LED/EWDOeSEEf

1 DOUGLAS E. STEIN, SBN 131248

Law Office of Douglas E. Stein
2 305 Cranberry Lane SEP 3 0 20M
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
3 Telephone: (916)222-6684 By:. Erica Medina
Facsimile: (916)043-0806 DEPUTY CLERK
4
5 Attorney for Plaintiff JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK (Pronounced va-SH-chook)
6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
7 IN AND FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY
8
)
9 )
JAROSLAW ("JERRY") WASZCZUK, ) Case No.: 34-2013-00155479
10 )
Plaintiff, ) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
) Employment and Personal Injury, Other
II
vs. )
) UNLIMITED CIVIL
12 1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF)
Distress
13 CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE) 2) Tortious Interference with Economic
BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT. CHARLES)
WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY) Advantage
14 3) FEHA Gov't Code § 12900 et seq
OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK)
PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and does 1) Harassment & Failure to Prevent Harassment
15 through 50, inclusive, ) Retaliation,
) 4) Violation of Govemment Code § 8547.10
16 Defendants. 5) Violation of Labor Code § 1278.5
)
) 6) Breach of Written Contract,
17 ) 7) Wage and Hour Misclassification
) 8) Rescission of Contract
18
)
19 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

20 PREAMBLE & NA TURE OF THE CASE

21 A. IJC DAVIS, Miciuding but not limited to the University of Caiifomia, Davis

22 Medical Center ("UCDMC") and UC DAVIS Health System, have treated and continue to treat

23 staff 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,

27 supervisors, human resource personnel, investigators, executive directors, police officers, and

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

Page I of 62
Sii'Oiul \iiH'rulfil ( oriipliiiiil
 1 discriiTiinate 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 whistleblovvers guilty of fault,
10 wrongdoing, and/or improper conduct that justifies adverse employment actions.
11 D. 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 UC DAVIS because it blatantly, repeatedly.
14 and intentionally invokes a conscious disregard ofthe very laws UC DAVIS are supposed to
15 enforce. The unlawful conduct of these self-expres-sed guardians and protectors ofthe 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 case 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
22 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
26 MR. WASZCZUK (Pronounced va-SH-chook) as a very valuable employee, dependable.
27 thorough, and committed to the future success ofthe medical center.
28 F. MR. WASZCZUK"S primary duties were no small or trivial matters. To the

I'a lit 2 of 62
Scciinil AniciKU'ii (.oinplniiil
 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 waming 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 iind vital to the health, safety, and welfare of

6 patients, staff, and the public.

7 G. In or about March 2011. MR. WASZCZUK notified his supervisor WITCHER. in
8 writing, of various acts and omissions of misconduct within the HVAC 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-
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 IVom the workplace
13 for 1.5 years, until they fired him. effective December 7, 2013.

14 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, and alleges:

15 L PARTIES
16 1. Plaintiff JAROSLAW W.ASZCZUK 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 ofthe University ofCalifornia 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 CyVLl FORNI A that is, and was at all relevant times, tasked with, among other
25 responsibilities, implementing, supervising, and managing daily, short-term, and long-term
26 operafions for the University of California Davis Health System, UC Davis Medical Center and
27 outpatient medical clinics. The University of California Davis Health System is a sub-
28 organization of THE REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and UC Davis existing as an

I'agci ur62
Soioml Viiu'iuloil (. iiiiiphiiiit
 1 administrative office tasked with implementing, supervising, and managing daily, short-term,

2 iind 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 "Plaintiffs 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. Defondants ANNE MADDEN RICE. MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT,
12 CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT,
13 PATRICK PUTNEY, and DORIN DANILIUC are individuals whom reside in or within 75 miles
14 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 lo 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 acfing as the
20 agent or employee of each ofthe other defendants and, in doing some ofthe 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 ofthe alleged intentional acts, were in the course and scope of pursuing the
26 ends of an agreed upon result, an express or implied agreement to achieve a desired injurious
27 result, and/or otherwise aided, abetted, cooperated with, and/or conspired with one another to do
28 the acts alleged herein.

Pajic 4 ()C62
Scooiii! AnH'n(U'il ( (iiiiphiiiil
 1 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 ofthe 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 any, plaintiff did not exhaust administrative
12 remedies, plaintiff invokes denial of due process, estoppel, the fiitility doctrine, and/or defendants'
13 failure or inability to render a satisfactory decision within the required time frame.
14 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
15 Plaintiff was Consistently Evaluated as a Valuable, Safety-minded, and Loyal Employee
16 11. UC 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 PlaintitTs primary job duties and responsibilities related to a software program named Metasys.
19 Metasys monitors the alarm system for potential and/or actual malfunctioning equipment,
20 refrigeration units, HVAC 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.
24 13. UC DAVIS, by and through supervisors and managers, gave plaintiff annual
25 evaluations from 1999 through 2010. A sampling of the evaluations shows:

26
YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
27
1999-00 "...performance very good" Kavanagh
28 "has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant

Page 5 or62
Sct'iiiul Aiiieiulcil ( iiiiipliiiiil
 YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
I operator-51
"very conscientious and thorough"
2 "can be counted on to make the right operational decisions"
"valuable employee"
3 "committed to the future success of the Medical Center"
VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards
4
2000-01 Same or similar to 1999-2000 A. Modetta
5
OUTSTANDFNG consistently exceeded expectations and
6 2001- 02 standards DAN JAMES
7 2002- 03 "Perfomiance... outstanding"
"can be counted on to keep management informed status ofthe
8 plant and equipment"
"very valuable employee"
9
10 2003- 04 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES

11 2004- 05 Same or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES

12 2005- 06 Sane or similar to 2002-03, meets expectations DAN JAMES

13 "...Tom Kavanagh and Steve McGrath..." supervisors until

2006- 07 4/27/2007 McGRATH
14 '...PUTNEY..." Supervisor beginning 4/27/2007
'has been a very valuable member of our staff PUTNEY
15 'performance has been excellent"
'have not been any problems with missed alarms"
16 '...is talented, precise and his daily paper work is excellent."
'...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 perfomiance is outstanding..."
19 '...very dependable..."
20 2007-08 '.. .a very valuable member of our staff..." PUTNEY
'perfomiance has been excellent"
21 'have not been any problems with missed alarms"
'...overall job perfomiance is outstanding."
22 '...has improved his conimunicadon skills and interactions
with co-workers." WITCHER
23
2008-09 . .a very valuable member of our staff..." PUTNEY
24 performance has been excellenf
have not been any problems with missed alarms"
25 .. .also helping with closing work orders..."
.. .maintaining the Work Order System back log..."
26 ...overall job performance is outstanding."
OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectafions.
27
2009-10 OUTSTANDING. Exceeds Expectations, PUTNEY
28 performance has been excellent"

Page 6 of 62
ScromI Aiiu'iidci) ( (iiiiphiiiil
 YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
"have not been any problems with missed alarms" —
"...Helping...managing the work order system...providing
computer support..."
"helpful...providing BMS...information to senior staff
3 during.. .invesfigation"
"...very instrumental...monitoring...alarm/ status of crifical
4 equipment..."
5 UC DA VIS' 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 whistleblowiiig. harassment of all kinds, intimidation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety
10 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and
research misconduct.
12 15. 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
14 lawful and healthy environment. The employer's rules, procedures, and written material espouse
15 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
22 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
26 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.
28 18. The following represents some ofthe evidence of the employer's climate and

Page 7 of 62
ScciMiil Anu'iidoil ( oinpluiiil
 culture, or notice to the employer of a potential systemic issues of, sustained abuse, bullying,
7 discrimination, retaliation for whistleblowiiig, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, retaliation,

3 favoritism, nepotism, health and safety violations, falsification of documentation, fear of

4 retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research misconduct;
5 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
14 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
22 safety risks only after CAL/OSHA issued citations. During the
23 course of this events, plaintiffs manager stated "Somebody will
24 give this Polack a bad evaluation and will fire him"
25 c) A 2001 employee survey conducted by the Campaign Against
26 Workplace Bullying ("CAWB") and a December 21, 2000
27 investigative article appearing in the Sacramento News and
28 Review entitled "Last Words", which documented the workplace

Page 8 of 62
SiHonil AiiU'iidcil ( otiipliiiiit
 1 harassment suicide of Donna McDaniel and identified numerous

2 employees that experienced a hostile work environment working

3 for UCD;
4 d) In 2005-06, plaintiff provided help and assistance to a coworker

5 suffering retaliatory actions for the coworker's protected report of

6 unrepaired defects in the power plant's cooling tower fan's gear

7 boxes. The defects caused repeated machine oil discharges into

8 the city storm drain which leads to the river. The condition
9 constituted a substantial environmental hazard and a grave safety
10 hazard for the employees. (Proposition 65 as codified in Safe
11 Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 Health &
12 Safety Code § 25249.12). The coworker also reported a manager
13 for misuse of UC DAVIS' property and time, inter alia, accessing
14 pornography at vv^ork on work computers. The co-employee,
15 William Buckans, despite disclosing protected Whistleblower
16 content, became the target of retaliation and misconduct given that
17 an investigator assigned to provide a fair, impartial, and unbiased
18 fact-finding analysis, never interviewed Buckans, even though the
19 investigator's report falsely claimed Buckans gave an interview.
20 When Plaintiff began assisting Buckans, plainfiff instantaneously
21 also became the target of retaliatory abuse, exclusion,
22 discrimination, and bullying. The plant manager warned Plaintiff
23 with the words, " I will send [the] Gestapo on your ass" and tried
24 to get plaintiff to '"go outside" for a physical confrontation. UC
25 DAVIS, in an act of retaliation, forced plaintiff to move his work
26 location from the power plant to the HVAC Plumbing Shop;
27 e) On March 10, 2009 Susan McComiick, the then President of
28 local "UPTE" (University Professional and Technical Employees)

Pageyof 62
Si'ciiiiil \iiK'ii(U'il < ompliiiiii
 and "CWA"(Comniunication Workers of America), two unions
2 that represent employees, published a scathing article in a
3 newsletter available to the public. President McComiick noted:

4 "We have all heard about child abuse, spousal

abuse, elder abuse and animal abuse. What about
5 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
8 harassment), intimidation, retaliation, favoritism,
nepotism, health and safety violations,
9 falsification of documentation, and research
misconduct are just a few of the abusive activifies
0 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..
'4 "The UC Whistleblower and Research
Misconduct complaint systems are a joke. UPTE
'5 has filed several whistleblower complaints a year
ago. Nothing is done. Often times the complaints
16 are just for>varded 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
2' complaint are never contacted. The
investigafions are often one-sided, management
11
sided. A Research Misconduct complaint was filed
recently. The results came back insufficient
evidence of wrong doing. The witnesses were
never interviewed...Often fimes "favorites" are
1
4 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 classificaUon. The un-liked
26 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 U) of 62
SrcDHtl Viiiciiik'it ( oiiipljiiiil
 "These people will never move up in the
classification series because they are not doing the
job specifications to begin with. Employees in two
2 different classifications are doing the same job and
getting paid differently."
"Workplace environments can be highly hosfile...a
4 doctor at the Medical Center harasses, yells and
intimidates employees on a daily basis, including in
5 the operating room...the supervising doctor has
covered this up for years...Other physicians and
6 nurses refuse to work with him. Some employees
quit because they cannot take the stress any longer.
7 Upper management sits on the investigation for
months, this had been a staff employee, and he/she
8 would have been terminated long ago."
9 "Another doctor intentionally delayed insurance
forms which caused trouble for patients not getting
0 on-time disability payments...This was reported to
Human Resources and nothing was done"
1
"An employee that works with toxic chemicals in
12 two laboratories does so without air conditioning
and extra ventilation. It gets so hot in the labs
13 during the summers that the machines shut down.
The supervisor opens containers out in the lab
'4 instead of under the hood and throws chemical
contaminated ice on the floor which employee had
'5 to clean up exposing everyone to the chemicals.
After an excessive workload that was to be done in
'6 a short period of time the employee was threatened
to lose her job if it was not done by the time the
17 supervisor returned from his vacation overseas, //1/5
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
'9 usual. This is the lab where research falsification
occurred and UC found no wrong doing. The
20 witnesses were never interviewed.'' (Emphasis
^^ Added)
"A twenty-five year employee was pushed out of
1
2 her job by a new employee who had become a
favorite of the new director of a facility on campus.
23 Sexual harassment and intimidation were
reported by the employee, but the director chose to
24 ignore the problem. This director is new on the job.
She was promoted to the position recently even
25 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
2^ result of the investigation was no wrong doing.
Meanwhile the employee took early retirement
2^ because the stress was affecting her health."

Pag;c 11 of 62
SoCilllll AllKMldcil ( lllllf)liMII(
 (Emphasis Added)
"And it goes on and on and on. It does not stop. I
could describe many, many more cases. And then
there are hundreds I 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 whistleblowing, harassment of all
12
kinds, intimidation, retaliafion, favorifism, nepotism, health and
13
safety violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliafion
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 infomied 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
11
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 ("IRB") that the COPE project
management did not comply with the IRB approval
25 process before implementing human subject
research activifies. On December 21, 2007, she was
26 notified that her employment with the University
was temiinated, retroactive to November 30,
2007...The Honorable Judge Randolph Loncke
denied a Motion for Summary one week before trial,
2^ finding a triable issue of material fact as to whether

Page 12 of 62
Sci Diiil AllKMldcil (..mnphiini
 the temiination was retaliation for
1 whistleblowiiig...Importantly...after violating
their own timeline for invesfigaUon, 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
20 reporting misconduct, and research misconduct, when Officer Pike
21 was caught on film casually pepper spraying law abiding peaceftil
22 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 investigafive finding
25 and agreed to impose a suspension or demotion. The new police
26 chief exercised his discretion and temiinated Officer Pike.
27 i) In 2012, the employer's lack of effective supervisory systems,
28 climate and culture of retaliation, abuse, and discrimination, as

Page 13 of 62
Si'CDiid Aint'ddi'il ( oinpliuiil
 1 well as a systemic created and followed unwritten rule
2 discouraging 'whistleblowers' were demonstrated, in part, by
3 reports that no one, not a nurse, not an administrator, not a staff

4 member, reported or investigated Dr. Muizelaar, the highest paid

5 employee at UC Davis, and Dr. Schrot, for performing

6 experimental, unapproved, seriously dangerous, and deadly
7 experiments on patients with an open source of bacteria that most
8 nurses, except one, denied knowing about to Federal investigators.
9 "Nurses are not whistleblowers", said the Chief Patient Care
10 Services Officer.
11 j) In the summer of 2012, the Department of Health, on behalf of
12 Medicare, investigated the administrative and operafional
13 procedures actually followed that allowed the dangerous and
14 deadly experimental procedures to occur without one report or one
15 investigation. The managers and execufives interviewed by the
16 Department of Health denied that the actions of Dr. Muizelaar and
17 Dr. Schrot raised any concern that would warrant a report or an
18 investigation. The employer published a redacted copy of the
19 report by providing that copy to the Sacramento Bee. The report
20 is highly critical of the employer's administration, supervision, and
21 operations at the medical center.
22 k) On December 12, 2011, the Sacramento Bee published an
23 article alerting the public that Medicare was invesfigating UC
24 DAVIS to determine if UC DAVIS can confinue to be an
25 acceptable facility for patient on Medicare. In the article, the Bee
26 disclosed that the employer decided to keep Dr. Muizelaar on staff
27 and practicing medicine despite over 200 complaints, claims of
28 incompetence, and misconduct. The article also included the

Pa^e 14 of 62
 1 employer's denial of any problems at the facility.
2 1) In May 2014, the employer released redacted portions of a
3 "Climate Survey" the employer commissioned utilizing Rankin &
4 Associates. The published report idenfified 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
14 that suffered adverse employment actions establishes strong
15 evidence of a systemic policy to violate the law preventing
16 retaliafion 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
21 or the potential existence of the climate and culture as herein
22 alleged, and UC Davis failed and confinues to fail to invesfigate,
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.
26 UC DA VIS Suspends Plaintiff and Moves Plaintiff from the Power Plant to HVAC Shop
27 19. As a direct consequence for plaintiff helping a co-employee as alleged in
28 paragraph 18d, and amid the climate and culture herein alleged, the employer suspended plaintiff

Page 15 of 62
Si'i oiid Vmcmii'd (.(iinphiiiii
 1 for 3-days from his position as a plant operator at the power plant. The employer also moved
1 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 plaintiffs place of work. Plaintiff
5 expressed to his employer his desire to return to work at the Power Plant.

6 20 Rather than return plaintiff 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 lo.st wages, while plaintiff, as and tor supposed
9 consideration, agreed that his place of work would remain at the HVAC/Plunibiiig 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,
14 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 Manager ofthe HVAC/Plumbing Shop, as plaintiffs supervisor and CHARLES WITCHER, the
19 PO&M Department Manager, as the person above PATRICK PUTNEY. Defendant DORIN
20 DANILIUC was not identified as plaintiffs 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 'TO&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 office al the medical center. PO&M is under
26 an administrative branch ofthe employer called Administration of Professional Services.
27 23. From 2007 to approximately February 2009, plaintiff continued working out of
28 the HVAC Plumbing Shop as a plant operator, a non-exempt position, with attendant

Page 16 of 62
Sf< .)iid \tiioiulod ( j i i n p l i i i i i l
 1 responsibilities the same as before his move. Plaintiff monitored the Metasys© system and
2 dispatched service or work requests based on the information generated by the Metasys© system.
3 24. Plaintiff monitored the Metasys© system for alarms that identify inachiner>'.

4 including all HVAC and refrigeration units, with potential malfunctions, failures, and/or need for
5 maintenance or repair. The PO&M, and in particular plaintiffs monitoring of said alarms as
6 well as initiating repair of said units, constituted, at all relevant times, an integral, critical, and
7 vital component of patient care, research studies, experiments, and business of the employer.
8 Plaintiff and defendants, and each of them, knew that the refrigeration units, HVAC systems, and
9 a host of other machinery, if allowed to operate with malfunctions, failures, or without necessary
10 maintenance and repairs, substantially increased the risk of patient deaths or serious injury, staff
11 illness, loss of data, loss of time invested in experiments, and a plethora of significant financial
12 losses. As such, the PO&M, and in particular plaintiffs monitoring of said alamis as well as
13 initiating repair of said units were, at all relevant times, were an on-going significant safety and
14 health concem as well as a defense against a significant financial loss.
15 UCDA VIS Changes Plaintiff to Exempt, PUTNEY and DANILIUC Protest
16 25. From 2007 to approximately February 2009, PATRICK PUTNEY and DORIN
17 DANILIUC, the HVAC Plumbing Shop Manager and Supervisor, respectively, were the only
18 exempt employees working out of the HVAC Plumbing Shop. Furthermore, during this period
19 PUTNEY, DANILIUC, and plainfiff were friends, often and consistenfiy sharing humor and
20 items typical and expected of all men, but especially culturally diverse men who were bom, raised,
21 and grew into adulthood in the dangerous and ever-changing environment of the fomier Soviet
22 Union's iron curtain countries of Poland and Romania.
23 26 . In or about February 2009, PUTNEY and DANILIUC became obviously upset,
24 angry, and/or outraged when plaintiff came to the HVAC Plumbing Shop as the third exempt
25 employee. PUTNEY personally went to Human Resources to complain that plaintiffs presence
26 in the Shop as an exempt employee, at the very least, created confusion about the chain of
27 authority in the HVAC Plumbing Shop. PUTNEY and DANILIUC did not like the fact that
28 DANILIUC was not plaintiffs supervisor and that the plainfiff appeared to be working in a

Page 17 of 62
'•(•(•Iind \ ( i i ( ' ! i i U i l ( ( i i n p l i i i i K
 1 position that was at least lateral to, if not more senior than, DANILIUC.
2 DANILIUC Mysteriously Becomes Plaintiffs 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 Plainfiff being the third

5 exempt employee in their shop. Plaintiffs employment records still identified PUTNEY as

6 plaintiffs supervisor and WITCHER as the next most senior manager. PUTNEY and/or
7 WITCHER signed Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plainfiff. DANILIUC and
12 PUTNEY referred to DANILIUC as plaintiffs supervisor.
13 29. UC DAVIS never advised or informed Plaintiff that his records were wrong or
14 that DANILIUC had become Plaintiffs supervisor. Plainfiff is infomied 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 Plainfiff, DANILIUC would act as plaintiffs
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 DANILIUC is the business manager.
23 II Plant Operators Advise UC DA VIS 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
28 weekend shifts." In other words, the subject was the fact that the Central Plant Operators covered

Page 18 of 62
Scciind Aiiicndcil ( (iiiipliiinl
 1 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
5 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.
10 34. In their letter, memo, or petition, the plant operators asked the employer to remove
11 the Metasys monitoring obligation from the Plant, or in the altemative, agree to give the plant
12 operators raises of $4.00 per hour.
13 35. CHARLES WITCHER sent the request on to Steve McGrath, Senior
14 Superintendent Plant Operations. On November 18, 2010, ROBERT TAYLOR, the Assistant
15 Director, Hospitals and Clinics, in the Administrative and Professional Services arm ofthe
16 employer, confirmed by email, that he was just as knowledgeable ofthe 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 waming from the staff
21 that it was a "miracle" a tragedy had not yet occurred from their inability to monitor the Metasys
22 alamis, not to mention potential blackmail to secure the raise, the employer, after multiple
23 meetings, emails, and discussions about the raise, none of which addressed safety or the character
24 ofthe communication, agreed to give the Plant Operators the raise of $4.00 per hour.
25 37. On or about March 13, 2011, in a letter to CHARLES WITCHER, Plainfiff
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
28 addressed the hazard identified in the petition and pointed out that the raise would not impact the

I^ige l ' ) o f 6 2
iin<S AniciKfcd ( oinphniil
 1 claimed 'inability' of the plant operators to monitor the Metasys system. Plaintiff expressed that
2 the employer left a serious safety concem unaddressed. Plaintiff righfiy raised the lack of logic

3 in the contents ofthe Petition and the absurd response from the employer.
4 38. Plaintiffs communication also expressed the actual risk of hami 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 conceming 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
14 in the HVAC shop, including its terrible hygiene and housekeeping standards. Plainfiff 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, plaintiffs March 2011 letter sparked
21 retaliafion. Defendants, and each of them, targeted plaintiff with acts of intimidation, stalking,
22 and sabotage.
23 42. By way of example, in April 2011 DANILIUC and PUTNEY accused plaintiff of
24 ignoring an alami for a phamiacy refrigeration unit. PUTNEY verbally berated plaintiff in front
25 of PUTNEY'S teenage stepdaughter whom PUTNEY brought to the shop against the employer's
26 rules. Plaintiff provided documentation establishing conclusively that PUTNEY and DANILIUC
27 were responsible for the refrigeration unit failure. The documents show that plaintiff did not
28 miss the alarm. The documents show that someone prepared a work order for the unit, two weeks

Page 20 of 62
Sccimd Aiiicndfil < (impliiinl
 1 before the failure. PUTNEY and DANILIUC had the responsibility for ensuring work orders

2 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 retaliafion, 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.
11 44. Plaintiff represented and still represents at least four separate employees from the
12 HVAC Plumbing Shop. In addition to Cole and Buckans, plainfiff represents, or has represented,
13 Ken Diede and Frank Gonzales. By way of example, with plaintiffs representation. Cole,
14 Buckans, and Diede, successfully rescinded scathing, abusive, and retaliatory letters of
15 expectafion, 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 Safety
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 inifially did not understand the impact that his classification of "exempf' had on his
21 rights, if any, to breaks and lunch.
22 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 quadmple 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
28 47. Between April 2011 and August 1, 2011, Plaintiff leamed that DANILIUC was

Page 21 of 62
Scciiiid AiiH'iidi'd ( iinipiiiiiit
 ! submitting plaintiffs time cards showing 7.5 hours of work with a 30-niinute paid lunch break.
2 Plaintiff leamed 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 plaintiffs fime 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 Plainfiff PUTNEY'S user name and password
12 to accomplish the task. At all relevant times, Plainfiff did not know that PUTNEY committed a
13 gross violation of UC Policies and Procedures for communication devices by giving and
14 authorizing another person his user name and password. Among other problems, Plainfiff later
15 leamed 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
22 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
25 Letters of Expectation (Notice of Misconduct), "Does Not Meet Expectafions" evaluafions, 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
28 out their duties and responsibilities in unreasonably demeaning, threatening, and abusive ways.

Page 22 of <>2
Soi'Diid Vnicndcil ( (iniphiiiil
 1 By way of example, DANILIUC and PUTNEY confronted employee Dereck Cole in a public
1 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 refrigerafion alarm, the falsificafion 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.
14 52. WITCHER placated plaintiff Plainfiff 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 plainfiff 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.
28 56. Plaintiff attempted to explain to Human Resources that they referred him to the

Page 23 of 62
Sci ond Aiiiciidcd < {iiiipliiMil
 1 people that locked him out, and, that he was not asking for a one-hour paid lunch. Human

2 Resources has never responded or replied.

3 Plaintiff Discloses Misconduct, Criminal Activity, Misuse of Property, Health Hazards

4 57. Between May 2011 and August 1, 2011, Plainfiff, 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
11 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.
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
22 fime;
23 e) DANILIUC uses the employer's time to mn or be the business
24 manager of his church;
25 f)- Kemiy Diede and plaintiff reported that the adult son of Bill
26 Roubideaux came to the Shop with Roubideaux, and got on a UC
27 DAVIS computer, which was connected to the intemet. Being on
28 parole for his 2"'' child pomography strike.

Page 24 of 62
Srciiiid Amended ( (inipbiiiii
 1 Roubideaux's son, as part of his parole, was not allowed to touch
2 a computer connected to the intemet.
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 Plainfiff
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 insfigated by DANILIUC,
13 PUTNEY, CURRY, WITCHER, and others,
14 j) Plaintiff provided documents to Human Resources that proved
15 DANILIUC and PUTNEY not only falsely accused plainfiff of
16 missing an alami 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 DANILIUC attempted to destroy Plainfiffs
21 computer by setting it on fire, letfing it bum, and retuming it to
22 Plaintiffs desk
23 1) That plaintiffs supervisor, manager, and Human Resources have
24 not responded or taken action on any of plaintiffs 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 emofional distress;
28 m) That Plaintiff is searching for someone from UC DAVIS who

Page 25 of 62
Seeiind \iiKMidod C iiiiiphiinl
 1 will help him, and with each time a UC DAVIS employee or

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

3 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 affimiing, 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
\1 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,
13 which ended on August 31, 2011.
14 Plaintiff Takes 30-day Stress Leave and UC DA VIS Opens Investigation, Against Plaintiff
15 59. Within four months of his letter in March 2011, plainfiff took 30-day stress leave.
16 Plaintiff was scheduled and intended to retum to work on September 1, 2011. On August 31,
17 201 1, 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 invesfigafion as a result of complaints made about his behavior and racial discrimination.
20 60. During plainfiffs 30-day stress leave, a complaint by PUTNEY and DANILIUC
21 suddenly surfaced about plainfiffs reaction to the accusation of missing the alami for the
22 pharmacy refrigerafion 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 invesfigafion into the complaints Plaintiff
25 made from April 2011 through August 2011.
26 62. UC DAVIS opened an investigafion and placed plaintiff on Invesfigatory 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.

Page 26 of 62
SceiHid Aniendeil ( iimpliiiiil
 1 but only after 4 months and after they opened the investigation into plaintiff.
2 Plaintiff Suffers Severe Emotional Reaction, Tells UC DA VIS, They Know
3 64. Plaintiff suffered a severe emotional reaction to an obviously orchestrated and

4 coordinated plan to cause him harm. The plaintiffs doctor placed plainfiff back on stress leave
5 until January 2012. Plaintiffs doctor opined that absent the stress from management, plaintiff

6 could retum to work. Plaintiff advised UC DAVIS that he was suffering from severe emofional
7 trauma caused by the obvious abuse, harassment, retaliation, and coordinated actions. Plaintiffs
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 DA VIS Conducts a Ridiculously Biased and Defective Investigation
11 65. The REGENTS Whistleblower Policy requires: "...All invesfigators shall be
12 independent and unbiased both in fact and appearance...Investigators have a duty of faimess,
13 objectivity, thorougliness, ethical behavior, and observance of legal and professional
14 standards...Investigafions should be launched only after preliminary consideration that
15 establishes that...The allegation, if true, constitutes an improper governmental acfivity 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 govemmental activity... (Investigation
18 when) the allegation is accompanied by infomiation specific enough to be invesfigated, or, the
19 allegation has or directly points to corroborafing evidence that can be pursued. Such evidence
20 may be testamentary or documentary..." {University of California Whistleblower Policy, § IV.H)
21 66. § 380-15 ofthe UC DAVIS Policy and Procedure Manual seeks "...to ensure a
22 full, fair, and impartial investigation..." for employees, such as and including plainfiff, 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 ofthe evidence. 4) Findings of fact. 5) The invesfigator's determination as to whether
28 University policy has been violated... The Charging Administrator shall submit the report to the

Page 2" of 62
Si-emid Iniended C (intpiaiiit
 1 appropriate University official with authority to implement the actions necessary to resolve the
2 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 investigafions 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
13 investigation:
14 a) Relies on other evidentiary support. Does the tesfimony of other
15 witnesses corroborate or contradict the complainant's allegafions?
16 Are there documents (e.g., emails, 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 tmth" 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
28 witness to provide false testimony.

Page 2S of 62
Seeiiiid Aiiiefi(lei) < iimpliiifil
 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, fimely, and full invesfigation. 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 soflawed,so con^upt, and so biased, that the integrity, reputation, and purpose

6 of the administrative processes is undemiined, 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) Plainfiff never retumed to work from his initial sick leave. In
11 the 1 year, and 3 months plaintiff was away from the workplace,
12 almost 1 year was spent on Investigatory Leave, yet total
13 investigation time not much more than two weeks, give or take;
14
b) No one involved with the investigafion recognized and
lg acknowledged the temerity of the invesfigafion to blame MR.
IJ WASZCZUK for sending emails up the chain of authority in his
Ig effort find someone to intervene in the surreal, in a bad way, world
g where people conducting investigations and reviews are truly out
to harm employees including plaintiff, especially if they are a
WB"';
22
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

"WB" an abbreviation for "whistleblower" used by UC DAVIS

I'age 2<) of 62
Seeoiiil Amended ( onipliitiil
 1 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
13 responsibility rightly serious, being accessible enough to help
14 friends after hours with letters, advice, and repairing family
15 computers, up to professional data protection standards. The
16 investigation, with information about plaintiffs emotional distress,
17 intenfionally, recklessly, and/or in conscious disregard for his
18 rights contributed to and intenfionally sought to support taking
19 away a big piece of his plainfiffs 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
28 one of the more than 12 managers, supervisors, officers, and/or

Page 3(1 of 62
Seeoiid Vnieiideil ( (iniphiiiil
 1 executives who worked on the investigation, most of whom are

2 attomeys, 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;
7
8 e) With actual nofice that DANILIUC and PUTNEY allowed a
9 parolee, on parole as a 2-strike child pom felon, to touch, let alone
10 use, one of the employer's computers that was connected to the
11 intemet, in the middle of the HVAC Plumbing Shop, not one of
12 the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, UC DAVIS
13 law enforcement, senior officers, or executives who knew about
14 the event, most of whom are attomeys, realized and concluded that
15 a felony occurred the moment the pig'sfingertouched an intemet
16 connected UC DAVIS computer, an event subject of immediate
i7 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 investigafion, 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
28 negative employment action against MR. WASZCZUK for

Page 31 of 62
Si'ciiiid Amended < oniphiiiil
 anything he might have said or did;

3 f) Despite notice of a serious offense, that DANILIUC operates his

4 own private HVAC business on the employer's time, as well as

5 conducting business as the manager of his church on company time,

6 and given knowledge of the backlog of work orders, not one of the
7 more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers, or
executives who agreed the accusation was unsubstantiated, did
9 more than merely asked DANILIUC, "Are you doing these things?
10 Meanwhile, Plaintiff provided UC DAVIS with 12 gigabytes of

dated and timed documents, including facsimiles, messages, and

letters, that conclusively prove DANILIUC was and sfill is
13 conducting personal for profit business on UC DAVIS'time,
14
15 g) The investigation did not include or address plainfiffs
16 disclosures about PUTNEY and DANILIUC falsely accusing
17 plaintiff of missing the pharmacy refrigeration unit alami and
falsifying plaintiffs time cards, two of plainfiffs early disclosures
19 that would have made PUTNEY and DANILIUC unreliable
20 witnesses;
21
-72 h) Despite actual notice that plaintiff asked for a one hour lunch,
^2 paid or unpaid, in order to allow time for him to walk, get his
24 circulation going, instead of 30 minutes at his desk, and with
2 knowledge that plaintiff is a quadruple bypass survivor, not one of
the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators, officers, or
27 executives whom plaintiff notified of this safety and health issue
9g ever so much as mentioned the concem for safety and plaintiffs

Page 32 of 62
Sceiiiid \inended ( (inipliiiid
 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 plainfiff, 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;

8
9 i) With regard to the delayed complaint by PUTNEY and
10 DANILIUC, Not one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers,
11 investigators, officers, or executives so much as mentioned, let
12 alone analyzed, the lack of a track record for plainfiffs alleged
13 conduct, which one would expect at some point over 12 years. In
14 addition, ultimately UC DAVIS used plainfiffs alleged reaction to
15 the missed alarm accusation back in April 2011 to justify an April
16 2012 suspension;
17
lg j) On September 1, 2011, the day plaintiff was to retum from a
work environment stress induced leave, based on a supposed
20 complaint by DANILIUC and PUTNEY from dated
21 communications that did not offend them when they occurred, yet
22 not one of the more than 12 supervisors, managers, investigators,
^2 officers, or executives that participated in meefings, emails, and
drafts of the investigation so much as mentioned, let alone the
necessity of evaluating, the motives, bias, and/or credibility of
2g DANILIUC or PUTNEY, especially given the employer knew
27 DANILIUC and PUTNEY did not want plainfiff in their shop as
an exempt employee;

Page 33 of 62
<i'(i)nd \ineiided ( oniphiim
 k) With regard to DANILIUC somehow becoming plaintiffs
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 plaintiffs supervisor;
7
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
executives at the medical center, that"... (She) is working through
12 various witness interviews in PO&M and I have leamed 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. I am seeking a
16 brief meeting (1 hour) tomorrow... (To) develop a plan for
17 handling this case";

m). On November 28, 2011 STEPHEN CHILCOTT sends an

19
email to Claire Ponieroy, Ann Rice, Bonnie Hyatt, Vincent
20
21 Johnson, MIKE BOYD, Teresa Porter, and Anna Oroleski
22 notifying them that they might have received emails from plaintiff
over the weekend, that plaintiff is on a leave of absence and under
investigation. He has raised a number of complaints against the
Health System which'we'are investigating. HR is conducting the
investigation in close coordination with Legal and Compliance
both here and on the Davis campus. Throughout the process he has
sent emails to various officials and employees, often with

Page 34 of 62
Seeiiiid \iiiended { (iinpliditl
 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
^ drafts of the investigation so much as mentioned the fact that
g defendants reference to inappropriate content were statements

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

g DANILIUC brought, condoned, and/or otherwise encouraged in
g the HVAC shop, and plaintiff was bringing it to their attention;

10
11 o). On or about September 11, 2011 MS. NICHOLS disclosed to

^ multiple managers, supervisors, executives, and officers, including

13 one of the most senior execufives 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
, -J p) DANESHA NICHOLS sends a separate email to DANILIUC,
PUTNEY, and DENNIS CURRY, in which she begins in a
1^ friendly " I hope you have had great weekends" despite the
seriousness ofthe accusations and the circumstances;
21
22 q) On September 11 and 1 T \ 2011, DANESHA NICHOLS sends
rough drafts of the report to multiple managers, supervisors,
^4 executives, and officers, including one of the most senior
executives at the medical center, asking for revisions, with
2^ directions to get rid of the previous versions of the report, in a
confidential manner, and send back the revised report. MS.
NICHOLS asked HUGH PARKER, a high level executive, "Is this

Page 35 of 62
Si I I I I H ! \Hi'.'iided < s i i i i p h d m
 what you had in mind?" MS NICHOLS referred to her report;

r) At all fimes, MS. NICHOLS made a point to DANILIUC,

PUTNEY, CURRY, & WITCHER to find and collect emails from
the plaintiff directed to any employee;

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

g December 5, 2011, after previous publication in September 2011,
g and, at least a V2 dozen people made changes or asked NICHOLS
Q to make changes;

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

1^ office at the medical center. However, she fails to menfion, and
14 never speaks about, plaintiff being on medical leave and that it
I^ would be inappropriate for him to come on his medical leave;

16
ly u) On or about December 5, 2011 WITCHER unilaterally takes
Ig plaintiff off sick-leave, places him on unpaid administrative leave,
Ig and threaten to fire plaintiff for not coming from his home in Lodi,
Ca to the Medical Center, while on sick-leave, so NICHOLS can
^I interview him;

22
v) The December 11. 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 concemed the animals, the
28

Page 36 of 62
Sei 'ind Aiiieiided < (inipiidiil
 foul, the generators, the Metasys system, and the power plant
operators' pefition. NICHOLS, and every other UC DAVIS

3 employee, ignored those complaints; Furthermore, NICHOLS

4 supposedly evaluated plainfiffs complaint about the plant
5 operators raise and their petition but NICHOLS does not mention
6 the potential tragedy waiting to happen as wamed by the plant
7 operators, or, the blackmail nature of the petition;
8
9 w) NICHOLS refers to plaintiffs claim for breaks and a one hour
0 lunch, even though plaintiff understood only non-exempt
11 employees must be given breaks, by the time NICHOLS published
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
4 editors once mentioned the fact that a one hour lunch would
i5 promote safety and health where it was needed.
6
]y x) On January 30,2012, DANESHA circulates another rough draft
18 of a supposed amendment to her report to MIKE BOYD,
19 CHARLES WITCHER, Huniberto Garcia, Gina Harwood
-,Q (Principal Consultant, Labor Relafions), and STEPHEN
T| CHILCOTT with instructions " . . . I wanted to get it out in
preparation for our meeting tomorrow I will make all the required
^2 changes/edits after tomorrow's meeting and issue the report on
-,4 Wednesday";
25
y) On January 31,2012 NICHOLS tells DELMENDO " 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

I*age 37 of 62
•^eeotid V i i i e i i d e i l < . f i n i p l i i i i i t
 concerning behavior on the part of [redacted without legal basis] I
should have the amendment completed tomorrow...would that be
3 ok? Or should I simply draft addendums to add to other reports."

4
z) On February 8, 2012 12:21 p.m. NICHOLS sends and email to
5
g DELMENDO "Here is the Revised-Final on [redacted without
legal basis] from PO&M.
7
8
AA) On February 8,2012 at 12:26 P.M., NICHOLS sends an email
9
to BOYD, WITCHER, GARCIA, DELMENDO, and CHILCOTT
10
"Attached is the revised final DANILIUC report. Please disregard
11
any previous copies ofthe report. Should you discard the previous
12
copies, please have those discarded in a confidenfial manner";
13
Defendant has not produced any DANESHA NICHOLS rough
14
drafts or prior versions of any report despite FOIA requests.
15
Defendant claimed, within two years, they destroyed the
16
documents;
17
18
BB) On February 9, 2012, DANESHA asks CHILCOTT if she
19
should send DELMENDO a copy of the WASZCZUK report
20
...even though there are no allegations in it pertaining to the
21
whistleblower components." DANESHA sent DELMENDO the
22
revised final report conceming the allegations against Mr.
23
WASZCZUK even though they don't involve the whistleblower
24
components, but DELMENDO might need to refer to the
25
complaints at some point. The investigation report dated Febmary
26
9, 2012 is, for all intent and purpose, the same as the previous two
27
published versions which contained editorial input from BOYD,
28
WITCHER, GARCIA, DELMENDO, CHILCOTT, and

Page 38 of 62
Si e'iml Idic/ided ( oniphiiiii
 I NICHOLS;
2
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, DORIN DANILIUC, George Ursu, Dan
13 Radulescu, and Bill Rubidoux;
14
EE) Mr. Ursu, Mr. Radulescu, and Bill Rubidoux were, and are,
biased in favor of DANILIUC and PUTNEY and against plaintiff
Iy Mr. Ursu was one of 2-3 employees to whom DANILIUC gave
jg overtime hours, while DANILIUC gave Mr. Radulescu plaintiffs
title. Associate Development Engineer, but gave the duties of
plaintiff s job to Mr. Rubidoux;
21
FF) Derek Cole complained about DANILIUC giving overtime
22 hours to one or two people in violation of the policies, mles. and
procedures set up for assigning overtime hours. DANILIUC
issued Cole a Letter of Expectation for allegedly performing below
expectations even though Cole received letters of accommodation
from other departments for repairing HVAC units that had been in
^„ a state of ill-repair for years. BOYD, WITCHER, GARCIA,

Page 3') of 62
 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.

6 GG) 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 detemiined to consider his email to
13 general counsel as a whistleblower disclosure, circumventing the
14 employers own procedures and the express language of
15 Govemment Code § 8547.7 requiring the complaint be made under
6 penalty of perjury.. .Nonetheless, the allegations were tumed over
7 to DANESHA NICHOLS.
8
g II) The investigation acknowledged that PUTNEY sells sheep,
chickens, ducks, roosters, and other animals to other employees
out of the HVAC Plumbing Shop, but because it happened so
22 infrequently it's not misuse of employer property. Selling live
^2 animals and foul to 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
1 are substantial enough to warrant severe and serious consequences.
^g Not one of the more than 12 executives, managers, supervisors, or

Page 40 of 62
S i j iijisi Miiended {inspiiiim
 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;
7
g JJ) On or about May 17, 2012, J Noel Van Deviver, Principal
g Employee & Labor Relations Consultant, in an email to herself,
IQ with a CC to Travis Lindsey (Manager Labor Relafions) and
SEIFERT, from HR, states ".. .Based on what I've seen, I do think
p termination would be warranted-and would help me out
J2 tremendously ;) (I know, I know, it would not be close to being
j4 over but at least he wouldn't be coming back to the workplace,
I^ which would help solve other problems!)

16
KK) On December 28, 2011 plaintiff notified NICHOLS of the
17
fact that no one had addressed or mled out the safety hazard and
18
express waming the plant operators included in their petition.
19
NICHOLS ignored plaintiff, and by association the safety hazard
20
and express waming. Despite actual notice that the plant operators
21
were unable to monitor Metasys and that it was a "miracle" a
22
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 concem
25
for safety or commending plaintiff for being the only one to show
26
enough interest to be concemed; and
27
28

Page 41 of 62
Second Amended ( (iinpliiint
 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 DA VIS Abused Investigatory Leave, Intentionally Subjected Plaintiff to Distress
7 71. University of Caiifomia — Policy PPSM-63 : Invesfigatory Leave mandates:
g "... An employee may be placed on an investigatory leave, with or
without notice, to permit the University to review or investigate
9 acfions... The leave shall be confirmed in writing, stating the
reason and the expected duration of the leave... Upon conclusion
IQ of the investigation, the employee shall be informed in writing of
the actual dates and pay status ofthe leave... The Vice President—
11 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 o f this policy. The Director—HR
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 avai lable 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 invesfigation... An employee may be placed on investigatory leave when his/her confinued
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
22 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
24 invesfigatory 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 Relafions
26 Analysts (campus) (DELMENDO) and the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relafions Manager
27 (Lindsey) may make exceptions to this rule and may grant an extension(s) to the leave..."
28 73. Plaintiff took medical leave from August 1, 2011 to August 31, 2011. The

Page 42 of 62
Second Amended (.(iiiipliiinf
 employer personally handed plaintiff Notice of Investigatory Leave when he showed up for work
1 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 1, 2011 to
5 September 23,2011, even though NICHOLS alreadyfinishedher investigation on September I I ,

6 2011.
7 75. Plaintiffs doctor placed him on medical leave from September 23, 2011 to
8 January 5,2012, with the opinion that if the stress from plaintiffs supervisors was gone, plainfiff
9 could retum to work.
10 76. On or about December 5,2011, WITCHER, arguing that plaintiff refiised to come
11 to be interviewed, unilaterally took plaintiff off medical leave and placed him on administrative
12 leave without pay effecfive December 22, 2011 Plaintiff did not have an obligafion to come to
13 an interview while on medical leave. The employer then placed plaintiff on leave with pay until
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 plainfiff how much he wanted to infomially resolve all outstanding issues, and plainfiff
20 asked for his salary to be paid until his retirement Social Security Retirement kicked-in at or
21 about plaintiffs 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
23 plaintiffs requested demand nor did UC DAVIS attempt to communicate with Plaintiff regarding
24 an informal resolution. Instead, UC DAVIS, with malice aforethought, continued their assault on
25 plaintiffs well-being and health.
26 77. On April 15, 2012, WITCHER sent plainfiff a Nofice of Intent to Suspend for 10-
27 days. In that Notice, WITCHER refers to plaintiffs 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

Page 43 of 62
Scciind Amended (.(nnplniiil
 without pay from May 16, 2012 through May 30, 2012. The reasons given for the suspension

were:
"...continued inappropriate behavior in the workplace. UCDHS
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 irom 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,
1 May 31, 2012 to Facilities Support Services Building, 4800 2"''
Avenue, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA, to Charles WITCHER."

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
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 fiming
13 of the suspension, and the maimer of notice were intended to cause, and did in fact cause, plaintiff
14 emotional distress, anger, provocation, and anguish.
5 79. On May 31, 2012, WITCHER handed plaintiff an unexpected Nofice of
16 Investigatory Leave when plaintiff showed up to retum to work. This time WITCHER referred
17 to plaintiffs reaction to the suspension, that plaintiff sent emails. The leave, the timing of the
8 leave, and the manner 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 31, 2012 retum 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
25 employer through terminated him on December 7, 2012.
26 82. From May 31,2012 through December 7, 2012, minimal investigation took place.
27 In that time, essentially two investigation reports were published and both did not have any
invesfigafion past June 2012, and at that the investigation involved only a few witnesses, they

Page 44 of 62
Second Amended ( oniphtint
 1 being DANILIUC, PUTNEY, Ursu, Rubidoux and NICHOLS.
2 Plaintiffs Supervisors had Malice, Bias, and Prejudice against Plaintiff
3 83. CURRY exhibited actual malice toward plaintiff Inorabout June 2012, Plaintiff
4 notified DENNIS CURRY that he was contacted by an investigator asking about a loan DENNIS
5 CURRY accepted from a UCD vendor to helpfinancehis daughter's wedding. On June 6,2012,
6 at 8:58 a.m., DENNIS CURRY, one of plainfiff s supervisors, retaliated with this email, with
7 "cc" to Ann Rice, Charles WITCHER, Christopher.Simon(^ucop.edu, Claire Pomeroy, Corey
8 Nommensen, Dan.Dooley(^ucop.edu, hexter@ucdavis.edu, Jeremiah Maher, Jill Van Deviver,
9 John A. Lose, Souza, Joyce A, Mike Boyd, Phyllis Reginellin, Sandra Aguilar, with the subject
10 FW: Vendor Relafions / Employee Misconduct Complaint(s):

•' "Jeny,
I recommend that you find a place in the cavity of a chest of yours and go to see the
'2 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
'3 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.
14 Dennis K. Curry
15 Dennis K. Cun-y"
16 Defendants' Responses to CURR Y Prove Cabal against Plaintiff
17 84. Jill Van Deviver authors an email to SEIFERT and Lindsey on June 6, 2012 at
18 9:10 a.m. "Well, it doesn't help (Curry) has done this - are we going to address (Curry's) behavior
19 now?"
20 85. SEIFERT sends CHILCOTT an email on June 6, 2012 at 9:17 a.m., simply "FYI"
21 along with CURRY'S email to plaintiff
22 86. CHILCOTT replies on June 6, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. simply stating "Please escalate
23 to Mike Boyd for appropriate action."
24 87. CURRY resigned on or shortly after June 6, 2012, but not before he engaged in
25 fiarther retaliation.
26 CURR Y Harasses Kenny Diede after Sending Plaintiff the Email
27 88 On .lune 6, 2012 DENNIS CURRY told Kenneth Diede to come to PUTNEY'S
28 office. CURRY began by questioning Diede about attending a stress management class, but soon

Page 4.5 of 62
Second Amended (.oniphiiiit
 1 tumed the topic to plaintiff. DENNIS CURRY expressed the same opinions he put in the email
2 to the plaintiff In addition, DENNIS CURRY stated that plaintiff is causing nothing but stress
3 for him, DANILIUC, 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, Execufive Director of Human

7 Resources, started the process of retaining defense counsel for plaintiffs 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, Subsecfion 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
13 discrimination by contacting the Director—Harassment and Discrimination Assistance and
14 Prevention Program (on the Davis campus) or the Discrimination Prevention Coordinator (at
15 UCDHS) immediately upon receipt of report...Implementing appropriate interim acfions, in
16 consultation with the Director—Harassment and Discriminafion Assistance and Prevention
17 Program (on the Davis campus) or the Discrimination Prevention Coordinator (at UCDHS)..."
18 91. Chapter 380, § 15, subsecfion IV requires that "...The Chief Compliance
19 Officer—General Campus (DELMENDO) develops and implements procedures for prompt and
20 effective response to reports of discrimination..."
21 92. Chapter 380, § 15, subsecfion IV compels "...The Director—Harassment &
22 Discrimination Assistance and Prevention Program /UCDHS 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
25 community.. .Availability of educafional and training materials to promote compliance with this
26 policy and familiarity with reporting procedures.. .Receive reports of discrimination directly and
27 from designated officials, and ensure that the timelines, rights of the complainant, procedures,
28 and remedies provided herein are met.. .Maintain records of reports of discrimination and actions

Page 4(> of 62
Second \iiiended ( onipliiinl
 1 taken in response to reports, including records of investigations, voluntary resolutions, and

2 disciplinary acfion 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 instmct

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 informafion,
9 documents, and photographs to UC Counsel, who retumed 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
13 main office, but the main office did not respond to plaintiff, and plaintiff is informed and believes
14 that the REGENTS refen-ed it to UC Counsel, who again merely sent it back to NICHOLS,
15 DELMENDO, CHILCOTT, WITCHER, OROPEZA (Manager, HR, Discrimination Prevenfion
16 Program), BOYD, and SEIFERT.
17 95. Plainfiff 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 justice.
23 UC DA VIS Fails to Issue a Satisfactory Decision within Allowable Time Limit
24 96. Govemment Code §8547.10(a) provides (a) A University of Caiifomia
25 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
27 reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected
28 disclosure, together with a swom statement that the contents of the written complaint are tme, or

Page 4T of 62
Second Amended ( iinipliiinl
 are believed by the affiant to be tme, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within
1 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about..."
3 97. On March 7, 2012, pursuant to §8547.I0(a) and UC DAVIS' corresponding

4 procedure, plaintiff filed a whistleblower complaint connected with the course of retaliation
5 culminating in his temiination on December 7, 2012.
6 98. §8547.10(c) allows an UC employee to file an acfion at law if, as here, plainfiff

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 tmstees... (Or).. .if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.'
0 99. On September 12, 2013 UCD nofified 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
7 (Executive Director, Human Resources), CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS,
8 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 fiilly set forth at length herein.
23
102. Defendants, and each of them, acted in concert with intent to cause Plainfiff severe
24
emotional distress. The evidence is clear and convincing, at the least, that the defendants, with
25
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.
27
103. The acts and omissions as alleged herein, separately and taken together, are so
28

Page 4S of 62
Second AnuMuled (oniphiini
 1 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
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
13 an amount to be proven at trial
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth
15 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Second Cause of Acfion, alleges against Defendants,
16 ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER,
17 DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN
18 DANILIUC, and Does 1 through 20, as follows:
•9 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 Mly set forth at length herein.
22
108. At all relevant fimes. Defendants ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE BOYD,
23
STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY OROPEZA,
24
BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, DOES 1 tlirough 20, knew ofthe
25
existence of the settlement agreement between plaintiff and UC DAVIS and/or plaintiffs
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

[>age 4') of 62
Second Amended ( iiniphiiiil
 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 perfomiance 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-
10 employee, manager, supervisor, including defendants PUTNEY, DANILIUC, CURRY and
11 WITCHER, and/or administrator ever complained about, had to investigate or consider concems
12 regarding, and/or so much as heard mmors that plaintiff engaged in discriminatory acts, made
13 discriminatory statements, and/or presented a disruptive or violent risk within the work place.
14 111. 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 lawfiilly 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 plaintiffs well-being,
20 and/or set about to cause him emofional hami, all with the intent to ensure that plaintiff never
21 retumed 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,
25 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, plainfiffs evaluations written by PUTNEY,
28 surprising plaintiff twice with re-issued investigatory leaves when plaintiff believed he was

Page 50 of 62
Second Amended ( (iniplninl
 1 retuming to work, instmcting 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 plainfiffs 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 attomeys 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
10 each of them, coordinated their actions, conferred with each other, and otherwise had a common
11 goal and/or understanding to either force plaintiff to quit and/or force him to act or behave in
12 ways that would provide them a subterfuge for his termination. Meanwhile, defendants, and each
13 of them, set about to extricated plaintiff from his employment because plaintiff was a
14 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, eaming 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
20 financially and to induce plaintiff and/or UC DAVIS to violate the Settlement Agreement, and/or
21 to take away plaintiffs 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 resuh 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
27 6 years, and/or the number of years from the date plaintiff last received his income to the date
28 plainfiff intended to refire. When Plaintiff has ascertained the full amount of its damages, it will

Page 51 of 62
Second \mended < (impliilnl
 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 perfomied 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 Acfion, 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)]
21 119. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
22 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 unlawful 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 temis, conditions, or privileges of
27 employment."
28 120. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each

Page .52 of 62
Seconil Amended C oniplinni
 1 of them, coordinated, cooperated, agreed, and/or had an understanding to misuse, abuse, and/or

2 disregard Caiifomia law, the REGENTS' polices, and UC DAVIS' procedures to deny plainfiffs
3 rights to retum to work. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, coordinated, cooperated,
4 agreed, and/or had an understanding to utilize plaintiffs national origin and ancestry against him,

5 inter alia, Plaintiff, bom 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 Plaintiffs culturally diverse characteristics and traits, and, attempted to judge, evaluate, and
10 crifique Plainfiff 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 ovm 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 emails, 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.
22 121. 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. Plaintiffs protected acfivifies and disclosures were also a
26 substantial factor in defendants' harassment, discrimination, and retaliafion. With respect to the
27 work conditions identified by plaintiffs doctor, defendants, and each of them, knowingly and
28 intentionally denied plaintiff the benefit of the good faith interactive process mandated by law.

Page 53 of 62
Second Amended < iiniplinnt
 1 even though plaintiff made several attempts for defendants to retum plaintiff to work. Plaintiff
2 is and was a quadruple bypass surgery survivor and taking approximately 12 medications during
3 the time defendants committed their acts described herein.
4 122. Defendants REGENTS violated Caiifomia Government Code §12940, by failing to
5 adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to act

6 as described herein. As such. Defendant and the Individual Defendants failed to fulfill their statutory
7 duty to take all reasonable and necessar>' steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation
8 from occurring in the workplace, as required by Caiifomia Govemment Code § 12940(k)
9 123. Beginning in approximately April for 2011, Defendants fabricated and conjured up
10 false accusations, false reports, and feigned complaints, and, undertook oppressive, abusive, and
11 discriminator)' acts that continued up to and through December 7,2012, the effective date of plaintiffs
12 termination.
13 124. In tmth and in fact. Plaintiff did not do an>1;liing wrong. It is undisputed that plaintiff
14 attempted to persuade defendants, and each of them, to settle, resolve, and/or put an end to whatever
15 acrimony niiglit have existed on the part of defendants, and each of them, at the workplace. Defendants,
16 and each of them, never responded to or reacted to plaintiffs attempts to live and let live, and to get
17 plaintiff back to his employment.
18 125. Defendants knew plaintiff became distressed, angry, and upset with each and every
19 false accusation, false report, and feigned complaint, and, with each unfounded adverse employment
20 action, such as but not limited to, a biased, one-sided, and incomplete investigation report, or, the lack
21 of meaningful investigation into the misconduct plauitiff actually reported, or, notifying plaintiff of an
22 Notice of Investigatory Leave one day before his post-stress leave retum to work on September 1,2011,
23 or, personally handing an unsuspecting plaintiff^ who expected to start work, another Notice of
24 Investigatory' Leave on May 31, 2012, with a crisis team on stand-by, or, being instmcted not to
25 communicate with employees even though plaintiff represented them and there was no indication
26 plaintiff was dismpting an investigation.
27 126. Defendants, and each of them, as part and parcel of their ongoing, continuing, and
28 repeated retaliation, harassment, and abuse for wliistleblowong about misconduct, engaged in a course

Page 54 of 62
Second .Vmended ( Dniplitiiil
 of action that constituted, separately and cumulatively, discrimination, harassment and retaliation
because of national origin, ancestor, mental condition, and/or medical condition.
3 127. The discrimination, harassment and retaliation are continuous and persist to date
4 against Plaintiff.
5 128. As a result of Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination,
6 harassment and retaliation. Regents have allowed WITCHER and the other defendants to continue to
7 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
9 compensation from him. Plaintiff has suffered substantial economic losses in wages and benefits,
10 damages to reputation, credit and other fmancial injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
11 129. As a result of Defendants' harassment and discrimination and the failure to prevent
12 and/or take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, Plaintiff suffered
13 compensatory damages, consisting of mental anguish, humiliation, alienation, emotional distress and
14 embarrassment in a sum according to proof at the time of trial.
15 130. Pursuant to Caiifomia Govemment Code §12965, Plaintiff requests the award of
16 attorneys' fees against Defendants under this cause of action.
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Third Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,
19 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ANN MADDEN RICE, MIKE
20 BOYD, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, CHARLES WITCHER, DANESHA NICHOLS, CINDY
21 OROPEZA, BRENT SEIFERT, PATRICK PUTNEY, DORIN DANILIUC, and Does 21
22 through 40, as follows:
23 VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24 [WHISTLEBLOWER/UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
GOVERNMENT CODE §§ 8547 et. seq.]
25
131. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
26
through 130, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fully set forth at length herein.
27
132. Govemment Code §8547.10 states (a) A University of Caiifomia employee.
28

Page 55 of 62
Second Amended < (iinpliiint
 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 swom statement
5 that the contents of the written complaint are tme, or are believed by the affiant to be tme, 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 Caiifomia 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
11 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
13 complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The
14 complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
15 Plaintiffs disclosures and reports concemed, or plaintiff had a good faith belief that his disclosures
16 concemed, 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, Plaintiffs reports include, but are not limited to, the March 2001 letter, all reports of
i9 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,
22 fraud and oppression and with reckless disregard for therightsof the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff
23 requests the assessment of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendants, in an aniount
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 whistieblower under the Caiifomia WhisUeblower Protection.
27 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants as hereinafter set forth:
28 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Sixth Cause of Action, alleges against Defendants,

Page 56 of 62
Second Amended ( oniplaiiil
 1 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, and Does 21 through 50, as

2 follows:
Vin. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
3 [HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 1278.5]
4 137. Plaintiff refers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1
5 through 136, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as thougli fully set forth at length herein.
6 138. The Caiifomia Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 because "... it
7 is the public policy of the State of Caiifomia to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
8 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify govemment 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 govemment 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
13 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 enfity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluafing the facility,
19 or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other govemmental 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
27 by the employee, member of the medical staff or any other health care worker of the facility"
28 141. § 1278.5(d)(2) provides "...For purposes of this secfion, discriminatory treatment

l^age 57 of 62
Second ,Vmcndcd ( iinipliiini
 1 of an employee...includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any
2 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 plaintiffs disclosures
5 conceming the deficiencies and problems within the HVAC Plumbing Shop as well as the
6 function and operation of the Metasys alarm monitoring system. Each disclosure by plaintiff

7 related to and concemed matters that directly impacted, or foreseeably would impact, the safe
8 and healthy condifion of the hospital.
9 143. Each retaliatory action occurred, or, started and thereafter continued, or had its
10 roots in acfions begun, within 120 days of plainfiff nofifying and/or complaining to the
11 defendants, and each of them.
12 144. Plaintiff is entitled to all damages authorized and recoverable under Health &
13 Safety Code § 1278.5.
14 WHEREFORE Plainfiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
15 COMES NOW Plaintiff, and for a Sixth Cause of Acfion, 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]

20 145. Plaintift^efers to the allegations contained in paragraphs, including subparagraphs, 1

21 through 144, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as though fiJly set fortli at length herein.
22 146. The contract between plaintiff and defendant is, and was at all relevant times, a written
23 contract. Tlie written contract is attached to this complaint as Exhibit I. Plaintiff"hereby incorporates
24 into this complaint each temi, condition, and paragraph of the contract as required by law. Pursuant to
25 the contract, defendant promised plaintiff an exempt position inside the HVAC Plumbing Shop with a
26 tide of Development Engineer. Plaintiff accepted the position under the agreement and was installed
27 at the location with PUTNEY as his supervisor and WITCHER his manager.
28 147. At some point, currently unknown to plaintiff, UC DAVIS agreed, allowed, and/or

Page 58 of 62
Second Amended ( oniphiiid
 1 ratified DANILFUC as plaintiffs supervisor even though DANILIUC had the same or lower
2 classification 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 tmth. 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 tlie best interests of the hospital always in mind, and was the victim of an
7 outrageous but actioal coordinated effort to cause him emotional distress.
8 149. UC DAVIS, by and through its employees, agents, and officers, kept plaintiff out of the
9 workplace for no apparent reason. Defendant placed plaintiff on hivestigatory 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 die contract, and, waiting to find a pretext basis to
12 terminate plaintiff.
13 150. UC DAVIS promised and plaintiff"accepted an exempt position. However, plaintiffs
14 job duties did not change in any appreciable manner from his position as a non-exempt employee. In
15 addition, insertuig DANILIUC as plaintiffs 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 unlawfijl 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 plaintiffs 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 terminafing 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
28 law, including but not limited to lost-income, hourly wages for the missed lunch and break time plaintiff

Page 59 of 62
Second Amended (dinpluiiit
 1 would have enjoyed as a non-exempt employee. The contract provides for and plaintiff seeks costs as

2 well as attomey 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 [NON-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 ftilly 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.
13 155. Defendants, and each of them, misled and lied to plaintiff and kept the truth from
14 plaintiff conceming the tme nature of his position as well as hisrightsunder the law. Regardless,
15 plaintifffileda DFEH complaint and received a Right to Sue Letter.
16 156. Plaintiff's position was not an exempt position. Plaintiffs duties as alleged herein were
17 substantially the same beforetiiecontract and after die 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 allfrebleor
21 punitive damages allowed by law.
22 158. Plaintiff seeks all damages, including costs and attomey 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
26 follows:
27 ///
28 ///

!'age60 of 62
Second Amended ( (iniplitini
 1 XI. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[RESCISSION-UNLAWFUL CONTRACT]

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

4 through 158, inclusive, and incorporates each by reference as thougli ftilly set forth at length herein

5 160. Plaintiffs acceptance of the "exempf classification for the job title taken
6 pursuant to The Settlement Agreement was a material aspect of the contract. An employer cannot
7 contract around Labor Laws with respect to wages, hours, meals, and breaks without mnning
8 afoul of the law and voiding the contract.
9 161. The contract is void as against public policy, and, the subject matter ofthe contract
10 is unlawful.
11 162. Defendant knew, or should have known, at the time the parties signed the contract
12 that the contract was void. Further, defendants knew, or should have known, that plaintiff relied
13 on defendants to believe the contract was valid and enforceable. Defendants, to the present time,
14 have misled plaintiff into believing the contract was valid and enforceable.
15 163. In or about May 2014, plaintiff discovered the tmth, that the contract was void as
16 against public policy and unlawful subject matter.
17 164. Defendants' are estopped to assert any technical defense in light of the acfions
18 and omissions described herein.
19 165. As a direct and proximate result of the rescission of the contract, plaintiff has
20 been damaged in an amount equal to his hourly wage multiplied by the number of hours of lunch
21 and breaks he missed.
22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
23 1. for general and compensatory damages according to proof;
24 2. For lost salary, both front and back pay, bonuses, benefits and any other benefits to
25 which Plaintiff would have been entitied to by reason of his employment with Defendant UC
26 REGENTS, according to proof;
27 3. Punitive and exemplar)'damages against Individual Defendants;
28 4. Damages and attomey fees as allowed under the Labor Code;

Page 61 of 62
Second Amended < oiiipliiini
 5. for prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

7. for costs of suit incurred herein;

3 8. Damages for whistleblower retaliation under Govemment Code 8547 including

4 punitive damages against all Defendants, and Attomey's fees;

5 9. Breach of contract dainages, including costs and attomey fees;

6 10. Damages, Costs, attomey fees, and all other allowable damages and relief
7 authorized under Health & Safety Code § 1278.5
8 11. Rescission of the contract and for such other andfiirtherrelief as the Court deems
9 just and proper.
10
11 DATED: September 29,2014 Law Office of Douglas E. Stein
12
13
14 Attomey for Plaintiff
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 62 of 62
Second Amended ( (implninl
 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE

This Settlement Agreement anr) 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 HEALTII 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. Waszc2.uk 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 conlesled Ihe three-day suspension wilhoul pay anri

reassignment by filing an Employee Complaint pursuant to the University's
Personnel Poticies 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 Ihe above-referenced personnel actions hereafter
'Employee Complaint".

Following a two-day hearing in November 2008 to consider Mr.

Waszczuk's E m p l o y e e Complaint, University Hearing Officer C o n n i e 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 al 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 h e granted relief in the form of ln.«;t wage."? he claimed he
suffered due to the reassignment in question. The University denies thai Mr.
Waszczuk is legally due lost wages in connection with his reassignment.

\40 .0^

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

 The University Hearing Officer responded that Mr. Waszczuk failed to
raise said claim or offer proof of lost wages attendant to said reassignment al the
hearing; and stated that her role as University 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 ond/or

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
diffeiences 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 Ihe University agree as follows;

1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT The purpose of this Agreement is lo

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 HVAC/Plumbing Shop at the
UC Davis Medical Center. Mr. Waszczuk understands and agrees that
he shall, upon execution of this agreement, no longer bo 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 nol limited lo the UC
Davis Principles of Community, Customer Service Expectations, arid
National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Health
Care Sen/ices (CLAS). Also, Mr. Waszczuk must successfully
complete a background check, if his upward reclassification is subject
to o bockground check, per normal University policies and procedures.
Said upward reclassification to Associate Development Engineer will

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

 result in a salary increase to 570,000.00 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 thai an Associate

Development Engineer position is an exempt (salaried) position thai is
not eligible for terms ond conditions that are available to non-exempt
(houriy) 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 513,500.00, 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 appropnate 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 alt 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 ansinq 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 sel out in this paragraph, includes any and all claims
arising under statutory or common law. including but not limited lo;
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

^0
 amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities AcL 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 lo enforce Title Vlt of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as
amended, or any other applicable ^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 investigafion or
proceeding conducted by the EEOC or any other state, federal or local
government entity; EXCEPT THAT, if the EEOC or any other stale,
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 PiSPUTES Mr. Waszczuk warrants

and represents that other than the Employee Complaint identified in
the Recitals above. Mr. Waszczuk is nol a plaintiff, claimant or party in
any suit, action or legal or administrative proceeding in which the
University Releasees 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 Recital.i above 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 and request
withdrawal and closure of files, if any.

9 SECTION 1542 RIGHTS WAIVED Mr. Waszczuk understands and

expressly agrees thai the release sel forth in this Agreement extends
lo 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 ernpluyrnent occurring in whole or in part on
or before the Effective Dale of this Agreement, and that any and all
rights granted under Section 1542 ofthe Ca/ifornia Civil Code. ARE
HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED. Section 1542 ofthe California Civil
Code reads as follows:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEfylD 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

lo 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. Waszczuk based on legal claims that have been
released and discharged under this Agreement. Such a defense will be
considered an action initiated bvthe 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
othenvise disclose its contents publicly except under Ihe 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 lo disclose either
pursuant to a subpoena issued by a competent authority or an order
issued by a coud or tribunal of competent jurisdiction; or (c) the
University determines thai 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 shall not be, and shall not be
deemed or construed to be, a precedent or model for ttie resolulioit ui
settlement of any future charge, claim, grievance, complaint, or lawsuit
resulting from the same, similar or different circumstances.

15. OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW Mr. Waszczuk acknowledges that he

enters into this Agreement of his own free will; thai 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 thai 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 nol 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(f) 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) he 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 thai as a result, he voluntarily has waived
the balance of the 21-day review period.

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

1B. SEVEN DAY REVOCATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Mr. Waszczuk shall also have seven (7) days after executing this
Agreement lo reconsider and revoke this Agreement. Any revocation
must be in writing, delivered to Stephen Chilcolt. 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
unlit Ihe dale of the last signature, whichever Is later. ('Effective Date )
If Mr. Waszczuk revokes this Agreement, it shall not be effective or
enforceable and he will nol 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 nr 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 investigation 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.

27. BINDING EFFECT This Agreement shall bind 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 nol 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 choosing 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. SEVERABILITY 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 slate or federal law or regulation, that term shall be
deemed lo be deleted. However, the validity and enforceability of the
remaining terms shall not be affected by the deletion of the
unenforceable terms

V ,30
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. TAYLOR
Assistant Directoi^ 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 CALIFORNIA

DATED: BY
STEVEN A. DROWN
Chief Campus Counsel
UC Davis

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:
SLAW (JERRY) WASZCZUK

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 CALIFORNIA

DATED: BY
STEVEN A. DROWN
Chief Campus Counsel
UC Do vis

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;
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 REGENTflDF THE UNIVERSITY

OFCALIFORNIA

DATED:
STEVEN A. DF
Chief Campus Counsel
UC Davis

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

Ji'JLL','..'

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 WITCHER
Manager
Plant Operations & Maintenance
UC Davis Health System

THE REGENTS13F THE UNIVERSITY

OFCALIFORNIA \

DATED
STEVEN A. Df
Chief Campus Counsel
Ue Davis

Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Complaint

 Reel
CIVSL DROP BOX

2y|ifSEP30 AHIhO?

GDSSC COURTHOUSE
SUPERIOR COURT
OF GALiFORNiA
SACRAMENT') COUWTY