1 CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX

2
SUPERIOR COURT NO.:34-2013-00154479
3 APPELLATE COURT NO:C095488

4 DATE DOCUMENT VOL PAGE

5 12/04/13 COMPLAINT 1 4
6 06/16/14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 24
7 09/10/14 NOTICE TO FILING PARTY 1 88
8 09/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION &
9 ORDER THEREON 1 89
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2
 I ALPHABETICAL INDEX
2
SUPERIOR COURT NO.:34-2013-00154479
3 APPELLATE COURT NO:C095488

4 DATE DOCUMENT VOL PAGE

5 12/04/13 COMPLAINT 1 4
6 09/24/14 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION &
7 ORDER THEREON 1 89
8 06/16/14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 24
9 09/10/14 NOTICE TO FILING PARTY 1 88
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3
 FILED
1 Jaroslaw Maszczuk, In Pro Per Supedor coml. faliiirornia
2216 Eatzakian Way SaGramento
2 Lodi, CA 95242
209.663.2977/Fax 209.247.1089 2104/2B1
3
ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net deurgasu
4
Deputty
5 Cage Mumbur

6 34-21D13-Gin 547S
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
7
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
8
Jaroslaw Waszczuk Case No.:
9
Wrongful Suspension and Wrongful
10 Plaintiff, Termination in vioiation of
Public Policy;
11 VS. 2. Retaliation in Violation of
12 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF California Government Code;
CALIFORNIA, UC Davis, UC Davis Section 8547-8547.13 et seq.;
13 Medical Center, UC Davis Health Labor Code 1102.5;
System, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIRE 3. Intentional Infliction of
14 Emotional Distress;
BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES
4.Failure to Prevent Harassment,
15 WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Discrimination or Retaliation
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK S.ViolatiOn and Breach of the
16 PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, AND DOES
2009 Settlement-Agreement
17
1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, 6.Violation of UC Policy PPIAS 23
DEFENDANTS
18

19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

20 Plaintiff JAROSLAW - WASZCZUK alleges:

21 I. PARTIES
22

23 1. Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK is a resident of the City

24 of Lodi and County of San Joaquin, California. The University of

25 California, UC Davis, UC Davis Medical Center, UC Davis Health

26
System, and Does 1 through 25 inclusive (hereafter "Employer")
do business in the State of California, in the City of Davis and
27
City of Sacramento. The true names and capacities of the dPfendants
28
suadherein are as DOES 1-25, inclusive, and Plaintiff therefore sues
-1-

4
 these defendants by such fictitious names Plaintiff will amend this
2 complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been
3 ascertained.

4
2. Plaintiff has been informed and believes—and based on
5
such information and belief, alleges—that each defendant sued
6
herein was acting as the agent or employee of each of the other
7
defendants and, in doing the acts alleged herein, was acting
8
within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment,
9
and/or aided, abetted, cooperated with, and/or conspired with
10
one another to do the acts alleged herein. Ann Madden Rice, Mike
11
Boyd, Stephen Chilcott, Charles Witcher, Danesha Nichols, Cindy
12 Oropeza, Brent Seifert, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc were, in
13 part, acting within the scope of their employment and were at least,
14 in part, serving a purpose of their own in carrying out the alleged
fl) 15 conduct against Plaintiff.
16
17 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
18 3. Plaintiff began employment with UC Davis Medical
19 Center, Sacramento in June 1999 as a Cogeneration Operator.
Plaintiff's employment with Employer continued until his
20
involuntary termination on December 7, 2012. Throughout his
21
employment with Employer, Plaintiff performed his job in a
22
capable, professional and competent manner. The Plaintiff's job
23
performance evaluations were always positive. Plaintiff never
24
received any criticism of his work performance until April 2011,
25
when Plaintiff was wrongfully and in a malicious manner accused
26 and blamed of wrongdoing by his manager, who is one of listed
27 defendants in this lawsuit. The aforementioned accusation
28 against Plaintiff came just after Plaintiff wrote a letter to

-2-

5
 1 his department manager, in regards to pay discrimination,
2 working conditions and safety in the shop. In his March 2011
3 letter, Plaintiff also mentioned his coworker, who was allegedly
4 harassed prior to committing suicide in December 2010.

5
III. THE CASE BACKGROUND
6 PLAINTIFF IS A wWHISTLEBLOWER" WHO ASSISTED AND STILL ASSISTS
7 AND PROVIDES REPRESENTATION TO OTHER UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER
8 EMPLOYEES IN THEIR UC DAVIS INTERNAL RETALIATION AND
9 WHISTLEBLOWING COMPLAINTS
10
11 4. As stated above, Plaintiff was hired by the UC Davis
12 Medical Center in Sacramento, CA on June 1999 as a power
13 plant operator in the newly built cogeneration power plant. The

14
cogeneration power plant was an integrated unit of the UC Davis
Medical Center Plant Operations and Maintenance Department
15
(PO&M); the PO&M employees are not represented by the union.
16
From the beginning of his employment, Plaintiff noticed that
17
management was quite arrogant and vicious toward employees who
18
complained about safety issues or working conditions in general.
19
20 5. In May 2000, Plaintiff briefly became involved in a UC
21 Davis Medical Center Integrated Access Unit case as an advisor for
22 employees who were Abruptly removed from their jobs. Four workers
23 became the target of vicious and unscrupulous retaliatory action
24 from UCDMC management for complaining about the safety issues in
25 the department. They were escorted off campus, suspended without
26 pay, and placed on investigatory leave. One of the complaining
workers was accused of serious misconduct and received a letter of
27
dismissal. Assembly Member Sarah Reyes, State Senator Deborah V.
28
Ortiz and Assembly Member Darrell Steinberg intervened with UC
-3-

6
 1 Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and brought four suspended
2 employees from the UC Davis Medical Center Integrated Access Unit
3 back to work.

4
6. In 2001, Plaintiff addressed serious discrepancies to
5
his manager related to safe operation of the central plant and
6
the safety of the operating personnel. If the problems were not
7
addressed by Plaintiff, then they likely would have caused
8
serious injuries or death. In response, the Plaintiff's manager
9 advised Plaintiff that "Somebody will give this Polack a bad
10 evaluation and will fire him." Thereafter, Plaintiff has no
11 other choice but to report the serious safety problems to
12 CAL/OSHA. CAL/OSHA inspected the plant, issued citations and
13 forced the Defendant to correct the serious safety issues.

7. In 2006, Plaintiff came under vicious attack from the

Defendant in retaliation for Plaintiff's assistance to his
17 coworker's whistleblower complaint. The attack occurred after

18 the central plant coworker reported the plant manager for not
taking care of the massive machine oil discharge to the city
19
storm drain (river) from the leaking cooling tower fan's gear
20
boxes, which was causing a serious environmental hazard, as well
21
as a serious safety hazard for the employees (violation of
22
Health and Safety Code section 1102.5, a.k.a. Proposition 65).
23
In addition to the oil discharge, Plaintiff's coworker reported
24 the plant manager's notorious activities on porn sites during
25 working hours using company computers.
26
27 Thereafter, the plant manager warned Plaintiff with the
28 words, "I will send [the] Gestapo on your ass." In retaliation,

-4-

7
 1 Plaintiff was abruptly removed from the Central Plant in March

2 2007 by the new acting Department Manager, who is also listed as

3 a defendant in this complaint. Plaintiff was transferred against
4 his will with a threat of termination from his employment to the
UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop.
5
6
8. Plaintiff found his new shop to be a filthy place to
7
work, with dirty bathrooms, no showers, no place for lunch, no
8
locker room, and no air conditioning, and was denied 15 minute
9
rest breaks. The shop manager and supervisors grossly misused
10
and abused University resources and utilized the shop space as a
11 private shop to repair and park their cars and to avoid paying
12 the required parking fee. The shop supervisor was essentially
13 working part-time and getting paid for full-time work because he
14 was running a private HVAC business and dealing with church
00 15 affairs on company time. The shop manager utilized the shop as a
16 kindergarten for his kids and as a flea market as well, in which
17 he sold goats, sheep, chickens, ducks, and roosters.

18
The HVAC shop also became a safe haven for unwelcomed
19
employees from the HVAC shop, including a twice-convicted child
20
pornography felon who illegally accessed the company computer in
21
the shop. The HVAC shop manager and supervisor's shop activities
22
were condoned and tolerated by the department manager, his
23
assistant, and the director of facilities, all of whom are
24 listed as defendants in this complaint.
25
26 9. In December 2008, Plaintiff prevailed in an
27 arbitration proceeding against the Defendant's retaliatory
28 measures and had the right to return to his previous workplace.

- 5-

8
 1 However, due to the Defendant's despicable coercion of several
2 of Plaintiff's central plant coworkers against Plaintiff,
3 Defendant made it basically impossible for Plaintiff to go back
4 to his previous hostile working environment.

5
In February 2009, Plaintiff signed a Settlement Agreement
6
with UC Regents in good will and faith, and the HVAC shop became
7
Plaintiff's permanent place of work, with the new title of
8
Associate Development Engineer. The HVAC shop manager and
9
supervisor did not like the fact that Plaintiff prevailed in his
10 arbitration against management, and their attitude toward
11 Plaintiff changed drastically. The shop manager expressed his
12 feeling about the Plaintiff's new position by placing a poster
13 on the entry door to his office entitled "Enemy at the gate."
14
4, 15 10. In March 2011, Plaintiff received information about a
16 secret 12% pay raise in December 2010 for a small group of

17 department employees during the budget constraints and furloughs

18 on UC campuses. Plaintiff felt discriminated against because he

had lost income due to his transfer to the HVAC shop, which
19
Plaintiff had written a letter to the department head about. In
20
his letter, Plaintiff also mentioned the poor safety and working
21
conditions in the HVAC shop, including its terrible hygiene and
22
housekeeping standards. In addition, around the same time, one
23 worker from the central plant committed suicide, which was
24 likely triggered by harassment in the workplace. This was the
25 same place where Plaintiff worked until he was abruptly removed
26 in March 2007 and transferred to the HVAC shop.
27
28

-6-

9
1 11. Shortly after Plaintiff wrote the aforementioned
2 letter, Plaintiff again became the target of a copycat scenario
3 from 2006-2007, which was orchestrated by the Defendant's

4 vicious and unscrupulous management. Intimidation, stalking, and

sabotage by the shop manager and department assistant manager
5
made Plaintiff's working conditions intolerable and so stressful
6
that Plaintiff's physician placed Plaintiff on stress-related
7
sick leave for one month, which ended on August 31, 2011.
8

9
Plaintiff never returned to work after his sick leave
10
because was removed from the HVAC shop on September 1, 2011 and
11 placed on investigatory leave, with an attempt to terminate
12 Plaintiff's employment on September 23, 2011. The news about
13 Plaintiff's employment status was leaked and prematurely
14 announced by Plaintiff's coworker, who replaced Plaintiff.
15 Thereafter, Plaintiff was again placed by his physician on
16 stress-related sick leave until January 5, 2012.
17
After the sick leave, Defendant did not allow Plaintiff to
18
return to work. Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave by
19
Defendant until Plaintiff's employment was wrongfully terminated
20
on December 7, 2012. The termination of Plaintiff's employment
21
was the last in a series of harassing, retaliatory, malicious,
22
and intimidating actions, including suspension from work without
23
pay in May 2012 and an unsuccessful attempt to provoke and
24 physically harm plaintiff on May. 31, 2012, after Plaintiff was
25 ordered to return to work on that day for the reasons described
26 above. This fact was discovered by Plaintiff through an
27 examination of the documents that Plaintiff received under the
28

-7-

10
1 Public Information Act provision in November 2012 from the UC
2 Davis Counsel Office.
3
12. After Plaintiff received a Notice Intent to Dismiss
4
on September 25, 2012 from the Defendant, Plaintiff filed an
5
appeal with the assigned UC Davis Skelly Officer in November
6
2012. In his response, the Skelly officer completely ignored the
7
discovered facts about the attempted provocation and the attempt
8
to physically harm Plaintiff on May 31, 2012. He refused to void
9
the Defendant's Notice to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's employment
10 was ultimately terminated on December 7, 2012, based on
11 fabricated HR investigatory reports issued on December 2011,
12 February 2012 and September 2012
13
14 13. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed timely Step I
15 complaint with the UC Davis Medical Center ER Department under
16 the provisions of UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff

17 Members(PPSM 70). By his complaint, Plaintiff demanded that

the Defendant restore his employment, according to the signed
18
settlement agreement from February 2009 between Plaintiff and
19
UC Regents, and compensate Plaintiff for lost wages and
20
infliction of emotional distress, due to the long, ongoing
21
harassment and the Defendant's retaliatory actions and
22
harassment aimed at Plaintiff. Defendant denied Plaintiff's
23 complaint and the requested remedies on February 19, 2013.
24
25 14. On February 28, Plaintiff filed a timely Step II
26 Appeal of the Step I complaint decision. Defendant also denied
27 the Step II Appeal and Plaintiff's requested remedies in a
28 decision dated May 2, 2013. Plaintiff did not file a Step III

-8-

11
fi
ll
1 Appeal, which is a request for arbitration, because the arbiter
2 has no power or justification to enforce the settlement
3 agreement that the Plaintiff signed with the UC Regents in 2009,
which awarded monetary damages for the Defendant's malice and
4
infliction of emotional distress, but was violated and breached
5
by the Defendant.
6
7
15. In addition to the complaint under PPSM 70, Plaintiff
8
filed a Retaliation or Interference Complaint with UC Davis's
9 Provost and Vice Chancellor Office on March 7, 2013, under the
10 provisions of UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual Chapter 380,
11 Personnel—General Section 17, Improper Governmental
12 Activities/Whistleblower Protection.
13
14 In July 2011, Plaintiff made a complaint to UC Davis Campus
15 Counsel about the vicious harassment and gross violation of the
16 2009 settlement agreement by UC Davis Medical Center Management.

17 UC Davis Campus Counsel signed the agreement on the UC Regent's

behalf; Plaintiff felt that it was proper to make such a
18
complaint directly to UC Davis Campus Counsel. Plaintiff's
19
complaint to the UC Davis Campus Counsel was converted into a
20
"whistleblowing" complaint by UC Davis's Chief Compliance
21
Officer, and the complaint was concluded on March 7, 2012 (Case
22
#11-079, EP#2001).
23
24 The Plaintiff's retaliation or interference complaint is
25 still pending in the University Of California's Office of the
26 President. According to a letter from UC Davis's Chief
27 Compliance Officer dated June 14, 2013, the complaint should
28 have been concluded on or around October 15, 2013. However, the

-9-

2
elo 1 time for the UC Office of the President to conclude the
2 complaint was extended to November 30, 2013 for no reasons.
3
4 Plaintiff has not yet received the decision from the UC
Office of the President and has therefore exhausted all of his
5
administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff
6
received a Notice of Case Closure/Right to Sue Letter, DFEH
7
Matter Number: 112740-49836-R from the State of California
8
Department of Housing in May 2013. Plaintiff's understanding is
9
that he has to file lawsuit within one year from the date of his
10 termination. Otherwise, if the date of the legal time limit has
11. passed or passes before required legal action is taken,
12 Plaintiff will forever lose his right to sue for compensation in
13 this case. Thus, Plaintiff cannot wait any longer
14 for his Retaliation Complaint decision, which the Defendant
15 should have issued already, and includes it as a legal
16 requirement of administrative remedy exhaustion.

17
IV. DAMAGES
18
19
16. As a direct consequence and proximate result of
20
Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has lost income, employment, and
21
career opportunities, and has suffered other economic losses in
22
an amount that exceeds $25,000.00, the precise amount of which
23 will be proved at trial.
24
25 17. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of
26 Defendants' outrageous conduct, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has
27 suffered great anxiety, embarrassment, anger, loss of enjoyment of
28

- 10 -

1 life, and severe emotional distress in an amount that exceeds

2 $25,000.00, the precise amount of which will be proved at trial.

3
18. The Defendants committed the acts alleged herein
4
maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, and with the wrongful
5
Intention of injuring Plaintiff. They acted with an improper and
6
evil motive amounting to malice. Alternatively, Defendants' despicable
7
conduct was carried out in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights.
8
Employer's conduct was carried out by Defendants' managing agents,
9
or a managing agent of Employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness
10 of its decision-makers and employed them with a conscious disregard of
11 Plaintiff's rights and/or authorized and/or ratified their conduct. As
12 a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover
13 punitive damages in an amount commensurate with each defendant's
14 wealth.
15

16 V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

17
WRONGFUL TERMINATION AND WRONGFUL SUSPENSION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
POLICY
18

19
19. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 19 are re-
20
alleged and incorporated herein by reference, and Plaintiff
21
alleges for a first cause of action as follows:
22

23 20. California Labor Code section 1102.5, California

24 Government Code Section 8547-8547.13, the First Amendment of the
25 US Constitution and the Higher Education Employer and Employee
26 Relation Act embody fundamental, substantial, and well-established
27 public policies of the United States and State of California. In
28 suspending and discharging Plaintiff, Employer violated the

-11-

4
 7 1 fundamental, substantial, and well-established public policies
Vi-
1
2 embodied in Labor Code section 1102.5. California Government Code

3 Section 8547-8547.13, the First Amendment of the US Constitution

and the Higher Education Employer and Employee Relation Act.
4
Defendant also violated its own UC PPSM 23, which is also public
5
policy as well.
6
7
HEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided.
8
9
VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10 Violation of Labor Code 1102.5
11 21. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21 are re-
12 alleged and incorporated herein by reference, and Plaintiff
13 alleges a second cause of action, as follows:
14
15 22. Labor Code section 1102.5(b) provides in relevant part

16 that: "No employer shall retaliate against an employee for

disclosing information to a government or law enforcement
17
agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that
18
the information discloses a violation of a state or federal
19
statue."
20
21
23. Labor Code 1103 makes a violation of Labor Code
22
section 1102.5 a misdemeanor.
23
24 24. In discharging Plaintiff, Defendant has violated Labor
25 Code section 1102.5
26
27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided.
28

-12-

15
#10 1 VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Violation of California Government Code; Section 8547-8547.13
3

4
25. The allegations of. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are re-
5
alleged and incorporated herein by reference, and Plaintiff
6
alleges a second cause of action, as follows:
7

26. California Government Code, Section 8547.10(b)

9
provides in relevant part that: "Any person who intentionally
10 engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or
11 similar acts against a University of California employee,
12 including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for
13 employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to
14 a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and
15 imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one year.
16 Any university employee, including an officer or faculty member,

17 who intentionally engages in that conduct shall also be subject

to discipline by the university."
18

19
27. In discharging Plaintiff, Defendant has violated Labor
20
Code section 8547-8547.13.
21
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided.
23

24 VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25 Violation and Breach of the 2009 Settlement Agreement
26

27

28

-13-

16
9. 1

28. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21 are re-
2 alleged and incorporated herein by reference, and Plaintiff

3
alleges a third cause of action, as follows:

4
29. The Defendant maliciously and unscrupulously violated
5
and entirely breached the settlement agreement signed with
6
Plaintiff on or about February 2009 by retaliating and harassing
7
Plaintiff for almost two years and discharging Plaintiff.
8

9 30. In his multiple complaints to the UC Office of the

10 President, the UC Regents and other agents of the Defendant made
11 requests to stop violating the signed agreement. Defendant
12 signed the agreement with Plaintiff to avoid costly litigation
13 for unlawful treatment of Plaintiff as an employee prior to
14 signing the agreement.
15
16 31. In discharging Plaintiff, Defendant has violated the
signed settlement agreement, and Defendant is fully and legally
17
liable for Plaintiff's unlawful treatment prior to the
18
agreement.
19

20
21
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief, as hereafter provided.
22

23 IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24 Violation of the University of California Performance Management

25 Policy PPSM-23 (Employee Performance Review or Evaluation

26 Policy)
27
28

- 14 -

17
1 32. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21 are re-
2 alleged and incorporated herein by reference, and Plaintiff
alleges a third cause of action, as follows:
3
4
33. For the last two years of Plaintiff's employment,
5
Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with an annual performance
6
review, as mandated by PPSM-23, and unlawfully discharged
7
Plaintiff without valid or lawful cause.
8
9
34. PPSM-23 provides in relevant part III.B(Performance
10
Appraisal) that: "The performance of each employee shall be
11 appraised at least annually in writing by the employee's
12 immediate supervisor, or more frequently, in accordance with
13 local procedures."
14
15 The written performance appraisal is an opportunity for the
16 supervisor and an employee to review whether previously
17 discussed performance expectations and goals have been met, to

18
discuss professional development opportunities, and to identify
options for the acquisition of additional skills and knowledge
19
to foster performance improvement and career growth.
20
Additionally, the appraisal provides appropriate documentation
21
to support any recommended merit increases and/or other
22
performance-based awards.
23
24

25 35. Policies are established by the UC Regents as matters

26 of (Regents of University of California v. City of Santa Monica
27 (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 130, 135, citing Hamilton v. Regents (1934)
28

-15-

8
A 1 293 U.S. 245.). Thus, UC PPSM-23 is a public policy that was
2 violated by Defendant, in relation with Plaintiff's employment.

3
In Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18
4
Cal. Rptr. 2d 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993), the court held as
5
follows:
6

7
"In light of the multitude of laws designed to protect the
employee from oppressive employment practices, evaluations serve
9
the important business purpose of documenting the employer's
10 hiring, promotion, discipline and firing practices. Moreover,
11 the laudable practice of evaluating employees is to be
12 encouraged for other important reasons. The performance review
13 is a vehicle for informing the employee of what management
14 expects, how the employee measures up, and what he or she needs
15 to do to obtain wage increases, promotions or other recognition.

16 Thus, the primary recipient and beneficiary of the communication

17
is the employee."

18
In discharging Plaintiff without providing him an annual
19
performance review for the last two years of his employment,
20
Defendant has violated UC Policy PPSM -23 and unlawfully
21
discharged Plaintiff based on fabricated, accusations,
22
allegations and lies.
23
24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided.
25

26 X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

27 Breach of the Implied Convent of Good faith and Fair Dealing
28

- 16 -

19
1 36 The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21 arc re-

2 alleged and incorporated herein by reference, and Plaintiff

3 alleges for a six cause of Action, As follows (This cause of

action is not against the defendants who are individuals):
4
5
37. The relationship between an employer And employee
6
is fundamentally contractual. Inherent in this contractual
7
relationship is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which
8
implies a promise that each party will refrain from doing anything to
9
injure the other's right to receive the benefits of the agreement and
10 which protects the parties' reasonable expectations. The provisions of
11 the calikorni4-Lbor•c9de are implied by law into all employment
12 agreements, including the employment Agreement entered into between
13 Plaintiff and Employer. Ey -discharging Plaintiff in violation of Labor
14 cpde section 1102.5 and in violation of the Signed settlement agreement
15 with Plaintiff, Employer injured Plaintiff's right to receive the
16 benefits of his employment agreement and thwarted Plaintiff'S
reasonable expectations, i.e., Employer breached the implied Covenant
17
of good faith and fair
18
19
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as hereafter provided.
20
21
XL REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
22
Plaintiff requests a trial by jury
23
24 MI, PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as follows:
25

26 1. For back pay, front pay, and other special damages

27 according to proof;
28

-17-

20
 1 2. For general damages to compensate plaintiff for emotional
2 distress, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life;

3 3. For punitive damages;

4
4. For prejudgment interest on all damages awarded under
Civil Code section 3287(a);
5
5. For reasonable attorney fees under Labor Code section
6
218.5, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and any
7
other applicable statute or legal principle;
8
6. For costs of suit incurred; and for such other further
9 relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10
11 Dated: December 4, 2013
12
13
14 By: aroslaw Waszczuk
Plaintiff, In Propria Persona
#9 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-18-

45
21
WNW 1
2 VERIFICATION

3
I, JAROSLAWWASZCZUK declare as follows:
4
I am the plaintiff in the entitled action or proceeding;
5
I have written the attached COMPLAINT and know the contents
6
thereof; and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge.
7
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
8
the State of California that the forgoing is true and
9
correct.
10 Executed on December 4, 2013 at Lodi, California.
11
12
13
14 oslaw Waszczuk
09 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-19 -

2
 RECEIVED
eo IN DROP BOX.,

2011 DEC -14. Pn 1: 22

3O TOtN COURTHOIF,E
SiSER,C41 COURT CF CAU--0,T1
coNTY OF SACRAMENT()

23
 FILED/ENDOR ED
DOUGLAS E. STEIN, SBN 131248
305 Cranberry Lane
2 JUN 76 2014
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
3 Telephone: (916) 222-6684
Facsimile: (916) 043-0806 By: Erica Medina
4 DEPUTY CLERK

5
Attorney for Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK (Pronounced va-SH-chook)
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

8 IN AND FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY

9 )
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, ) Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT-
11 Employment
VS.
12 UNLIMITED CIVIL
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
13 CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALYH SYSTEM, 1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
14 UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC Distress, 2) Tortious Interference with
DAVIS, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE Economic Advantage, 3) Failure to Prevent
15 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES Harassment, Discrimination, and
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY Retaliation, 4) Retaliation for Reporting
16 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK Misconduct or Perceived Misconduct,
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and does l Government Code § 8547.10, 5) Violation
17 through 50, inclusive, of Labor Code §1278.5 6) Breach of
Written Contract, 7) Misclassification of a
18 Defendants. Non-Exempt Position as an Exempt 8)
Rescission of Contract
19 )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
20 )
21 PREAMBLE & NATURE OF THE CASE
22 A. There is trouble in River City. (Meredith Wilson's The Music Man titled

23 "Trouble" and also referred to as "Ya Got Trouble" or "Trouble in River City. UC DAVIS,

24 including but not limited to the University of California, Davis Medical Center ("UCDMC"),

25 have treated and continue tO treat staff and employees, especially staff who report misconduct,

26 in ways that are shocking, abysmal, harsh, abusive, unlawful and coordinated to inflict distress.

27 B. For at least the past 10 years, UC :DAVIS and UCDMC , and in particular UC

4,28 DAVIS and VC DAVIS Health System, created, encouraged, and maintained a climate and

rage 1 o162
(Ivo Compinim-Empioymeat
24
 culture in which managers, supervisors, human resource personnel, investigators, executive
2 directors, police officers, and senior officials consistently, invariably. repeatedly, and
3 unlawfully retaliate, harass, abuse, and discriminate against staff who report misconduct,
4 regardless of the nature of the reported misconduct or to whom the staff member disclosed the
5 misconduct.

6 C. UC DAVIS unabashedly and routinely fabricate investigation reports knowing

7 the reports will be used as evidence, routinely identify witnesses as being interviewed when no

8 such interview took place, routinely shred the investigation file and destroy evidence leaving
9 only self-serving reports of investigation, regularly fabricate reasons for adverse employment

10 actions, rely on witnesses known to lack credibility while they destroy documentary evidence

11 that impeaches the false witnesses, and routinely manipulate the content, crux, and conclusions

12 of investigations to find whistleblowers guilty of fault, wrongdoing, and/or improper conduct

13 that justifies adverse employment actions.

04 D. Federal government investigators, union presidents, human resource consultants,

15 journalists, and many other credible professionals have been and continue to be incensed,

16 outraged, and frustrated by the climate and culture at UC DAVIS because it blatantly,

17 repeatedly, and intentionally invokes a conscious disregard of the very laws UC DAVIS are

18 supposed to enforce. The unlawful conduct of these self-expressed guardians and protectors of

19 the law is, almost without exception, accepted, condoned, and/or ratified up through to the

20 highest paid and highest ranking positions within the UC system.

21 D. By all metrics and parameters, in this case the cabal and actions of these 'people'
22 in furtherance of their unlawful means and unlawful ends are rare, not in kind, but in severity

23 and depravity. This case demonstrates UC DAVIS, by and through its managers, supervisors,
24 and more senior officials, knowingly violate the mandate of their own procedures and
25 intentionally deprive employees of due process.
26 E. Plaintiff, from 1999-2010, consistently received glowing evaluations and
27 outstanding performance marks. Invariably, his supervisors, (including PUTNEY, one of the
28 primary complainants UC DAVIS relies upon for suspensions, leaves, and termination)

Page 2 of 62
("kit Compliiiiii-Employment
25
described MR. WASZCZUK (Pronounced va-SH-chook) as a very valuable employee,

dependable, thorough, and committed to the future success of the medical center.
F. MR. WASZCZU.K'S primary duties were no small or trivial matters. To the

contrary, MR. WASZCZUK was solely responsible, on the day shift, and except for a short

lunch break, for operating Metasys©, a software product that used an alarm or warning system

to detect, identify, and locate malfunctioning, failed, and/or failing machinery and equipment,

such as air conditioning units, heating units, refrigeration units, freezer units, elevators,

generators, and a host of other machines necessary and vital to the health, safety, and welfare of
patients, staff, and the public at large who have occasion to present at a teaching hospital,
regional trauma center, and research facility such as UC DAVIS Medical Center.

G. In or about March 2011, M.R. WASZCZU.K notified his supervisor WITCHER, in

writing, of various acts and omissions of misconduct within the HVAC Plumbing Shop.
Within days or weeks, co-workers plaintiff once thought were his friends, turned against him.
By August, 2011 plaintiff had to take 30-days leave to decrease the stress and anxiety he felt

from his co-workers, who were and still are making false statements about the plaintiff UC
Davis did not intend for plaintiff to ever return to work. UC DAVIS kept plaintiff away from
the workplace for 1.5 years, until they fired him, effective December 7,2013.

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, and alleges:

I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK is, and was at all relevant times, a resident
of the City of Lodi, and County of San Joaquin, California.
2 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA are, and were at all
relevant times, the governing body of the University of California system, deriving its creation,
powers, and authority from the California Constitution. Defendants UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA DAVIS 1-1EALYFI SYSTE.M, UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, and UC
DAVIS are, and at all relevant times were, government entities governed, supervised, and
controlled by THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, (Hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs employer", "employer", "medical center", UC DAVIS

Page 3 of 62
ii C,011111111411-Eiv11.111y1lIt'llt
26
and/or UCD)

3. Defendants ANNE MADDEN RICE. MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT,

CHARLES WITCHE.R, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT,

PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC are individuals whom reside in or within 75

m ii es of Sacramento County.

4. The true names and capacities of DOES 1-50, inclusive, are presently unknown

to plaintiff and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend

this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief,

alleges, that each defendant sued herein, including DOE defendants, was at times acting as the

agent or employee of each of the other defendants and, in doing some of the acts alleged herein,

was acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment.

6. In doing the intentional acts herein alleged, the individuals sued herein by real or
fictitious name were, at the time of the intentional acts, acting outside the course and scope of

their employment. The individuals sued herein by real or .fictitious name, in the commission or

intentional omission of the alleged intentional acts, were in the course and scope of pursuing
the ends of an agreed upon result, an express or implied agreement to achieve a desired
injurious result, and/or otherwise aided, abetted, cooperated with, and/or conspired with one

another to do the acts alleged herein.

JURISDICTION and VENUE

7. Plaintiff and UC DAVIS entered into a written contract entitled "Settlement

Agreement". The. parties entered into the agreement and UC DAVIS breached the agreement,
as hereinafter alleged, within Sacramento County.

8 The great majority of the acts alleged herein occurred or took place in
Sacramento County. The individuals sued herein by true name and/or Doe committed the great

majority of actionable and intentional acts in Sacramento County.

9. As described herein, Plaintiff complied, or substantially complied, with
administrative processes and procedures then in place for each cause of action associated with.

Page 4 of 62
cmaptaim-Elltployment
27
 Isaid administrative process or procedure.

10. As to those causes of action, if any, plaintiff did not exhaust administrative

remedies, plaintiff invokes denial of due process, estoppel, the futility doctrine, and/or

defendants' failure or inability to render a satisfactory decision within the required time frame.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff was Consistently Evaluated as a Valuable, Safety-minded, and Loyal Employee

11. VC DAVIS hired Plaintiff on June, 28 1999 as a non-exempt Senior Power Plant

Mechanic, or, Power Plant Operator. (Hereinafter "plant operator") At all relevant times,

Plaintiffs primary job duties and responsibilities related to a software program named Metasys.

Metasys monitors the alarm system for potential and/or actual malfunctioning equipment,
refrigeration units, HVAC units, elevators, and other critical machinery in all buildings on the

UC Davis Medical Center campus.

12. UC DAVIS employed Plaintiff from June 28, .1999 until December 7, 2012. UC
DAVIS unlawfully terminated plaintiff on December 7,2012.
13. UC DAVIS, by and through supervisors and managers, gave plaintiff annual

evaluations from 1999 through 2010. A sampling of the evaluations shows:

YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR

1999-00 "...performance very good" Kavanagh

"has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant
operator"
"very conscientious and thorough"
"can be counted on to make the right operational decisions"
"valuable employee"
"committed to the future success of the Medical Center"
VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards
2000-01 Same or similar to 1999-2000 A. Modetta

OUTSTANDING consistently exceeded expectations and

2001-02 standards DAN JAMES

2002-03 "Performance... outstanding"

"can be counted on to keep management informed status of the
plant and equipment"
"very valuable employee"

08
2003-04 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES

Page 5 of 62
28
civil Conipluini-Eniplesyment
 YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
2004-05 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
2 2005-06 Sane or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
3 "...Tom Kavanagh and Steve McGrath..." supervisors until
2006-07 4/27/2007 McGRATH
4 "...PUTNEY..." Supervisor beginning 4/27/2007
"has been a very valuable member of our staff" PUTNEY
5 "performance has been excellent" PUTNEY
"have not been any problems with missed alarms" PUTNEY
6 "...is talented, precise and his daily paper work is excellent." PUTNEY
"...communicates very well..." PUTNEY
7 "...instrumental in the setup of the compute.. .r" PUTNEY
"...instrumental... office area for the Building Automation
8 Monitoring." PUTNEY
"...strong knowledge of computer software and hardware." PUTNEY
9 "...overall job performance is outstanding..." PUTNEY
"...very dependable..." PUTNEY
10
2007-08 "...a very valuable member of our staff..." PUTNEY
11 "performance has been excellent" PUTNEY
"have not been any problems with missed alarms" PUTNEY
12 "...overall job performance is outstanding." PUTNEY
.has improved his communication skills and interactions with
13 co-workers." WITCHER
2008-09 "...a very valuable member of our staff..." PUTNEY
"performance has been excellent" PUTNEY
15 "have not been any problems with missed alarms" PUTNEY
"...also helping with closing work orders..." PUTNEY
16 "...maintaining the Work Order System back log..." PUTNEY
"...overall job performance is outstanding." PUTNEY
17 "OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations. PUTNEY
18 2009-10 "OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations. PUTNEY
"performance has been excellent" PUTNEY
19 "have not been any problems with missed alarms" PUTNEY
"...Helping...managing the work order system.. .providing
20 computer support..." PUTNEY
"helpful.. .providing BMS...information to senior staff
21 during.. .investigation" PUTNEY
"...very instrumental...monitoring...alarm/ status of critical
22 equipment..." PUTNEY
23 UC DAVIS' Climate and Culture of Harassment, Abuse, Intimidation, and Retaliation
24 14. As early as 2000, a climate and culture existed at the employer's medical center
25 in Sacramento and its university campus in Davis that subjected staff to a hostile work
26 environment, including but not limited to, sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation
27 for whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, favoritism, nepotism, health and
28 safety violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct,

Page 6 of 62
civil Curniaaiat-Empifiymeill
29
 and research misconduct.

2 15. As early as 2000, the employer published rules, procedures, and policies that
3 express, claim, and state that the employer is committed to a culturally diverse and otherwise

4 lawful and healthy environment. The employer's rules, procedures, and written material

5 espouse cultural diversity, promotion of a safe workplace, no tolerance for bullying or abuse,

6 no tolerance for exclusion or discrimination, and open disclosure without retribution for

7 reporting report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health.

8 16. In truth and in fact, the employer aided, helped, allowed, and/or directly caused
9 a climate and culture of harassment, abuse, intimidation, and retaliation. The employer did not

I0 implement, follow, and/or adhere to the substance of the employer's written procedures. rules.
1 and policies. Consequently, UC DAVIS' lack of enforcement of their policies rendered their
12 rules, procedures, and processes ineffective, defective, and illusory.

13 17. The employer allowed and/or contributed to the illusion of a harmonious

c,14 workplace that promoted resolution of workplace disputes in a fair and reasonable manner

15 without harassment, abuse, intimidation, or retaliation. Further, the employer allowed and/or
16 contributed to the illusion that promoted open disclosure without retribution for reporting waste,
17 fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health.
18 18. The following represents some of the evidence of the employer's climate and

19 culture of sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment

20 of all kinds, intimidation, retaliation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety violations,

21 falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research

22 misconduct;
23 a) In May 2000, Plaintiff became involved in a UC Davis
24 Medical Center Integrated Access Unit case as an advisor to
25 employees who were abruptly removed from their jobs. Four
26 workers became the target of vicious and unscrupulous retaliatory
27 action by management for complaining about the safety issues in
08 the department. They were escorted off campus, suspended

Page 7 of 62
civil compiniiii-Etaph,yment 30
without pay, and placed on investigatory leave. One of the

complaining workers was accused of serious misconduct and

received a letter of dismissal. Assembly Member Sarah Reyes,

State Senator Deborah V. Ortiz and Assembly Member Darrell

Steinberg intervened with UC Davis Chancellor Larry

Vanderhoef and brought four suspended employees back to work;

b) In 2000, Plaintiff communicated to his manager that there

were serious safety issues with risks of serious injury or death

related to safe operation of the central plant. Plaintiff ultimately

had to report the serious safety problems to CAL/OSHA.

CAL/OSHA inspected the plant and issued citations. The

employer fixed the safety risks only after CAL/OSHA issued

citations. During the course of this events, plaintiff's manager

stated "Somebody will give this Polack a bad evaluation and will
fire him"
c) A 2001 employee survey conducted by the Campaign Against

Workplace Bullying ("CAWB") and a December 21, 2000

investigative article appearing in the Sacramento News and

Review entitled "Last Words", which documented the workplace
harassment suicide of Donna McDaniel and identified numerous
employees that experienced a hostile work environment working
for UCD;

d) In 2005-06, plaintiff provided help and assistance to a

coworker suffering retaliatory actions for the coworker's
protected report of unrepaired defects in the power plant's
cooling tower fan's gear boxes. The defects caused repeated
machine oil discharges into the city storm drain which leads to
the river. The condition constituted a substantial environmental

Page 8 of 62
ComplaitivEniployment
31
 ha72rd as a grave safety hazard for the employees (Health and

Safety Code § 1102.5, a.k.a. Proposition 65) The coworker also

3 reported a manager for misuse of UC DAVIS' property and time,

4 Mier alia, accessing pornography at work on work computers.

5 The co-employee, William Buckans, despite disclosing protected

6 Whistleblower content, became the target of retaliation and

misconduct given that an investigator assigned to provide a fair,

8 impartial, and unbiased fact-finding analysis, never interviewed

9 Buckans, even though the investigator's report falsely claimed

10 Buckans gave an interview. When Plaintiff began assisting

11 Buckans, plaintiff instantaneously also became the target of

12 retaliatory abuse, exclusion, discrimination, and bullying. The

13 plant manager warned Plaintiff with the words, "I will send [the]
Gestapo on your ass" and tried to get plaintiff to "go outside" for

15 a physical confrontation. UC DAVIS, in an act of retaliation,

16 forced plaintiff to move his work location from the power plant

17 to the HVAC Plumbing Shop;

18 e) On March 10, 2009 Susan McCormick, the then President of

19 local "UPTE" (University Professional and Technical
20 Employees) and "CWA"(Cornmunication Workers of America),
21 two unions that represent employees, published a scathing article
22 in a newsletter available to the public. President McCormick

23 noted:
24 "We have all heard about child abuse, spousal
abuse, elder abuse and animal abuse. What about
25 employee abuse? What about employers who
have unwritten policies that allow
26 supervisors/managers to abuse the employee on
a sustained basis? What do I mean by abuse?
27 Types of abuse such as harassment of all kinds
(sexual, gender, racial, age and just plain
harassment), intimidation, retaliation, favoritism,
nepotism, health and safety violations,

Page 9 6f 62
civil complaiat-Eittployment 32
 falsification of documentation, and research
misconduct are just a few of the abusive activities
that are allowed at the University of California
2 at the Davis Campus and Medical
Center...(grievances)...can take up to a year or
3 more. Many employees just give up. They quit or
retire just to get away from the monumental stress
4 that is put on them by supervisors and
management..."
5
"The UC Whistleblower and Research
6 Misconduct complaint systems are a joke.
UPTE has filed several whistleblower complaints
7 a year ago. Nothing is done. Often times the
complaints are just forwarded back to Human
8 Resources where the problem was not taken
care of to begin with. It is a vicious circle with no
9 end. The Vice Chancellor and Chancellor do
nothing. Sometimes there are investigations of
10 sort. More often than not these investigations
come up with not enough evidence to do anything.
11 You can have first-hand witnesses and
documentary evidence to something and this is
12 never good enough. Then many times the
witnesses that are listed in the complaint are
13 never contacted. The investigations are often
one-sided, management sided. A Research
04 Misconduct complaint was filed recently. The
results came back insufficient evidence of wrong
15 doing. The witnesses were never
interviewed.. .Often times "favorites" are
16 reclassified upward. Management will reclassify
everyone except the un-liked employee, who
17 eventually will be laid off because he/she was the
lone person in the classification. The un-liked
18 employee often is the one who complained
about a policy violation. Thus, retaliation is
19 often seen in a layoff. Workplace environments
can be highly hostile." (Emphasis Added)
20
"These people will never move up in the
21 classification series because they are not doing the
job specifications to begin with. Employees in two
22 different classifications are doing the same job and
getting paid differently. Often times "favorites"
23 are reclassified upward. Management will
reclassify everyone except the un-liked employee,
24 who eventually will be laid off because he/she was
the lone person in the classification. The un-liked
25 employee often is the one who complained about a
policy violation. Thus, retaliation is often seen in a
26 layoff."
27
"Workplace environments can be highly
hostile...a doctor at the Medical Center harasses,
yells and intimidates employees on a daily basis,

Page 10 of 62
civil Comptaiat-Emplayalent
33
 including in the operating room.. .the supervising
doctor has covered this up for years.. .Other
physicians and nurses refuse to work with him.
2 Some employees quit because they cannot take the
stress any longer. Upper management sits on the
3 investigation for months, this had been a staff
employee, and he/she would have been terminated
4 long ago."
5 "Another doctor intentionally delayed insurance
forms which caused trouble for patients not
6 getting on-time disability payments... This was
reported to Human Resources and nothing was
7 done"
8 "An employee that works with toxic chemicals in
two laboratories does so without air conditioning
9 and extra ventilation. It gets so hot in the labs
during the summers that the machines shut down.
10 The supervisor opens containers out in the lab
instead of under the hood and throws chemical
11 contaminated ice on the floor {which employee
had to clean up) exposing everyone to the
12 chemicals. After an excessive workload that was
to be done in a short period of time {the
13 employee was threatened to lose her job if it was
not done by the time the supervisor returned from
4 his vacation overseas), this employee is now very
sick and it appears that it might be from
— 15 chemical exposure. My information request to UC
has not been forthcoming, which is usual. This is
16 the lab where research falsification occurred and
11C found no wrong doing. The witnesses were
17 never interviewed." (Emphasis Added)
18 "A twenty-five year employee was pushed out of
her job by a new employee who had become a
19 favorite of the new director of a facility on campus.
Sexual harassment and intimidation were
20 reported by the employee, but the director chose
to ignore the problem. This director is new on the
21 job. She was promoted to the position recently
even though there were many people in opposition
22 to her becoming the new director. UPTE asked for
an investigation giving names of people who
23 were witnesses. The witnesses were not called
and the result of the investigation was no wrong
24 doing. Meanwhile the employee took early
retirement because the stress was affecting her
25 health." (Emphasis Added)
26 "And it goes on and on and on. It does not stop.
could describe many, many more cases. And then
27 there are hundreds I have never heard of. There is
no accountability for management. Management
does as it pleases regardless of laws and policies.
UC is incapable of monitoring itself as it will not

Page 1 I (462
(:omptailif-Emptoyment
34
 find fault within their management ranks.
Mismanagement and the breaking of the law are
covered up on a sustained basis. The
2 Whistleblower complaint system needs to be taken
away from UC. Congress was wrong to give it to
3 them in the first place. There needs to be an
outside agency set up to monitor UC management.
4 (IC has too much power and they use this power
in an abusive and unaccountable way."
5 (Emphasis Added)
6
f) The employer's climate and culture of sustained abuse,
7
bullying, discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowing,
8
harassment of all kinds, intimidation, retaliation, favoritism,
9
nepotism, health and safety violations, falsification of
10
documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and
I
research misconduct was again publicized in 2014. News reports
12
identified Janet Keyzer, who filed her case in 2009, as being
13
terminated after reporting research misconduct in the COPE pain
014
program. In an investigative piece published in the Davis
15
Vanguard, the public was informed the case notably involved;
16
"...an endless trail of stall tactics, motions to
17 dismiss, motions for summary judgment, a transfer
from Alameda to Sacramento County, and an
18 appeal of the granting of the defendants' anti-
SLAPP Keyzer was retaliated
19 against and ultimately terminated because she
complained to her supervisor and the UC Davis
20 Institutional Review Board ("IRB") that the COPE
project management did not comply with the IRB
21 approval process before implementing human
subject research activities. On December 21, 2007,
22 she was notified that her employment with the
University was terminated, retroactive to
23 November 30, 2007... The Honorable Judge
Randolph Loncke denied a Motion for Summary
24 one week before trial, finding a triable issue of
material fact as to whether the termination was
25 retaliation for
whist' eblowing ...Importantly ... after violating
26 their own timeline for investigation, UCD
concluded in July 2009 that Ms. Keyzer's
27 termination was not related to her whistleblowing
on the COPE project."
028
In 2008 the employer settled a lawsuit brought by Officer

Page 12 of 62
Complaiat-Emooyaola
35
Chang, a gay man who was employed as a campus police offer,

paying him $240,000.00, with his resignation, but also with the

employer's agreement that Officer Change could remain in

university owned or operated housing. Almost immediately after

the case settled at a settlement conference, the employer, through

a woman present for the settlement agreement, began

proceedings to get Officer Chang out of his residence. Officer

Chang, with the settlement agreement breached, filed another

action.

h) In 2011, the world became familiar with the UC DAVIS'

climate and culture of sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination,

retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds,

intimidation, retaliation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety

violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for

reporting misconduct, and research misconduct, when Officer

Pike was caught on film casually pepper spraying law abiding
peaceful student protesters. Most importantly, the world was

told that the employer's investigation found that Officer Pike

acted reasonably. UC DAVIS, in damage control, ignored their
investigative finding and agreed to impose a suspension or

demotion. The new police chief exercised his discretion and

terminated Officer Pike.
i) In 2012, the employer's lack of effective supervisory systems,
climate and culture of retaliation, abuse, and discrimination, as
well as a systemic created and followed unwritten rule
discouraging `whistleblowers' were demonstrated, in part, by
reports that no one, not a nurse, not an administrator, not a staff
member, reported or investigated Dr. Muizelaar, the highest paid

Page 13 of 62
Ch1 Compliiiio-crucaoymeia
36
 employee at UC Davis, and Dr. Schrot, for performing
2 experimental, unapproved, seriously dangerous, and deadly
3 experiments on patients with an open source of bacteria that most
4 nurses, except one, denied knowing about to Federal investigators.
5 "Nurses are not whistleblowers", said the Chief Patient Care

6 Services Officer.

7 j) In the summer of 2012, the Department of Health, on behalf of

8 Medicare, investigated the administrative and operational
9 procedures actually followed that allowed the dangerous and
10 deadly experimental procedures to occur without one report or
11 one investigation. The managers and executives interviewed by

12 the Department of Health denied that the actions of Dr. Muizelaar

13 and Dr. Schrot raised any concern that would warrant a report or
04 an investigation. The employer published a redacted copy of the
15 report by providing that copy to the Sacramento Bee. The report
16 is highly critical of the employer's administration, supervision,
17 and operations at the medical center.

18 k) On December 12, 2011, the Sacramento Bee published an

19 article alerting the public that Medicare was investigating UC
20 DAVIS to determine if UC DAVIS can continue to be an

21 acceptable facility for patient on Medicare. In the article, the Bee

22 disclosed that the employer decided to keep Dr. Muizelaar on
23 staff and practicing medicine despite over 200 complaints, claims
24 of incompetence, and misconduct. The article also included the
25 employer's denial of any problems at the facility.
26 1) In May 2014, the employer released redacted portions of a
27 "Climate Survey" the employer commissioned utilizing Rankin
& Associates. The published report identified 24% (about 4,000

Page 14 of 62
(..faaptaiat-haptoymela
37
 people) of the employees who responded (about 11,500
2 employees) that suffered discrimination, abuse, and/or a hostile

3 work environment. The employer, relying on only reports from

4 Rankin, maintains that 24% of employees is an average number

5 of employees who disclose that they have experienced a hostile

6 work environment.

7 UC DAVIS Suspends Plaintiff and Moves Plaintiff from the Power Plant to IIVAC Shop

8 19. As a direct consequence for plaintiff helping a co-employee as alleged in

9 paragraph 18d, and amid the climate and culture herein alleged, the employer suspended

10 plaintiff for 3-days from his position as a plant operator at the power plant. The employer also

11 moved plaintiffs location of work from the Power Plant to the HVAC Plumbing Shop.

12 Plaintiff filed a grievance in 2007. After 2-days of arbitration in 2009, the arbitrator issued a

13 decision that rejected as unsubstantiated the employer's decision to move plaintiffs place of
fly work. Plaintiff expressed to his employer his desire to return to work at the Power Plant.

15 20 Rather than return plaintiff to work at the power plant, the employer made an

16 offer, which plaintiff accepted, whereby the employer paid plaintiff $8,500.00, even though the

17 employer maintained they did not owe plaintiff lost wages, while plaintiff, as and for supposed

18 consideration, plaintiff agreed that his place of work would remain at the HVAC/Plumbing

19 building, he released any and all prior claims known or unknown against the employer, he

20 accepted that the employer did not release plaintiff from any claims the employer might then

21 have, accepted a position title invented just for the settlement called Development Associate
22 Engineer, accepted a raise to $70,000.00 per year, agreed that the new title was an "exempt"
-)3 position under the law, and agreed to complete normal paperwork and background checks
24 before his new titled took effect. Plaintiff began his work under the new title in February 2009.

25 21. At all relevant times, employment documents signed by and given to plaintiff in

26 conjunction with his new title, salary, and location of work identified PATRICK PUTNEY, the
27 Manager of the I-IVAC/Plumbing Shop, as plaintiffs supervisor and CHARLES WITCHER,

the PO&M Department Manager, as the person above PATRICK PUTNEY. Defendant

Page 15 of 62
Complaiiii-Employment
38
 DOWN DANILIUC was not identified as plaintiff's supervisor or manager.
2 A Missed Alarm Can Cause Death, Serious Injury, or Financial Loss

3 22. At all relevant times, plaintiff worked within the Plant Operations &

4 Maintenance Department (Hereinafter "PO&M"). PO&M had, and still has, primary

5 responsibility for the operations, maintenance, service, and repair of building, grounds,

6 machinery, and utility systems throughout every building, laboratory, room, and office at the

7 medical center. PO&M is under an administrative branch of the employer called

8 Administration of Professional Services.

9 23. From 2007 to approximately February 2009, plaintiff continued working out of

10 the HVAC Plumbing Shop as a plant operator, a non-exempt position, with attendant

11 responsibilities the same as before his move. Plaintiff monitored the Metasys© system and

12 dispatched service or work requests based on the information generated by the Metasys©
13 system.
014 24. Plaintiff monitored the Metasys© system for alarms that identify machinery,
15 including all HVAC and refrigeration units, with potential malfunctions, failures, and/or need
16 for maintenance or repair. The PO&M, and in particular plaintiff's monitoring of said alarms
17 as well as initiating repair of said units, constituted, at all relevant times, an integral, critical,

18 and vital component of patient care, research studies, experiments, and business of the

19 employer. Plaintiff and defendants, and each of them, knew that the refrigeration units, liVAC

20 systems, and a host of other machinery, if allowed to operate with malfunctions, failures, or

21 without necessary maintenance and repairs, substantially increased the risk of patient deaths or

22 serious injury, staff illness, loss of data, loss of time invested in experiments, and a plethora of

23 significant financial losses. As such, the PO&M, and in particular plaintiffs monitoring of said

24 alarms as well as initiating repair of said units were, at all relevant times, were an on-going

25 significant safety and health concern as well as a defense against a significant financial loss.

26 UC DAVIS Changes Plaintiff to Exempt, PUTNEY and DANILIUC Protest

27 /5. From 2007 to approximately February 2009, PATRICK PUTNEY and DORIN

8 DANILIUC, the I-1VAC Plumbing Shop Manager and Supervisor, respectively, were the only

Page 16 of 62
(-kit comphato-Emplayawat 39
 exempt employees working out of the HVAC Plumbing Shop. Furthermore, during this period
2 PUTNEY, DANILIUC, and plaintiff were friends, often and consistently sharing humor and

3 items typical and expected of all men, but especially culturally diverse men who were born,

4 raised, and grew into adulthood in the dangerous and ever-changing environment of the former

5 Soviet Union's iron curtain countries of Poland and Romania.

6 26 . In or about February 2009, PUTNEY and DANILIUC became obviously upset,

7 angry, and/or outraged when plaintiff came to the HVAC Plumbing Shop as the third exempt

8 employee. PUTNEY personally went to Human Resources to complain that plaintiffs

9 presence in the Shop as an exempt employee, at the very least, created confusion about the

10 chain of authority in the HVAC Plumbing Shop. PUTNEY and DANILIUC did not like the

11 fact that DANILIUC was not plaintiffs supervisor and that the plaintiff appeared to be working

12 in a position that was at least lateral to, if not more senior than, DANILIUC.
13 DANILIUC Mysteriously Becomes Plaintiff's Supervisor
41114 27. Within a short period of time, PUTNEY and DANILIUC seemed satisfied that

15 the employer addressed PUTNEY'S and DANILIUC'S complaint about Plaintiff being the

16 third exempt employee in their shop. Plaintiffs employment records still identified PU'TNEY

17 as plaintiffs supervisor and WITCHER as the next most senior manager. PUTNEY and/or

18 WITCHER signed Plaintiffs evaluations in the second half of 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
19 DANILIUC did not have any training or experience, and if fact did not know how to use

20 Metasys.
21 28. DANILIUC began approving and submitting Plaintiffs time cards to the

22 employer. The employer, by and through defendants, and each of them, consistently sent

23 plaintiff to DANILIUC as his supervisor to accomplish a request made by Plaintiff.

24 DANILIUC and PUTNEY referred to DANILIUC as plaintiffs supervisor.
25 29. UC DAVIS never advised or informed Plaintiff that his records were wrong or

26 that DANILIUC had become Plaintiffs supervisor. Plaintiff is informed and believes and

27 thereon alleges that UC DAVIS, by and through WITCHER, CURRY, and Human Resources
028 must have come to an understanding with PUTNEY and DANILIUC that, regardless of

Page 17 o162
r1)I)YihCUl
40
 plaintiff's job, employment records, plaintiff's expectations, and other documents, such as the
2 contents of the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff„ DANILIUC would act as plaintiff's
3 supervisor.

4 30. Plaintiff believed and understood that PUTNEY, DANILIUC, and he were friends.

5 DANILIUC regularly asked Plaintiff for his help writing letters, with his families' computers,

6 or, on one occasion, to video tape an event at the church where DANILUC is the business

7 manager.
8 11 Plant Operators Advise UC DAVIS of a Hazard with Catastrophic Consequences
9 31. The memo, letter, or petition, dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11 "Central

10 Plant Operators" and addressed to CHARLES WITCHER, Manager of PO&M, identified the

11 subject matter as "...the monitoring of the Johnson Controls Metasys Software program and

12 dispatching of emergency and same day service calls to the Central Plant during graveyard and

13 weekend shifts." In other words, the subject was the fact that the Central Plant Operators
0,14 covered shifts that plaintiff did not work.

15 32. The memo, letter, or petition continued "...the Metasys and dispatching has
16 become a full time job to monitor and respond too (sic).. several years ago, we reached a point

17 where we can no longer monitor these systems and operate, start, or stop the Central Plant. This
18 matter becomes critical when there is a casualty within the plant. We cannot troubleshoot
19 and respond to phone calls and Metasys alarms. It is a miracle that nothing tragic has
20 happened yet." (Emphasis Added)
21 33. The letter, memo, and/or petition calculates the cost of "3 new employees" to

22 monitor the system for 24 hours over 3 shifts.

23 34. In their letter, memo, or petition, the plant operators asked the employer to
24 remove the Metasys monitoring obligation from the Plant, or in the alternative, agree to give
25 the plant operators raises of $4.00 per hour.
26 35. CHARLES WITCHER sent the request on to Steve McGrath, Senior
27 Superintendent Plant Operations. On November 18, 2010, ROBERT TAYLOR, the Assistant
Director, Hospitals and Clinics, in the Administrative and Professional Services arm of the

Page IS o162
(:omplaitti-1. mployment
41
employer, confirmed by email, that he was just as knowledgeable of the situation as CHARLES

WITCHER, and that he, MR. TAYLOR, was in favor of the raise instead of addressing the

serious issue raised in and by the petition.

Plaintiff Reports the Safety Issues, Waste Issues, and Misconduct Issues

36. Despite the express, unambiguous, and strongly worded warning from the staff

that it was a "miracle" a tragedy had not yet occurred from their inability to monitor the

Metasys alarms, not to mention potential blackmail to secure the raise, the employer, after

multiple meetings, emails, and discussions about the raise, none of which addressed safety or

the character of the communication, agreed to give the Plant Operators the raise of $4.00 per

hour.

37. On or about March 13, 2011, in a letter to CHARLES WITCHER, Plaintiff

engaged in communication protected by whistleblower' statutes, the first amendment of the

U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and other laws as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff
addressed the hazard identified in the petition and pointed out that the raise would not impact

the claimed 'inability' of the plant operators to monitor the Metasys system. Plaintiff
expressed that the employer left a serious safety concern unaddressed. Plaintiff rightly raised
the lack of logic in the contents of the Petition and the absurd response from the employer.

38. Plaintiff's communication also expressed the actual risk of harm identified by

the plant operators, and, the seemingly unlawful way the plant operators used the threat to
secure a raise, especially when the raise would do nothing to fix the hazard. Plaintiff also

expressed his displeasure and the displeasure of co-employees concerning isolated employees
approved for raises at a time when the employer was in the midst of layoffs, hiring freezes, and
work furloughs throughout the UC system.
39. Plaintiff also expressed his emotional upset over bullying, abuse, and
harassment he perceived contributed to the suicide of Todd Goerlich. Plaintiff further advised
WITCHER of an allegation by a co-employee, Jeff Lancaster, that someone broke into his
locker and stole personal photographs. In his letter, Plaintiff mentioned the poor safety and

working conditions in the HVAC shop, including its terrible hygiene and housekeeping

Page 19 of 61
Complaitil-Employment
42
 standards. Plaintiff requested that the pay for him and the employees in the department be fair,

rather than one group get a raise in the manner they did.

40. Finally, plaintiff expressed that he needs an hour for lunch to allow him to eat,

and walk to get his circulation going.

Plaintiff Becomes the Target of Abuse, Harassment, and Retaliation

41. Amid the climate and culture alleged herein, plaintiff's March2011 letter

sparked retaliation. Defendants, and each of them, targeted plaintiff with acts of intimidation,

stalking, and sabotage.

42. By way of example, in April 2011 DANILIUC and PUTNEY accused plaintiff

of ignoring an alarm for a pharmacy refrigeration unit. PUTNEY verbally berated plaintiff in

front of PUTNEY'S teenage stepdaughter whom PUTNEY brought to the shop against the

employer's rules. Plaintiff provided documentation establishing conclusively that PUTNEY

and DANILIUC were responsible for the refrigeration unit failure. The documents show that
plaintiff did not miss the alarm. The documents show that someone prepared a work order for
the unit, two weeks before the failure. PUTNEY and DANILIUC had the responsibility for

ensuring work orders were finished.

PlaintiffRepresents Co-employees in Grievances

43. Pursuant to the rules, policies, and procedures set by the employer, any person
of the employee's choosing can represent the employee in an administrative process to contest

an adverse employment action. The employer has never claimed that plaintiff was not able to

represent co-employees in the administrative process. Plaintiff has the right to represent co-
employees without retaliation, abuse, or harassment. In representing co-employees, plaintiff is,
and has been, consuming the information publically available identifying the climate and
culture of the employer as herein alleged.
44. Plaintiff represented and still represents at least four separate employees from
the HVAC Plumbing Shop. In addition to Cole and Buckans, plaintiff represents, or has
represented, Ken Diede and Frank Gonzales. By way of example, with plaintiff's
8 representation, Cole, Buckans, and Diede, successfully rescinded scathing, abusive, and

Page 20 of 62
Cumplitim-Employment
43
 retaliatory letters of expectation, by issued by DANILIUC and PUTNEY, that sought to place
2 "does not meet expectations" labels on the employees without just cause or foundation.

3 Plaintiff Pursues a One-Hour Lunch, Unpaid, for Health and Safety

4 45. In May 2011, Plaintiff pursued his request for a one hour lunch by approaching

5 WITCHER. WITCHER did not respond so plaintiff addressed his request to Human Resources.

6 Plaintiff initially did not understand the impact that his classification of "exempt" had on his

7 rights, if any, to breaks and lunch.

8 46. However, once he understood the difference, plaintiff requested the hour for
9 lunch, paid or unpaid. Plaintiff approached UC DAVIS for an hour lunch, instead of 30

10 minutes eating at his desk, with safety and health in mind. He disclosed he was a quadruple
11 bypass survivor and being responsible for Metasys, a one hour lunch would permit him to take

12 a walk, get his circulation going, and the like.

13 DANILIUC and PUTNEY Falsify Plaintiff's Time Cards
(14 47. Between April 2011 and August 1, 2011, Plaintiff learned that DANILIUC was
15 submitting plaintiff's time cards showing 7.5 hours of work with a 30-minute paid lunch break.
16 Plaintiff learned that his time cards were supposed to exclude a paid lunch to reflect his status

17 as exempt. In May 2011 Plaintiff approached DANILIUC and PUTNEY about the
18 discrepancies between how his time cards were supposed to be filled out and how DANILIUC
19 filled out and submitted on behalf of Plaintiff. PUTNEY, DANILIUC and HR did not respond
20 other than to have DANILIUC stop filling and signing plaintiff's time cards.
21 The Retaliation, Harassment, and Abuse Continue
22 48. The day after Plaintiff asked DANILIUC and PUTNEY about the time cards,
23 DANILIUC and PUTNEY took away plaintiff's access to the time card program and the work
24 order program. In 2009, PUTNEY and DANIL1UC instructed Plaintiff to review and close
25 standing work orders every week. PUTNEY gave Plaintiff PUTNEY'S user name and
26 password to accomplish the task. At all relevant times, Plaintiff did not know that PUTNEY
27 committed a gross violation of UC Policies and Procedures for communication devices by
98 giving and authorizing another person his user name and password. Among other problems,

Page 21 o 1 62
ci,it cum rouint-Emptayaiviir
44
 Plaintiff later learned that accountability is compromised if a manager such as PUTNEY gives

2 his user name and password to a subordinate. Plaintiff, in asking for his own user name and

3 password, sought to do the tasks assigned to him, and, to ensure that plaintiff was credited for
4 the work that he performed while the employer could track the work of others, including

5 PUTNEY and DANILIUC. In May 2011, Plaintiff reported PUTNEY'S violation of allowing

6 another person use of his user name and password to the Business Manager of PO&M. The

7 Business Manager was responsible for monitoring the status and expenses attributable to work

8 order system.
9 The Retaliation, Harassment, and Abuse Continue

10 49. The day after Plaintiff asked DANILIUC and PUTNEY about the time cards,

11 DANILIUC and PUTNEY took away plaintiff's access to the time card program and the work

12 order program. Plaintiff approached PUTNEY and DANILIUC about not being to get into the

13 programs, to which PUTNEY told him, "You are exempt, you don't need to keep your time."
glig 4 50. Beginning in or about April 2011, defendants, and each of them, began to issue

"15 Letters of Expectation (Notice of Misconduct), "Does Not Meet Expectations" evaluations, and

16 other performance and/or behavior based criticisms to HVAC Plumbing Shop employees who

17 seemed friendly or supportive of plaintiff. Furthermore, defendants, and each of them, carried
18 out their duties and responsibilities in unreasonably demeaning, threatening, and abusive ways.

19 By way of example, DANILIUC and PUTNEY confronted employee Dereck Cole in a public

20 cafeteria, in a hostile manner and apparent intent to anger Cole to physical violence. By way of

21 example, when DANILIUC and PUTNEY gave employee Kenny Diede an unfounded letter of

22 expectation for allegedly taking photographs around the shop, two senior managers were also in
23 the office, which Diede felt was threatening and abusive given the emotional reaction it did and
24 was intended to evoke.
25 WITCHER Misleads Plaintiff into Believing He Will Help, He Does Nothing
26 51. In May 2011 and June 2011, Plaintiff makes numerous attempts to secure
27 WITCHER'S help. Plaintiff disclosed to WITCHER in letters and meetings the false
8 accusation leveled by PUTNEY and DANILIUC about missing the refrigeration alarm, the

Page 22 of 62
Ch el Complaim-Employmcnt
45
falsification of his time cards, the lock-out from the time card and work order programs, the

retaliation against the co-workers Plaintiff represents, plaintiffs request for a one-hour unpaid

lunch, and the obvious problems that the plant operator petition for a raise present.

52. WITCHER placated plaintiff and plaintiff believed WITCHER intended to

address the retaliation and abuse as well as the other concerns.

53. WITCHER did not do and has ever done anything to help or support plaintiff.

Plaintiff Discloses the Misconduct, Safety Issues, and Abuse to Human Resources

54. Plaintiff, in an attempt to circumvent WITCHER and his manager CURRY,

discloses the misconduct, safety problems, harassment, and abuse to Human Resources.

Plaintiff addresses being locked out of important programs, he asks for a new password, and

also asks for the one-hour lunch, pointing out his by-pass surgery and his intent to use the time
to walk and get his circulation going.

55. Human Resources did not and has never responded to plaintiff with any help
whatsoever. Instead, Human Resources directed the Business Manager to advise plaintiff that
he needed to get access to the programs from PUTNEY or DANILIUC. Human Resources also

told plaintiff that he could combine his 2-fifteen minute breaks, add them to his 30 minute
lunch, and take his requested one-hour unpaid lunch as an exempt employee.
56. Plaintiff attempted to explain to Human Resources that they referred him to the

people that locked him out, and, that he was not asking for a one-hour paid lunch. Human
Resources has never responded or replied.
PlaintiffDiscloses Misconduct, Criminal Activity, Misuse of Property, Health Hazards
57. Between May 2011 and August 1, 2011, Plaintiff, on numerous occasions, in
addition to the previously plead items of disclosure, brought the following to the attention of
managers, officers, and executives higher up the chain as time passed seemingly without any
response or action

a) DANILIUC, PUTNEY, WITCHER, CURRY and others were

not addressing safety concerns in the HVAC/Plumbing Shop.
DANILIUC and PUTNEY, with WITCHER'S and CURRY'S

Page 23 of 62
Civil ounplaim-Ennanyment
46
 knowledge, were acting against the interests of UC DAVIS, and

2 conducting themselves in ways that, are not only unlawful, but

3 pose risks and hazards of infecting patients, co-workers, and

4 public. By way of example PUTNEY brought ducks, livestock,

5 chickens, and other live animals to the shop and sold them to

6 employees, out of the shop;

7 b) DANILIUC and PUTNEY maintained the HVAC Plumbing

8 Shop in disgusting condition, unsanitary, conditions;

9 c) The shop was backlogged on work orders;

10 d) DANILIUC runs a private HVAC business on the employer's

11 time;

12 e) DANILIUC uses the employer's time to run or be the business

13 manager of his church;

n14 f). Kenny Diede and plaintiff reported that the adult son of Bill

15 Roubideaux came to the Shop with Roubideaux, and got on a UC

16 DAVIS computer, which was connected to the intemet. Being on

17 parole for his 2'

child pornography strike,

18 Roubideaux's son, as part of his parole, was not allowed to touch

19 a computer connected to the internet.
20 g) DANILIUC stored or parked his vehicle at the shop to avoid

21 parking fees;

22 h) DANILIUC, PUTNEY, WITCHER, CURRY, issued false,

23 unjustified, and unsubstantiated adverse employment actions
24 purely to retaliate, harass, and discriminate against good and
25 honest workers who are associated with Plaintiff
26 i) Hard-working, honest, and honorable employees such as, but
27 not limited to, Cole, Buckans, Diede, and Gonzales are being
8 reduced to emotional tears and significant stress by the abuse,

Page 24 of 62
(:tooptiiim-Employmeat
47

1 harassment, retaliation, and discrimination instigated by

DANIL1UC, PUTNEY, CURRY, WITCHER, and others,

3 j) Plaintiff provided documents to Human Resources that proved

4 DANILIUC and PUTNEY not only falsely accused plaintiff of

5 missing an alarm that ultimately led to the failure of a pharmacy

6 refrigeration unit, but that DANILIUC and PUTNEY were

7 culpable in the unit's failure because they dropped ball on the

8 work order system, then locked plaintiff out;

9 k) That plaintiffs supervisor, manager, and Human Resources

10 have not responded or taken action on any of plaintiff's

1 disclosures or requests, that it is as if PUTNEY, DANILIUC,

12 WITCHER, CURRY, and the employees from Human Resources

13 are purposefully and intentional causing him emotional distress;

4 1) That Plaintiff is searching for someone from UC DAVIS who
15 will help him, and with each time a UC DAVIS employee or

16 officer does not respond, or intervene, in light of the horrific

17 treatment and conditions that exist, is proof or ratification of the
18 climate and culture as alleged herein actually exists, and the
19 employer, by failing to take action to change the environment is
20 affirming, supporting, and admitting its role in the climate and
21 culture that discourages, utilizing fear of retribution, employees
22 from reporting waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law,
23 or threat to public health.
24 Plaintiff Takes Stress Leave for 30 days in August, 2011
'75 58. Plaintiffs working conditions were so intolerable and stressful that on or about
26 July 30, 2011 Plaintiffs physician placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave for one month,
27 which ended on August 31, 2011.

1):Te 25 0162
( :omph it f I -Employment
48
 Plaintiff Takes 30-day Stress Leave and UC DAVIS Opens Investigation, Against Plaintiff

2 59. Within four months of his letter in March 2011, plaintiff took 30-day stress

3 leave. Plaintiff was scheduled and intended to return to work on September 1, 2011. On

4 August 31, 2011, with plaintiff still on sick-leave, WITCHER emailed plaintiff a Notice of

5 Investigatory Leave. The Notice advised plaintiff that he was being investigated as a result of

6 complaints made about his behavior and racial discrimination. The notice stated that Human

7 Resources, the department plaintiff sought help from, was now investigating him.

8 60. During plaintiff's 30-day stress leave, a complaint by PUTNEY and DANILIUC
9 suddenly surfaced about plaintiffs reaction to the accusation of missing the alarm for the
10 pharmacy refrigeration unit, back in April 2011!

11 UCD First Opens Investigation for delayed "Complaints" by PUTNEY/DANILIUC

12 61. UC DAVIS did not open or conduct any investigation into the complaints

13 Plaintiff made from April 2011 through August 2011.

4 62. UC DAVIS opened an investigation and placed plaintiff on Investigatory Leave
ni
15 based on complaints purportedly made in August 2011 about conduct that occurred in April
16 2011.
17 63. UC DAVIS ultimately opened an investigation into the disclosures plaintiff

18 made, but only after 4 months and after they opened the investigation into plaintiff.

19 Plaintiff Suffers Severe Emotional Reaction, Tells UC DAVIS, They Know

20 64. Plaintiff suffered a severe emotional reaction to an obviously orchestrated and
21 coordinated plan to cause him harm. The plaintiff's doctor placed plaintiff back on stress leave
22 until January 2012. Plaintiffs doctor opined that absent the stress from management, plaintiff

23 could return to work. Plaintiff advised UC DAVIS that he was suffering from severe emotional
24 trauma caused by the obvious abuse, harassment, retaliation, and coordinated actions.
25 Plaintiff's actions would have suggested to UC DAVIS he was suffering from an emotional
26 trauma. Employees, including PUTNEY and DANILIUC made references to "Plaintiff losing
27 it."
8

Page 26 of 62
civil Compliiiiil-Employmoit
49
 UC DAVIS Conducts a Ridiculously Biased and Defective Investigation

2 65. The REGENTS Whistleblower Policy requires: "...All investigators shall be

3 independent and unbiased both in fact and appearance...1nvestigators have a duty of fairness,

4 objectivity, thoroughness, ethical behavior, and observance of legal and professional

5 standards.. .Investigations should be launched only after preliminary consideration that

6 establishes that.. .The allegation, if true, constitutes an improper governmental activity and

7 either.. .Matters that do not meet this standard may be worthy of management review, but

8 should not be undertaken as an investigation of an improper governmental activity...

9 (Investigation when) the allegation is accompanied by information specific enough to be

10 investigated, or, the allegation has or directly points to corroborating evidence that can be

11 pursued. Such evidence may be testamentary or documentary..." (University of California

12 Whistleblower Policy, § IV.I-I)
13 66. § 380-15 of the UC DAVIS Policy and Procedure Manual seeks "...to ensure a
4 full, fair, and impartial investigation..." for employees, such as and including plaintiff, by
7.k
15 mandating the following procedures: "The investigator will interview the parties, if available,

16 as well as other witnesses as needed... The investigator will review relevant evidence,
17 including documents... The investigator will prepare and submit a written report containing the
18 following components: 1) A statement of the allegations and issues. 2) The positions of the

19 parties. 3) A summary of the evidence. 4) Findings of fact. 5) The investigator's determination

20 as to whether University policy has been violated... The Charging Administrator shall submit
21 the report to the appropriate University official with authority to implement the actions
22 necessary to resolve the complaint. The report may be used as evidence in other procedures,
23 such as subsequent complaints, grievances, or disciplinary action... The investigation shall be
24 conducted and completed as promptly as possible, usually within 60 working days from the
25 date of initiation... The deadline may be extended by the Charging Administrator... Written
26 notice of the extension shall be provided to the complainant and the respondent..."
27 67. The goal of a workplace investigation is to reach a fair and well-reasoned
conclusion based on the objective evidence. These investigations are subject to a
n28

Page 27 of 62
(Iva compliam-Emianymera
50


reasonableness standard. Cotran v Rollins Hudig Hall Intl, Inc. (1998) 17 C4th 93, 102. To

show reasonableness, the investigator needs to be sure to (1) speak to all relevant witnesses and

(2) review all necessary documents.

68. Where witnesses provide conflicting statements a reasonable investigator and/or

investigation:

a) Relies on other evidentiary support. Does the testimony of

other witnesses corroborate or contradict the complainant's

allegations? Are there documents (e.g., emails, letters, and cell

phone records) that bolster or refute the claims? This evidence
may include direct eye-witness testimony or testimony and

documents supporting any events surrounding an alleged incident

of wrongdoing;

b) Analyze the logical coherence of each side's "story." Does the

testimony provided to support or refute an allegation make sense?
Does the evidence have a "ring of truth" to it? Is it
plausible/reasonable/believable?

c) Evaluate the motives and credibility of the witnesses. Has the

witness lied about anything during the interview? Does the

alleged wrongdoer have a history of behaving inappropriately?
An investigator might also consider whether there is any reason

for a witness to provide false testimony.

69. People, such as and including plaintiff, who work for the REGENTS, have the

right to rely on the employer to conduct a fair, impartial, timely, and full investigation. The
entire administrative process relies and depends upon a fair, impartial, timely, and compete
investigation. The defendants polices and rules require such an investigation. Where, as here,
the investigation is so flawed, so corrupt, and so biased, that the integrity, reputation, and
purpose of the administrative processes is undermined, public policy and justice require the
court not recognize the so-called administrative processes.

l'a ge 28 (11 62
ova conirliithit-F:mphiyment
51
ft, 1 70. As examples, the following are some, but not all of the ways the investigation

2 was flawed, corrupt, and biased;

3 a) Plaintiff never returned to work from his initial sick leave. In

4 the I year, and 3 months plaintiff was away from the workplace,
5 almost 1 year was spent on Investigatory Leave, yet total
6 investigation time not much more than two weeks, give or take;
7

8 b) UC DAVIS has the temerity to blame WR. WASZCZU for

9 trying to get help from someone to stop UC DAVIS's surreal, in
10 a bad way, world where people with power truly are out to get
11 you, in a bad way, especially if you are a
12

13 C) the "WB" law is a good thing and expresses the Legislatures

14 intent to promote an important public policy, until the law
15 changes through some fair legislative process, protection, not
16 harassment, of "WB's" is the law, there is something very wrong
17 with an agency of a powerful public entity, manned by personnel
18 with seeming desire to hurt "WB'S, and perhaps a cold disregard
19 for suffering in the worse cases, like this one, where a man like
20 MR. WASZCZUK who did not a thing, but try to help and be an
21 important contributor to a healthy and safe Medical Center, and
22 with some success, certainly good enough to deserve respect,
23 sincere gratitude for doing more than a his Yeoman's share to
24 keep people safe, help get sick people better, MR. WASZCZUK
25 took his responsibility rightly serious, but accessible enough to
26 help friends after hours with letters, advice, and repairing family
27

28
an abbreviation for "whistleblower" used by UC DAVIS

Pane 29 of 63
civil c:mnpluilo-Einpinymeni 52
 computers, up to professional data protection standards, all in
2 exchange for a one-way ticket out of a big piece of his life, not
3 just "out" though, it's "out" right through MR. WASZCZUK gut,
4 ripped out by once-believed and /trusted coworkers, friends,
5 comrades, who suddenly have a problem with him being racist
6 and inappropriate, Is there a billing code for acute racism?
7 Something changed and, it's safe bet it wasn't good old Jerry
8 waking up one day with his mind changed about anything.
9
10 d) In 1 year and 4 months plaintiff was out of the workplace, not

11 one of the more than 12 managers, supervisors, officers, and/or

12 executives who worked on the investigation, most of whom are

13 attorneys, mentioned, let alone considered, that for 11 years, from

014 1999 through 2010, PUTNEY and previous managers evaluated

15 plaintiff with glowing terms, his performance was outstanding

16 many years, especially when he was working out of the HVAC

17 shop. The managers invariably described plaintiff as a valuable

18 employee to the University and someone who cares about the

19 safety of the plant, hospital, and people;

20
21 e) With actual notice that DANILIUC and PUTNEY allowed a

22 parolee, on parole as a 2-strike child porn felon, to touch, let

23 alone use, one of the employer's computers that was connected to

24 the intemet, in the middle of the HVAC Plumbing Shop, which

25 was a good thing so a lot of other workers get to supervise the

26 pig, so the risk was minimal he would access unlawful obscene

27 intolerable pornography not one of the more than 12 supervisors,

8 managers, investigators, UC DAVIS law enforcement, senior

l'age 30 of 62
Cimirylniiat-Employwnt
53
 officers, or executives who knew about the event, most of whom
2 are attorneys, realized and concluded that the felony occurred the
3 moment the pig's finger touched UC DAVIS computer, an event
4 where timely complaints from guys understandably aggravated
5 by the pig even being in the same zip code, let their shop at work.
6 According to the UC DAVIS' official story, it was a non-event„
7 somehow condoning and encouraging bottom dwelling scum to
8 violate a parole on UC DAVIS property, in a UC DAVIS
9 workplace, from a UC DAVIS networked and internet connected
10 terminal, on one of UC DAVIS' computers. Whomever fails to
11 immediately sense the wrongness of essentially green lighting
12 and getting on board with, at last count, 6 felonies... A!, your
13 cool, dude, no harm no foul, is someone who should, if fair,
allow MR. WASZCZUK whatever debauchery or indulgence
9,:
brought to bear by the creative, if not in your face, can't miss it,
16 racist and discriminatory mouth on MR. WASZCZUK, that must
17 have been in remission from 1999-September I, 2011.
18
19 f) Despite notice of a serious offense, that DANILIUC operates
20 his own private HVAC business on the employer's time, as well
21 as conducting business as the manager of his church on company
22 time, and given knowledge of the backlog of work orders, not
23 one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators,
24 officers, or executives who agreed the accusation was
25 unsubstantiated, did more than merely asked DANILIUC, "Are
26 you doing these things? Meanwhile, Plaintiff provided UC
27 DAVIS with 12 gigabytes of documents, facsimiles, messages,
letters, and without question the actual evidence, dated and timed

Page 31 of 62
Civil Complitiol-Emphoymcnt 54
 documents, that conclusively prove DANILIUC was and still is

conducting personal for profit business on UC DAVIS' time, and

UC DAVIS should have no reservations about PUTNEY's and

DANILIUC's credibility, they don't have any, except temporarily

among co-actors.

g) The investigation did not include or address plaintiff's

disclosures about PUTNEY and DANILIUC falsely accusing
plaintiff of missing the pharmacy refrigeration unit alarm and

falsifying plaintiff's time cards, two of plaintiff's early

disclosures that would have made PUTNEY and DANILIUC

unreliable witnesses;

h) Despite actual notice that plaintiff asked for a one hour lunch,
paid or unpaid, in order to allow time for him to walk, get his
circulation gong, instead of 30 minutes at his desk, and with

knowledge that plaintiff is a quadruple bypass survivor, not one

of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers,

or executives whom plaintiff notified of this safety and health

issue ever so much as mentioned the concern for safety and

plaintiff's health. Instead, they focused on whether plaintiff had

the right to take an hour lunch. Even at that, not one of the more
than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers, or
executives that discussed, in secret, or commented on this issue
brought up the fact that the plaintiff, as an exempt employee, had
every right to take an hour for lunch, provided the employer

found someone who could fill-in for another 30 minutes,

$
8

Page 32 of 62
Ch Compliiint-Lmployment
55
 i) The employer placed plaintiff on investigatory leave on
2 September I, 2011. The letter merely stated "It has been alleged
3 that you have routinely made discriminatory comments regarding
4 race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation." This is the first
5 time in the history of plaintiff' employment that anyone ever

6 made such an appalling attack on plaintiff's character. Not one

7 of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers,

8 or executives so much as mentioned, let alone analyze, the lack
9 of a track record for plaintiff's alleged conduct, which one would
10 expect at some point over 12 years. In addition, ultimately UC
11 DAVIS used plaintiff's alleged reaction to the missed alarm
12 accusation back in April 2011 to justify an April 2012

13 suspension;
4
eN j) On September 1, 2011, the day plaintiff was to return from a
— 15

16 work environment stress induced leave, based on a supposed

17 complaint by DANILIUC and PUTNEY from dated

18 communications that did not offend them when they occurred, yet

19 not one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators,

20 officers, or executives that participated in meetings, emails, and

21 drafts of the investigation so much as mentioned, let alone the

22 necessity of evaluating, the motives, bias, and/or credibility of

23 DANILIUC or PUTNEY, especially given the employer knew

24 DANILIUC and PUTNEY did not want plaintiff in their shop as

25 an exempt employee;

26
k) DANILIUC began acting as plaintiff's supervisor, doing such
27
things as preparing and turning in plaintiff's time cards that made
8
it appear that plaintiff was attempting to take a paid lunch, when

Page 33 of 62
civil Cumplliitii- Employment
56
 in reality plaintiff was only doing what DANILIUC said to do,

2 while the employer treated DANILIUC as plaintiff's supervisor

3 by directing plaintiff to him to resolve workplace problems, yet

4 not one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators,

5 officers, or executives that discussed, in secret, or commented on

6 this issue so much as mentioned, let alone recommend an

7 investigation, concerning how and when did DANILIUC become

8 plaintiff's supervisor, strong circumstantial evidence of magical

9 pre-cognition or an understanding between people.. .one whom

l0 was not MR. WASZCZUK, that DANILIIUC became and is MR.

II WASZCZUK'S;

12
13 I) On or about August 10, 2011, DANESHA NICHOLS, the
MI principal investigator, emailed multiple managers, supervisors,

15 executives, and officer, including one of the most senior

16 executives at the medical center, that "... (She) is working

/7 through various witness interviews in PO&M and I have learned

18 some information that likely has broader significance than this

19 investigation. Also, I am aware that there was a meeting with

20 ELR and the Dept yesterday regards this circumstance. I am

21 seeking a brief meeting (1 hour) tomorrow... (To) develop a plan

22 for handling this case."

23
24 m). On November 28, 2011 STEPHEN CHILLCOTT sends an

25 email to Claire Pomeroy, Ann Rice, Bonnie Hyatt, Vincent

26 Johnson, MIKE BOYD, Teresa Porter, and ANNA OROLESKI

27 notifying them that they might have received email s from

8 plaintiff over the weekend, that plaintiff is on a leave of absence

Page 34 of 62
Civil Complaint-Employment
57
TY and under investigation. He has raised a number of complaints

2 against the Health System which 'we' are investigating. HR is

3 conducting the investigation in close coordination with Legal and

4 Compliance both here and on the Davis campus. Throughout the

5 process he has sent emails to various officials and employees,

6 often with inappropriate content... [Redacted without legal basis}

7 This email is circumstantial evidence of bias against plaintiff;

9 n) Out of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators,

10 officers, or executives that participated in meetings, emails, and

drafts of the investigation so much as mentioned the fact that

11

12 defendants reference to inappropriate content were statements

13 directed to plaintiff by others and/or items that PUTNEY and

DANILIUC brought, condoned, and/or otherwise encouraged in

15 the HVAC shop, arid plaintiff was bringing it to their attention;

16

17 o). On or about September 11, 2011 MS. NICHOLS disclosed to

18 multiple managers, supervisors, executives, and officers,

19 including one of the most senior executives at the medical center,

20 that she is almost done with the investigation and she will issue

21 the report by the end of the week.

22
23 p) She sends a separate email to DANILIUC, PUTNEY, and

24 DENNIS CURRY, in which she begins in a friendly "I hope you

25 have had great weekends" despite the seriousness of the

26 accusations and the circumstances.

27
q) On September 11th and 12th, 2011, DANESHA NICHOLS

l'Age 35 o162
58
Cuutp6616-E:mpinyment
 sends rough drafts of the report to multiple managers, supervisors,
2 executives, and officer, including one of the most senior

3 executives at the medical center, asking for revisions, with

4 directions to get rid of the previous versions of the report and
5 send back the revised report. MS. NICHOLS asked HUGH

6 PARKER, a high level executive, "Is this what you had in mind?"

MS NICHOLS referred to her report.

8
r) At all times, MS. NICHOLS made a point to DANIL1UC,
9
PUTNEY, CURRY, & WITCHER to find and collect emails
10

11 from the plaintiff directed to any employee.

12 s) MS. NICHOLS issued "final reports to the department" on

13 December 5, 2011, after previous publication in September 2011,

14 and, at least a 1/2 dozen people made changes or asked NICHOLS

15 to make changes.

16

17 t) NICHOLS berates plaintiff for not driving from Lodi, to her

18 office at the medical center. However, she fails to mention, and

19 never speaks about, plaintiff being on medical leave and that it

20 would be inappropriate for him to come on his medical leave.

21

22 u) On or about December 5, 2011 WITCHER unilaterally takes

23 plaintiff off sick-leave, places him on unpaid administrative leave,

24 and threaten to fire plaintiff for not coming from his home in

15 Lodi, Ca to the Medical Center, while on sick-leave, so

26 NICHOLS can interview him;

27
v) The December 11, 2011 investigation report claims plaintiff's
08
disclosure of the safety hazards in the HVAC shop were not

Page 36 of 62
(:omphiiii-Enipioylifent
59
 substantiated. NICHOLS' investigation amounted to asking
2 DANILIUC how many of the 20 items on an old list of things to
3 repair had DANILIUC finished. DANILIUC answered "17".
4 Plaintiff's disclosure of safety hazards had more to do with the
5 animals, the foul, the generators, the IvIetasys system, and the
6 power plant operators' petition. NICHOLS, and every other UC
7 DAVIS employee, ignored those complaints; Furthermore,
8 NICHOLS supposedly evaluated plaintiff's complaint about the
9 plant operators raise and their petition but NICHOLS does not
10 mention the potential tragedy waiting to happen as warned by the
11 plant operators, or, the blackmail nature of the petition;
12
13 w) NICHOLS refers to plaintiffs claim for breaks and a one hour
0,14 lunch, even though plaintiff understood only non-exempt
15 employees must be given breaks, by the time NICHOLS
16 published the report, plaintiff had long since stated he would take
17 an hour lunch unpaid, just to get exercise, yet NICHOLS nor any
18 of the editors once mentioned the fact that a one hour lunch
19 would promote safety and health where it was needed.
20
21 x) On January 30, 2012, DANESHA circulates another rough

22 draft of a supposed amendment to her report to MIKE BOYD,

23 CHARLES WITCHER, HUMBERTO GARCIA, GINA

24 HAR WOOD (Principal Consultant, Labor Relations), and

25 STEPHEN CHILLCOTT with instructions "...I wanted to get it

26 out in preparation for our meeting tomorrow I will make all the

27 required changes/edits after tomorrow's meeting and issue the

8 report on Wednesday."

Page 37 of 62
Civil ComplaiiiI-Employtrient
60
 y) On January 31, 2012 NICHOLS tells DELMENDO "I may
2 need to amend the Waszczuk in regard to [redacted without legal
3 basis]...They are, granted, very old but still need evidences some
4 concerning behavior on the part of [redacted without legal basis]

5 I should have the amendment completed tomorrow...would that

6 be ok? Or should I simply draft addendums to add to other

7 reports."

8
9 z) On February 8, 2012 12:21 p.m. NICHOLS sends and email to

10 DELMENDO "Here is the Revised-Final on [redacted without

11 legal basis] from PO&M.

12
AA) On February 8, 2012 at 12:26 P.M., NICHOLS sends an
13
email to BOYD, WITCHER, GARCIA, DELMENDO, and
14
CHILLCOTT "ATTACHED IS THE REVISED FINAL
15
DAN ILIUC REPORT. PLEASE DISREGARD ANY
16
PREVIOUS COPIES OF THE REPORT. SHOULD YOU
17
DISCARD THE PREVIOUS COPIES, PLEASE HAVE THOSE
18
DISCARDED IN A CONFIDENTIAL MANNER"
19
DEFENDANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PRIOR
20
VERSIONS OF ANY REPORT DESPITE FOIA
21
REQUESTS. DEFENDANT CLAIMS THE DOCUMENTS
22
WERE DESTORYED.
23
24
BB) On February 9, 2012, DANESHA asks CHILCOTT if she
25
should send DELMENDO a copy of the Waszczuk report ...even
26
though there are no allegations in it pertaining to the
27
whistleblower components." DANESHA sent DELMENDO the
Ak28
revised final report concerning the allegations against Mr.

rage 38 of 62
c:fauplatini-Employencia
61
 Waszczuk even though they don't involve the whistleblower
2 components, but DELMENDO might need to refer to the

3 complaints at some point. The investigation report dated

4 February 9, 2012 is, for all intent and purpose, the same as the

5 previous two versions edited and published by BOYD,

6 WITCHER, GARCIA, DELMENDO, CHILLCOTT, and

7 NICHOLS.

8
9 CC) On February 14, 2012 DELMENDO sends an email to

10 NICHOLS with changes she needs to make in the report, but

defendant redacted the email without any legal basis.

11

12 DELMENDO advises NICHOLS that she left references to "JW

non-participation" in the report. NICHOLS expressed that she
13
tried to remove all of them but she must have missed a few.

15
DD) The entirety of the investigation, despite numerous
16
corrections over 5 months, involved only interviews with
17
PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, George Ursu, Dan
18
Radulescu, and Bill Rubidoux;
19

20
EE) Mr. Ursu, Mr. Radulescu, and Bill Rubidoux were, and are,
21
biased in favor of DANILIUC and PUTNEY and against plaintiff.
22
Mr. Ursu was one of 2-3 employees to whom DANILIUC gave
23
overtime hours, while DANILIUC gave Mr. Radulescu plaintiff's
24
title, Associate Development Engineer, but gave the duties of
25
plaintiff's job to Mr. Rubidoux;
26
27 FF) Derek Cole complained about DANILIUC giving overtime

hours to one or two people in violation of the policies, rules, and

028

Page 39 of 62
Ci-iI ConTpluiitt-Employinent
62
 procedures set up for assigning overtime hours. DANILIUC

2 issued Cole a Letter of Expectation for allegedly performing

3 below expectations even though Cole received letters of

4 accommodation from other departments for repairing HVAC

5 units that had been in a state of ill-repair for years. BOYD,

6 WITCHER, GARCIA, DELMENDO, CHILLCOTT, NICHOLS,

7 Hugh Parker (Manager Workers Compensation), SIEFERT,

8 CURRY, and many others neglected to evaluate the fact

9 DANILIUC was proven capable of retaliating with an unjustified
I0 performance evaluation.

11 GG) in or about July 2011 Plaintiff emailed the employer's

12 general counsel because his disclosures were only causing the

13 employer to increase its investigation of the plaintiff rather than

t14 substantiate the serious misconduct.
15

16 HH) On or about July 27, 2011 MS. DELMENDO sent plaintiff

17 a letter advising him that UCD determined to consider his email
18 as a whistleblower disclosure, circumventing the employers own
19 procedures and the express language of Government Code §
20 8547.7 requiring the complaint be made under penalty of

21 perjury.. .Nonetheless, the allegations were turned over to

22 DANESHA NICHOLS.

23
24 11) UC DAVIS thankfully acknowledged that PUTNEY sells

25 sheep, chickens, ducks, roosters, and other animals to other

26 employees out of the HVAC Plumbing Shop, but because it

27 happened so infrequently it's not misuse of employer property.

8 EXCUSE ME? WHAT? Selling live animals and foul to

Page 40 of 62
(Iva Cr nil ptitint-Entployitittrtt
63
employees from the employer's HVAC Plumbing Shop is not a

misuse of a hospital's facilities? Not one of the more than 12

executives, managers, supervisors, or officers that reviewed the

matter recognized that the liability issues alone are substantial

enough to warrant severe and serious consequences. Not one of

the more than 12 executives, managers, supervisors, or officers

that reviewed the matter so much as mentioned the risk that

employees, who interact with the hospital environment, without

scrubbing, might pose from exposure to animal and avian

bacteria. The only scenario under which the employer

condones this behavior is if the investigation is unfair, biased,
and discriminatory;

On or about May 17, 2012, .1 Noel VanDeviver, Principal

Employee 8c Labor Relations Consultant, in an email to herself,
with a cc to Travis Lindsey (Manager Labor Relations) and Brent
Siefert, from HR, states "...Based on what I've seen, I do think
termination would be warranted-and would help me out

tremendously;) (1 know, I know, it would not be close to being

over but at least he wouldn't be coming back to the workplace,

which would help solve other problems!)

1(K) On December 28, 2011 plaintiff notified NICHOLS of the

fact that no one had addressed or ruled out the safety ho72rd and

express warning the plant operators included in their petition.

NICHOLS ignored plaintiff; and by association the safety hazard
and express warning. Despite actual notice that the plant
operators were unable to monitor Metasys and that it was a
"miracle" a tragedy had not happened, not one of the more than

Page 41 of 62
mnoling - E in ployni
64
 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers, or executives

2 whom plaintiff notified of this safety issue ever so much as

3 mentioned the concern for safety or commending plaintiff for

4 being the only one to show enough interest to be concerned; and

6 LL) UC DAVIS destroyed the interview tapes, notes, and other

7 source materials used to construct the reports. UC DAVIS,

8 contrary to the law and their own procedures, destroyed

9 documents that would prove who they actually interviewed and
10 what the person asked and what was said.

11 UC DAVIS Abused Investigatory Leave, Intentionally Subjected Plaintiff to Distress

12 71. University of California — Policy PPSM-63 : Investigatory Leave mandates

13 that:
"...An employee may be placed on an investigatory leave, with
4 or without notice, to permit the University to review or
15 investigate actions... The leave shall be confirmed in writing,
stating the reason and the expected duration of the leave... Upon
conclusion of the investigation, the employee shall be informed
16 in writing of the actual dates and pay status of the leave... The
Vice President—Human Resources (CHILCOTT) is the
17 Responsible Officer for this policy... The Executive Officer is
accountable for monitoring and enforcing compliance
18 mechanisms and ensuring that monitoring procedures and
reporting capabilities are established... The Vice President—
19 Human Resources is accountable for reviewing the
administration of this policy. The Director—HR Compliance may
20 periodically monitor compliance to this policy."
11
72. UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members Separation Actions § 63,
22
23 Investigatory Leave provides that "...is a tool available to management in situations when it
may be necessary to remove an employee from the work site during the course of a University
24
investigation... An employee may be placed on investigatory leave when his/her continued
15
presence may interfere with the investigatory process or for other conduct or circumstances
26
which warrant removing the employee from the premises... all investigatory leaves shall be
17
with pay unless an option to use unpaid leave is approved by the Associate Vice Chancellor--
8
Human Resources... The notice must specify the reasons for the investigatory leave, the

Page 42 of 62
cranianila-Empinymera
 expected dates of the leave, and direct the employee to remain available during the course of

2 the leave for investigatory meetings... A person who is not a party to the action fills out a Proof

3 of Service form... The leave shall be no longer than 15 calendar days. The Employee &
4 Labor Relations Analysts (campus) (DELMENDO) and the UCDHS Employee & Labor

5 Relations Manager (Lindsey) may make exceptions to this rule and may grant an extension(s)

6 to the leave..."

7 73. Plaintiff took medical leave from August 1, 2011 to August 31, 2011. The

8 employer personally handed plaintiff Notice of Investigatory Leave when he showed up for
9 work on September 1, 2011. WITCHER did this knowing plaintiff was already experiencing

10 emotional distress.

11 74. The employer had plaintiff on an investigatory leave from September 1, 2011 to

12 September 23, 2011, even though NICHOLS already finished her investigation on September

13 11, 2011.
04 75. Plaintiff's doctor placed him on medical leave from September 23, 2011 to

15 January 5, 2012, with the opinion that if the stress from plaintiff's supervisors was gone,
16 plaintiff could return to work.

17 76. On or about December 5, 2011, WITCHER, arguing that plaintiff refused to

18 come to be interviewed, unilaterally took plaintiff off medical leave and placed him on
19 administrative leave without pay effective December 22, 2011 Plaintiff did not have an
20 obligation to come to an interview while on medical leave. The employer then placed plaintiff

21 on leave with pay until May •13, 2012. WITCHER sent the letter knowing plaintiff was
22 suffering from emotional distress.

23 HR Labor Relations Manager Humberto (Mike) Garcia Asked Plaintyf to Resolve Matter
24 76a. In or about February 2012 Humberto Garcia, then Human Resources Labor
25 Relations Manager and CINDY OROPEZA approached plaintiff with a generalized offer for an
26 informal resolution. Plaintiff agreed, in principal, to come to an informal resolution. Mr.
27 Garcia asked plaintiff how much he wanted to informally resolve all outstanding issues, and

91
18
plaintiff asked for his salary to be paid until his retirement Social Security Retirement kicked-in

Page 43 of 62
Ova Compluial-Employmcni 66
 at or about plaintiff's 62nd birthday. Shortly thereafter plaintiff attempted to communicate with

2 Mr. Garcia, but was advised that he no longer worked in the office. UC DAVIS did not

3 respond to plaintiff's requested demand nor did UC DAVIS attempt to communicate with

4 Plaintiff regarding an informal resolution. Instead, UC DAVIS, with malice aforethought,

5 continued their assault on plaintiff's well-being and health.

6 77. On April 15, 2012, WITCHER sent plaintiff a Notice of Intent to Suspend for

7 10-days. In that Notice, WITCHER refers to plaintiffs conduct in April 2011 as the basis for

8 the suspension. On May 13, 2012 WITCHER sent plaintiff the Letter of Suspension for 10-

9 days without pay from May 16, 2012 through May 30, 2012. The reasons given for the

10 suspension were:

11
"...continued inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
12 UCDHS Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the
Workplace and UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff
13 Complaints of Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to
adhere to specific instructions during the investigation to refrain
fir from engaging in email communications with witnesses
interfered with the investigation as outlined in the report. The
15 suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on
Wednesday, May 30, 2012. You are expected to report to work
16 at 8 a.m. on Thursday, May 31, 2012 to Facilities Support
Services Building, 4800 2'd Avenue, Suite 1500, Sacramento,
17 CA, to Charles Witcher."

18
78. The suspension had its basis in the complaints made by DANILIUC'S and
19
PUTNEY 10 months earlier in July 2011 allegedly arising from an April 2011 incident, which
20
stemmed from DANILIUC and PUTNEY'S failed, and as of yet investigated, attempt to blame
21
plaintiff for their mistake that led to a pharmacy refrigerator failure.
22
79. On May 31, 2012, WITCHER handed plaintiff an unexpected Notice of
23
Investigatory Leave when plaintiff showed up to return to work. This time WITCHER referred
24
to plaintiffs reaction to the suspension, that plaintiff sent emails.
25
80. WITCHER intended to upset and distress plaintiff. He prepared for plaintiff to
26
become violent at the May 31, 2012 return for work by laying another unexpected investigatory
27
leave notice. WITCHER assembled a lead trauma nurse, two police officers, a psychologist,
and a therapist as a crisis team.
0
- 8

Page 44 of 62
Complaiini-Employinent
67
 81. Plaintiff, in accordance with his character, did not become upset, and left

without incident. The employer kept plaintiff on investigatory leave, with a series of letters

extending the leave, until the employer through WITCHER terminated him on December 7,

2012.

82. From May 31, 2012 through December 7, 2012, the employer undertook

minimal investigation. In that time, essentially two investigation reports were published and

both did not have any investigation past June 2012, and at that the investigation involved only a

few witnesses, they being DANILIUC, PUTNEY, Ursu, Rabidioux and NICHOLS.
Plaintiff's Supervisors had Malice, Bias, and Prejudice against Plaintiff

83. CURRY exhibited actual malice toward plaintiff. In or about June 2012,

Plaintiff notified DENNIS CURRY that he was contacted by an investigator asking about a
loan DENNIS CURRY accepted from a UCD vendor to help finance his daughter's wedding.

On June 6, 2012, at 8:58 a.m., DENNIS CURRY, one of plaintiff's supervisors, retaliated with
this email, with "cc" to Ann Rice, Charles Witcher, Christopher.Simon@ucop.edu, Claire

Pomeroy, Corey Nommensen, Dan.Dooley@ucop.edu, hexter@ucdavis.edu, Jeremiah Maher,

Jill VanDeviver, John A. Lose, Souza, Joyce A, Mike Boyd, Phyllis Reginellin, Sandra Aguilar,

with the subject FW: Vendor Relations / Employee Misconduct Complaint(s):

"Jerry,
recommend that you find a place in the cavity of a chest of yours and go to see the
Wizard of Oz for a heart. Every action you take, every email you send and every lie you tell is a
selfish, self-serving attempt to build your ego. Everyone knows you are engaged in a pathetic
transparent grasp for attention. I am convinced you are the lowest vile human being 1 have ever
had the misfortune to meet, may God have mercy on your soul.
Dennis K. Curry
Dennis K. Curry"
Defendants' Responses to CURRY Prove Cabal against Plaintiff

84. Jill VanDeviver authors an email to SEIFERT and Lindsey on June 6, 2012 at
9:10 a.m. "Well, it doesn't help (Curry) has done this - are we going to address (Curry's)

behavior now?"
85. SEIFERT sends CHILCOTT an email on June 6, 2012 at 9:17 a.m., simply "FYI"

along with CURRY'S email to plaintiff.

Page 45 4,1 62
comphiiill- Employment
68
 86. CHILLCOTT replies on June 6, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. simply stating "Please
2 escalate to Mike Boyd for appropriate action."
3 87. CURRY resigned on or shortly after June 6, 2012, but not before he engaged in
4 further retaliation.
5 CURRY Harasses Kenny Diede after Sending Plaintiff the Email
6 88 On June 6, 2012 DENNIS CURRY told Kenneth Diede to come to PUTNEY'S
7 office. CURRY began by questioning Diede about attending a stress management class, but
8 soon turned the topic to plaintiff. DENNIS CURRY expressed the same opinions he put in the
9 email to the plaintiff. In addition, DENNIS CURRY stated that plaintiff is causing nothing but
10 stress for him, DANILIUC, and PUTNEY. CURRY than cautioned Diede to distance himself
11 from plaintiff.
12 CHILCOTT, Executive Director-Human Resources Shows Malice, Bias, and Prejudice
13 89. On July 25, 2012 STEPHEN CH1LCOTT, Executive Director of Human
4 Resources, started the process of retaining defense counsel for plaintiff's as yet published
15 termination.
16 Those Charged with Ensuring Due Process and Fairness are Complicit
17 90. UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter 380, § 15, Subsection IV
18 mandates that "...Designated Officials (are charged with).. .Maintaining a work environment
19 free from all forms of discrimination or harassment...Responding promptly to reports of
20 discrimination by contacting the Director—Harassment and Discrimination Assistance and
21 Prevention Program (on the Davis campus) or the Discrimination Prevention Coordinator (at
22 UCDHS) immediately upon receipt of report... Implementing appropriate interim actions, in
23 consultation with the Director—Harassment and Discrimination Assistance and Prevention
24 Program (on the Davis campus) or the Discrimination Prevention Coordinator (at UCDHS)..."
25 91. Chapter 380, § 15, subsection IV requires that "...The Chief Compliance
26 Officer—General Campus (DELMENDO) develops and implements procedures for prompt
27 and effective response to reports of discrimination..."
92. Chapter 380, § 15, subsection IV compels "...The Director—Harassment 8c

Page 46 of 62
CUM plaint-Employment 69
 Discrimination Assistance and Prevention Program /UCDHS Discrimination Prevention
2 Coordinator..." (OROPEZA) plans and manage the local discrimination education and training
3 programs and ensure the following: Wide dissemination of this policy to the University
4 community... Availability of educational and training materials to promote compliance with
5 this policy and familiarity with reporting procedures.. .Receive reports of discrimination
6 directly and from designated officials, and ensure that the timelines, rights of the complainant,
7 procedures, and remedies provided herein are met... Maintain records of reports of
8 discrimination and actions taken in response to reports, including records of investigations,
9 voluntary resolutions, and disciplinary action as appropriate.
10 Plaintiff Attempts to Get Help within the UC System to the Highest Office, UC Rebuffs
11 93. The spirit and substance of Defendants' Policies and Procedures instruct
12 employees, such as and including plaintiff, who believe a conflict of interest exists at any level,
13 to give notice to the next higher level up the chain of command. Plaintiff did exactly that but
ett defendants, and each of them, denied and ignored the plaintiff. In accordance with the spirit
15 and substance of Defendants' Policies and Procedures, Plaintiff sent the same information,
16 documents, and photographs to UC Counsel, who returned the matter to NICHOLS for
17 investigation and DELMENDO for further handling.
18 94. In accordance with the spirit and substance of Defendants' Policies and
19 Procedures, Plaintiff sent the same information, documents, and photographs to the REGENTS
20 main office, but the main office did not respond to plaintiff, and plaintiff is informed and
21 believes that the REGENTS referred it to UC Counsel, who again merely sent it back to
22 NICHOLS, DELMENDO, CHILLCOTT, WITCHER, OPREZZO (Manager, HR,
23 Discrimination Prevention Program), BOYD, and SIEFERT.
24 95. Plaintiff provided his manager, Human Resources, and the administration, at the
25 local level, enough information, documents, and photographs to substantiate plaintiff's
26 disclosures of misconduct against PUTNEY and DANILIUC as well as the ongoing
27 coordinated adverse employment actions taking place within Human Resources and the

Medical Center campus. No one responded to plaintiff with any substantive help and/or
eis
Page 47 of 62
complitint-F.mpliipnent 70
 UC DAVIS Fails to Issue a Satisfactory Decision within Allowable Time Limit

2 96. Government Code §8547.10(a) provides (a) A University of California

3 employee,.. .may file a written complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any

4 other university officer designated for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted

5 acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a

6 protected disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint

7 are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall

8 be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about..."

9 97. On March 7, 2012, pursuant to §8547.10(a) and UC DAVIS' corresponding

10 procedure, plaintiff filed a whistleblower complaint connected with the course of retaliation

I culminating in his termination on December 7, 2012.

12 98. §8547.10(c) allows an UC employee to file an action at law if, as here, plaintiff

13 files the proper complaint with the appropriate office, and, "...the university has failed to reach
a decision regarding that complaint within the time limits established for that purpose by the

15 trustees... (Or).. .if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18
16 months."

17 99. On September 12, 2013 UCD notified plaintiff that the time for them to issue a

18 decision was extended to November 30, 2013. UCD has not issued a decision.

19 100. UC DAVIS' Policies and Procedures requires UC DAVIS to issue a decision

20 within 120 days, unless they provide written notice of an extension. UC DAVIS only provided
21 the one notice, which was more than 120 days before plaintiff filed the present action.
22 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a First Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

23 ANN MADDEN RICE (CEO UCD Health Services), MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT

24 (Executive Director, Human Resources), CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS,

25 CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUS, and Does

26 1 through 20, as follows:

27
8

Page 48 of 63
ova comm:i i nu-Employment
71
 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
[INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]
2 101. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

3 through 100, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
4 102. Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert with intent to cause Plaintiff

5 severe emotional distress. The evidence is clear and convincing, at the least, that the

6 defendants, with premeditation, undertook acts that denied the reality of the abuse experienced

7 by the Plaintiff and fabricated nature of the "complaints" made about the plaintiff.

8 103. The acts and omissions as alleged herein, separately and taken together, are so
9 extreme and outrageous that the defendants, and each of them, acted outside the course and

10 scope of their employment with UC DAVIS. The depth, length of time, and nature of the acts

11 are so extraordinary that no reasonable person can conclude such acts and omissions are within

12 the course and scope of duties as a manager, supervisor, or officer of a public entity such as and

13 including UC DAVIS.
104. Defendants' actions as herein alleged do, and did, constitute extreme and

15 outrageous conduct.
16 105. Defendants' acted with intent of causing, or with reckless disregard for the
17 probability of causing, severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.
18 106. As a proximate result of the acts alleged herein Plaintiff suffered severe or
19 extreme emotional distress, entitling plaintiff to damages, including but not limited to, medical

20 expenses, lost income, other special damages, general damages, and exemplary damages, all in

21 an amount to be proven at trial

22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth
23 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Second Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
24 ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER,
25 DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY,
26 DORIN DANILIUS, and Does 1 through 20, as follows:
27 ///
08 ///

Page 49 o163
Civil Complxiill-Vmployinent
72
 V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
1TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE]
2 107. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
3 through 106, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
4 108. At all relevant times, Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD,

5 STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA,

6 BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANIL1US, DOES 1 through 20, knew of
7 the existence of the settlement agreement between plaintiff and UC DAVIS and/or plaintiff's
8 property rights in his public employment with UC DAVIS described herein.
9 109. It all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, knew that managers and
10 supervisors, including defendants PUTNEY and WITCHER, evaluated plaintiff as a "very
11 valuable employee", "OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations", "...performance has been
12 excellent...", "...overall job performance is outstanding...", "...have not been any problems
13 with missed alarm s... ", "...very i n stru menta I...monito ring...alarm/ status of critical
04 equipment...", ":..1-lelping...managing the work order system.. .providing computer support...",
15 "...also helping with closing work orders...", "...is talented, precise and his daily paper work is
16 excellent...", "...can be counted on to keep management informed status of the plant and
17 equipment...", and "...committed to the future success of the Medical Center..."
18 110. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, knew that no employee, co-
19 employee, manager, supervisor, including defendants PUTNEY, DANILIUC, CURRY and
20 WITCHER, and/or administrator ever complained about, had to investigate or consider
21 concerns regarding, and/or so much as heard rumors that plaintiff engaged in discriminatory
22 acts, made discriminatory statements, and/or presented a disruptive or violent risk within the
23 work place.

24 111. To be sure, Defendants, and each of them, knew plaintiff is, and was at all
25 relevant times, precise in his work, could be counted on to keep management informed of the
26 status of the plant and equipment, committed to the future success of the Medical Center, and
27 rightfully and lawfully expected that no person, let alone supervisors, managers, Human
Resource personnel, and others would be dishonest, fabricate stories about him, disregard

Page SO of 03
Civit Complitinl-Einployelicti 73
 evidence, disregard policies and practices for impartial investigations, disregard defendants'
2 actions on plaintiffs well-being, and/or set about to cause him emotional harm, all with the
3 intent to ensure that plaintiff never returned to work again.
4 112. Defendants, and each of them, knew that their actions, including but not limited

5 to the actions described herein, as well as their actions issuing investigatory leaves in violation
6 of policies and procedures, would cause and did cause plaintiff to suffer severe emotional

7 distress, especially when not one person left employed by UC DAVIS looked at, considered,
8 ancUor analyzed the actual evidence, such as the work orders showing PUTNEY and
9 DANIL1UC falsely accused the plaintiff of missing a critical alarm, plaintiffs evaluations
10 written by PUTNEY, surprising plaintiff twice with re-issued investigatory leaves when
11 plaintiff believed he was returning to work, instructing plaintiff not to send emails to anyone
12 other than WITCHER even though WITCHER as well as every other manager or supervisor
13 responded in a serious manner to plaintiff, the employees considering plaintiff's PPSM 70
complaints were copied on emails from the other defendants from an early point in the
15 sequence of events, the conclusions of a group of attorneys and experienced managers on the
16 misconduct disclosed by plaintiff were absurd and unbelievable, and the sudden and not
17 previously an issue discipline issued against co-employees plaintiff represented challenging the
18 discipline.

19 113. The only conclusion that is more likely than not, actually clear and convincing,
20 considering all the evidence, including the examples described herein, is that defendants, and
21 each of them, coordinated their actions, conferred with each other, and otherwise had a
22 common goal and/or understanding to either force plaintiff to quit and/or force him to act or
23 behave in ways that would provide them a subterfuge for his termination. Meanwhile,
24 defendants, and each of them, set about to extricated plaintiff from his employment because
25 plaintiff was a whistleblower, and a significant percentage of employees who report
26 misconduct suffer retaliation, abuse, harassment, and ultimately separation from their
27 employment.

114. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that his employment would be available

l'age 51 of 63
civil c:m.iranim-Eiiirauyineka 74
 for him to work, earning an hourly rate, plus benefits, and all other compensation due under the
2 law so long as plaintiff continued to do his work and perform at the workplace as he had since
3 1999.

4 115 Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to harm

5 Plaintiff financially and to induce plaintiff and/or UC DAVIS to violate the Settlement
6 Agreement, and/or to take away plaintiff's property rights in his employment without the
7 benefit of the processes, procedures, and safeguards provided for such things under the law,
8 including UC DAVIS' own policies and rules.
9 116. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants actions and omissions
10 described herein, as well as based on evidence not disclosed herein, plaintiff was damaged, and
11 continues to experience damages, in an amount that excess $75,000.00 per year, for no less
12 than 6 years, and/or the number of years from the date plaintiff last received his income to the
13 date plaintiff intended to retire. When Plaintiff has ascertained the full amount of its damages,
it will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint and/or by evidence at the time of trial
15 provide proof accordingly.
16 117. Plaintiff alleges that one of more of the defendants acted with reckless disregard
17 for plaintiff's rights and/or failed to perceive, observe, and act as a reasonable person under the
18 same or similar circumstances. Further, said reckless disregard for plaintiff's rights and/or
19 negligence were substantial factors in the damages plaintiff sustained.
20 118. The conduct of one or more of the Defendants as described herein was
21 purposeful and intentional and was engaged in for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of
22 property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected
23 to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of its rights, and was performed with fraud,
24 oppression or malice so as to justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages against such
25 Defendants in an amount according to proof at trial.
26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
27 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

Page 52 o'63
Civil Complaint-Employment 75
 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALYH SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC DAVIS,
2 ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER,
3 DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY,
4 DORIN DANILIUS, and Does 21 through 40, as follows:
5 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
!FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION:
6 Government Code § 12940 (a)]
7 119. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
8 through 118, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though filly set forth at length herein.
9 119a. Government Code § 12940(a) provides "It is an unlawful employment
10 practice...For an employer, because of the.. national origin, ancestry.. .mental disability,
11 medical condition... of any person.. .to bar or to discharge the person from employment or
12 from.. .to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges
13 of employment."
e)14 120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each
15 of them, coordinated, cooperated, agreed, and/or had an understanding to misuse, abuse, and/or
16 disregard California law, the REGENTS' polices, and UC DAVIS' procedures to deny
17 plaintiff's rights to return to work. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, coordinated,
18 cooperated, agreed, and/or had an understanding to utilize plaintiff's national origin and
19 ancestry against him, inter alia, Plaintiff, born and raised into adulthood in Poland under the
20 communist rule of the Soviet Union, arrived in America as an asylum seeker and was granted
21 political asylum. Defendants knew that plaintiff personified cultural diversity with undisputed
22 differences and difficulties expressing himself in English. Defendants, and each of them,
23 knowingly ignored Plaintiff's culturally diverse characteristics and traits, and, attempted to
24 judge, evaluate, and critique Plaintiff utilizing narrow, shallow, and discriminatory standards,
25 such as, but not limited to, UC DAVIS' Standards of Community. Multiple scholars and civil
26 rights experts have advised UC DAVIS that the Standards of Community express and espouse
27 discriminatory and unconstitutional standards.

120a. Further, defendants, and each of them, intentionally created and caused

Page 53 of 63
(Iva Complaitti-Einpinytotrot 76
 scenarios that they knew would cause plaintiff to suffer from anxiety, anger, and emotional
2 distress, because the defendants knew, based on plaintiff's own admissions and the defendants'
3 experience that plaintiff would manifest and/or alleviate his anxiety, anger, and emotional
4 distress by writing and sending letters or emails, which, to the uninformed and/or malice
5 minded person, might be unorthodox. However, defendants, and each of them, knew plaintiff
6 did not have any history of violence, did not have any history of racism, and did not have any
7 history of any discrimination.
8 121. Defendants, and each of them, further discriminated against plaintiff based on
9 his mental disability and medical condition as described herein.
10 122. Defendants and its agents, managers and employees, violated California Government

Code §12940, by failing to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the
12 conduct, acts, and failures to act as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual
13 Defendants failed to fulfill their statutory duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent
14 discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from occurring in the workplace, as required by California
15 Government Code §12940(k)
16 123. Beginning in approximately April for 2011, Defendants fabricated and conjured up
17 false accusations, false reports, and feigned complaints, and, undertook oppressive, abusive, and
18 discriminatory acts that continued up to and through December 7, 2012, the effective date of
19 plaintiff's termination.
20 124 .1n truth and in fact, Plaintiff did not do anything wrong. It is undisputed that plaintiff
21 attempted to persuade defendants, and each of them, to settle, resolve, and/or put an end to whatever
22 acrimony might have existed on the part of defendants, and each of them, at the workplace.
23 Defendants, and each of them, never responded to or reacted to plaintiff's attempts to live and let live,
'74 and to get plaintiff back to his employment.
25 125. Defendants knew plaintiff became distressed, angry, and upset with each and every
26 false accusation, false report, and feigned complaint, and, with each unfounded adverse employment
27 action, such as but not limited to, a biased, one-sided, and incomplete investigation report, or, the lack
8 of meaningful investigation into the misconduct plaintiff actually reported, or, notifying plaintiff of an

Page 54 of 63
Comphtiiii-Employment 77
 Notice of Investigatory Leave one day before his post-stress leave return to work on September 1,
2 2011, or, personally handing an unsuspecting plaintiff, who expected to start work, another Notice of
3 Investigatory Leave on May 31, 2012, with a crisis team on stand-by, or, being instructed not to
4 communicate with employees even though plaintiff represented them and there was no indication
5 plaintiff was disrupting an investigation.
6 126.. Defendants, and each of them, as part and parcel of their ongoing, continuing, and
7 repeated retaliation, harassment, and abuse for whistleblowing about misconduct, engaged in a course
8 of action that constituted, separately and cumulatively, discrimination, harassment and retaliation
9 because of national origin, ancestor, mental condition, and/or medical condition.
I0 127. The discrimination, harassment and retaliation are continuous and persist to date

against Plaintiff
12 128. As a result of Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the
13 discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Regents have allowed WITCHER and the other
14 defendants to continue to harass and retaliate against Plaintiff in compensation and terms of
15 employment. Every day and week there is some new harassing, retaliatory plan to drive Plaintiff out
16 of out of UCD, disparage him, or take compensation from him. Plaintiff has suffered substantial
17 economic losses in wages and benefits, damages to reputation, credit and other financial injuries in an
18 amount to be determined at trial.
19 129. As a result of Defendants' harassment and discrimination and the failure to prevent
20 and/or take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Plaintiff suffered
11 compensatory damages, consisting of mental anguish, humiliation, alienation, emotional distress and
22 embarrassment in a sum according to proof at the time of trial.
23 130. Pursuant to California Government Code §12965, Plaintiff requests the award of
24 attorneys' fees against Defendants under this cause of action.
25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
26 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Fourth Cause of Action, alleges against
27 Defendants, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
8 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALYH SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC DAVIS,

Page 55 U163
ova Cumplaiiti-Employffient 78
 I and Does 21 through 40, as follows:

2 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

IWHISTLEBLOWE1R/UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
3 GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 8547 et. seq.]
4 131. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
5 through 130, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
6 132. Government Code §8547.10 states (a) A University of California employee,
7 including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a written
8 complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated
9 for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
10 coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected disclosure, together with a
11 sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the
12 affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury.
13 133. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal
14 complained about. §8547.10. provides "(a) A University of California employee, including an
15 officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a written complaint with his or
16 her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that purpose by
17 the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar
18 improper acts for having made a protected a protected statement that the contents of the written
19 complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The
20 complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
11
Plaintiff's disclosures and reports concerned, or plaintiff had a good faith belief that his disclosures
22 concerned, activity by and/or conditions existing due to misconduct, including but not limited to
23 waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health."
24 134. Plaintiff's reports include, but are not limited to, reports of the coordinated efforts to
25 deny him his employment as well as the apparent ratification and/or complicity of officers of the UC
26 system.
27 135. The outrageous conduct of the Defendants described above was done with malice,

m28 fraud and oppression and with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff

Page 56 Di 63
Civil Compluitti-Employment 79
 requests the assessment of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount
2 appropriate to punish and make an example of them.
3 136. Plaintiff seeks all available damages including punitive damages for retaliation
4 against him as a whistleblower under the California Whistleblower Protection.

5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
6 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Sixth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
7 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF
8 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALYH SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC DAVIS,
9 and Does 21 through 50, as follows:
10
VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 [HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1278.5]

12
137. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
13
through 136, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
14
138. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 because "...
15
it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
16
medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe
17
patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect
18
patients and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with
19
ensuring that health care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower
20
protections apply primarily to issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility
11
and are not intended to conflict with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to
22
employee and employer relations..." (Emphasis Added)
23
139. § 1278.5(b) (1) provides "No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in any
24
manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
25
worker of the health facility because that person has... Presented a grievance, complaint, or
26
report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the
27
facility, or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity..." (Emphasis
Added)

Page 57 of 63
ci%.a comphtha-Employment 80
 140. § 1278.5(d)(1) states "There shall be a rebuttable presumption that

2 discriminatory action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that

3 health facility, or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an

4 employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the facility, if
5 responsible staff at the facility or the entity that owns or operates the facility had knowledge of

6 the actions, participation, or cooperation of the person responsible for any acts described in

7 paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), and the discriminatory action occurs within 120 days of the

8 filing of the grievance or complaint by the employee, member of the medical staff or any other
9 health care worker of the facility"

10 141. § 1278.5(d)(2) provides "...For purposes of this section, discriminatory

11 treatment of an employee.., includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion, suspension, or
12 any unfavorable changes in, or breach of, the terms or conditions of a contract, employment, or
13 privileges of the employee."
4,14 142. Defendants, and each of them, were well aware of plaintiff's disclosures
15 concerning the deficiencies and problems within the HVAC Plumbing Shop as well as the
16 function and operation of the Metasys alarm monitoring system. Each disclosure by plaintiff
17 related to and concerned matters that directly impacted, or foreseeably would impact, the safe

18 and healthy condition of the hospital.

19 143. Each retaliatory action occurred, or, started and thereafter continued, or had its
20 roots in actions begun, within 120 days of plaintiff notifying and/or complaining to the
21 defendants, and each of them.
22 144. Plaintiff is entitled to all damages authorized and recoverable under Health &
23 Safety Code § 1278.5.
24 WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
25
VIII!. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 [BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT]

27
145. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
through 144, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.

Page 58 of 63
Compinim- Employment
81
M 146. The contract between plaintiff and defendant promised plaintiff an exempt position

2 inside the HVAC Plumbing Shop with a title of Development Engineer. Plaintiff accepted the

3 position under the agreement and was installed at the location with PUTNEY as his supervisor and
4 WITCHER his manager.

5 147. At some point, currently unknown to plaintiff, UC DAVIS agreed, allowed, and/or

6 ratified DANILIUC as plaintiffs supervisor even though DANILIUC had the same or lower

7 classification accepted by plaintiff under the contract.

8 148. According to the agreement, plaintiff nor UC DAVIS were to disparage each other.
9 Plaintiff at all times expressed his good faith beliefs of the truth. However, CHILLCOTT in an email
10 disparaged plaintiff, creating the impression plaintiff was a problem, when in reality plaintiff was a
11 valuable employee, who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, and was the victim of
12 an outrageous but actual coordinated effort to cause him emotional distress.
13 149. UC DAVIS, by and through its employees, agents, and officers, kept plaintiff out of
the workplace for no apparent reason. Defendant placed plaintiff on Investigatory Leaves,
15 Administrative Leaves, yet the evidence shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, UC DAVIS was
16 intentionally keeping plaintiff out of the work location promised in the contract, and, waiting to find a
17 pretext basis to terminate plaintiff.
18 150. UC DAVIS promised and plaintiff accepted an exempt position. However, plaintiff's
19 job duties did not change in any appreciable manner from his position as a non-exempt employee. In
20 addition, inserting DANILIUC as plaintiff's supervisor extinguished any appearance or actual
21 discretion or other characteristics of an exempt position.
22 150a. the written agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair
23 dealing, or, an understanding that neither party will do anything unlawful and/or take action
24 that undermines and/or deprives plaintiff of one or more of the benefit of the bargain. Further,
25 that, provided plaintiff performed his duties in a manner that met or exceeded expectations, he
26 would be entitled to work and remain on the job until his retirement age. Further, that
27 defendants, and each of them, could terminate plaintiff's employment only with just cause.
8 150b. Defendants, and each of them, breached the contract by subjecting plaintiff to a

Page 59 o r 63
Complitial-Emplayinent
82
 hostile work environment, keeping plaintiff away from the workplace, retaliation against

2 plaintiff, and terminating his employment.

3 151. The aforementioned acts constitute material breaches of the contract

4 152. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to all special and consequential damages as allowed by

5 law, including but not limited to lost-income, hourly wages for the missed lunch and break time

6 plaintiff would have enjoyed as a non-exempt employee. The contract provides for and plaintiff

7 seeks costs as well as attorney fees.

8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
9 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Seventh Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

10 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

11 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALYH SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC DAVIS,
12 and Does 21 through 50, as follows:

13 VIX. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

IDFEH/LABOR CODE (Age Discrimination, Failure of Interactive Process, Medical
0914 Discrimination, Retaliation, wage and hour)]
15
153. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
16
through 152, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein
17
154. The contract provision attempting to set plaintiffs job as an exempt position is void
18
as against public policy, or, voidable as a direct result of defendants' failure to provide a truly exempt
19
position.
20
155. Defendants, and each of them, misled and lied to plaintiff and kept the truth from
21
plaintiff concerning the true nature of his position as well as his rights under the law. Regardless,
22
plaintiff filed a DFEH complaint and received a Right to Sue Letter.
23
156. Plaintiffs position was not an exempt position. Plaintiffs duties as alleged herein
24
were substantially the same before the contract and after the contract.
25
157. With respect to wage and hour, Plaintiff seeks damages at the rate of $70,000.00 per
26
year, divided by 50 weeks, divided by 40 hours, multiple by 1.5 hours per day, multiple by 5 days per
27
week, multiple by 50 weeks per year, multiple by 5.5 years, equals $103,125.00, plus all treble or
8
punitive damages allowed by law.

Page 60 of 63
(.:4)mptuiffi-E.rtoptient
83
n-
I 157a. Plaintiff was over-40 years old when defendants undertook their coordinated

2 assault on plaintiff's right to work. Plaintiff's protected activities and disclosures were also a

3 substantial factor in defendants' harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Defendants, and

4 each of them, knowingly and intentionally denied plaintiff the benefit of the good faith

5 interactive process mandated by law, even though plaintiff made several attempts for

6 defendants to reverse their abhorrent behavior. Plaintiff was a quadruple bypass surgery

7 survivor and taking approximately 12 medications during the time defendants committed their

8 acts described herein. UC DAVIS, as part of a plan to hand plaintiff another Notice of

9 Investigatory Leave upon his return for work on May 31, 2012, assembled a crisis team, which

10 demonstrates that UC DAVIS knew, believed, and/or intended their actions would harm

II plaintiff, and potentially other innocent people, but that did not stop them.

12 158. Plaintiff seeks all damages, including costs and attorney fees as allowed by law.

13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:

14 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for an Eighth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF

16 CALIFORNIA DAVIS HEALYH SYSTEM, UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER, UC DAVIS,

17 and Does 21 through 50, as follows:

18 VIX. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[RECISSION-UNLAWFUL CONTRACT]
'9

20 159. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

21 through 158, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein
22 160. Plaintiff's acceptance of the "exempt" classification for the job title taken
23 pursuant to The Settlement Agreement was a material aspect of the contract. An employer
24 cannot contract around Labor Laws with respect to wages, hours, meals, and breaks without
25 running afoul of the law and voiding the contract.
26 161. The contract is void as against public policy, and, the subject matter of the
27 contract is unlawful.

28 162. Defendant knew, or should have known, at the time the parties signed the

Page 61 of 63
CivilCmii plmiiIII— En; pIovannt
84
 contract that the contract was void. Further, defendants knew, or should have known, that

2 plaintiff relied on defendants to believe the contract was valid and enforceable. Defendants, to
3 the present time, have misled plaintiff into believing the contract was valid and enforceable.
4 163. In or about May 2014, plaintiff discovered the truth, that the contract was void

5 as against public policy and unlawful subject matter.

6 164. Defendants' are estopped to assert any technical defense in light of the actions

7 and omissions described herein.

8 165. As a direct and proximate result of the rescission of the contract, plaintiff has
9 been damaged in an amount equal to his hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours of
10 lunch and breaks he missed.

11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
12 I. for general and compensatory damages according to proof;
13 2. For lost salary, both front arid back pay, bonuses, benefits and any other benefits to
#114 which Plaintiff would have been entitled to by reason of his employment with Defendant UC
15 REGENTS, according to proof;
16 3. Punitive and exemplary damages against Individual Defendants;

17 4. Damages and attorney fees as allowed under the Labor Code;

18 5. for prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

19 7. for costs of suit incurred herein;
20 8. Damages for whistleblower retaliation under Government Code 8547 including
21 punitive damages against all Defendants, and Attorney's fees;
22 ///

23 III

24
25 ///

26
27 ///

///

Page 62 of 63
civa conionim-Emianyitient
85
Nt21,:v
9. Breach of contract damages, including costs and attorney fees;
'7 10. Damages, Costs, attorney fees, and all other allowable damages and relief

3 authorized under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5

4 11. Rescission of the contract and for such other and further relief as the Court deems

5 just and proper.

7 DATED: June 15,2014 Law Office of Douglas E. Stein

9 By:

10 Attorney for Plaintiff

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
11

12

13
(114

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Page 63 of 63
civo Onnplaini-Employment 86
 H11- (,;EIVE-.1)
IN DROP BOY,
2014 JUN 16 PH 12: 05

)11Ci1 C043 hOtEl: •

itiPER1OR COURT OF CAIFORteli
ATv OF SACRAMENTO

fi)
87
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
720 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-1380
http:Ilwww.saccourt.ca.gov
NOTICE TO FILING PARTY - RETURNED DOCUMENTS
Case Title: Waszczuk vs. The Regents of the University of California

Case Number: 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS

We are unable to process the attached papers for the reasons indicated below:
Document Rejected: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Leave of Court is required for all subsequent amended complaints after the first amended.

It is the responsibility of the filing party to review any applicable statute, California Rules of Court,

California Code of Civil Procedure, and Sacramento Superior Court Local Rules prior to submitting
documents.

This form is to be returned if documents are resubmitted for processing.

Papers returned to: Jaroslaw Waszczuk

Clerk of the Court,

/s/ E. .Medina
Date: 09/10/2014 By:
Deputy
Returned via:

NOTICE TO FILING PARTY

Paqe: I
RETURNED DOCUMENTS
88
 Douglas E. Stein, SBN 131248
THE LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS E. STEIN
2 305 Cranberry Lane
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
3 Telephone: (916) 222-6684
Facsimile: (916) 043-0806
4 By lvi. MERA2
Depuiy Ole
5 Attorney for Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK (Pronounced va-SH-chooT)

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

8 JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, ) Case No.: 34-2013-00155479

9 Plaintiff,
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
VS.
TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
10 COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION, &
11 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF) ORDER THEREON
CALIFORNIA ET AL
Original Complaint: 12/4/2013
12 First Amended: 06/16/2014
DEFENDANTS.
13
14 I, DOUGLAS E. STEIN, declare as follows:
15 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of

16 California_ I submit this declaration in support of plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for

17 Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Based on Stipulation.

18 2. Plaintiff submits the stipulation with this ex parte application. Opposing

19 counsel and f agreed that defendants shall have 2-weeks (TWO WEEKS) from the
20 endorsed filed date of the Second Amended Complaint to file answers or responsive
21 pleadings.

22 3. Plaintiff hereby applies to this court for an order granting leave to file his

23 Second Amended Complaint (SAC). A copy of the proposed SAC is attached hereto as

24 Exhibit 1. This application is made pursuant to the stipulation filed in conjunction with
25 this application and I hereby incorporate the stipulation into this application.
26 4. Further, the proposed amendment is necessary to cure certain defects in the

27 First Amended Complaint, such as, but not limited to, omission of the written contract as
28 an exhibit to the complaint or including verbatim provisions of the contract in the

Ex Parte Application For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint, StIpalatmL & Order Thereon
Page 1

89
 allegations in the body at' the complaint

2 5. The proposed SAC is in furtherance of justice in that plaintiff's SAC also

3 includes certain changes, additions, and deletions made by plaintiff in response to meet

4 and confer efforts by counsel to avoid or narrow issues for a special demurrer and motion

5 to strike defendants' intend to pursue. The proposed amendment is also in furtherance

6 of justice in that plaintiff's SAC includes certain changes, additions, and deletions made

7 by plaintiff that plaintiff, while not raised by defendants, recognized as confusing,

8 6. Opposing counsel and discussed, and we agreed, that plaintiff will file this

9 ex parte, without an appointment or appearance. Further, opposing counsel does not have

10 conditions, objections, or limitations to the Order other than those we have already

1 discussed and resolved.

12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that

13 the forgoing is true and correct, except as to those matters I elucidate upon information
14 and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. Executed this ? day,

15 2014, in El Dorado Hills, CA.

16
BY:
17 i56iiebts-E7sTEN
Attorney for Plaintiff
18

19 ORDER
20 Good cause appearing therefor and pursuant to the stipulation, the Court orders

21 that Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to file plaintiffs' second amended complaint in the
22 above captioned matter. Defendants shall file answers or responsive pleadings no later

23 than 2-weeks (TWO) from the date the Second Amended Complaint is filed.

24
25 Dated: SEP 2 2 2014
RI.
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
T
26 DAVID BROWN

27
28

Ex Parte Application For Leave To File Second Amended Complaint, Stipulated, II Order Thereon
Page 2

90
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the County of Sacramento. My
3
business address is 305 CRANBERRY LANE„ El Dorado Hills, CA 95762. I am over
4
18 years of age and not a party to the above entitled action.
5
On September 19, 2014 1 served the within
6
EX PARTE APPLICATION LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
7 COMPLAINT BY STIPULATION & ORDER THEREON
8 STIPULATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
9

10
X FAX AND personally sent to the addressee's telecopier number a true
11
copy of the above described document(s). I verified transmission and called the
addressee(s) and verified receipt. Thereafter, I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope
12 with the United States Postal Service addressed as set forth below:

13 Michael Pott
14
PORTER SCOTT
350 University Ave., Suite 200
15 Sacramento, CA 95825
FAX: 916.927.3706
16 mpott@porterscott.com
17
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
18
Declaration is executed on September 19, 2014 at El Dorado Hills, California.
19

20

21
DOUGLAS E. STEIN
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Proof of Service
Page 1
91
0

92
 DOUGLAS E. STEIN, SBN 131248
Law Office of Douglas E. Stein
2 305 Cranberry Lane
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
3 Telephone: (916) 222-6684
Facsimile: (916) 043-0806
4

5 Attorney for Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK (Pronounced va-SH-chook)

6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

7 IN AND FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY
8
)
)
JAROSLAW ("JERRY-) WASZCZUK, ) Case No.: EX 1 TO EX PARTE
) PROPOSED
10 Plaintiff, ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
11 ) Employment and Personal Injury, Other
vs. )
) UNLIMITED CIVIL
12 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF) 1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE) Distress
13 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT„ CHARLES) 2) Tortious Interference with Economic
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY) Advantage
91)14 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK) 3) FEHA Gov't Code § 12900 et seq
PUTNEY. DORIN DANILIUC, and does 1) Harassment & Failure to Prevent Harassment
15 through 50, inclusive. ) Retaliation,
16 ) 4) Violation of Government Code § 8547.10
Defendants. ) 5) Violation of Labor Code §1278.5
6) Breach of Written Contract,
17 7) Wage and Hour Misclassification
8) Rescission of Contract
18
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
19

20 PREAMBLE & NATURE OF THE CASE

21 A. LC DAVIS, including but not limited to the University of California, Davis

Medical Center (-UCDMC1 and UC DAVIS Health System, have treated and continue to treat

23 stall and employees, especially those who report misconduct. in ways that are shocking. abysmal,

24 harsh, abusive, unlawful and coordinated to inflict distress.

25 B. For at least the past 10 years, UC DAVIS, UCDMC , and UC DAVIS Health

26 System, created. encouraged. and maintained a climate and culture in which managers,
/7 Supervisors, human resource personnel, investigators, executive directors, police officers, and

senior officials consistently, invariably, repeatedly. and unlawfully retaliate, harass. abuse. and

Pagc I til.(12
to Ft l'12()P('NFI) 2" Imenileti ottiploirti
93
e), discriminate against staff who report misconduct, regardless of the nature of the reported

2 misconduct or to whom the staff member disclosed the misconduct.

3 C. UC DAVIS, UCDMC , and UC DAVIS Health System routinely fabricate

4 investigation reports knowing the reports will be used as evidence, routinely identify witnesses

5 as being interviewed when no such interview took place, routinely shred the investigation file

6 and destroy evidence leaving only self-serving reports of investigation, regularly fabricate

7 reasons for adverse employment actions, rely on witnesses known to lack credibility while they

8 destroy documentary evidence that impeaches the false witnesses, and routinely manipulate the

9 content, crux, and conclusions of investigations to find whistleblowers guilty of fault,

10 wrongdoing, and/or improper conduct that justifies adverse employment actions.

I1 B. Federal government investigators, union presidents, human resource consultants,

12 journalists, and many other credible professionals have been and continue to be incensed,

13 outraged, and frustrated by the climate and culture at LlE! DAVIS because it blatantly, repeatedly.

and intentionally invokes a conscious disregard of the very laws UC DAVIS are supposed to

15 enforce. The unlawful conduct of these self-expressed guardians and protectors of the law is,

16 almost without exception, accepted, condoned, and/or ratified up through to the highest paid and

17 highest ranking positions within the UC system.

18 D. By all metrics and parameters, in this ease the cabal and actions of these 'people'

19 in furtherance of their unlawful means and unlawful ends are rare, not in kind_ but in severity and

20 depravity. This case demonstrates UC DAVIS, by and through its managers, supervisors, and
21 more senior officials, knowingly violate the mandate of their own procedures and intentionally

deprive employees of due process.

23 E. Plaintiff, from 1999-2010, consistently received glowing evaluations and

24 outstanding performance marks. Invariably, his supervisors, (including PUTNEY, one of the

25 primary complainants UC DAVIS relies upon for suspensions, leaves, and termination) described

"76 WASZCZUK. (Pronounced va-SI-1-chook) as a very valuable employee, dependable.

27 thorough. and committed to the future success of the medical center.

F. MR. WASZCZUK'S primary duties were no small or trivial flatters. To the

Page 2 kit. 62
Sck-ond knwrilied romptaiici 94
 1 contrary, MR. WASZCZUK was solely responsible, on the day shift, and except for a short

2 lunch break, for operating Metasys©, a software product that used an alarm or warning system

3 to detect, identify, and locate malfunctioning, failed, and/or failing machinery and equipment,

4 such as air conditioning units, heating units, refrigeration units, freezer units, elevators,

5 generators, and a host of other machines necessary and vital to the health, safety, and welfare of
6 patients, staff, and the public.

7 C. In or about March 2011, MR. WASZCZUK notified his supervisor WITCHER, in

8 writing, of various acts and omissions of misconduct within the FIVAC Plumbing Shop. Within

9 days or weeks, co-workers plaintiff once thought were his friends, turned against him. By August,
10 2011 plaintiff had to take 30-days leave to decrease the stress and anxiety he felt from his co-
11 workers. who were and still are making false statements about the plaintiff UC Davis did not
12 intend for plaintiff to ever return to work. UC DAVIS kept plaintiff away from the workplace
13 for 1.5 years, until they fired him, effective December 7. 2013.
4 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JAROS LAW WASZCZUK, and alleges:
15 I. PARTIES
16 1. Plaintiff JAROSLAW WASZCZUK is, and was at all relevant times, a resident

17 of the City of Lodi, and County of San Joaquin. California.

18 2 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA are, and were at all

19 relevant times, the governing body of the University of California system, deriving its creation.
20 powers, and authority from the California Constitution. UC Davis. University of California
21 Davis Health System, and UC Davis Medical Center are not legally recognized as entities
22 separate from THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and therefore cannot be sued
23 or sue in their own right. However, UC Davis is a sub-organization of THE REGENTS
24 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA that is, and was at all relevant times. tasked with, among other
25 responsibilities, implementing, supervising, and manatzing daily, short-term, and long-term
76 operations for the University of California Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical Center and
27 outpatient medical clinics. "Ihc University of California Davis Health System is a sub-

fiN8 organization of - ME REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and UC Davis existing as an

i'zig(t 3 or 6:2
mcgilird
 administrative office tasked with implementing, supervising, and managing daily, short-term,

2 and long-term operations for UC Davis Medical Center and outpatient medical clinics. UC Davis

3 Medical Center is a sub-organization of THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and

4 UC Davis existing with responsibility for implementing, supervising, and managing daily, short-

5 term, and long-term operations for an in-patient and out-patient health-care facility, regional

6 trauma center, medical research facility, and teaching hospital. 'Each sub-organization is

7 structured and holds itself out to the public as separate but associated entities. Therefore,

8 allegations and references in this complaint to "Plaintiff's employer", "employer", "medical

9 center", UC Davis and/or UCD mean and include THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

10 CALIFORNIA and its sub-organizations.

11 3. Defendants ANNE MADDEN RICE. MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT,

12 CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS. CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT,

13 PATRICK PUTNEY, and DOR1N DANCLUC are individuals whom reside in or within 75 miles

of Sacramento County.

15 4. The true names and capacities of DOES 1-50, inclusive, are presently unknown

16 to plaintiff and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. 'Plaintiff will amend this

17 complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

18 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and belief,

19 alleges, that each defendant sued herein, including DOE defendants. was at times acting as the

20 agent or employee of each of the other defendants and, in doing some of the acts alleged herein,

21 was acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment.

22 6. In doing the intentional acts herein alleged, the individuals sued herein by real or

23 fictitious name were, at the time of the intentional acts, acting outside the course and scope of

24 their employment. The individuals sued herein by real or fictitious name, in the commission or

25 intentional omission of the alleged intentional acts, were in the course and scope of pursuing the

")6 ends of an agreed upon result, an express or implied agreement to achieve a desired injurious
result, and/or otherwise aided, abetted, cooperated with, and/or conspired with one another to do

("8 the acts alleged herein.

l'agc: 4 of (;2.
‘Hirsided Ifl)t1i Iii! 96


II. JURISDICTION and VENUE

2 7. Plaintiff and UC DAVIS entered into a written contract entitled "Settlement

3 Agreement". The parties entered into the agreement and UC DAVIS breached the agreement, as

4 hereinafter alleged, within Sacramento County.

5 8 The great majority of the acts alleged herein occurred or took place in Sacramento

6 County. The individuals sued herein by true name and/or Doe committed the great majority of

7 actionable and intentional acts in Sacramento County.

8 9. As described herein. Plaintiff complied, or substantially complied, with

9 administrative processes and procedures then in place for each cause of action associated with

10 said administrative process or procedure.

11 10. As to those causes of action, if ally, plaintiff did not exhaust administrative

12 remedies, plaintiff invokes denial of due process, estoppel, the futility doctrine, and/or defendants

13 failure or inability to render a satisfactory decision within the required time frame.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

15 Plaintiff was Consistently Evaluated as a Valuable, Safety-minded, and Loyal Employee

16 11. DC DAVIS hired Plaintiff on June, 28 1999 as a non-exempt Senior Power Plant

17 Mechanic, or, Power Plant Operator. (Hereinafter "plant operator-) At all relevant times,

18 Plaintiff's primary job duties and responsibilities related to a software program named Metasys.

19 Metasys monitors the alarm system for potential and/or actual malftinctioning equipment,

20 refrigeration units. EIVAC units, elevators, and other critical machinery in all buildings on the

21 UC Davis Medical Center campus.

22 12. UC DAVIS employed .Plaintiff from June 28, 1999 until December 7, 2012. UC

23 DAVIS unlawfully terminated plaintiff on December 7. 2012.

'74 13. UC DAVIS, by and through supervisors and managers, gave plaintiff annual

25 evaluations from 1999 through 2010. A sampling of the evaluations shows:

")6
YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
27
1999-00 "...performance very good" Kavanagh
"has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant
08

Pagt 5 of 62
svv,00i i .olliphoot
 YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
operator"
"very conscientious and thorough"
2 "can be counted on to make the right operational decisions"
"valuable employee"
3 "committed to the figure success of the Medical Center"
VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards
4
2000-01 Same or similar to 1999-2000 A. Modetta
5
OUTSTANDING consistently exceeded expectations and
6 2001-02 standards DAN JAMES
7 2002-03 "Performance... outstanding"
"can be counted on to keep management informed status of the
8 plant and equipment"
"very valuable employee"
9
2003-04 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
10
2004-05 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
11
2005-06 Sane or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES
12
"...Tom Kavanagh and Steve McGrath..." supervisors until
I3 2006-07 4/27/2007 McGRATH
"...PUTNEY..." Supervisor beginning 4/27/2007
(114 "has been a very valuable member of our staff" PUTNEY
"performance has been excellent"
15 "have not been any problems with missed alarms"
"...is talented, precise and his daily paper work is excellent."
16 "...communicates very well..."
"...instrumental in the setup of the compute...r"
17 "...instrumental... office area for the Building Automation
Monitoring."
18 "...strong knowledge of computer software and hardware."
"...overall job performance is outstanding..."
19 "...very dependable..."
20 2007-08 "...a very valuable member of our staff..." PUTNEY
"performance has been excellent"
21 "have not been any problems with missed alarms"
"...overall job performance is outstanding."
1')
has improved his communication skills and interactions
with co-workers." WITCHER
23
2008-09 "...a very valuable member of our staff..." PUTNEY
24 "performance has been excellent"
"have not been any problems with missed alarms"
25 "...also helping with closing work orders..."
"...maintaining the Work Order System back log..."
-)6 "...overall job performance is outstanding."
"OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations.
27
, 2009-10 "OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations. PUTNEY
8 "performance has been excellent-

rkate 6 of 62
Seomt1 C0110611', 98


YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR

"have not been any problems with missed alarms"
"...Helping...managing the work order system... providing
2 computer support...
"helpful.. .providing MIS...information to senior staff
3 during... investigation"
"...very instrumental...monitoring...alarm/ status of critical
4 equipment..."
5 UC DAVIS' Climate and Culture of Harassment, Abuse, Intimidation, and Retaliation

6 14. As early as 2000, a climate and culture existed at the employer's medical center

7 in Sacramento and its university campus in Davis that subjected staff to a hostile work

8 environment, including but not limited to, sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation

9 for whistleblowinii, harassment of all kinds, intimidation_ thvoritism, nepotism, health and safety

10 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and

11 research misconduct.

12 1 5. As early as 2000, the employer published rules, procedures, and policies that

13 express, claim, and state that the employer is committed to a culturally diverse and otherwise

(1114 lawful and healthy environment. The employer's rules, procedures, and written material espouse

IS cultural diversity, promotion of a safe workplace, no tolerance for bullying or abuse, no tolerance

16 for exclusion or discrimination, and open disclosure without retribution for reporting report waste,

17 fraud, abuse of authority. violation of law, or threat to public health.

18 16. In truth and in fact, the employer aided, helped, allowed, and/or directly caused a

19 climate and culture of harassment, abuse, intimidation, and retaliation. The employer did not

20 implement, follow, and/or adhere to the substance of the employer's written procedures, rules,

21 and policies. Consequently, UC DAVIS' lack of enforcement of their policies rendered their

27 rules, procedures_ and processes ineffective, defective, and illusory.

23 17. The employer allowed and/or contributed to the illusion of a harmonious

24 workplace that promoted resolution of workplace disputes in a fair and reasonable manner

25 without harassment, abuse, intimidation, or retaliation. Further. the employer allowed and/or

76 contributed to the illusion that promoted open disclosure without retribution for reporting waste.

27 fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health.

8 18. Thc following represents some of the evidence of the employer's climate and

rage 7 ul. 62
N.Inenclvd ( on/pi:6in 99
 1 culture, or notice to the employer of a potential systemic issues of. sustained abuse, bullying,

2 discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, retaliation,

3 favoritism, nepotism, health and safety violations, falsification of documentation, fear of

retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research misconduct;

a) In May 2000, Plaintiff became involved in a UC Davis Medical

6 Center Integrated Access Unit case as an advisor to employees

7 who were abruptly removed from their jobs. Four workers became

8 the target of vicious and unscrupulous retaliatory action by

9 management for complaining about the safety issues in the

10 department. They were escorted off campus, suspended without

11 pay, and placed on investigatory leave. One of the complaining

12 workers was accused of serious misconduct and received a letter

13 of dismissal. Assembly Member Sarah Reyes, State Senator

Deborah V. Ortiz and Assembly Member Darrell Steinberg

15 intervened with UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and

16 brought four suspended employees back to work;

17 b) In 2000, Plaintiff communicated to his manager that there were

18 serious safety issues with risks of serious injury or death related to

19 safe operation of the central plant. Plaintiff ultimately had to

20 report the serious safety problems to CAL/OSHA. CAL/OSHA

21 inspected the plant and issued citations. The employer fixed the
)? safety risks only after CAL/OSHA issued citations. During the
.73 course of this events, plaintiff's manager stated "Somebody will

24 give this Polack a bad evaluation and will fire him"

-)5 C) A 2001 employee survey conducted by the Campaign Against

")6 Workplace Bullying ("CAWB") and a December 21, 2000

)7 investigative article appearing in the Sacramento News and

Review entitled "Last Words", which documented the workplace

l'uvs or 62
100
harassment suicide of Donna McDaniel and identified numerous

employees that experienced a hostile work environment working

for UCD;

d) In 2005-06, plaintiff provided help and assistance to a coworker

suffering retaliatory actions for the coworker's protected report of

unrepaired defects in the power plant's cooling tower fan's gear

boxes. The defects caused repeated machine oil discharges into

the city storm drain which leads to the river. The condition

constituted a substantial environmental hazard and a grave safety

hazard for the employees. (Proposition 65 as codified in Safe

Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 Health &

Safety Code § 25249.12). The coworker also reported a manager

for misuse of UC DAVIS' property and time, inter alia, accessing

pornography at work on work computers. The co-employee,

William Buckans, despite disclosing protected Whistleblower

content, became the target of retaliation and misconduct given that

an investigator assigned to provide a fair, impartial, and unbiased

fact-finding analysis, never interviewed Buckans, even though the

investigator's report falsely claimed Buckans gave an interview.
When Plaintiff began assisting Buckans, plaintiff instantaneously
also became the target of retaliatory abuse, exclusion,
discrimination, and bullying. The plant manager warned Plaintiff
with the words, "I will send [the] Gestapo on your ass" and tried
to get plaintiff to "go outside" for a physical confrontation. UC
DAVIS, in an act of retaliation, forced plaintiff to move his work
location from the power plant to the HVAC Plumbing Shop;
e) On March 10, 2009 Susan McCormick, the then President of
local "UPTE" (University Professional and Technical Employees)

Pwse 0
St,
:othl s.nlendril p i 11 101
and "CWA"(Communication Workers of America), two unions

that represent employees, published a scathing article in a

newsletter available to the public. President McCormick noted:

"We have all heard about child abuse, spousal

abuse, elder abuse and animal abuse. What about
employee abuse? What about employers who
have unwritten policies that allow
supervisors/managers to abuse the employee on
a sustained basis? What do I mean by abuse?
Types of abuse such as harassment of all kinds
(sexual, gender, racial, age and just plain
harassment), intimidation, retaliation, favoritism,
nepotism, health and safety violations,
falsification of documentation, and research
misconduct are just a few of the abusive activities
that are allowed at the University of California at
the Davis Campus and Medical
Center...(grievances)...can take up to a year or
more. Many employees just give up. They quit or
retire just to get away from the monumental stress
that is put on them by supervisors and
management...-.

"The UC Whistleblower and Research

Misconduct complaint systems are a joke. UPTE
has filed several whistleblower complaints a year
ago. Nothing is done. Often times the complaints
are just forwarded back to Human Resources
where the problem was not taken care of to
begin with. It is a vicious circle with no end. The
Vice Chancellor and Chancellor do nothing.
Sometimes there are investigations of sort. More
often than not these investigations come up with not
enough evidence to do anything. You can have
first-hand witnesses and documentary evidence to
something and this is never good enough. Then
many times the witnesses that are listed in the
complaint are never contacted. The
investigations are often one-sided, management
sided. A Research Misconduct complaint was filed
recently. The results came back insufficient
evidence of wrong doing. The witnesses were
never interviewed.. Often times "favorites" are
reclassified upward. Management will reclassify
everyone except the un-liked employee, who
eventually will be laid off because he/she was the
lone person in the classification. The un-liked
employee often is the one who complained about
a policy violation. Thus, retaliation is often seen
in a layoff. Workplace environments can be highly
hostile." (Emphasis Added)

Page 10 of (t2
sevmhi
"These people will never move up in the
classification series because they are not doing the
job specifications to begin with. Employees in two
different classifications are doing the same job and
getting paid differently."

"Workplace environments can be highly hostile.. .a

doctor at the Medical Center harasses, yells and
intimidates employees on a daily basis, including in
the operating room... the supervising doctor has
covered this up for years.. .Other physicians and
nurses refuse to work with him. Some employees
quit because they cannot take the stress any longer.
Upper management sits on the investigation for
months, this had been a staff employee, and he/she
would have been terminated long ago."

"Another doctor intentionally delayed insurance

forms which caused trouble for patients not getting
on-time disability payments.. .This was reported to
Human Resources and nothing was done"

"An employee that works with toxic chemicals in

two laboratories does so without air conditioning
and extra ventilation. It gets so hot in the labs
during the summers that the machines shut down.
The supervisor opens containers out in the lab
instead of under the hood and throws chemical
contaminated ice on the floor which employee had
to clean up exposing everyone to the chemicals.
After an excessive workload that was to be done in
a short period of time the employee was threatened
to lose her job if it was not done by the time the
supervisor returned from his vacation overseas, this
employee is now very sick and it appears that it
might be from chemical exposure. My information
request to UC has not been forthcoming, which is
usual. This is the lab where research falsification
occurred and UC found no wrong doing. The
witnesses were never interviewed." (Emphasis
Added)

"A twenty-five year employee was pushed out of

her job by a new employee who had become a
favorite of the new director of a facility on campus.
Sexual harassment and intimidation were
reported by the employee, but the director chose to
ignore the problem. This director is new on the job.
She was promoted to the position recently even
though there were many people in opposition to her
becoming the new director. UPTE asked for an
investigation giving names of people who were
witnesses. The witnesses were not called and the
result of the investigation was no wrong doing.
Meanwhile the employee took early retirement
because the stress was affecting her health."

of (12
St-colic! 't ( m111416'11 103
 (Emphasis Added)
1
"And it goes on and on and on. It does not stop. I
2 could describe many, many more cases. And then
there are hundreds [have never heard of. There is
3 no accountability for management. Management
does as it pleases regardless of laws and policies.
4 UC is incapable of monitoring itself as it will not
find fault within their management ranks.
5 Mismanagement and the breaking of the law are
covered up on a sustained basis. The
6 Whistleblower complaint system needs to be taken
away from UC. Congress was wrong to give it to
7 them in the first place. There needs to be an outside
agency set up to monitor UC management. UC has
8 too much power and they use this power in an
abusive and unaccountable way." (Emphasis
9 Added)
10
f) The employer's climate and culture of sustained abuse, bullying,
11
discrimination, retaliation for whistieblowing, harassment of all
12
kinds, intimidation, retaliation, favoritism, nepotism, health and
13
safety violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation
(1
1 14
for reporting misconduct, and research misconduct was again
15
publicized in 2014. News reports identified Janet Keyzer, who
16
filed her case in 2009, as being terminated after reporting research
17
misconduct in the COPE pain program. In an investigative piece
18
published in the Davis Vanguard, the public was informed the case
19
notably involved;
20
"...an endless trail of stall tactics, motions to
21 dismiss, motions for summary judgment, a transfer
from Alameda to Sacramento County, and an
22 appeal of the granting of the defendants' anti-
SLAPP motion... Ms. Keyzer was retaliated against
23 and ultimately terminated because she complained
to her supervisor and the UC Davis Institutional
24 Review Board ("IRS") that the COPE project
management did not comply with the IRB approval
25 process before implementing human subject
research activities. On December 2l , 2007, she was
notified that her employment with the University
was terminated, retroactive to November 30,
2007... The Honorable Judge Randolph Loncke
denied a Motion for Summary one week before trial,
finding a triable issue of material fact as to whether

l'agr: 12 of (N2
sr-:-Drid N.:Derided orriDirriut 104
 the termination was retaliation for
1 whistleblowing.Importantly ...after violating
their own timeline for investigation, UCD
2 concluded in July 2009 that Ms. Keyzer's
termination was not related to her whistleblowing
3 on the COPE project."

4 On August 11, 2014 a Sacramento jury found in favor of Janet Keyzer and that defendant did, in

5 fact, retaliate against her for reporting misconduct.

6 g) In 2008 the employer settled a lawsuit brought by Officer Chang,

7 a gay man who was employed as a campus police offer, paying

8 him $240,000.00, with his resignation, but also with the

9 employer's agreement that Officer Change could remain in

10 university owned or operated housing. Almost immediately after

11 the case settled at a settlement conference, the employer, through

12 a woman present for the settlement agreement, began proceedings

13 to get Officer Chang out of his residence. Officer Chang, with the

14 settlement agreement breached, filed another action.

15 h) In 2011, the world became familiar with the UC DAVIS'

16 climate and culture of sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination,

17 retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds,

18 intimidation, retaliation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety

19 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for

10 reporting misconduct, and research misconduct, when Officer Pike

11 was caught on film casually pepper spraying law abiding peaceful

./2 student protesters. Most importantly, the world was told that the

23 employer's investigation found that Officer Pike acted reasonably.

24 UC DAVIS, in damage control, ignored their investigative finding

25 and agreed to impose a suspension or demotion. The new police

/6 chief exercised his discretion and terminated Officer Pike.

").7 i) In 2012, the employer's lack of effective supervisory systems,

8 climate and culture of retaliation, abuse, and discrimination, as

()age 13 1462
StI:onit knitntled Oimpiaint 105
well as a systemic created and followed unwritten rule

discouraging `whistleblowers' were demonstrated, in part, by

reports that no one, not a nurse, not an administrator, not a staff

member, reported or investigated Dr. Muizelaar, the highest paid

employee at UC Davis, and Dr. Schrot, for performing

experimental, unapproved, seriously dangerous, and deadly

experiments on patients with an open source of bacteria that most

nurses, except one, denied knowing about to Federal investigators.

"Nurses are not whistleblowers", said the Chief Patient Care

Services Officer.

j) In the summer of 2012, the Department of Health, on behalf of

Medicare, investigated the administrative and operational

procedures actually followed that allowed the dangerous and

deadly experimental procedures to occur without one report or one

investigation. The managers and executives interviewed by the

Department of Health denied that the actions of Dr. Muizelaar and

Dr. Schrot raised any concern that would warrant a report or an

investigation. The employer published a redacted copy of the

report by providing that copy to the Sacramento Bee. The report

is highly critical of the employer's administration, supervision, and

operations at the medical center.

k) On December 12, 2011, the Sacramento Bee published an

article alerting the public that Medicare was investigating UC

DAVIS to determine if UC DAVIS can continue to be an

acceptable facility for patient on Medicare. In the article, the Bee

disclosed that the employer decided to keep Dr. Muizelaar on staff

and practicing medicine despite over 200 complaints, claims of

incompetence, and misconduct. The article also included the

Page 14 of 62
106
 1 employer's denial of any problems at the facility.
2 I) In May 2014, the employer released redacted portions of a
3 "Climate Survey" the employer commissioned utilizing Rankin &
4 Associates. The published report identified 24% (about 4,000
5 people) of the employees who responded (about 11,500
6 employees) that suffered discrimination, abuse, and/or a hostile
7 work environment. The employer, relying on only reports from
8 Rankin, maintains that 24% of employees is an average number of
9 employees who disclose that they have experienced a hostile work
10 environment.
11 m) The lack of adverse employment actions against the likes of
12 Pike and Dr. Muizelaar, as well as others, when considered with
13 the percentage and/or number of staff who reported misconduct
4 that suffered adverse employment actions establishes strong
15 evidence of a systemic policy to violate the law preventing
16 retaliation against employees who report misconduct while
17 retaining employees who, while not whistleblowers, are guilty of
18 misconduct.
19 n) UC Davis, based on the foregoing, as well as other events,
20 circumstances, and matters, was put on notice of the existence of
11 or the potential existence of the climate and culture as herein
22 alleged, and UC Davis failed and continues to fail to investigate,
23 research, and/or study, the climate and culture as herein alleged,
24 and such investigation, research, and/or study would reveal the
25 climate and culture as herein alleged.
16 UC DAVIS Suspends Plaintiff and Moves Plaintifffrom the Power Plant to HVAC Shop
27 19. As a direct consequence for plaintiff helping a co-employee as alleged in
8 paratzraph 18d. and amid the climate and culture herein alleged. the employer suspended plaintiff

l'nge 1•14. 0'62

107
 1 for 3-days from his position as a plant operator at the power plant. The employer also moved

2 plaintiff's location of work from the Power Plant to the HVAC Plumbing Shop. Plaintiff filed a

3 grievance in 2007. After 2-days of arbitration in 2009, the arbitrator issued a decision that

4 rejected as unsubstantiated the employer's decision to move plaintiff's place of work. Plaintiff

5 expressed to his employer his desire to return to work at the Power Plant.

6 20 Rather than return plainti ff to work at the power plant, the employer made an offer,

7 which plaintiff accepted, whereby the employer paid plaintiff $8,500.00, even though the

8 employer maintained they did not owe plaintiff lost wages, while plaintiff, as and for supposed

9 consideration, agreed that his place of work would remain at the HVAC/Plumbine building, he

10 released any and all prior claims known or unknown against the employer, he accepted that the

11 employer did not release plaintiff from any claims the employer might then have, accepted a

12 position title invented just for the settlement called Development Associate Engineer, accepted

13 a raise to $70,000.00 per year. agreed that the new title was an "exempt"' position under the law,

and agreed to complete normal paperwork and background checks before his new titled took

15 effect. Plaintiff began his work under the new title in February 2009.

16 21. At all relevant times, employment documents signed by and given to plaintiff in

17 conjunction with his new title, salary. and location of work identified PATRICK PUTNEY, the

18 Manner of the HVAC/Plumbing Shop, as plaintiffs supervisor and CHARLES WITCHER, the

19 PO&M Department Manager, as the person above PATRICK PUTNEY. Defendant DORN

20 DAN ILIUC was not identified as plaintiff's supervisor or manager.

21 A Missed Alarm Can Cause Death, Serious Injury, or Financial Loss

22 22. At all relevant times, plaintiff worked within the Plant Operations & Maintenance

23 Department (Hereinafter "PO&M"). PO&M had, and still has, primary responsibility for the

24 operations, maintenance, service, and repair of building, grounds, machinery, and utility systems

25 throughout every building, laboratory, room, and o Rice at the medical center. PO&M is under

26 an administrative branch of the employer called Administration of Professional Services.

27 23. From 2007 to approximately February 2009, plaintiff continued working out of

8 the 11VAC Plumbing Shop as a plant operator, a non-exempt position, with attendant

Page lb of 62
St•e,m41 men(led Comfit:lint 108
 responsibilities the same as before his move. Plaintiff monitored the Metasys© system and

dispatched service or work requests based on the information generated by the Metasys© system.

24. Plaintiff monitored the Metasys© system for alarms that identify machinery.

including all HVAC and refrigeration units, with potential malfunctions, failures, and/or need for

maintenance or repair. The PO&M, and in particular plaintiffs monitoring of said alarms as

well as initiating repair of said units, constituted, at all relevant times, an integral, critical, and

vital component of patient care, research studies, experiments, and business of the employer.

Plaintiff and defendants, and each of them. knew that the refrigeration units, HVAC systems, and

a host of other machinery, ifal lowed to operate with malfunctions, failures, or without necessary

maintenance and repairs, substantially increased the risk of patient deaths or serious injury, staff

illness, loss of data, loss of time invested in experiments, and a plethora of significant financial

losses. As such, the PO&M, and in particular plaintiffs monitoring of said alarms as well as

initiating repair of said units were, at all relevant times, were an on-going significant safety and

health concern as well as a defense against a significant financial loss.

UC DAVIS Changes Plaintiff to Exempt, PUTNEY and DANILIUC Protest

25. From 2007 to approximately February 2009, PATRICK PUTNEY and DORN

DANILIUC, the HVAC Plumbing Shop Manager and Supervisor, respectively, were the only

exempt employees working out of the HVAC Plumbing Shop. Furthermore, during this period

PUTNEY, DANILIUC, and plaintiff were friends, often and consistently sharing humor and

items typical and expected of all men, but especially culturally diverse men who were born, raised,

and grew into adulthood in the dangerous and ever-changing environment of the former Soviet

Union's iron curtain countries of Poland and Romania.

26 . In or about February 2009, PUTNEY and DANILIUC became obviously upset,

angry, and/or outraged when plaintiff came to the HVAC Plumbing Shop as the third exempt

employee. PUTNEY personally went to Human Resources to complain that plaintiffs presence

in the Shop as an exempt employee, at the very least, created confusion about the chain of
17 authority in the HVAC Plumbing Shop. PUTNEY and DANILIUC did not like the fact that

8 DANILIUC was not plaintiffs supervisor and that the plaintiff appeared to be working in a

13n,v Liof 62
sec.0.1 109


position that was at least lateral to, if not more senior than, DANILIUC.

2 DANILIUC Mysteriously Becomes Plaintiff's Supervisor

3 27. Within a short period of time, PUTNEY and DANILIUC seemed satisfied that the

4 employer addressed PUTNEY'S and DANILIUC'S complaint about Plaintiff being the third

5 exempt employee in their shop. Plaintiff's employment records still identified PUTNEY as

6 plaintiff's supervisor and WITCHER as the next most senior manager. PUTNEY and/or

7 WITCHER signed Plaintiff's evaluations in the second half of 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

8 DANILIUC did not have any training or experience, and if Fact did not know how to use Metasys.

9 28. DANILIUC began approving and submitting Plaintiff's time cards to the

10 employer. The employer, by and through defendants, and each of them, consistently sent plaintiff

11 to DANILIUC as his supervisor to accomplish a request made by Plaintiff. DANILIUC and

12 PUTNEY referred to DANILIUC as plaintiff's supervisor.

13 29. UC DAVIS never advised or informed Plaintiff that his records were wrong or

4 that DANILIUC had become Plaintiff's supervisor. Plaintiff is informed and believes and

15 thereon alleges that UC DAVIS, by and through WITCHER, CURRY, and Human Resources

16 must have come to an understanding with PUTNEY and DANILIUC that, regardless of

17 plaintiff's job, employment records, plaintiff's expectations, and other documents, such as the

18 contents of the Settlement Agreement with Plaintiff, DANILIUC would act as plaintiff's

19 supervisor.

20 30. Plaintiff believed and understood that PUTNEY, DANILIUC, and he were friends.

21 DANILIUC regularly asked Plaintiff for his help writing letters, with his families' computers, or,

22 on one occasion, to video tape an event at the church where DAN ILEUC is the business manager.

23 11 Plant Operators Advise UC DAVIS of a Hazard with Catastrophic Consequences

24 31. The memo, letter, or petition, dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11 "Central

25 Plant Operators" and addressed to CHARLES WITCHER, Manager of PO&M, identified the

26 subject matter as "...the monitoring of the Johnson Controls Metasys Software program and
27 dispatching of emergency and same day service calls to the Central Plant during graveyard and
8 weekend shifts." In other words, the subject was the fact that the Central Plant Operators covered

Pagt: iS of 62

rif '110
01 shifts that plaintiff did not work.

2 32. The memo, letter, or petition continued "...the Metasys and dispatching has

3 become a full time job to monitor and respond too (sic).. .several years ago, we reached a point

4 where we can no longer monitor these systems and operate, start, or stop the Central Plant. This

matter becomes critical when there is a casualty within the plant. We cannot troubleshoot and

6 respond to phone calls and Metasys alarms. It is a miracle that nothing tragic has happened

7 yet." (Emphasis Added)

8 33. The letter, memo, and/or petition calculates the cost of "3 new employees" to

9 monitor the system for 24 hours over 3 shifts.

34. In their letter, memo, or petition, the plant operators asked the employer to remove

the Metasys monitoring obligation from the Plant, or in the alternative, agree to give the plant

operators raises of $4.00 per hour.

35. CHARLES WITCHER sent the request on to Steve McGrath, Senior
Superintendent Plant Operations. On November 18, 2010, ROBERT TAYLOR, the Assistant
Director, Hospitals and Clinics, in the Administrative and Professional Services arm of the

16 employer, confirmed by email, that he was just as knowledgeable of the situation as CHARLES

17 WITCHER, and that he, MR. TAYLOR, was in favor of the raise. TAYLOR did not address the

18 hazard raised in the so-called petition.

19 Plaintiff Reports the Safety Issues, Waste Issues, and Misconduct Issues

20 36. Despite the express, unambiguous, and strongly worded warning from the staff

21 that it was a "miracle" a tragedy had not yet occurred from their inability to monitor the Metasys

22 alarms, not to mention potential blackmail to secure the raise, the employer, after multiple
13 meetings, emails, and discussions about the raise, none of which addressed safety or the character
24 of the communication, agreed to give the Plant Operators the raise of $4.00 per hour.
-)5 37. On or about March 13, 2011, in a letter to CHARLES WITCHER, Plaintiff

26 engaged in communication protected by `whistleblower' statutes, the first amendment of the U.S.
27 Constitution, the California Constitution, and other laws as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiff
8 addressed the hazard identified in the petition and pointed out that the raise would not impact the

P:we I() or ii2

sec ond kit1,11,tvii 1timpt:tilli 111
 1 claimed 'inability' of the plant operators to monitor the Ivletasys system. Plaintiff expressed that
2 the employer left a serious safety concern unaddressed. Plaintiff rightly raised the lack of logic
3 in the contents of the Petition and the absurd response from the employer.
4 38. Plaintiff's communication also expressed the actual risk of harm identified by the
5 plant operators, and, the seemingly unlawful way the plant operators used the threat to secure a
6 raise, especially when the raise would do nothing to fix the hazard. Plaintiff also expressed his
7 displeasure and the displeasure of co-employees concerning isolated employees approved for
8 raises at a time when the employer was in the midst of layoffs, hiring freezes, and work furloughs
9 throughout the UC system.
10 39. Plaintiff also expressed his emotional upset over bullying, abuse, and harassment
11 he perceived contributed to the suicide of Todd Goerlich. Plaintiff further advised WITCHER of
12 an allegation by a co-employee, Jeff Lancaster, that someone broke into his locker and stole
13 personal photographs. In his letter, Plaintiff mentioned the poor safety and working conditions

in the HVAC shop, including its terrible hygiene and housekeeping standards. Plaintiff requested
15 that the pay for him and the employees in the department be fair, rather than one group get a raise
16 in the manner they did.
17 40. Finally, plaintiff expressed that he needs an hour for lunch to allow him to eat,
18 and walk to get his circulation going.
19 Plaintiff Becomes the Target of Abuse, Harassment, and Retaliation
20 41. Amid the climate and culture alleged herein, plaintiff's March 2011 letter sparked
21 retaliation. Defendants, and each of them, targeted plaintiff with acts of intimidation, stalking,
and sabotage.
23 42. By way of example, in April 2011 DAN1LIUC and PUTNEY accused plaintiff of
24 ignoring an alarm for a pharmacy refrigeration unit. PUTNEY verbally berated plaintiff in front
25 of PUTNEY'S teenage stepdaughter whom PUTNEY brought to the shop against the employer's
16 rules. Plaintiff provided documentation establishing conclusively that PUTNEY and DAN ILIUC
27 were responsible for the refrigeration unit failure. The documents show that plaintiff did not

("8 miss the alarm. The documents show that someone prepared a work order for the unit, two weeks

lac 20 of 62
1.1licriurt1 ( 1112
(5, before the failure. PUTNEY and DANILIUC had the responsibility for ensuring work orders

were finished.

3 Plaintiff Represents Co-employees in Grievances

4 43. Pursuant to the rules, policies, and procedures set by the employer, any person of

5 the employee's choosing can represent the employee in an administrative process to contest an

6 adverse employment action. The employer has never claimed that plaintiff was not able to

7 represent co-employees in the administrative process. Plaintiff has the right to represent co-

8 employees without retaliation, abuse, or harassment. In representing co-employees, plaintiff is,

9 and has been, consuming the information publically available identifying the climate and culture

10 of the employer as herein alleged.

II 44. Plaintiff represented and still represents at least four separate employees from the

12 HVAC Plumbing Shop. In addition to Cole and Buckans, plaintiff represents, or has represented,

13 Ken Diede and Frank Gonzales. By way of example, with plaintiff's representation, Cole,
Buckans, and Diede, successfully rescinded scathing, abusive, and retaliatory letters of

15 expectation, by issued by DANILIUC and PUTNEY, that sought to place "does not meet

16 expectations" labels on the employees without just cause or foundation.

17 Plaintiff Pursues a One-Hour Lunch, Unpaid, for Health and Safely

18 45. In May 2011, Plaintiff pursued his request for a one hour lunch by approaching

19 WITCHER. WITCHER did not respond so plaintiff addressed his request to Human Resources.

20 Plaintiff initially did not understand the impact that his classification of "exempt" had on his

21 rights, if any, to breaks and lunch.

77 46. However, once he understood the difference, plaintiff requested the hour for lunch,

23 paid or unpaid. Plaintiff approached UC DAVIS for an hour lunch, instead of 30 minutes eating

24 at his desk, with safety and health in mind. He disclosed he was a quadruple bypass survivor and

25 being responsible for Metasys, a one hour lunch would permit him to take a walk, get his

26 circulation going, and the like.

27 DANILIUC and PUTNEY Falsify Plaintiffs- Time Cards

08 47. Between April 2011 and August 1 , 2011, Plaintiff learned that DANILIUC was

21 of 62
13
 1 submitting plaintiff's time cards showing 7.5 hours of work with a 30-minute paid lunch break.

2 Plaintiff learned that his time cards were supposed to exclude a paid lunch to reflect his status as

3 exempt. In May 2011 Plaintiff approached DANILIUC and PUTNEY about the discrepancies

4 between how his time cards were supposed to be filled out and how DANILIUC filled out and

5 submitted on behalf of Plaintiff. PUTNEY, DANILIUC and HR did not respond other than to

6 have DANILIUC stop filling and signing plaintiff's time cards.

7 The Retaliation, Harassment, and Abuse Continue

8 48. The day after Plaintiff asked DANILIUC and PUTNEY about the time cards,

9 DANILIUC and PUTNEY took away plaintiffs access to the time card program and the work

10 order program. In 2009, PUTNEY and DANILIUC instructed Plaintiff to review and close

11 standing work orders every week. PUTNEY gave Plaintiff PUTNEY'S user name and password

1? to accomplish the task. At all relevant times, Plaintiff did not know that PUTNEY committed a

13 gross violation of UC Policies and Procedures for communication devices by giving and
014 authorizing another person his user name and password. Among other problems, Plaintiff later
15 learned that accountability is compromised if a manager such as PUTNEY gives his user name

16 and password to a subordinate. Plaintiff, in asking for his own user name and password, sought

17 to do the tasks assigned to him, and, to ensure that plaintiff was credited for the work that he

18 performed while the employer could track the work of others, including PUTNEY and

19 DANILIUC. In May 2011, Plaintiff reported PUTNEY'S violation of allowing another person
20 use of his user name and password to the Business Manager of PO&M.

21 The Retaliation, Harassment, and Abuse Continue

1'7 49. Plaintiff approached PUTNEY and DANILIUC about not being to get into the

23 programs, to which PUTNEY told him, "You are exempt, you don't need to keep your time."
24 50. Beginning in or about April 2011, defendants, and each of them, began to issue
-)5 Letters of Expectation (Notice of Misconduct), "Does Not Meet Expectations" evaluations, and

26 other performance and/or behavior based criticisms to HVAC Plumbing Shop employees who
27 seemed friendly or supportive of plaintiff. Furthermore. defendants, and each of them, carried

out their duties and responsibilities in unreasonably demeaning, threatening. and abusive ways.

l'agt. 22 Df 62
Sretwil incntled C imiotai tit
 By way of example, DANILIUC and PUTNEY confronted employee Dereck Cole in a public

2 cafeteria, in a hostile manner and apparent intent to anger Cole to physical violence. By way of

3 example, when DANILIUC and PUTNEY gave employee Kenny Diede an unfounded letter of

4 expectation for allegedly taking photographs around the shop, two senior managers were also in

5 the office, which Diede felt was threatening and abusive given the emotional reaction it did and

6 Was intended to evoke.

7 WITCHER Misleads Plaintiff into Believing He Will Help, He Does Nothing

8 51. In May 2011 and June 2011, Plaintiff makes numerous attempts to secure

9 WITCHER'S help. Plaintiff disclosed to WITCHER in letters and meetings the false accusation

10 leveled by PUTNEY and DANILIUC about missing the refrigeration alarm, the falsification of

11 his time cards, the lock-out from the time card and work order programs, the retaliation against

12 the co-workers Plaintiff represents, plaintiffs request for a one-hour unpaid lunch, and the

13 obvious problems that the plant operator petition for a raise present.

52. WITCHER placated plaintiff. Plaintiff believed WITCHER intended to address

15 the retaliation and abuse as well as the other concerns.

16 53. WITCHER did not do and has ever done anything to help or support plaintiff.

17 Plaintiff Discloses the Misconduct, Safety Issues, and Abuse to Human Resources

18 54. Plaintiff, in an attempt to circumvent WITCHER and his manager CURRY,

19 discloses the misconduct, safety problems, harassment, and abuse to Human Resources. Plaintiff

20 addresses being locked out of important programs, he asks for a new password, and also asks for

21 the one-hour lunch, pointing out his by-pass surgery and his intent to use the time to walk and

22 get his circulation going.

23 55. Human Resources did not and has never responded to plaintiff with any help

24 whatsoever. Instead, Human Resources directed the Business Manager to advise plaintiff that he

25 needed to get access to the programs from PUTNEY or DANILIUC. Human Resources also told

26 plaintiff that he could combine his 2-fifteen minute breaks, add them to his 30 minute lunch, and
27 take his requested one-hour unpaid lunch as an exempt employee.

08 56. Plaintiff attempted to explain to Human Resources that they referred him to the

Page 23 of 62
secondum•Doed ,snipl:iiitt 1115
 1 people that locked him out, and, that he was not asking for a one-hour paid lunch. Human

Resources has never responded or replied.

3 Plaintiff Discloses Misconduct, Criminal Activity, Misuse of Property, Health Hazards

4 57. Between May 2011 and August I, 2011, Plaintiff, on numerous occasions, in

5 addition to the previously plead items of disclosure, brought the following to the attention of

6 managers, officers, and executives higher up the chain as time passed seemingly without any

7 response or action

8 a) DANILIUC, PUTNEY, WITCHER, CURRY and others were

9 not addressing safety concerns in the HVAC/Plumbing Shop.

10 DANILIUC and PUTNEY, with WITCHER'S and CURRY'S

II knowledge, were acting against the interests of UC DAVIS, and

12 conducting themselves in ways that, are not only unlawful, but

13 pose risks and hazards of infecting patients, co-workers, and public.

0 14 By way of example PUTNEY brought ducks, livestock, chickens,

15 and other live animals to the shop and sold them to employees, out

16 of the shop;
17 b) DANILIUC and PUTNEY maintained the HVAC Plumbing

18 Shop in disgusting and unsanitary condition and failed to provide

19 adequate work conditions;

20 c) The shop was backlogged on work orders;

21 d) DANILIUC runs a private HVAC business on the employer's

time;
?3 e) DANILIUC uses the employer's time to run or be the business
24 manager of his church;
15 I). Kenny Diede and plaintiff reported that the adult son of Bill
')6 Roubideaux came to the Shop with Roubideaux, and got on a UC
?7 DAVIS computer, which was connected to the internet. Being on
02g parole for his 2nd child pornography strike,

Vnge 2-1 of 62
speoltil lineridt.d 116
 1 Roubideaux's son, as part of his parole, was not allowed to touch

2 a computer connected to the internet.

3 g) DANILIUC stored or parked his vehicle at the shop to avoid

4 parking fees;

5 h) DANILIUC, PUTNEY, WITCHER, CURRY, issued false,

6 unjustified, and unsubstantiated adverse employment actions

7 purely to retaliate, harass, and discriminate against good and

8 honest workers who are associated with Plaintiff

9 i) Hard-working, honest, and honorable employees such as, but not

10 limited to, Cole, Buckans, Diede, and Gonzales are being reduced

11 to emotional tears and significant stress by the abuse, harassment,

12 retaliation, and discrimination instigated by DANILIUC,

13 PUTNEY, CURRY, WITCHER, and others,
014 j) Plaintiff provided documents to Human Resources that proved
15 DANILIUC and PUTNEY not only falsely accused plaintiff of

16 missing an alarm that ultimately led to the failure of a pharmacy

17 refrigeration unit, but that DANILIUC and PUTNEY were

18 culpable in the unit's failure because they dropped ball on the work

19 order system, then locked plaintiff out;

20 k) PUTNEY and DANILTUC attempted to destroy Plaintiff's
21 computer by setting it on fire, letting it burn, and returning it to

Plaintiff's desk
23 1) That plaintiff's supervisor, manager, and Human Resources have
)4 not responded or taken action on any of plaintiff's disclosures or
25 requests, that it is as if PUTNEY, DANILIUC, WITCHER,

26 CURRY, and the employees from Human Resources are

27 purposefully and intentional causing him emotional distress;
m) That Plaintiff is searching for someone from UC DAVIS who
f$2 8
I3:41e 25 of 62
tuft:loco 117
 will help him, and with each time a UC DAVIS employee or

officer does not respond, or intervene, in light of the horrific

treatment and conditions that exist, is proof or ratification of the

4 climate and culture as alleged herein actually exists, and the

5 employer, by failing to take action to change the environment is

6 affirming, supporting, and admitting its role in the climate and

7 culture that discourages, utilizing fear of retribution, employees

8 from reporting waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law,

9 or threat to public health.

10 Plaintiff Takes Stress Leave for 30 days in August, 2011

11 58. Plaintiffs working conditions were so intolerable and stressful that on or about

12 July 30, 2011 Plaintiffs physician placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave for one month,

Aik 13 which ended on August 31, 2011.

Plaintiff Takes 30-day Stress Leave and UC DAVIS Opens Investigation, Against Plaintiff

15 59. Within four months of his letter in March 2011, plaintiff took 30-day stress leave.

16 Plaintiff was scheduled and intended to return to work on September 1, 2011. On August 31,

17 2011, with plaintiff still on sick-leave, WITCHER emailed plaintiff a Notice of Investigatory

18 Leave. The Notice advised plaintiff that he was now the subject of a Human Resource

19 investigation as a result of complaints made about his behavior and racial discrimination.

20 60. During plaintiffs 30-day stress leave, a complaint by PUTNEY and DANILIUC

21 suddenly surfaced about plaintiffs reaction to the accusation of missing the alarm for the
-r) pharmacy refrigeration unit, back in April 2011!

23 UCD First Opens Investigation for delayed "Complaints" by PUTNEY/DANILIUC

24 61. UC DAVIS did not open or conduct any investigation into the complaints Plaintiff

25 made from April 2011 through August 2011.

26 62. UC DAVIS opened an investigation and placed plaintiff on Investigatory Leave

27 based on complaints purportedly made in August 2011 about conduct that occurred in April 2011.

28 63. UC DAVIS ultimately opened an investigation into the disclosures plaintiff made.

P:1;2,42 2(1 4r G2
\ men(led ( witrAni itt 118
 1 but only after 4 months and after they opened the investigation into plaintiff.

2 Plaintiff Suffers Severe Emotional Reaction, Tells UC DAVIS, They Know

3 64. Plaintiff suffered a severe emotional reaction to an obviously orchestrated and

4 coordinated plan to cause him harm. The plaintiff's doctor placed plaintiff back on stress leave

5 until January 2012. Plaintiff's doctor opined that absent the stress from management, plaintiff

6 could return to work. Plaintiff advised UC DAVIS that he was suffering from severe emotional

7 trauma caused by the obvious abuse, harassment, retaliation, and coordinated actions. Plaintiff's

8 actions would have suggested to UC DAVIS he was suffering from an emotional trauma.

9 Employees, including PUTNEY and DANILIUC made references to "Plaintiff losing it."

10 UC DAVIS Conducts a Ridiculously Biased and Defective Investigation

11 65. The REGENTS Whistleblower Policy requires: "...All investigators shall be

12 independent and unbiased both in fact and appearance.. .Investigators have a duty of fairness,

Aih13 objectivity, thoroughness, ethical behavior, and observance of legal and professional

IW14 standards.. .Investigations should be launched only after preliminary consideration that

15 establishes that.. .The allegation, if true, constitutes an improper governmental activity and

16 either... Matters that do not meet this standard may be worthy of management review, but should

17 not be undertaken as an investigation of an improper governmental activity... (Investigation

18 when) the allegation is accompanied by information specific enough to be investigated, or, the

19 allegation has or directly points to corroborating evidence that can be pursued. Such evidence

20 may be testamentary or documentary..." (University ofralifornia Whistleblower Policy, §

21 66. § 380-15 of the UC DAVIS Policy and Procedure Manual seeks "...to ensure a
-)2 full, fair, and impartial investigation..." for employees, such as and including plaintiff, by

23 mandating the following procedures: "The investigator will interview the parties, if available, as

24 well as other witnesses as needed... The investigator will review relevant evidence, including

25 documents... The investigator will prepare and submit a written report containing the following

26 components: 1) A statement of the allegations and issues. 2) The positions of the parties. 3) A
27 summary of the evidence. 4) Findings of fact. 5) The investigator's determination as to whether
028 University policy has been violated... The Charging Administrator shall submit the report to the

119
 appropriate University official with authority to implement the actions necessary to resolve the

complaint. The report may be used as evidence in other procedures, such as subsequent

3 complaints, grievances, or disciplinary action... The investigation shall be conducted and

4 completed as promptly as possible, usually within 60 working days from the date of

5 initiation... The deadline may be extended by the Charging Administrator... Written notice of

6 the extension shall be provided to the complainant and the respondent..."

7 67. The goal of a workplace investigation is to reach a fair and well-reasoned

8 conclusion based on the objective evidence. These investigations are subject to a reasonableness

9 standard. Cotran v Rollins Hudig Hall Intl, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 93, 102. To show
10 reasonableness, the investigator needs to be sure to (1) speak to all relevant witnesses and (2)

11 review all necessary documents.

12 68. Where witnesses provide conflicting statements a reasonable investigator and/or

Aihi3 investigation:
gitr14 a) Relies on other evidentiary support. Does the testimony of other

15 witnesses corroborate or contradict the complainant's allegations?

16 Are there documents (e.g., ernails, letters, and cell phone records)
17 that bolster or refute the claims? This evidence may include direct
18 eye-witness testimony or testimony and documents supporting any
19 events surrounding an alleged incident of wrongdoing;
20 b) Analyze the logical coherence of each side's "story." Does the

21 testimony provided to support or refute an allegation make sense?

22 Does the evidence have a "ring of truth" to it? Is it
23 plausible/reasonable/believable?
24 c) Evaluate the motives and credibility of the witnesses. Has the
25 witness lied about anything during the interview? Does the alleged
26 wrongdoer have a history of behaving inappropriately? An
27 investigator might also consider whether there is any reason for a
witness to provide false testimony.

l'a;4c 28 1f(2
SC1:11ild iii tic 120
 1 69. People, such as and including plaintiff, who work for the REGENTS, have the

2 right to rely on the employer to conduct a fair, impartial, timely, and full investigation. The entire

3 administrative process relies and depends upon a fair, impartial, timely, and compete

4 investigation. The defendants polices and rules require such an investigation. Where, as here,

5 the investigation is so flawed, so corrupt, and so biased, that the integrity, reputation, and purpose

6 of the administrative processes is undermined, public policy and justice require the court not

7 recognize the so-called administrative processes.

8 70. As examples, the following are some, but not all of the ways the investigation was

9 flawed, corrupt, and biased;

10 a) Plaintiff never returned to work from his initial sick leave. In

11 the I year, and 3 months plaintiff was away from the workplace,

12 almost 1 year was spent on Investigatory Leave, yet total

Ak13 investigation time not much more than two weeks, give or take;
‘11114
'-

15 b) No one involved with the investigation recognized and

16
acknowledged the temerity of the investigation to blame MR.

17 WASZCZUK for sending emails up the chain of authority in his

18 effort find someone to intervene in the surreal, in a bad way, world

19 where people conducting investigations and reviews are truly out

20 to harm employees including plaintiff, especially if they are a

CCW13711;
21

c) The investigation, itself, is and was, at all relevant times,

23
specifically and as part of an larger course of conduct related to
24
investigations into "WB" employees, a violation of the "WB" law,
25
which expresses the Legislatures intent to promote an important
26
public policy promoting protection, not harassment, of "WB's"
27

018 ' "WB" an abbreviation For "whistleblower used by UC DAVIS

29 of 62
121
 The investigation, specifically and as part of the larger course of

2 conduct, demonstrates unlawful, untenable, and unacceptable

3 exercise of power intent to hurt "WB'S and/or perhaps a cold

4 disregard for suffering in the worse cases, like this one, where a

5 man like MR. WASZCZUK who did not a thing, but try to help

6 and be an important contributor to a healthy and safe Medical

7 Center. The investigation had information regarding, or had

8 access to information regarding, but failed to consider or account

9 for the facts that MR. WASZCZUK, for 11 years, performed his

10 job and behaved at work in ways that deserved respect, sincere

11 gratitude for doing more than a his Yeoman's share to keep people

12 safe, credit for helping get sick people better, taking his
Ah13 responsibility rightly serious, being accessible enough to help
IFT,14 friends after hours with letters, advice, and repairing family
15 computers, up to professional data protection standards. The

16 investigation, with information about plaintiff s emotional distress,

17 intentionally, recklessly, and/or in conscious disregard for his
18 rights contributed to and intentionally sought to support taking

19 away a big piece of his plaintiffs life, not just taking away, but

20 taking it "out" right through MR. WASZCZUK gut, ripped out by

21 once-believed and /trusted coworkers, friends, comrades, who

22 suddenly had a problem with him being racist and inappropriate,

23 Is there a billing code for acute racism? Something changed and,

24 it's safe bet it wasn't good old Jerry waking up one day with his

25 mind changed about anything;

26
27 d) In 1 year and 4 months plaintiff was out of the workplace, not
one of the more than 12 managers, supervisors, officers, and/or
08

1):1.. ,e 30 of 62
122
 1 executives who worked on the investigation, most of whom are

2 attorneys, mentioned, let alone considered, that for 11 years, from

3 1999 through 2010, PUTNEY and previous managers evaluated

4 plaintiff with glowing terms, his performance was outstanding

5 many years, especially when he was working out of the HVAC

6 shop;

8 e) With actual notice that DANILIUC and PUTNEY allowed a

9 parolee, on parole as a 2-strike child porn felon, to touch, let alone

use, one of the employer's computers that was connected to the

internet, in the middle of the I-1VAC Plumbing Shop, not one of

the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, UC DAVIS

law enforcement, senior officers, or executives who knew about

the event, most of whom are attorneys, realized and concluded that

a felony occurred the moment the pig's finger touched an internet

16 connected UC DAVIS computer, an event subject of immediate

17 complaints from guys understandably aggravated by the pig even

18 being in the same zip code, let their shop at work, let alone on a

19 computer in their shop. According to investigation, this was a non-

20 event, not a misuse of property. Somehow condoning and

21 encouraging bottom dwelling scum to violate a parole on UC

22 DAVIS property, in a UC DAVIS workplace, from a UC DAVIS

23 networked and internet connected terminal, on one of UC DAVIS'

24 computers, which also offended employees, is acceptable and not

25 worthy of an adverse employment action. Anyone who failed to

26 acknowledge the wrongness of green lighting and getting on board

27 with, at last count, 6 felonies, in fairness, could not justify any
-)8 negative employment action against MR. WASZCZUK for

31 of 62
omplaisit 123
anything he might have said or did;

f) Despite notice of a serious offense, that DANILIUC operates his

own private HVAC business on the employer's time, as well as

conducting business as the manager of his church on company time,

and given knowledge of the backlog of work orders, not one of the

more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers, or

executives who agreed the accusation was unsubstantiated, did

more than merely asked DANILIUC, Are you doing these things?

Meanwhile, Plaintiff provided UC DAVIS with 12 gigabytes of

dated and timed documents, including facsimiles, messages, and

letters, that conclusively prove DANILIUC was and still is

conducting personal for profit business on UC DAVIS' time,

g) The investigation did not include or address plaintiff's

disclosures about PUTNEY and DANILIUC falsely accusing

plaintiff of missing the pharmacy refrigeration unit alarm and

falsifying plaintiff's time cards, two of plaintiff's early disclosures
that would have made PUTNEY and DANILIUC unreliable

witnesses;

h) Despite actual notice that plaintiff asked for a one hour lunch,
paid or unpaid, in order to allow time for him to walk, get his
circulation going, instead of 30 minutes at his desk, and with
knowledge that plaintiff is a quadruple bypass survivor, not one of
the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers, or
executives whom plaintiff notified of this safety and health issue
ever so much as mentioned the concern for safety and plaintiff's

1):41c 32 c,f 62
‘nwitile•El ( wilplitin! 124
 1 health. Instead, they focused on whether plaintiff had the right to

2 take an hour lunch. Even at that, not one of the more than 12

3 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers, or executives that

4 discussed, in secret, or commented on this issue brought up the fact

5 that the plaintiff, as an exempt employee, had every right to take

6 an hour for lunch, provided the employer found someone who

7 could fill-in for another 30 minutes;

9 i) With regard to the delayed complaint by PUTNEY and

10 DANILIUC, Not one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers,

II investigators, officers, or executives so much as mentioned, let

12 alone analyzed, the lack of a track record for plaintiff's alleged

Aiik13 conduct, which one would expect at some point over 12 years. In

Tj14 addition, ultimately UC DAVIS used plaintiffs alleged reaction to

IS the missed alarm accusation back in April 2011 to justify an April

16 2012 suspension;

17
j) On September 1, 2011, the day plaintiff was to return from a
18
work environment stress induced leave, based on a supposed
19
complaint by DANILIUC and PUTNEY from dated
20
communications that did not offend them when they occurred, yet
21
not one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators,
22
officers, or executives that participated in meetings, emails, and
23
drafts of the investigation so much as mentioned, let alone the
24
necessity of evaluating, the motives, bias, and/or credibility of
25
DANILIUC or PUTNEY, especially given the employer knew
26
DANILIUC and PUTNEY did not want plaintiff in their shop as
27
an exempt employee:

Page 33 of 62
0111Plailti 125
 1 k) With regard to DANILILIC somehow becoming plaintiff's

2 supervisor, not one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers,

3 investigators, officers, or executives that discussed, in secret, or

4 commented on this issue so much as mentioned, let alone

5 recommend an investigation, concerning how and when did

6 DANILIUC become plaintiff's supervisor;

8 1) On or about September 10, 2011, DANESHA NICHOLS, the

9 principal investigator, emailed multiple managers, supervisors,

10 executives, and officer, including one of the most senior

11 executives at the medical center, that "... (She) is working through

12 various witness interviews in PO&M and 1 have learned some

13 information that likely has broader significance than this

14 investigation. Also, I am aware that there was a meeting with ELR

15 and the Dept yesterday regards this circumstance. [ am seeking a

16 brief meeting (1 hour) tomorrow... (To) develop a plan for

17 handling this case";

18
m). On November 28, 2011 STEPHEN CHILCOTT sends an
19

20 email to Claire Pomeroy, Ann Rice, Bonnie Hyatt, Vincent

21 Johnson, MIKE BOYD, Teresa Porter, and Anna Oroleski

22 notifying them that they might have received emai Is from plaintiff

23 over the weekend, that plaintiff is on a leave of absence and under

74 investigation. He has raised a number of complaints against the

-)5 Health System which 'Nye' are investigating. HR is conducting the

26 investigation in close coordination with Legal and Compliance

both here and on the Davis campus. Throughout the process he has

028 sent mails to various officials and employees, often with

l'a!q! 34 of 62
't IJ ii(I,41 C01310111U 126
 1 inappropriate content... [Redacted without legal basis
2
3 n) Out of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators,

4 officers, or executives that participated in meetings, emails, and

5 drafts of the investigation so much as mentioned the fact that

6 defendants reference to inappropriate content were statements

7 directed to plaintiff by others and/or items that PUTNEY and

8 DANILIUC brought, condoned, and/or otherwise encouraged in

9 the EIVAC shop, and plaintiff was bringing it to their attention;

10
11 o). On or about September 11, 2011 MS. NICHOLS disclosed to

12 multiple managers, supervisors, executives, and officers, including

13 one of the most senior executives at the medical center, that she is

14 almost done with the investigation and she will issue the report by

15 the end of the week;

16
17 p) DANESHA NICHOLS sends a separate email to DAN1LIUC,

18 PUTNEY, and DENNIS CURRY, in which she begins in a

19 friendly "1 hope you have had great weekends" despite the

20 seriousness of the accusations and the circumstances;

21
2") q) On September I l'h and 12th, 2011, DANESHA NICHOLS sends

23 rough drafts of the report to multiple managers, supervisors,

24 executives, and officers, including one of the most senior

15 executives at the medical center, asking for revisions, with

26 directions to get rid of the previous versions of the report, in a

n28
17 confidential manner, and send back the revised report. MS.
NICHOLS asked HUGH PARKER, a high level executive, "Is this

35 of (i2
tuvnaeti ow plaint 127
 1 what you had in mind?" MS NICHOLS referred to her report;
2

3 r) At all times, MS. NICHOLS made a point to DANILIUC,

4 PUTNEY, CURRY, & W1TCHE,R to find and collect emails from

5 the plaintiff directed to any employee;

7 s) MS. NICHOLS issued "final reports to the department" on

8 December 5, 2011, after previous publication in September 2011,

9 and, at least a I /2 dozen people made changes or asked NICHOLS

10 to make changes;

11

12 t) NICHOLS berates plaintiff for not driving from Lodi, to her

13 office at the medical center. However, she fails to mention, and

never speaks about, plaintiff being on medical leave and that it

15 would be inappropriate for him to come on his medical leave;

16

17 u) On or about December 5, 2011 WITCHER unilaterally takes

18 plaintiff off sick-leave, places him on unpaid administrative leave,

19 and threaten to fire plaintiff for not coming from his home in Lodi,

20 Ca to the Medical Center, while on sick-leave, so NICHOLS can

21 interview him;

22
v) The December I I, 2011 investigation report claims plaintiffs
23
disclosure of the safety hazards in the HVAC shop were not
24
substantiated. NICHOLS' investigation amounted to asking
25
DANILIUC how many of the 20 items on an old list of things to
26
repair had DANILIUC finished. DANILIUC answered "17".
27
Plaintiff's disclosure of safety hazards concerned the animals, the
8

',A ge 36 of 62
C)II k(:1V1):fell 128
 foul, the generators, the Metasys system, and the power plant

2 operators' petition. NICHOLS, and every other UC DAVIS

3 employee, ignored those complaints; Furthermore, NICHOLS

4 supposedly evaluated plaintiff's complaint about the plant

5 operators raise and their petition but NICHOLS does not mention

6 the potential tragedy waiting to happen as warned by the plant

7 operators, or, the blackmail nature of the petition;

9 w) NICHOLS refers to plaintiff's claim for breaks and a one hour

10 lunch, even though plaintiff understood only non-exempt

11 employees must be given breaks, by the time NICHOLS published

12 the report, plaintiff had long since stated he would take an hour

13 lunch unpaid, just to get exercise. yet NICHOLS nor any of the

14
1 editors once mentioned the fact that a one hour lunch would

15 promote safety and health where it was needed.

16
x) On January 30, 2012, DANESHA circulates another rough draft
17
of a supposed amendment to her report to MIKE BOYD,
18
CHARLES WITCHER, Humberto Garcia, Gina Harwood
19

20 (Principal Consultant, Labor Relations), and STEPHEN

21 CHILCOTT with instructions "...I wanted to get it out in

22 preparation for our meeting tomorrow 1 will make all the required

changes/edits after tomorrow's meeting and issue the report on

23

24 Wednesday";

)5
.

y) On January 31,2012 NICHOLS tells DELMEN DO "I may need

26
to amend the WASZCZUK in regard to [redacted without legal
27
basis]...They are, granted, very old but still need evidence of some
28

Vage3 or 62
129
concerning behavior on the part of [redacted without legal basis] I

should have the amendment completed tomorrow... would that be

ok? Or should I simply draft addendums to add to other reports."

z) On February 8, 2012 12:21 p.m. NICHOLS sends and email to

DELMENDO "Here is the Revised-Final on [redacted without

legal basis] from PO&M.

AA) On February 8,2012 at 12:26 P.M.. NICHOLS sends an email

to BOYD, WITCHER, GARCIA, DELMENDO, and CHILCOTT

"Attached is the revised final DANILIUC report. Please disregard

any previous copies of the report. Should you discard the previous

copies, please have those discarded in a confidential manner";

Defendant has not produced any DANESHA NICHOLS rough
drafts or prior versions of any report despite FOIA requests.

Defendant claimed, within two years, they destroyed the

documents;

BB) On February 9, 2012, DANESHA asks CH1LCOTf if she

should send DELMENDO a copy of the WASZCZUK report

.even though there are no allegations in it pertaining to the

whistleblower components." DANESHA sent DELMENDO the

revised final report concerning the allegations against Mr.

WASZCZUK even though they don't involve the whistleblower

components, but DELMENDO might need to refer to the
complaints at some point. The investigation report dated February
9, 2012 is, for all intent and purpose. the same as the previous two
published versions which contained editorial input from BOYD,
WITCHER, GARCIA, DELMENDO, CHILCOTT, and

ic 38 Of 62
iII>'(UId ( _>ri>>pI:i>it 130
 1 NICHOLS;

3 CC) On February 14, 2012 DELMENDO sends an email to

4 NICHOLS with changes she needs to make in the report, but
5 defendant redacted the email without any legal basis.

6 DELMENDO advises NICHOLS that she left references to "JW

7 non-participation" in the report. NICHOLS expressed that she
8 tried to remove all of them but she must have missed a few;
9
10 DD) The entirety of the investigation, despite numerous

11 corrections over 5 months, involved only interviews with

12 PATRICK PUTNEY, DORN DANILIUC, George Ursu, Dan

13 Radulescu, and Bill Rubidoux;
'it 14

15 EE) Mr. Ursu, Mr. Radulescu, and Bill Rubidoux were, and are,

16 biased in favor of DANILIUC and PUTNEY and against plaintiff

17 Mr. Ursu was one of 2-3 employees to whom DANILIUC gave

18 overtime hours, while DANILIUC gave Mr. Radulescu plaintiff's

19 title, Associate Development Engineer, but gave the duties of

20 plaintiff's job to Mr. Rubidoux;

.71

*)2 FE) Derek Cole complained about DANILIUC giving overtime

23 hours to one or two people in violation of the policies, rules, and

24 procedures set up for assigning overtime hours. DANILIUC

25 issued Cole a Letter of Expectation for allegedly perfon-ning below

-)6 expectations even though Cole received letters of accommodation

27 from other departments for repairing HVAC units that had been in

.128 a state of ill-repair for years. BOYD, WITCHER, GARCIA,

pnge 39 44'62
Srefuni kiwifficd 131
 DELMENDO, CHILCOTT, NICHOLS, Hugh Parker (Manager
2 Workers Compensation), SEIFERT, CURRY, and many others
3 neglected to evaluate the fact DANILIUC was proven capable of
4 retaliating with an unjustified performance evaluation.
5

6 GC) In or about July 2011 Plaintiff emailed the employer's

7 general counsel because his disclosures were only causing the
8 employer to increase its investigation of the plaintiff rather than
9 substantiate the serious misconduct.
10
11 HH) On or about July 27, 2011 MS. DELMENDO sent plaintiff
12 a letter advising him that UCD determined to consider his email to
13 general counsel as a whistleblower disclosure, circumventing the
01111: I4
employers own procedures and the express language of
15 Government Code § 8547.7 requiring the complaint be made under
16 penalty of perjury.. .Nonetheless, the allegations were turned over
17 to DANESHA NICHOLS.
18
19 II) The investigation acknowledged that PUTNEY sells sheep,

20 chickens, ducks, roosters, and other animals to other employees

11 out of the HVAC Plumbing Shop, but because it happened so

22 infrequently it's not misuse of employer property. Selling live

/3 animals and foul to employees from the employer's HVAC

24 Plumbing Shop is not a misuse of a hospital's facilities. Not one

/5 of the more than 12 executives, managers, supervisors, or officers

26 that reviewed the matter recognized that the liability issues alone
are substantial enough to warrant severe and serious consequences.

ti
")"7

Not one of the more than 12 executives, managers, supervisors, or

N
ra, 8

Page 40 of 62
Secolit! molded ( ti iiI:iint 132
 1 officers that reviewed the matter so much as mentioned the risk

that employees, who interact with the hospital environment,

3 without scrubbing, might pose to patients from exposure to animal

4 and avian bacteria. The only scenario under which the employer

5 condones this behavior is if the investigation is unfair, biased, and

6 discriminatory;

8 J3) On or about May 17, 2012, J Noel Van Deviver, Principal

9 Employee & Labor Relations Consultant, in an email to herself,

10 with a cc to Travis Lindsey (Manager Labor Relations) and

11 SEIFERT, from HR, states "...Based on what I've seen, I do think

12 termination would be warranted-and would help me out

tremendously ;) (1 know, I know, it would not be close to being

l'14 over but at least he wouldn't be coming back to the workplace,

15 which would help solve other problems!)

16
I(K) On December 28, 2011 plaintiff notified NICHOLS of the
17
fact that no one had addressed or ruled out the safety hazard and
18
express warning the plant operators included in their petition.
19
NICHOLS ignored plaintiff, and by association the safety hazard
20
and express warning. Despite actual notice that the plant operators
21
were unable to monitor Metasys and that it was a "miracle" a
tragedy had not happened, not one of the more than 12 supervisors,
23
managers, investigators, officers, or executives whom plaintiff
24
notified of this safety issue ever so much as mentioned the concern
25
for safety or commending plaintiff for being the only one to show
26
enough interest to be concerned; and
27

-8

ge .11 of 62
133
 1 LL) UC DAVIS destroyed the interview tapes, notes, and other

2 source materials used to construct the reports. UC DAVIS,

3 contrary to the law and their own procedures, destroyed documents

4 that would prove who they actually interviewed and what the

5 person asked and what was said.

6 UC DAVIS Abused In Leave, Intentionally Subjected Plaintiff to Distress

7 71. University of California — Policy PPSM-63 : Investigatory Leave mandates:
8 "...An employee may be placed on an investigatory leave, with or
without notice, to permit the University to review or investigate
9 actions... The leave shall be confirmed in writing, stating the
reason and the expected duration of the leave... Upon conclusion
10 of the investigation, the employee shall be informed in writing of
the actual dates and pay status of the leave... The Vice President—
II Human Resources (CHILCOTT) is the Responsible Officer for
this policy... The Executive Officer is accountable for monitoring
12 and enforcing compliance mechanisms and ensuring that
monitoring procedures and reporting capabilities are established...
13 The Vice President—Human Resources is accountable for
reviewing the administration of this policy. The Director—FIR
14 Compliance may periodically monitor compliance to this policy."

15 72. UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members Separation Actions § 63,
16 Investigatory Leave provides that "...is a tool available to management in situations when it may
17 be necessary to remove an employee from the work site during the course of a University
18 investigation... An employee may be placed on investigatory leave when his/her continued
19 presence may interfere with the investigatory process or for other conduct or circumstances
20 which warrant removing the employee from the premises... all investigatory leaves shall be with
21 pay unless an option to use unpaid leave is approved by the Associate Vice Chancellor--Human
2/ Resources... The notice must specify the reasons for the investigatory leave, the expected dates
23 of the leave, and direct the employee to remain available during the course of the leave for
/4 investigatory meetings... A person who is not a party to the action fills out a Proof of Service
25 form... The leave shall be no longer than 15 calendar days. The Employee & Labor Relations
26 Analysts (campus) (DELMENDO) and the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations Manager
27 (Lindsey) may make exceptions to this rule and may grant an extension(s) to the leave..."
73. Plaintiff took medical leave from August 1, 2011 to August 31, 2011. The

Pngt: 42 of 62
soe.)15,1 .ntentied '134
 employer personally handed plaintiff Notice of Investigatory Leave when he showed up for work

2 on September 1, 2011. WITCHER did this knowing plaintiff was already experiencing emotional

3 distress.

4 74. The employer had plaintiff on an investigatory leave from September I , 2011 to

5 September 23,2011, even though NICHOLS already finished her investigation on September 11,

6 2011.

7 75. Plaintiff's doctor placed him on medical leave from September 23, 2011 to

8 January 5, 2012, with the opinion that if the stress from plaintiff's supervisors was gone, plaintiff

9 could return to work.

10 76. On or about December 5, 2011, WITCHER, arguing that plaintiff refused to come

11 to be interviewed, unilaterally took plaintiff off medical leave and placed him on administrative

1/ leave without pay effective December 22, 2011 Plaintiff did not have an obligation to come to

13 an interview while on medical leave. The employer then placed plaintiff on leave with pay until

0
* 14 May 13, 2012. WITCHER sent the letter knowing plaintiff was suffering from emotional distress.

15 HR Labor Relations Manager Humberto (Mike) Garcia Asked Plaintiff to Resolve Matter

16 76a. In or about February 2012 Humberto Garcia, then Human Resources Labor
17 Relations Manager and CINDY OROPEZA approached plaintiff with a generalized offer for an

18 informal resolution. Plaintiff agreed, in principal, to come to an informal resolution. Mr. Garcia

19 asked plaintiff how much he wanted to informally resolve all outstanding issues, and plaintiff

20 asked for his salary to be paid until his retirement Social Security Retirement kicked-in at or
71 about plaintiff's 62" birthday. Shortly thereafter plaintiff attempted to communicate with Mr.
22 Garcia, but was advised that he no longer worked in the office. UC DAVIS did not respond to
-)3 plaintiff's requested demand nor did UC DAVIS attempt to communicate with Plaintiff regarding
/4 an informal resolution. Instead, UC DAVIS, with malice aforethought, continued their assault on
75 plaintiff's well-being and health.

26 77. On April 15, 2012, WITCHER sent plaintiff a Notice of Intent to Suspend for 10-
'77 days. In that Notice, WITCHER refers to plaintiff's conduct in April 2011 as the basis for the

28 suspension. On May 13, 2012 WITCHER sent plaintiff the Letter of Suspension for 10-days

l'a,ge 43 of 62
mend.:(1 t 135
 1 without pay from May 16, 2012 through May 30, 2012. The reasons given for the suspension

2 were:
"...continued inappropriate behavior in the workplace. UCDHS
3 Policy 1616 Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and
UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of
4 Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to adhere to specific
instructions during the investigation to refrain from engaging in
5 email communications with witnesses interfered with the
investigation as outlined in the report. The suspension will begin
6 on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on Wednesday, May 30,
2012. You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m. on Thursday,
7 May 315 2012 to Facilities Support Services Building, 4800 2"
Avenue, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA, to Charles WITCHER."
8

9 78. The suspension had its basis in the complaints made by DANILIUC and
10 PUTNEY 10 months earlier in August 2011 allegedly arose from an April 2011 incident, which
11 stemmed from DANILIUC and PUTNEY'S failed, and as of yet investigated, attempt to blame
12 plaintiff for their mistake that led to a pharmacy refrigerator failure. The suspension, the timing
13 of the suspension, and the manner of notice were intended to cause, and did in fact cause, plaintiff
14 emotional distress, anger, provocation, and anguish.
15 79. On May 31, 2012, WITCHER handed plaintiff an unexpected Notice of
16 Investigatory Leave when plaintiff showed up to return to work. This time WITCHER referred
17 to plaintiff's reaction to the suspension, that plaintiff sent emails. The leave, the timing of the
18 leave, and the mariner of notice were intended to cause, and did in fact cause, plaintiff emotional
19 distress, anger, provocation, and anguish.
20 80. The individual defendants undertook preparations plaintiff to become violent at
21 the May 315 2012 return for work date. A crisis team was assembled comprised of a lead trauma
22 nurse, two police officers, a psychologist, and a therapist.
23 81. Plaintiff, in accordance with his character, left without incident. The employer
24 kept plaintiff on investigatory leave, with a series of letters extending the leave, until the
?5 employer through terminated him on December 7, 2012.
26 82. From May 31, 2012 through December 7, 2012, minimal investigation took place.
-Y7 In that time, essentially two investigation reports were published and both did not have any
028 investigation past June 2012, and at that the investigation involved only a few witnesses, they

1):q.;t: 44 10'62
011111 136
being DANIL1UC, PUTNEY, Ursu, Rubidoux and NICHOLS.

Plaintiffs Supervisors had Malice, Bias, and Prejudice against Plaintiff

83. CURRY exhibited actual malice toward plaintiff. In or about June 2012, Plaintiff

notified DENNIS CURRY that he was contacted by an investigator asking about a loan DENNIS

CURRY accepted from a UCD vendor to help finance his daughter's wedding. On June 6, 2012,

at 8:58 a.m., DENNIS CURRY, one of plaintiff's supervisors, retaliated with this email, with

"cc" to Ann Rice, Charles WITCHER, Christopher.Simon@ucop.edu, Claire Pomeroy, Corey

Nornmensen, Dan.Dooley@ucop.edu, hexter@ucdavis.edu, Jeremiah Maher, Jill Van Deviver,

John A. Lose, Souza, Joyce A, Mike Boyd, Phyllis Reginellin, Sandra Aguilar, with the subject

FW: Vendor Relations / Employee Misconduct Complaint(s):

"Jerry,
I recommend that you find a place in the cavity of a chest of yours and go to see the
Wizard of Oz for a heart. Every action you take, every email you send and every lie you tell is a
selfish, self-serving attempt to build your ego. Everyone knows you are engaged in a pathetic
transparent grasp for attention. I am convinced you are the lowest vile human being I have ever
had the misfortune to meet, may God have mercy on your soul.
Dennis K. Curry
Dennis K. Curry"

Defendants' Responses to CURRY Prove Cabal against Plaintiff

84. Jill Van Deviver authors an email to SEIFERT and Lindsey on June 6, 2012 at

9:10 a.m. "Well, it doesn't help (Curry) has done this - are we going to address (Curry's) behavior

now?"

85. SEIFERT sends CHILCOTT an email on June 6, 2012 at 9:17 a.m., simply "FYI"

along with CURRY'S email to plaintiff.

86. CHI LCOTT replies on June 6, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. simply stating "Please escalate

to Mike Boyd for appropriate action."

87. CURRY resigned on or shortly after June 6, 2012, but not before he engaged in

further retaliation.

CURRY Harasses Kenny Diede after Sending Plaintiff the Email

88 On June 6, 2012 DENNIS CURRY told Kenneth Diede to come to PUTNEY'S

office. CURRY began by questioning Diede about attending a stress management class, but soon

Page 4E: cif

ottipt;tiut 137


eito
1 turned the topic to plaintiff. DENNIS CURRY expressed the same opinions he put in the email

to the plaintiff In addition, DENNIS CURRY stated that plaintiff is causing nothing but stress

3 for him, DAN1LIUC, and PUTNEY. CURRY than cautioned Diede to distance himself from

4 plaintiff.

5 CHILCOTT, Executive Director-Human Resources Shows Malice, Bias, and Prejudice

6 89. On July 25, 2012 STEPHEN CHILCOTT, Executive Director of Human

7 Resources, started the process of retaining defense counsel for plaintiff's as yet published

8 termination.

9 Those Charged with Ensuring Due Process and Fairness are Complicit

10 90. UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter 380, § 15, Subsection IV

11 mandates that "...Designated Officials (are charged with).. .Maintaining a work environment

12 free from all forms of discrimination or harassment...Responding promptly to reports of

dik13 discrimination by contacting the Director—Harassment and Discrimination Assistance and

V11714 Prevention Program (on the Davis campus) or the Discrimination Prevention Coordinator (at
15 UCDHS) immediately upon receipt of report...1mplementing appropriate interim actions, in

16 consultation with the Director—Harassment and Discrimination Assistance and Prevention

17 Program (on the Davis campus) or the Discrimination Prevention Coordinator (at UCDHS)..."

18 91. Chapter 380, § 15, subsection IV requires that "...The Chief Compliance

19 Officer—General Campus (DELMEN DO) develops and implements procedures for prompt and

20 effective response to reports of discrimination..."

21 92. Chapter 380, § 15, subsection IV compels "...The Director—Harassment &
Discrimination Assistance and Prevention Program il.JCDHS Discrimination Prevention

23 Coordinator..." (OROPEZA) plans and manage the local discrimination education and training
24 programs and ensure the following: Wide dissemination of this policy to the University
95 community.. .Availability of educational and training materials to promote compliance with this

")6 policy and familiarity with reporting procedures.. .Receive reports of discrimination directly and
77 from designated officials, and ensure that the timelines, rights of the complainant, procedures,
028 and reined ies provided herein are met.. .Maintain records of reports of discrimination and actions

-( f2
138
 1 taken in response to reports, including records of investigations, voluntary resolutions, and

2 disciplinary action as appropriate.

3 Plaintiff Attempts to Get Help within the UC System to the Highest Office, UC Rebuffs

4 93. The spirit and substance of Defendants' Policies and Procedures instruct

5 employees, such as and including plaintiff, who believe a conflict of interest exists at any level,

6 to give notice to the next higher level up the chain of command. Plaintiff did exactly that but

7 defendants, and each of them, denied and ignored the plaintiff. In accordance with the spirit and

8 substance of Defendants' Policies and Procedures, Plaintiff sent the same information,

9 documents, and photographs to UC Counsel, who returned the matter to NICHOLS for

10 investigation and DELMENDO for further handling.

11 94. In accordance with the spirit and substance of Defendants' Policies and

12 Procedures, Plaintiff sent the same information, documents, and photographs to the REGENTS

Ank 13 main office. but the main office did not respond to plaintiff_ and plaintiff is informed and believes
- 14 that the REGENTS referred it to UC Counsel, who again merely sent it back to NICHOLS,

15 DELMENDO, CHILCOTF, WITCHER, OROPEZA (Manager, HR, Discrimination Prevention

16 Program), BOYD, and SEIFERT.

17 95. Plaintiff provided his manager, Human Resources, and the administration, at the

18 local level, enough information, documents, and photographs to substantiate plaintiffs

19 disclosures of misconduct against PUTNEY and DANILIUC as well as the ongoing coordinated

20 adverse employment actions taking place within Human Resources and the Medical Center
21 campus. No one responded to plaintiff with any substantive help and/or intervened to rectify the

22 miscarriage of j ustice.
23 UC DAVIS Fails to Issue a Satisfactory Decision within Allowable Time Limit
24 96. Government Code §8547.10(a) provides (a) A University of California
/5 employee,... may file a written complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other

26 university officer designated for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of
77 reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected

028 disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint are true, or

Page 47 of h2
-sinentied Iquipiaitit 139


are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within

2 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about..."

3 97. On March 7, 2012, pursuant to §8547.10(a) and UC DAVIS' corresponding

4 procedure, plaintiff filed a whistleblower complaint connected with the course of retaliation

5 culminating in his termination on December 7, 2012.

6 98. §8547.10(c) allows an UC employee to file an action at law if, as here, plaintiff

7 files the proper complaint with the appropriate office, and, "...the university has failed to reach
8 a decision regarding that complaint within the time limits established for that purpose by the

9 trustees... (Or).. if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.'

10 99. On September 12, 2013 UCD notified plaintiff that the time for them to issue a

11 decision was extended to November 30, 2013. UCD has not issued a decision.

12 100. UC DAVIS' Policies and Procedures requires UC DAVIS to issue a decision

^13 within 120 days, unless they provide written notice of an extension. UC DAVIS only provided

"14 the one notice, which was more than 120 days before plaintiff filed the present action.

15 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a First Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

16 ANN MADDEN RICE (CEO UCD Health Services), MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT

17 (Executive Director, Human Resources). CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS,

18 CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does

19 1 through 20, as follows:

20 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
[INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS]
21
101. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
22
through 100, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
,3
102. Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert with intent to cause Plaintiff severe
24
emotional distress. The evidence is clear and convincing, at the least, that the defendants, with
15
premeditation, undertook acts that denied the reality of the abuse experienced by the Plaintiff and
26
fabricated nature of the "complaints" made about the plaintiff.
77
103. The acts and omissions as alleged herein, separately and taken together, are so
n28

Pagi: -Is of
s,cotit1 1fierriki1 1. 140
 extreme and outrageous that the defendants, and each of them, acted outside the course and scope

2 of their employment with UC DAVIS. The depth, length of time, and nature of the acts are so

3 extraordinary that no reasonable person can conclude such acts and omissions are within the

4 course and scope of duties as a manager, supervisor, or officer of a public entity such as and

5 including UC DAVIS.

6 104. Defendants' actions as herein alleged do, and did, constitute extreme and

7 outrageous conduct.

8 105. Defendants' acted with intent of causing, or with reckless disregard for the

9 probability of causing, severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

10 106. As a proximate result of the acts alleged herein Plaintiff suffered severe or

11 extreme emotional distress, entitling plaintiff to damages, including but not limited to, medical

12 expenses, lost income, other special damages, general damages, and exemplary damages, all in

gik13 an amount to be proven at trial

'1 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth

15 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Second Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

16 ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER,

17 DAN ESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN

18 DANIL1UC, and Does I through 20, as follows:

19 V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

[TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE]
20
107. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
21
through 106, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
22
108. At all relevant times, Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD,
23
STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA,
24
BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, DOES 1 through 20, knew of the
25
existence of the settlement agreement between plaintiff and UC DAVIS and/or plaintiff's
26
property rights in his public employment with UC DAVIS described herein.
27
109. At all relevant times, Defendants, and each of them, knew that managers and
28

l'nge 49 of 62
sr-emLit tilentleti I!mtp1;:ilei 141
f10)

1 supervisors, including defendants PUTNEY and WITCHER, evaluated plaintiff as a "very

2 valuable employee", "OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations", "...performance has been

3 excellent...", "...overall job performance is outstanding...", "...have not been any problems with

4 missed alarms...", "...very instrumental...monitoring...alarm/ status of critical equipment...",

5 "...Helping...managing the work order system.. .providing computer support...", "...also

6 helping with closing work orders...", "...is talented, precise and his daily paper work is

7 excellent...", "...can be counted on to keep management informed status of the plant and

8 equipment...", and "...committed to the future success of the Medical Center..."

9 110. At all relevant times. Defendants, and each of them, knew that no employee, co-

employee, manager, supervisor, including defendants PUTNEY, DANILIUC, CURRY and

WITCHER, and/or administrator ever complained about, had to investigate or consider concerns

regarding, and/or so much as heard rumors that plaintiff engaged in discriminatory acts, made
discriminatory statements, and/or presented a disruptive or violent risk within the work place.

111. To be sure, Defendants, and each of them, knew plaintiff is, and was at all relevant
15 times, precise in his work, could be counted on to keep management informed of the status of the

16 plant and equipment, committed to the future success of the Medical Center, and rightfully and

17 lawfully expected that no person, let alone supervisors, managers, Human Resource personnel,

18 and others would be dishonest, fabricate stories about him, disregard evidence, disregard policies
19 and practices for impartial investigations, disregard defendants' actions on plaint' fPs well-being,

20 and/or set about to cause him emotional harm, all with the intent to ensure that plaintiff never

21 returned to work again.

22 112. Defendants, and each of them, knew that their actions, including but not limited
23 to the actions described herein, as well as their actions issuing investigatory leaves in violation
24 of policies and procedures, would cause and did cause plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress,
.75 especially when not one person left employed by UC DAVIS looked at, considered, and/or

26 analyzed the actual evidence, such as the work orders showing PUTNEY and DANILIUC falsely
27 accused the plaintiff of missing a critical alarm, plaintiff's evaluations written by PUTNEY,
028 surprising plaintiff twice with re-issued investigatory leaves when plaintiff believed he was

Pagt 50 (1162
!sPeond ilicnileit r oinplaiut
 returning to work, instructing plaintiff not to send emails to anyone other than WITCHER even
2 though WITCHER as well as every other manager or supervisor never responded in a serious
3 manner to plaintiff, the employees considering plaintiff's PPSM 70 complaints were copied on
4 emails from the other defendants from an early point in the sequence of events, the conclusions
5 of a group of attorneys and experienced managers on the misconduct disclosed by plaintiff were

6 absurd and unbelievable, and the sudden and not previously an issue discipline issued against co-
7 employees plaintiff represented challenging the discipline.
8 113. The only conclusion that is more likely than not, actually clear and convincing.
9 considering all the evidence, including the examples described herein, is that defendants, and
each of them, coordinated their actions, conferred with each other, and otherwise had a common
goal and/or understanding to either force plaintiff to quit and/or force him to act or behave in
ways that would provide them a subterfuge for his termination. Meanwhile, defendants, and each
of them, set about to extricated plaintiff from his employment because plaintiff was a

whistleblower, and a significant percentage of employees who report misconduct suffer

15 retaliation, abuse, harassment, and ultimately separation from their employment.
16 114. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that his employment would be available for
17 him to work, earning an hourly rate, plus benefits, and all other compensation due under the law
18 so long as plaintiff continued to do his work and perform at the workplace as he had since 1999.
19 115 Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein with the intent to harm Plaintiff
financially and to induce plaintiff and/or UC DAVIS to violate the Settlement Agreement, and/or
21 to take away plaintiff's property rights in his employment without the benefit of the processes,
22 procedures, and safeguards provided for such things under the law, including UC DAVIS' own
23 policies and rules.
24 116. As a proximate result of the conduct of Defendants actions and omissions
25 described herein, as well as based on evidence not disclosed herein, plaintiff was damaged, and
26 continues to experience damages, in an amount that excess $75,000.00 per year, for no less than
')7 6 years, and/or the number of years from the date plaintiff last received his income to the date
8 plaintiff intended to retire. When Plaintiff has ascertained the full amount of its damages, it will

51 of 62
ompinini 143
 1 seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint and/or by evidence at the time of trial provide proof

2 accordingly.

3 117. Plaintiff alleges that one of more of the defendants acted with reckless disregard

4 for plaintiff's rights and/or failed to perceive, observe, and act as a reasonable person under the

5 same or similar circumstances. Further, said reckless disregard for plaintiff's rights and/or

6 negligence were substantial factors in the damages plaintiff sustained.

7 118. The conduct of one or more of the Defendants as described herein was purposeful

8 and intentional and was engaged in for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal

9 rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected to cruel and unjust

10 hardship in conscious disregard of its rights, and was performed with fraud, oppression or malice

11 so as to justify an award of exemplary or punitive damages against such Defendants in an amount

"
12 according to proof at trial.

13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff- prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
14 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

15 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE

16 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY

17 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 21

18 through 40, as follows:

19 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

[FEHA HARASSMENT and FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT,
20 DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION: Government Code § 12940 (a)I
21 119. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

2'7 through 118, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.

23 119a. Government Code § 12940(a) provides "It is an unlaiviiil employment

24 practice...For an employer, because ofthe...national origin, ancestry.. .mental disability, medical

25 condition... of any person.. .to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from.. .to

26 discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions. or privileges of

27 employment."
28 120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each

hiu 52 or (11
:•;cc4,1111
44
 1 of them, coordinated, cooperated, agreed, and/or had an understanding to misuse, abuse, and/or

2 disregard California law, the REGENTS' polices, and UC DAVIS' procedures to deny plaintiff's

3 rights to return to work. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, coordinated, cooperated,

4 agreed, and/or had an understanding to utilize plaintiff's national origin and ancestry against him,

5 inter alia, Plaintiff, born and raised into adulthood in Poland under the communist rule of the

6 Soviet Union, arrived in America as an asylum seeker and was granted political asylum.

7 Defendants knew that plaintiff personified cultural diversity with undisputed differences and

8 difficulties expressing himself in English. Defendants, and each of them, knowingly ignored

9 Plaintiff's culturally diverse characteristics and traits, and, attempted to judge, evaluate, and

10 critique Plaintiff utilizing narrow, shallow, and discriminatory standards, such as, but not limited

11 to, UC DAVIS' Standards of Community. Multiple scholars and civil rights experts have advised

12 UC DAVIS that the Standards of Community express and espouse discriminatory and

13 unconstitutional standards.

14 120a. Further, defendants, and each of them, intentionally created and caused scenarios

15 that they knew would cause plaintiff to suffer from anxiety, anger, and emotional distress,

16 because the defendants knew, based on plaintiffs own admissions and the defendants'

17 experience that plaintiff would manifest and/or alleviate his anxiety, anger, and emotional

18 distress by writing and sending letters or entails, which, to the uninformed and/or malice minded

19 person, might be unorthodox. However, defendants, and each of them, knew plaintiff did not

20 have any history of violence, did not have any history of racism, and did not have any history of

21 any discrimination.
2") 121. Defendants, and each of them, further discriminated against plaintiff based on his

23 mental disability and medical condition as described herein.

24 121a. Plaintiff was over-40 years old when defendants undertook their coordinated

25 assault on plaintiffs right to work. Plaintiff's protected activities and disclosures were also a

-)6 substantial factor in defendants' harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. With respect to the
.77 work conditions identified by plaintiff's doctor, defendants, and each of them, knowingly and

028 intentionally denied plaintiff the benefit of the good faith interactive process mandated by law.

pitigv 53 al 62
145
even though plaintiff made several attempts for defendants to return plaintiff to work. Plaintiff

is and was a quadruple bypass surgery survivor and taking approximately 12 medications during

the time defendants committed their acts described herein.

122. Defendants REGENTS violated California Government Code §12940, by failing to

adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to act

as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual Defendants failed to fulfill their statutory

duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation

from occurring in the workplace, as required by California Government Code §12940(k)

123. Beginning in approximately April for 2011, Defendants fabricated and conjured up
false accusations, false reports, and feigned complaints, and, undertook oppressive, abusive, and

discriminatory acts that continued up to and through December 7,2012, the effective date of plaintiff s

termination.
124. In truth and in fact, Plaintiff- did not do anything wrong. It is undisputed that plaintiff
attempted to persuade defendants, and each of them, to settle, resolve, and/or put an end to whatever

acrimony might have existed on the part of defendants, and each of them, at the workplace. Defendants,
and each of them, never responded to or reacted to plaintiff's attempts to live and let live, and to get

plaintiff back to his employment.

125. Defendants knew plaintiff became distressed, angry, and upset with each arid every
false accusation, false report, and feigned complaint, and, with each unfounded adverse employment
action, such as but not limited to, a biased, one-sided, and incomplete investigation report, or, the lack
of meaningful investigation into the misconduct plaintiff actually reported, or, notifying plaintiff of an
Notice of Investigatory Leave one day before his post-stress leave return to work on September 1,2011,
or, personally handing an unsuspecting plaintiff, who expected to start work, another Notice of
Investigatory Leave on May 31, 2012, with a crisis team on stand-by, or, being instructed not to

communicate with employees even though plaintiff represented them and there was no indication

plaintiff was disrupting an investigation.

126. Defendants, and each of them, as part and parcel of their ongoing, continuing, and
repeated retaliation, harassment, and abuse for whistleblowing about misconduct, engaged in a course

Page 54 of (.2
so.•olid %.11},f.tkd 146
of action that constituted, separately and cumulatively, discrimination, harassment and retaliation

because of national origin, ancestor, mental condition, and/or medical condition.

127. The discrimination, harassment and retaliation are continuous and persist to date

against Plaintiff

128. As a result of Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination,
harassment and retaliation, Regents have allowed WITCHER and the other defendants to continue to

harass and retaliate against Plaintiff in compensation and terms of employment. Every day and week

there is some new harassing, retaliatory plan to drive Plaintiff out of out of UCD, disparage him, or take
compensation from him. Plaintiff has suffered substantial economic losses in wages and benefits,

damages to reputation, credit and other financial injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.

129. As a result of Defendants' harassment and discrimination and the failure to prevent
and/or take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Plaintiff suffered
compensatory damages, consisting of mental anguish, humiliation, alienation, emotional distress and

embarrassment in a sum according to proof at the time of trial.

130. Pursuant to California Government Code §12965, Plaintiff requests the award of
attorneys' fees against Defendants under this cause of action.
VVHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE

BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY

OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 21

through 40, as follows:

VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[WHISTLEBLOWER/UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 8547 et. seq.I
131. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
through 130, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
132. Government Code §8547.10 states (a) A University of California employee,

Pau 55 of (+2
secmot memIcti complaint 147
1 including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a written complaint

2 with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that

3 purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion,

4 or similar improper acts for having made a protected disclosure, together with a sworn statement

5 that the contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under

6 penalty of perjury.

7 133. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal

8 complained about. §8547.10. provides "(a) A University of California employee, including an

9 officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a written complaint with his or

10 her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that purpose by the

II regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar

12 improper acts for having made a protected a protected statement that the contents of the written

complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The

complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.

Plaintiff's disclosures and reports concerned, or plaintiff had a good faith belief that his disclosures

concerned, activity by and/or conditions existing due to misconduct, including but not limited to waste,

17 fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health."

18 134. Plaintiff's reports include, but are not limited to, the March 2001 letter, all reports of

19 the coordinated efforts to retaliate, harass, harm, and impose negative employment consequences, and

20 the ratification and/or complicity of officers of the UC system.

21 135. The outrageous conduct of the Defendants described above was done with malice.

72 fraud and oppression and with reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff

23 requests the assessment of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount

24 appropriate to punish and make an example of them.

25 136. Plaintiff seeks all available damages including punitive damages for retaliation against

26 him as a whistleblower under the California Whistleblower Protection.

27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:

COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Sixth Cause of Action. alleges against Defendants,

Pagc 5(1 or (12

148
(I
)
1 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 21 through 50, as

2 follows:
VIII. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 [HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1278.51

4 137. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

5 through 136, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.

6 138. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 because "... it

7 is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the

8 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe

9 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients

10 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that

11 health care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply

12 primarily to issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended

41113 to conflict with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer

14 relations..." (Emphasis Added)

15 139. § 1278.5(b) (1) provides "No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in any

16 manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care

17 worker of the health facility because that person has... Presented a grievance, complaint, or

18 report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility,

19 or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity..." (Emphasis Added)

20 140. § 1278.5(d)(1) states "There shall be a rebuttable presumption that discriminatory

21 action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that health facility,

22 or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee, member of

23 the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the facility, if responsible staff at the facility

24 or the entity that owns or operates the facility had knowledge of the actions, participation, or
25 cooperation of the person responsible for any acts described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b),

26 and the discriminatory action occurs within 120 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint

fon
by the employee, member of the medical staff or any other health care worker of the facility"

141. § 1278.5(d)(2) provides "...For purposes of this section, discriminatory treatment

Page 57 of 62
ii \ wended LittiTlaini
149
 1 of an employee., includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any,

unfavorable changes in, or breach of, the terms or conditions of a contract, employment, or

3 privileges of the employee."

4 142. Defendants, and each of them, were well aware of plaintiff's disclosures

5 concerning the deficiencies and problems within the FIVAC Plumbing Shop as well as the

6 function and operation of the Metasys alarm monitoring system. Each disclosure by plaintiff

7 related to and concerned matters that directly impacted, or foreseeably would impact, the safe

8 and healthy condition of the hospital.

9 143. Each retaliatory action occurred, or, started and thereafter continued, or had its

roots in actions begun, within 120 days of plaintiff notifying and/or complaining to the

defendants, and each of them.

144. Plaintiff is entitled to all damages authorized and recoverable under Health &

Safety Code § 1278.5.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

15 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Sixth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

16 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and DOES 41 through 50, as

17 follows:

18 IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT]
19

20 145. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

21 through 144, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.

22 146. The contract between plaintiff and defendant is, and was at all relevant times, a written

contract. The written contract is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates

24 into this complaint each term, condition, and paragraph of the contract as required by law. Pursuant to

25 the contract, defendant promised plaintiff an exempt position inside the FIVAC Plumbing Shop with a

-)6 title of Development Engineer. Plaintiff accepted the position under the agreement and was installed

27 at the location with PUTNEY as his supervisor and WITCH ER his manager.

28 147. At some point, currently unknown to plaintiff, UC DAVIS agreed, allowed, and/or

Pry:L. tif
••:“.•,..111;I iI. ,l M111)1:11111 150


1 ratified DANIL1UC as plaintiffs supervisor even though DANILIUC had the same or lower

2 clacsification accepted by plaintiff under the contract.

3 148. According to the agreement, plaintiff nor UC DAVIS were to disparage each other.

4 Plaintiff at all times expressed his good faith beliefs of the truth. However, CHILCOTT in an email

5 disparaged plaintiff, creating the impression plaintiff was a problem, when in reality plaintiff was a

6 valuable employee, who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, and was the victim of an

7 outrageous but actual coordinated effort to cause him emotional distress.

8 149. UC DAVIS, by and through its employees, agents, and officers, kept plaintiff out o f the

9 workplace for no apparent reason. Defendant placed plaintiff on Investigatory Leaves, Administrative

10 Leaves, yet the evidence shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, UC DAVIS was intentionally keeping
Ii plaintiff out of the work location promised in the contract, and, waiting to find a pretext basis to

12 terminate plaintiff.

.01
113 150. UC DAVIS promised and plaintiff accepted an exempt position. However, plaintiff's
1'9'14 job duties did not change in any appreciable manner from his position as a non-exempt employee. In
15 addition, inserting DANIL1UC as plaintiff's supervisor extinguished any appearance or actual

16 discretion or other characteristics of an exempt position.

17 150a. The written agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

18 or, an understanding that neither party will do anything unlawful and/or take action that

19 undermines and/or deprives plaintiff of one or more of the benefit of the bargain. Further, that,
20 provided plaintiff performed his duties in a manner that met or exceeded expectations, he would
21 be entitled to work and remain on the job until his retirement age. Further, that defendants, and
22 each of them, could terminate plaintiff's employment only with just cause.
23 150b. Defendants, and each of them, breached the contract by subjecting plaintiff to a

24 hostile work environment, keeping plaintiff away from the workplace, retaliation against plaintiff,

25 and terminating his employment.

26 151. The aforementioned acts constitute material breaches of the contract.

27 152. Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to all special and consequential damages as allowed by
_8 law, including hut not limited to lost-income, hourly wages for the missed lunch and break time plaintiff

Page 51) ul 62
151
 1 would have enjoyed as a non-exempt employee. The contract provides for and plaintiff seeks costs as

2 well as attorney fees.

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:

4 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Seventh Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

5 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 21 through 50, as

6 follows:
X SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 ENON-EXEMPT WAGE AND HOUR]
8 153. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

9 through 152, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein
10 154. The contract provision attempting to set plaintiff's job as an exempt position is void as
11 against public policy, or, voidable as a direct result of defendants' failure to provide a truly exempt
12 position.
413 155. Defendants, and each of them, misled and lied to plaintiff and kept the truth from
14 plaintiff concerning the true nature of his position as well as his rights under the law. Regardless,
15 plaintiff filed a DFEH complaint and received a Right to Sue Letter.
16 156. Plaintiff's position was not an exempt position. Plaintiff's duties as alleged herein were
17 substantially the same before the contract and after the contract.
18 157. With respect to wage and hour, Plaintiff seeks damages at the rate of $70,000.00 per
19 year, divided by 50 weeks, divided by 40 hours, multiple by 1.5 hours per day, multiple by 5 days per
20 week, multiple by 50 weeks per year, multiple by 5.5 years, equals $103,125.00, plus all treble or
21 punitive damages allowed by law.
22 158. Plaintiff seeks all damages, including costs and attorney fees as allowed by law.
23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
24 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for an Eighth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
25 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 21 through 50, as
'6 follows:
?7 II/

028 /II

of 62
:40;.•11,: 1ent•sitit'd 152
1
 XI. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[RESCISSION-UNLAWFUL CONTRACT]

159. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

through 158, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein

160. Plaintiff's acceptance of the "exempt" classification for the job title taken

pursuant to The Settlement Agreement was a material aspect of the contract. An employer cannot

contract around Labor Laws with respect to wages, hours, meals, and breaks without running

afoul of the law and voiding the contract.

161. The contract is void as against public policy, and, the subject matter of the contract
is unlawful.
162. Defendant knew, or should have known, at the time the parties signed the contract

that the contract was void. Further, defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff relied
on defendants to believe the contract was valid and enforceable_ Defendants, to the present time,
have misled plaintiff into believing the contract was valid and enforceable.

163. In or about May 2014, plaintiff discovered the truth, that the contract was void as
against public policy and unlawful subject matter.
164. Defendants' are estopped to assert any technical defense in light of the actions
and omissions described herein.

165. As a direct and proximate result of the rescission of the contract, plaintiff has
been damaged in an amount equal to his hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours of lunch

and breaks he missed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. for general and compensatory damages according to proof;
"). For lost salary, both front and back pay, bonuses, benefits and any other benefits to
which Plaintiff would have been entitled to by reason of his employment with Defendant UC
REGENTS, according to proof;
3. Punitive and exemplary damages against Individual Defendants;
4. Damocles and attorney tees as allowed under the Labor Code;

Page 6 L f 62
Second Werukd 153
 5. for prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

7. for costs of suit incurred herein;

8. Damages for whistleblower retaliation under Government Code 8547 including

punitive damages against all Defendants, and Attorney's fees;

9. Breach of contract damages, including costs and attorney fees;

10. Damages, Costs, attorney fees, and all other allowable damages and relief

authorized under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5

11. Rescission of the contract and for such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

DATED: September 8,2014 Law Office of Douglas E. Stein

Y:
DOUGL E. S
Attor
—Fie-y for Plaintiff
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK

P:tge 62 01- 1)2

\
fl
155
 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE

This Settlement Agreement and General Release (hereafter "Agreement")

is entered into by and between JAROSLAW (JERRY) WASZCZUK (hereafter
"Mr. Waszczuk") and THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
on behalf of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS HEALTI I SYSTEM
(hereafter 'University") (collectively referred to as the "parties").

RECITALS

From June 28. 1999 to present, Mr. Waszczuk has been continuously
employed by the University in the Department of Plant Operations and
Maintenance. Currently, Mr. Waszczuk is employed as a CoGen Operator

In or around March 2007. Mr. Waszczuk was suspended without pay for
three days and his work location/assignment was changed by reassignment from
the Central Plant to the HVAC/Plumbing Shop, both work areas ore within the
Department of Plant Operations and Maintenance.

Mr. Waszczuk contested the three-day suspension without pay and

reassignment by filing an Employee Complaint pursuant to the University's
Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) section 70. Complaint Resolution
in or around April 2007, alleging, among other things, that the University acted
without just cause in taking the above-referenced personnel actions hereafter
"Employee Complaint".

Following a two-day hearing in November 2008 to consider Mr.

Waszczuk's Employee Complaint, University Hearing Officer Connie Melendy
issued a written decision in December 2008. The University Hearing Officer
decided that the University acted with just cause in suspending Mr. Waszczuk,
but acted without just cause in reassigning Mr_ Waszczuk from the Central Plant
to HVAC/Plumbing Shop. The Hearing Officer decided that Mr. Waszczuk
should be permitted to return to work at the Central Plant and Mr. Waszczuk has
requested to return to work at the Central Plant.

The University Hearing Officer did not find that Mr. Waszczuk was due or
owed any lost wages due to said reassignment. Subsequent to the University
Hearing Officer issuing her written decision in this matter. Mr. WaSZCZuk
requested that he be granted relief in the form of lost wages he dlaimed he
suffered due to the reassignment in question. The University denies that Mr.
Waszczuk is legally due lost wages in connection with his reassignment.

or
k

--Os/ "q

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

156
 The University Hearing Officer responded that Mr_ Waszczuk failed to
raise said claim or offer proof of lost wages attendant to said reassignment at the
hearing: and stated that her role as Universi:y Hearing Officer concluded, in
accordance with University policies, upon the issuance of her written decision in
December 2008,

In order to avoid the costs and inconvenience of litigation andior

administrative proceeding, to effectuate Mr. Waszczuk's reassignment from the
Central Plant and to the HVAC/Plumbing Shop and to settle fully and finally all
diffesences that may exist between them, the parties have reached the terms and
conditions outlined in this Agreement.

NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein

contained. Mr. Waszczuk and the University agree as follows:

1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT The purpose of this Agreement is to

resolve any and all claims arising out of Mr. Waszczuk's employment
and to settle fully and completely any and all disputes between Mr.
Waszczuk and the University. its Board of Regents, officers, agents or
employees (whether current or former). Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges
that this Agreement shall not in any way be construed as an admission
by the University, or any of its Board of Regents. officers. agents or
employees (whether current or former) of any improper or unlawful
treatment of Mr. Waszczuk.

2. REASSIGNMENT As of the Effective Date of this Agreement (defined

in Paragraph 18), Mr. Waszczuk agrees that his work assignment and
work location shall henceforth be at the HVAG/Plumbing Shop at the
UC Davis Medical Center. Mr. Waszczuk understands and agrees that
he shall, upon execution of this agreement, no longer be an employee
assigned to or located at the Central Plant.

3. RECLASSIFICATION Upon execution of this Agreement, the

University will complete an upward reclassification for Mr. Waszczuk's
job classification, reclassifying him from CoGen Operator to Associate
Development Engineer. Said upward. reclassification is contingent on
Mr. Waszczuk executing a new position description, reflecting the new
classification as Associate Development Engineer, and executing
addenda to said position description, including but not limited to the UC
Davis Principles of Community, Customer Service Expectations. and
National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Health
Care Services (CLAS). Also, Mr. Waszczuk must successfully
complete a background check, if his upward reclassification is subject
to a background chock, per normal University policies and procedures.
Said upward reclassification to Associate Development Engineer will

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

157
 result in a salary increase to S70,000.00 per year. Said salary
increase will take effect on or about February 8. 2009, if possible, or on
February 22, 2009, the first day of the following bi-weekly pay period.

Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges and understands that an Associate

Development Engineer position is an exempt (salaried) position that is
not eligible for terms end conditions that are available to non-exempt
(hourly) employees including, but not limited to overtime pay, shift
differential pay and weekend differential pay.

4. LOST WAGE CLAIM Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this
Agreement, the University will pay Mr. Waszczuk a lump sum payment
in the amount of S13,500.00. an amount he claims as wages he lost
due to his reassignment by the University from the Central Plant to
HVAC/Plumbing Shop

5. WITHHOLDING Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges and understands that

the $13,500.00 payment made by the University, as described in
paragraph 4 above, represents compensation and that, therefore, the
University Will withhold from the gross amount of this payment, all
taxes and other appropriate deductions that it would normally withhold
from the earnings of Mr. Waszczuk, and that the University will report
the gross amounts of this payment to governmental agencies as
earnings of the individual to whom net payment is made.

6. RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS ("RELEASED CLAIMS") Mr. Waszczuk

hereby forever releases and discharges the University and its Regents,
agents, successors, assigns, affiliates, attorneys, employees, and all
other representatives (hereafter collectively referred to as "University
Releasees"), from any and all causes of action, judgments, liens,
indebtedness, damages, losses, claims (including attorneys' fees and
costs), liabilities and demands of whatsoever kind and character that
Mr. Waszczuk may now or hereafter have against University
Releasees arising from incidents or events occurring on or before the
Effective Date of this Agreement. The release set out in this paragraph
specifically covers any and all claims arising from or related to Mr.
Waszczuk's University employment, or arising from any act or
omission by any University Releasee occurring before the Effective
Date of this Agreement [hereafter 'Released Claims].

The release set out in this paragraph, includes any and all claims
arising under statutory or common law, including but not limited to:
claims under the Immigration Reform and Control Act; the Family
Medical Leave Act and the Higher Education Employer-Employee
Relations Act; and claims of employment discrimination (such as. but
not limited to claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964, as

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

158
 amended by the Civil Rights Act cf 1991, the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act. the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act),
and claims under the law of contract and tort and federal and state
claims growing out of allegations of retaliation based on alleged or
actual whistle-blowing activities; and claims arising under University
policies and/or collective bargaining agreements; but excluding claims
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers Compensation Appeals
Board and any other claims that cannot lawfully be released by private
agreement.

7. COVENANT NOT TO SUE Mr. Waszczuk promises never to file or

cause to be filed a lawsuit or internal University proceeding to assert
any Released Claim. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC') rights and
responsibilities to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. as
amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended, or any other applicablo aw, nor shall anything in this
Agreement be construed as a basis for interfering with Mr. Waszczuk's
protected right to file a charge with, or participate in an investigation or
proceeding conducted by the EEOC or any other state, federal or local
government entity; EXCEPT THAT, lithe EEOC or any other state,
federal or local government entity commences an investigation or
issues a complaint on Mr. Waszczuk's behalf, Mr. Waszczuk
specifically waives and releases his right, if any, to recover any
monetary or other benefits of any sort whatsoever.

8. WITHDRAWAL OF PENDING DISPUTES Mr. Waszczuk warrants

and represents that other than the Employee Complaint identified in
the Recitals above. Mr. Waszczuk is not a plaintiff, claimant or party in
any suit, action or legal or administrative proceeding in which the
University Reteasees are parties. Mr. Waszczuk's execution of this
Agreement shall constitute a withdrawal of the Employee Complaint
identified in the Recitals above and a request to the applicable outside
agency, if any, to close the file(s). Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges and
agrees that once this Agreement becomes final all claims raised in the
Employee Complaint identified in the Recitals annve have been fully
and finally resolved to Mr. Waszczuk's satisfaction. Within five (5)
business days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Mr. Waszczuk
shall notify any outside agency in writing of this settlement arid request
withdrawal and closure of files, if any.

9 SECTION 1542 RIGHTS WAIVED Mr. Waszczuk understands and

expressly agrees that the release set forth in this Agreement extends
to all claims of whatever nature and kind, known or unknown,
suspected or unsuspected, vested or contingent, past. present or

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

 future, arising from or attributable to any incident or event relating to
Mr. Waszczuk's University employment occurring in whole or in pan on
or before the Effective Date of this Agreement, and that any and all
rights granted under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, ARE
HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED. Section 1542 of the California Civil
Code reads as follows:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO
EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING
THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST
HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT
WITH THE DEBTOR.

10.ATTORNEYS' FEES If any party to this Agreement initiates an action

to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover as costs
his/her/its attorneys' fees, costs and expenses actually incurred in such
action. - Action" includes the University's defense of any claim or
lawsuit filed by Mr. VVaszczuk based on legal claims that have been
released and discharged under this Agreement. Such a defense will be
considered an action initiated by the University to enforce this
Agreement.

11. CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION The parties acknowledge that the

University is Subject to the California Public Records Act (”CPRA") and
that this Agreement constitutes a public record of a type that is
generally required to be disclosed upon request. The parties agree that
they will not voluntarily release this Agreement to third parties or to
otherwise disclose its contents publicly except under the following
circumstances: (a) the University receives a request and determines it
is required by law to release the document to the person or entity
submitting the request; (b) either party is required to disclose either
pursuant to a subpoena issued by a competent authority or an order
issued by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction; or (o) the
University determines that disclosure is necessary for the University to
defend itself in a judicial action or administrative proceeding (either
internal or external). Nothing in this provision shall preclude the parties
from sharing a copy of this Agreement or- disclosing its contents to their
accountants or attorneys, and in the case of the University, to
University officers, agents or employees with a need to know in order
to perform their University duties, and in the case of Employee, to his
domestic partner or spouse.

12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT The parties declare and represent that no

promise, inducement or agreement not discussed in this document has
been made between the parties and that this document contains the

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

 entire expression of agreement between the parties on the subjects
addressed herein.

13.COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.

A copy of the Agreement is as admissible as the original in any
subsequent proceeding,

14, NO PRECEDENT The parties to this Agreement understand and

agree that the execution of this document shah not be, and shall not be
deemed OF construed to be. a precedent or model foi the resolution or
settlement of any future charge. claim, grievance, complaint, or lawsuit
resulting from the same, similar or different circumstances.

15.0PPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges that he

enters into this Agreement of his own free will; that he has been
encouraged to discuss this document with counsel or a representative
of his own choosing; and that he has been encouraged to review this
document thoroughly. Mr. Waszczuk further warrants lhat he: (a) fully
understands the contents and effect of this Agreement; (b) approves
and accepts the terms of this Agreement; (c) agrees to be bound by
this Agreement; and (d) freely and voluntarily signs this document.

16. MODIFICATIONS IN WRITING ONLY This document may not be

modified except by written amendment, characterized as such. and
signed by the parties.

17.OLDER WORKERS BENEFITS PROTECTION ACT It is the

intention of the parties that the releases contained in this Agreement
comply with the provisions of the Older Workers Benefits Protection
Act (29 U.S.C. § 626). To comply with Section 626(1) of that statute
and to effectuate the release by Mr. Waszczuk of any potential claims
under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Mr.
Waszczuk acknowledges and agrees as follows: (a) he has carefully
reviewed this Agreement and understands the terms and conditions it
contains: (b) he has been advised of the right to consult any attorney
or representative of his choosing to review this Agreement: (c) he is
receiving consideration which is above and beyond anything of value
to which he is already entitled: (d) tie does not waive rights or claims
that may arise after the Effective Date of this Agreement; and (e) he
has twenty-one (21)days from receipt of this document to consider the
terms and to sign it. Mr. Waszczuk may sign this document sooner,
but if he does so. he acknowledges by signing that the decision to sign
was his and his alone, and that as a result, he voluntarily has waived
the balance of the 21-day review period.

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

1E3. SEVEN DAY REVOCATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Mr. Waszczuk shall also have seven (7)days after executing this
Agreement to reconsider and revoke this Agreement. Any revocation
must be in writing, delivered to Stephen Chilcott. Labor Relations
Manager, Human Resources, UC Davis Medical Center, 2730
Stockton Blvd.. Sacramento, CA 95817 no later than the close of
business of the seventh (7'") day following Mr. Waszczuk's execution
of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not become effective or
enforceable until the seven (7) day revocation period has expired, or
until the date of the last signature. whichever Is later. ("E(fective Date')
If Mr. Waszczuk revokes this Agreement, it shall not be effective or
enforceable and he will not receive the consideration described herein.

19. MUTUAL. NON-DISPARAGEMENT The parties agree that after the

Effective Date of this Agreement each will say nothing that is or could
be construed as disparaging to the other, except that nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed either to prevent the parties from
cooperating in any invectigation conducted by a governmental entity
within the scope of its authority, or to prevent the University from
pursuing any claims that it has or may have against Mr. Waszczuk.

20. CALIFORNIA LAW This Agreement is made and entered into in the
State of California and shall in all respects be interpreted and enforced
in accordance with California law.

21. BINDING EFFECT This Agreement shall hind the heirs, personal
representatives, successors, and assigns of each party, and inure to
the benefit of each party, its heirs, successors, and assigns.

22. INTERPRETATION; CONSTRUCTION The paragraph headings

contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be
used when interpreting this Agreement. This Agreement has been
drafted by legal counsel representing the University. but Mr. Waszczuk
has fully participated in the negotiation of its terms. Mr. Waszczuk
acknowledges that he has had an opportunity to review and discuss
each term of this Agreement with legal counsel or a representative of
his chonsing. Therefore, in interpreting this Agreement the normal rule
of construction, which is that any ambiguities in the document are
resolved against the drafting party, shall not be employed.

23. SEVERABI LITY Should it be determined by a court that any term of

this Agreement is unenforceable, or should any term of this Agreement
be contrary to state or federal law or regulation, that term shall be
deemed to be deleted. However, the validity and enforceability of the
remaining terms shall not be affected by the deletion of the
unenforceable terms.

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
GENERAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.

DATED:
JAROSLAW (JERRY) WASZCZUK

DATED:
BERT B. TAY R
Assistant Direct° , Hospital and Clinics
Administrative & rofessional Services
UC Davis Health System

DATED:
CHARLES WITCHER
Manager
Plant Operations & Maintenance
UC Davis Health System

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

DATED: BY
STEVEN A. DROWN
Chief Campus Counsel
UC Davis

Exhibit 1 to Second AmendedComplaint

163
 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
GENERAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.

DATED 5410, S/0 2 0 pq

JA SLAW (JERRY) VVASZCZUK

DATED:
ROBERT B. TAYLOR
Assistant Director. Hospital and Clinics
Administrative & Professional Services
UC Davis Health System

DATED.
CHARLES WITCHER
Manager
Plant Operations & Maintenance
UC Davis Health System

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CAUFORNIA

DATED: BY
STEVEN A. DROWN
Chief Campus Counsel
UC Davis

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

164
 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
GENERAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.

DATED:
JAROSLAW (JERRY) WASZCZOK

DATED:
ROBERT B. TAYLOR
Assistant Director. Hospital and Clinics
Administrative & Professional Services
UC Davis Health System

DATED: -a HARLES WI HER

Manager -
Plant Operations & Maintenance
1.1C Davis Health system

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA

DATED: BY
STEVEN A. DROWN
Chief Campus Counsel
UC Davis

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

165
 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. THIS -SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
GENERAL RELEASE INCLUDES A RELEASE OF ALL KNOWN AND
UNKNOWN CLAIMS.

DATED:
JAROSLAW (JERRY) WASZCZUK

DATED:
ROBERT B. TAYLOR
Assistant Director, Hospital and Clinics.
Administrative & Professional Services
UC Davis Health System

DATED:
CHARLES VVITCHER
Manager
Plant Operations '8, Maintenance
UC Davis Health System

THE REGENJSOF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFOR IA

DATED: (260 BY
STE EN A. D
Chief-Campus Counsel
UC Davis

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

166
 RECENE)
MN. DROP BOX
2014 SEP -9 AN11: 17

GDSSC COURTHOUSE
SUPERIOR COURT
OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO COUNTY

167
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA) NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CLERK'S
0
1% COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) TRANSCRIPT AND CERTIFICATE OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

I, the undersigned Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of

Sacramento, do hereby certify that on 07/06/22 the Clerk's Supplemental

Transcript on Appeal of the case of: JAROSLAW WASZCZUK vs. THE REGENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UC DAVIS, UC DAVIS MEDICAL
CENTER, UC DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEM, ANN MADDEN RICE, NIKE BOYD,
STEPHEN CHILCOT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHAW NICHOLS, CINDY
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC AND
DOES 1, No. 34-2013-00155479-CU-WT-GDS was completed. I hereby certify said
Clerk's Transcript in the above cause to be true and correct copies of the records on file
with the Sacramento Superior Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

DATED: 07/06/22 BY:

'eputy Clerk

168
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ) DECLARATION OF MAILING
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO )

As Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, I

declare that on 07I7I22 a true and correct copy of the Clerk's Supplemental
Transcript on Appeal was received by United Parcel Service or the United States Postal
Service and/or Electronic Filing, to be delivered to the person or persons addressed as
follows:

COURT OF APPEAL
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
4TH
914 CAPITOL MALL FLOOR
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK (Pro-Per) LINDSAY A GOULDING

2216 KATZAKIAN WAY PORTER SCOTT
LODI, CA 95242 350 UNIVERISTY AVE., STE 200
209-663-2977 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825

Representing: Plaintiff/Appellant Representing: Defendant/Respondent

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Sacramento, California on 07/0/22

(Signature of Declarant)

169