed to adequately investigate past complaints regarding
Dr. Markovic's behavior.

Ms. King found that the investigation and follow-up regarding your 2007 complaint against
Dr. Markovic was appropriate. Ms. King also looked into your concerns regarding
complaints by others (former and current students and employees) against Dr. Markovic.
Due to the privacy interests of fee individuals involved, the University cannot give you any
details regarding those actions. However, we can tell you that any findings will be reviewed
and the University will take any actions that are necessary.

44.2
Based on Ms. King's findings, I find no support specifically for your allegations of harassment
and retaliation. Therefore I am cIosing-.B-by Level I investigation into your complaint against Dr.
Markovic. If you are not satisfied with the outcome at Level I, you may file a Level II complaint
with the Office of the Chancellor no later than ten days after this Level I response. Please refer
to http ://www. calstate. edu/eo/EO-928. html for specific procedure if you wish to file a Level II
complaint.

I want to remind you that retaliation against someone for filing a complaint or for participating in
an investigation is against University policy. Should you be subjected to any retaliation for
engaging in this conduct, you should contact this office. In addition, this investigation and the
related findings are considered a confidential matter. You may expose yourself to discipline or
liability should you disclose or discuss these findings with others not legally authorized to
discuss these matters.

Sincerely yours.

'•J
Peter Lau, Director
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

44.3
Exhibit 45
From: lynne@gaia.ecs.csus.edu
Subject: Dr. Appointments
Date: May 21, 2009 8:21:40 AM PDT
To: wimple@gaia.ecs.csus.edu

Mike,

Due to the continued anxiety attacks and nightmares related to the


threat last summer from Dr. Miro Markovic that he would get a gun a
shoot me, I am going to start a series of depression classes and therapy
sessions with a psychologist. It is unfortunate that this incident is
having such long term effects. It was difficult enough to have my
life threatened while pregnant. It is more difficult to see and interact
with Dr. Markovic daily now that my child is born. This has forced me to
go on anti-depressants and risk the health of my baby, who is still
nursing. Long term effects of anti-depressants received through a
mother's breastmilk is still unknown. When the day comes that I am
shot and killed at work, I trust that you will tell my son how much I loved
him.

My appointments so far are:

June 9, 2009 at 9:00am - therapy session


June 9, 2009 at 2:30pm - depression class
June 16, 2009 at 2:30pm - depression class
June 23, 2009 at 2:30pm - depression class

Thank you,
Lynne

45.1