Professional Documents
Culture Documents
September 2015-TAC-Proposed Third Amended Complaint-Waszczuk v. Regents of The Univ. of Cal.
September 2015-TAC-Proposed Third Amended Complaint-Waszczuk v. Regents of The Univ. of Cal.
2 Lodi, CA 95242
Telephone: (209) 663-2977
3 Facsimile: (209) 370-8281
E-Mail: ucdmclaborchat@att.net
4
Plaintiff IN PRO PER -JAROSLAW (“JERRY”) WASZCZUK
5
7 DRAFT
8
25
I. PREAMBLE & NATURE OF THE CASE
26 A. The shocking facts of this case would continue to frustrate and anger
27 Plaintiff and for sure will surprise the Court and Jury after they learn from Plaintiff’s wrongful
28
28
28
3 California, from June 1999 as a cogeneration power plant operator and associate development
4 engineer. Plaintiff’s employment was wrongfully and without a valid cause terminated by the
5 Defendant in December 2012 after 13 years of service and at the age of 61.
6 22. Besides regular duties at the UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff occasionally
7 provided representation or assistance for non-union employees and, on two occasions, for union-
8 represented employees in their complaints filed under the provision of UC Davis Policy PPSM
9 70 and the UC Davis Whistleblowing Retaliation Protection Policy PPM 380-17.
10 23. Plaintiff, in the course of his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center,
11 noticed, observed, and experienced by representing other employees, many publications, and his
12 own experiences that the Defendant created two different climates and images of the University
13 of California campuses.
14 The perfect image of the University of California is the exceptional and
15 outstanding education system that is globally recognized.
16 The Different Image of the University of California
17 24. As early as 2000, a climate and culture existed at the employer’s medical center in
18 Sacramento and its university campus in Davis that subjected staff to a hostile work environment,
19 including but not limited to, sustained abuse, bullying, discrimination, retaliation for
20 whistleblowing, harassment of all kinds, intimidation, favoritism, nepotism, health and safety
21 violations, falsification of documentation, fear of retaliation for reporting misconduct, and research
22 misconduct.
23 25. As early as 2000, the employer published rules, procedures, and policies that
24 express, claim, and state that the employer is committed to a culturally diverse and otherwise
25 lawful and healthy environment. The employer’s rules, procedures, and written material espouse
26 cultural diversity, promotion of a safe workplace, no tolerance for bullying or abuse, no tolerance
27 for exclusion or discrimination, and open disclosure without retribution for reporting report waste,
9 29. The other not-so-perfect image of the University of California that is far less
2 lawsuit filed on behalf of 3,200 female employees that alleged that the controversial ranking
3 system for most of the lab's administrators, clerical staff and technicians was discriminatory, and
that they were working longer hours for less pay
4
34. In July 2004 a $1.3 million settlement has been reached in the discrimination
5
lawsuit filed by former medical intern David Dixon who alleged that he was dismissed from
6
UCLA's family medicine residency program in 1994 because he is black.
7
8
35. A class action lawsuit was brought against Los Alamos National Laboratory,
9
claiming that the University of California, which ran the laboratory from 1943 until 2006,
10 discriminated against women and Hispanics in pay, promotions, and educational opportunities.
11 As part of a settlement reached in mid 2007, a federal judge ordered a $16.4 million payout.
12 36. In 2007 Karen Moe Humphreys, a former Olympic gold medal swimmer who
14 against the university. The suit claimed that Humphreys, who worked at UC Berkeley from 1978
15 until she was laid off in 2004, allegedly lost her job in retaliation for complaining about the
16 treatment of women by the university's athletic department. The university denied Humphreys'
17 allegations. It also denied her claim that her layoff was unlawful, though it did agree to pay more
18 than $3.5 million to settle the gender discrimination lawsuit she brought against them. As part of
19 the agreement, Humphreys will be reinstated and then retire in January 2008 when she reaches
21 37. The imposed penalty $82,500 and proposed imposition of civil penalty in the
22 amount of $220,000 by the U.S. Department of Labor was for the establishment of an
24 Laboratory.
25 38. In September 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged the university
26 with 61 violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The lawsuit claimed UC San Francisco
27 researchers kept animals in dirty cages and over bred them as well as improperly anesthetized
28
3 39. A lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the Coalition for Limiting University Expansion
4 and later joined by the city of Santa Cruz against the University of California, Santa Cruz. The
5 lawsuit accused the campus and its contractor of violating the federal Clean Water Act by
6 allowing water polluted with sediment to migrate from several construction sites into nearby
7 creeks, ponds and groundwater. In a settlement reached, the city and university agreed to revive a
8 stalled project to reduce sediment runoff into the city's Pogonip park, 640 acres of open space
9 below the campus, and ultimately into the San Lorenzo River. UCSC, under the agreement, will
10 pay $110,000 to restore damaged gullies in the Pogonip, UCSC's building company Devcon
11 Construction will contribute engineering and construction services valued at $40,000, and the
12 city will chip in $90,000.
13 40. Michael Burch worked as a wrestling coach for the University of California Davis
14 from 1995 through 2001. In April 2001, Arezou Mansourian and Chris Ng were removed from
15 the team. Burch publicly supported the two female wrestlers when they filed a claim with the
16 Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. One month later, Burch was informed that he
17 would no longer be retained. He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming the school failed
18 to renew his contract because of his outspoken support for the two female wrestlers. In 2005, the
19 Supreme Court found that the Title IX law protected whistleblowers from adverse action of
20 employers. Michael Burch will receive $725,000 from the University of California to settle the
21 retaliation lawsuit.
22 41. Further, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed the imposition of a civil penalty
23 in the amount of $159,375 for radiological contamination committed by the University of
24 California-operated Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
25 42. Anneliese Yuenger died in 1999 at age 82; her family donated her body to the
26 university's medical school. A month later, Yuenger's ashes were returned to the family in a
27 plastic bag. An investigation revealed the ashes came from miscellaneous body parts burned
28
10 44. In February 2001, the Sacramento News and Review (SN&R) article entitled
11 “Standing Up to Bullies” quoted University of California, Davis, employee Jackie Quigg’s letter
12 she sent to an SN&R editor: “I felt bullied, belittled, discriminated powerless and angry.” Jackie
13 Quigg wrote of her experience of working for 13 years in the Ophthalmology Department at the
14 UC.
15 Plaintiff commented with words from Jackie Quigg’s experience in his
16 letter to an SN&R editor dated: February 10, 2001
17 “ Th e ab u sive b e ha v io r mu st b e witn e sse d an d we ll d oc u me n ted
18 in order for this to work. The other issue is that coworkers may be hesitant to
19 testify in court against an employer, the same employer who provides them a
20 paycheck. The fear of a backlash against those who testify is real.
21
Unfortunately, this great dependency for this paycheck will inhibit justice from
22
ever being served and the employer knows this. The power of employer
23
intimidation with no recourse on the part of the employee is in and of itself, the
24
very foundation for an abusive UC employer-employee work relationship. I
25
would like to ask Ms. Quigg if this situation still exists or was it resolved. I
26
need to know because it is hard to believe that anybody could cope with this
27
abuse and humiliation for 13 years. Is this is a true story?”
28
15 Center is still unresolved and never was investigated. Todd Georlich’s suicide ten years after UC
16 Davis employee Donna McDaniel tragically took her life is the path of destruction chosen by a
19 30. UC San Francisco employee Mary Efferen wrote of her "observations and
20 experiences of faculty-staff interactions that were textbook examples of how to humiliate
21 individuals in front of group.
22 31. The University of California, which has contributed so much to the education and
23 the wealth of the state of California and the global community, is a pathologically dysfunctional
24 institution run by arrogant and ruthless administrators," wrote former UC Davis graduate student
25 Leuren Moret.
26 32. The U.S. Department of Labor imposed a civil penalty in the amount of
27 $1,707,000 by the U.S. Department of Energy for multiple violations of law and federal
28 regulations in the Los Alamos National Laboratory. There was also a $9,350 penalty for violation
18 UC Davis Medical Center under the supervision of UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire Pomeroy
20 39. In 2011, credit cards embezzlement in the UC Davis Medical Center was
21 uncovered and reported by two UC Davis employees and confirmed by auditor William
Prindible, who conducted an audit. The two employees who reported the credit card
22
embezzlement and 60-year-old auditor, Prindible, were fired from the job and the white-collar
23
UC Davis Medical Center criminals who committed the crime are still being employed by the
24
UC Davis Medical Center. The Prindible’s case ended in a January 2015 settlement in federal
25
court, Plaintiff is unaware of the amount of the sum that was paid to the victimized William
26
Prindible (Federal Court Case No. 2:13-cv-02256-KJM-EFB). On May 30, 2012 ,the University
27
of California administration has unsuccessfully attempted to provoke and kill t Plaintiff or end
28
28
5 46. On October 2, 1989 Plaintiff was hired as a Power Plant Technician by the Power
6 Operating Company (POC) subsidiary of Power System Engineering Company (PSE, Inc.) from
7 Houston, Texas as an Operating Technician of the San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant
8 located in Lathrop, CA.
9
47. In 1990 the PSE, Inc. was acquired by the DOW Chemical Company’s subsidiary,
10
Destec Energy, Inc. and later by Dynegy Corporation, which was the competitor of Enron
11
Corporation in electric power generation in the USA.
12
48. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was producing 50 MW of electricity
13
per hour and processing water to make high quality steam. The plant is selling electricity to the
14
Pacific Gas and Electric Company by contract and steam to the Auto Glass Manufacturer, Libby
15
Owens Ford, in Lathrop, CA.
16
49. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Power Plant was powered by the LM 5000
17
General Electric aeroderivative gas turbines.
18
19 The aeroderivative gas turbines are used in a variety of applications: - electrical power both for
20 utility baseload and peaking applications in both simple-cycle (gas turbine only) and combined-
21 cycle configurations. Simple-cycle refers to a gas turbine used alone; combined-cycle refers to an
22 application where the exhaust from the gas turbine is used to power a steam turbine to maximize
23 overall system efficiency - in-plant and independent power production and cogeneration (the
24 production of two forms of energy, usually steam and electricity from a single fuel source) in an
25 industrial or institutional facility - mechanical drive requirements, such as compressors, pumps
26 and other loads - marine propulsion of naval and commercial vessels. Industries that use
27 aeroderivative gas turbines include petroleum production, refining and pipeline operations,
28
16 order to be a Qualified Cogenerate. The company management was forcing its own employees to
17 release a huge amount of steam into the atmosphere, which was through the PG&E meter to
18 cheat the PURPA requirements instead of utilizing the thermal energy as was required by law. In
19 1994 the company’s senior management was advised by the San Joaquin Plant Manager to
20 resolve the existing problem with the PURPA violation. In retaliation, the mentioned plant
22 53. In 1989 the former State of California Chief of Department of Standard Labor
23 Enforcement (DLSE) or State of California Labor Commissioner Jose Milan was allowed to
24 govern the wages and working conditions for the San Joaquin cogeneration power plant in
25 Lathrop and other Dynegy’s cogeneration plants in California using the wrong Industrial Welfare
26 Commission Order (IWC), which was IWC order 4-89 O instead of IWC order 1-89; thus 119
27 Dynegy employees were defrauded of a significant amount of overtime, to which they were
28
15 years of 1991-1995.
16 57. After the 401K plan retirement fraud disclosure, Plaintiff asked his supervisor
17 about the unpaid overtime mandated by the Welfare Commission Order IWC 1-89 Part of unpaid
18 overtime shall be contributed to employees’ Retirement and Savings Plan 401K plus the
19 employer match contribution in the ratio dollar to dollar up to six percent of employee’s gross
20 annual income. Plaintiff did not have any intention to pursue the overtime issue but just asked
21 the question.
22 The overtime issue would never have surfaced if Plaintiff’s employer would have posted in the
23 Plant’s control room the IWC order 4-89 instead of IWC order 1-89.
24
58. The San Joaquin Cogeneration Plant Manager panicked and alerted the
25
Headquarters, and then IWC order 1-49 was posted on the information board next to IWC order
26
1-89. Shortly after, Plaintiff’s employer hired the prestigious law firm Pillsbury Madison &
27
Sutro LLP and Plaintiff received a letter from Sutro’s lawyer about the IWC order applicability
28
15 Office overturned his superior’s—the State Labor Commissioner Jose Milan’s—earlier decision
16 to permit Plaintiff’s employer to govern working conditions and pay by IWC order 4-89 instead
17 of IWC 1-89.
18 61. Right after the labor commissioner issued the decision in Plaintiff’s favor,
19 Plaintiff’s employer in retaliation suspended Plaintiff for almost two months without pay and
20 right away appealed the Labor Commissioner Decision in San Joaquin County Superior Court.
21 The Superior Court in Trial de Novo ruled in favor of Plaintiff’s employer.
22 62. Plaintiff appealed the IWC order 1-89 unfavorable the Superior Court Judgment
23 in the State of California Court of Appeal 3th Appellate District by representing himself in Pro
24
Per. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court Judgment and Plaintiff received his unpaid
25
overtime. The other 119 of Plaintiff’s coworkers recovered partially unpaid overtime through the
26
settlement-agreement that Plaintiff’s employer signed with the Division of Labor Standard
27
Enforcement.
28
16
17 Plaintiff’s Employment with Genentech Inc., from November 1998 to June 1999
18
19 67. After almost one year of unemployment in November 1998, Plaintiff was hired as
20 Utility Operator by Genentech, Inc. located in the City of South San Francisco.
21 68. Genentech, Inc. was the best employer Plaintiff ever worked for in the United
22 States, taking into consideration benefits and treatment of employees by company management.
23 69. The almost 100 miles distance to Plaintiff’s residence in Lodi to South San
24
Francisco and Plaintiff’s wife’s employment in Nordstrom Inc., Sacramento were deciding
25
factors that led Plaintiff to apply for the Cogeneration Plant Operator position with the UC Davis
26
Medical Center in Sacramento, which was only 32 miles away from Lodi, CA.
27
70. Also the Cogeneration Plant Operator position was a factor to apply for the job
28
4 Plaintiff’s Job Description and Employment in UC Davis Medical Center Cogeneration Power
Plant Named “Central Plant “
5
7
71. Defendant hired Plaintiff on June 28, 1999 as a non-exempt senior power
8 plant mechanic or cogeneration power plant operator (hereinafter “plant operator”) to maintain
9 and operate the newly built, state-of-the-art 27 megawatt cogeneration power plant at UC Davis
11 72. Besides operating and maintaining the cogeneration facility, Plaintiff was
12 responsible for monitoring and dispatching critical alarms on the day shift at the UC Davis
13 Medical Center via the computerized Metasys system, which was also programmed to
14 continuously monitor and record how much electricity, steam, hot water, and chilled water was
15 being generated by the central plant. The Metasys system was also designed to start up and shut
16 down heating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), as well as to adjust temperatures in the
17
administration and hospital patients’ rooms per request from working personnel at the UC Davis
18
Medical Center.
19
73. The UC Davis Medical Center’s cogeneration power plant, named the
20
“Central Plant,” includes a General Electric LM 2500—a 23 MW jet combustion gas turbine; a
21
heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)—a 4 MW back pressure steam turbine with capacity to
22
produce 89,000,00 pounds of steam per hour; four auxiliary steam boilers with 25,000-pound-
23
per-hour capacities for steam from each boiler; three centrifugal chillers; and three absorption
24
chillers that can produce 13,400 tons of chilled water per hour. The Central Plant also has five 2-
25
MW emergency diesel generators and other auxiliary heavy industrial-type machinery, including
26
27 a cooling tower, pumps, an ammonia injection system, a water demineralizer, a condenser, and a
28 chemical-injecting system.
15 subject to these reporting requirements. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
16 or its equivalent (MTCO2e) are required to report their annual emissions to the USEPA, and both
17 the Davis and Sacramento campuses have facilities that emit over 25,000 MTCO2e.
18 78. The 10 MW of electricity not produced and not sold during the summer
19 peak equals millions of dollars of lost revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations.
20 However if 10 MW extra of electricity was produced and was sold during the summer than
21 peak equals millions of dollars in extra revenue over 17 years of the Central Plant’s operations ;
22 79. Prior to building the cogeneration plant, the UC Davis Medical Center
23 Campus sourced electricity from the local publically owned utility, Sacramento Municipal Utility
24
District (SMUD). The oversized cogeneration plant right before energy deregulation in California,
25
and during that turbulent period, the UC Davis Medical Center took advantage of the opportunity to
26
generate and sell power to SMUD. When the power market deregulation took place cogeneration
27
facility was selling power at for the on the open market for higher bid via California Independent
28
10
80. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Public
11
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) mandate that any cogeneration facility
12
certified and recognized by law as “the qualified cogeneration facility” must meet special
13
requirements in the ratio between electric energy production and thermal energy production.
14
A cogeneration facility is a generating facility that:
15
“sequentially produces electricity and another form of useful thermal energy
16
(such as heat or steam) in a way that is more efficient than the separate
17
production of both forms of energy. For example, in addition to the production
18
22 facilities might provide hot water for domestic heating or other useful
15 employer against Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Plaintiff’s previous employer was very
16 safety oriented and strictly enforced safety rules. It had outstanding safety rules and safety
17 training for employees. Plaintiff was hazmat certified and a first responder, and knew CPR.
18 Plaintiff had no problem adapting to UC Davis Medical Center, where safety rules and
19 regulations were disregarded and ignored by management and safety trainings were unknown
20 and viewed as unnecessary burdens and hassles.
21 84. UC Davis Medical Center’s state-of-the-art cogeneration facility, which
22 cost $70 million to build, was commissioned with many serious safety problems and hazards,
23 endangering working personnel and raising Plaintiff’s concern about his safety and that of his
24
coworkers, many of whom had little or no working experiences in power plant environments.
25
The State of California Law and International Law which Classified Cogeneration Power
26 Plants as a Manufacture and Industrial Facility
27 85. By State of California Industrial Welfare Commission Order #1, all power
28
18 to previous lines, with the relevant formulas shown. You must respond to all of
20
UC Davis Health System Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s salary was increased from
22 94. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
23 Witcher, who is responsible for maintenance and operation of the cogeneration plant by his title
24 and position, received $64,000.00 in salary increase from his promotion to this position in 2007
25 to 2014. (Charles Witcher has a high school education only and has no qualification for this
26 position.)
27 95. UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
28
16 98. Contrary to the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant, the UC San Diego
17 Cogeneration Plant, which is owned and operated by the Defendant (like the UC Davis Medical
18 Center Central), has no problem selling surplus energy on the spot market. The UC San Diego
19
Cogeneration Plant filed self-certification with FERC on May 24, 2000 according to FERC’s
20
Docket No. QF 00-63-001.
21
99. In addition to the above, the UC San Diego Cogeneration Qualified
22
Facility in 2010 received a $2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and installed
23
the world’s first microgrid master controller and related optimizer application. The Smart Grid
24
25 functions as a virtual power plant, scheduling energy self-generation, electricity imports, and
26 electric and thermal storage while factoring in the demand load and the variable price of
27
electricity to buy or sell.
28
9 energy sources.
11 Practices, the UC became a registered Electric Service Provider (ESP). As an ESP, the university
12 is able to self-supply electricity to its direct-access accounts. The self-supply electricity began
13 being generated in 2015. The 2014 UC Report of Sustainable Practices is, for the most part,
14 misleading and fraudulent in regard to green-gas emission on the campuses, especially the UC
15 Berkeley campus, and it is related to the operation of the cogeneration facility not owned or
17 103. The question is as follows: Why is the Defendant, who registered as an ESP,
18 unable to operate the UC Davis Medical, Center Plant at full capacity and provide the energy to
19 other UC campuses, especially the UC Davis campus, or sell the energy on the spot market via
20 ISO?
21 104. Instead of hunting down the Plaintiff like an animal since 2006 for no reason
22 with a criminally minded attempt to assassinate the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012 and destroy the
23 Plaintiff’s life and his livelihood, the Defendant should take care of business and get a contract
24 for the sale of power from the UC Davis Medical Center, Central Plant. The Defendant should
25
also take care of those who attacked Plaintiff and misinformed the Defendant for the own
26
personal financial gain that Plaintiff will harm University business in relation to the UC Davis
27
28
7 was commissioned in 1998 as a state- of-the-art facility, but for some reason was unfinished. As
8 a result, Central Plant equipment was unsafe to operate and posed life-threatening danger to
9 personnel. A power plant’s working environment is dangerous by nature, and if safety rules and
10 regulations are not followed, it will lead to disastrous consequences. Plaintiff came to Central
11 Plant from a very safety-oriented company and was shocked when, in 2000, Central Plant’s
12 manager said in front of other employees, “Somebody give this Polack a bad evaluation and
13 fire him,” after Plaintiff suggested some safety improvements. Plaintiff’s coworker Eduardo
14 Espinosa was so terrified by the Central Plant manager’s statement that he wrote a letter to UC
15 Vice President Judith Boyette and complained than quit his job. A Cal/OSHA intervention was
16 needed to convince the UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department
17 Management to improve the safety and fix some problems with unsafe equipment that should
18 have been fixed without Cal/OSHA intervention.
19 106. The arrogance of the PO&M Department Management was unbelievable
20 and unacceptable. The Cal/OSHA intervention fixed some minor problems, but major safety
21 problems in Central Plant went unnoticed or deliberately ignored by the Cal/OSHA inspector,
22 and there is not any record that Central Plant personnel were interviewed. The most dangerous
23 place was the oily cement floor underneath the cooling tower, which drained oil to the
24 Sacramento River via storm drain, but was unnoticed by the inspecting Cal/OSHA personnel.
25 Coincidently, when the Cal/OSHA inspection took place, Plaintiff was on his days off from
26 work.
27 107. In 2000, Plaintiff wrote in his Brief to Cal/OSHA:
28
5 and direct supervisor to correct some problems with safety in the plant.”
7 “The UCDMC like the other divisions of the UC System enjoys liberty and independence from
8 the State of California legislature and state agencies which enforcing wages and working
9 condition in private sector. This status was affirmed not only by the Government Codes but also
10 on many occasions by the Appellate Courts of the State of California. It is great that students and
11 professors, researchers and scientists have such unrestricted autonomy to freely work for the
12 good of people. The University of California has great prestige in this State as well in the nation.
13
However, it looks like the ordinary workers in this entity who provides services every day for
14
these great researchers, professors, students, and scientists keep them warm at winter time and
15
cool at summer time, these who keep this whole system running without failure have been
16
somehow forgotten and they are object of abuse, discrimination as well are being exposed to
17
unsafe working environment which is a subject of this response. It is unknown for me why the
18
workers are being treated this way in this high education prestigious school. I was very
19
concerned and worried seeing supervisors’ memos where he was calling his subordinates damn
20
or stupid or threatening others to fire them on spot in the place where employment is not at will.
21
Intimidation, ignorance, negligence, threats, power trip, unprofessional remarks toward
22
23 subordinates, lack of personal culture of the superiors replaced common sense, proper training,
24 normal working environment and human dignity and rights. The safety rules and laws were
25 replaced by intimidation, letters of warning, and suspension from work. Where is this
27 109. Also, in 2000, four workers from the UCDMC Access Unit were
28 suspended for circulating a petition asking to discuss items related to workload, safety,
3 to work. Plaintiff was also asked to help these workers in regard to the despicable UCDMC
4 Management retaliation.
5 110. After Cal/OSHA issued the citation for negligence and safety violations in
6 the plant, UC Davis Plant Operation and Maintenance Department (PO&M) Manager Toni
7 Moddessette demoted Cogeneration Plant Superintendent Tom Kavanauch and replaced him
8 with Dan James, who was brought to the plant from the UC San Francisco Medical Center. The
9 situation in the plant changed for the better up until the present, but it has changed quickly for
10 the worse due to current plant manager Steve McGrath’s group of colleagues who came from his
11 previous plant near Jackson, CA. Two Central Plant operators, William Buckans and Rick
12 Tunello, became the target of constant harassment and were bullied by newly hired individuals
13 from the Jackson area. Shortly after they were hired, plant manager Dane James was coerced by
14 these individuals from Jackson to join them in attacks against Rick Tunello and William
15 Buckans. For some reason, these folks did not like Rick Tunello and William Buckans and were
16 pitting the Plant manager against them; trying to convince Dan James to fire Tunello and
17 Buckans.
18
111. In August 2003, Plaintiff’s coworker, Mike Murphy (who quit job in 2005), and
19 Plaintiff, received from the central plant maintenance supervisor Tom Kavanaugh a Preventive
20 Maintenance Work Order that required us to pressure wash all dirt and oil underneath the
21 Cooling Tower. We refused to pressure wash the oil to the storm drain. We took pictures using
22 Mike Murphy’s Sony Digital Camera and we told Tom Kavanaugh that we did not pressure wash
23 the oil to the storm drain. Several times Plaintiff approached an employee from the UC Davis
24 Medical Center’s Environmental Health and Safety Department (EH&S) who was visiting the
25 Central Plant frequently to sign Hazardous Work Permits (after a long time Plaintiff forgot his
26 name). The EH&S employee was not very anxious to discuss the oil problem under the Cooling
27 Tower and his response was, “Well if we get caught than we pay the price.”
28
3 112. Some of the worst safety problems and environmental hazards in the
4 UCDMC state-of-the-art Central Plant were twenty-two (22) defective-by-design cooling tower
5 gearboxes.
6 113.. The defective cooling tower gearboxes were massively leaking machine
7 oil underneath the cooling tower and creating serious safety problems for the personnel working
8 underneath the cooling tower; in addition, the leaking machine oil created an enormous
9 environmental hazard. Every week, as usual, the Central Plant maintenance supervisor issued a
10 preventive maintenance work order to refill the cooling tower’s leaking gearboxes. The machine
11 leaked approximately 10 gallons of oil per week for seven (7) years, and the cooling tower floor
12 was washed out with water to the storm drain (river) or to the soil around the cooling tower when
13 the new cooling tower was under construction. Once a month or every three months, the Central
14 Plant maintenance supervisor (the same supervisor who said to Plaintiff that “Somebody
15 [should] give this Polack a bad evaluation and fire him”) also issued a preventive
16 maintenance work order to use a pressure washer to wash out the covered-by-oil gearboxes and
17 cooling tower underneath the floor and discharge everything to the City of Sacramento storm
19
114. It would cost $5,000/unit to replace the defective units, according to the
20 whistleblowing investigation report which copy of Plaintiff received in 2007 from UC Davis
21 Public Record Act Office. It was merely $110,000 and only 1/3 of the annual salary of UC
22 Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Shelton Duraisseau Ph.D whose idea was to build the 70
24 urgent safety and environment problem was a dilution, covering up the criminal activities and
25 retaliating against anybody who mentioned this problem. This safety and environment hazard
26 also created unbelievable hostility and an intolerable working environment. The working
27 environment of the Central Plant became very hostile and violent after the present Central Plant
28 manager brought a group of employees from his previous plant near Jackson, CA. The manager
15 cooling tower fans, and Buckans fell on the cement floor because of the oily and slippery surface
16 underneath the cooling tower. As a result of this accident, Buckans was taken by ambulance to
17 the UCDMC emergency room with severe back pain. The accident was reported to the Central
18 Plant manager. However, the accident did not encourage management to take care of oil leaks
19 underneath the cooling tower, and every day, Central Plant operators were risking injury under
20 the cooling tower due to the daily routine duty of checking the oil level in leaking oil gear boxes
22 After the above-mentioned accident, William Buckans asked plant managers and the
23 maintenance superintendent to apply a nonskid material to the work area where Buckans was
24 injured to prevent another—perhaps more serious—accident and injury. Buckans was absolutely
25 devastated when both supervisors said no to his request. It was unspeakable and unbelievable
26 that his superiors would force their subordinates to work in an extremely unsafe environment
27 without any hesitation. Beside his accident, three other workers got hurt working under the
28 cooling tower. The Central Plant manager, instead of taking care of safety problems, notoriously
15 The Whistleblowing Complaint with UC Davis Vice Chancellor Office UC Davis Policy &
16 Procedure Section 380-17, August 2005
17 117. In August 2005, Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans asked Plaintiff help
18
him with a Whistleblowing Complaint in regard to safety and environmental hazard caused by
19
leaking machine oil in the cooling tower gear boxes pursuant to UC Davis Policy and Procedure
20
Section 380-17. Plaintiff helped Buckans to write a letter to University of California Human
21
Resources Vice President Judith Boyette, which was sent on August 7, 2005, with the actual
22
whistleblower complaint and some evidence.
23
24 118. The UC Davis Management quickly made determination that Plaintiff was
25 helping his coworker William Buckans with his whistleblowing complaint. In an August 7, 2005
26 Improper Activities Report cover letter submitted to the University of California Human
27 resources Vice –President Judith Boyette, William Buckans made reference to UC Vice
28 President Judith Boyette’s employment with a Sutro Madison law firm of which Plaintiff was
9 work for three months. When Plaintiff was ready to come back to the plant after a few
10 months of illness, the plant manager Dan James was trying to block Plaintiff’s return under
11 the false pretenses that Plaintiff did not provide him or the main office with the requested
12 FEMLA documents for his short disability. When Plaintiff provided him with proof that
13 Plaintiff had provided all documents to the plant manager and to the main office, Plaintiff
14 was told that the documents were lost and that he needed to provide new documents signed
15 by a physician.
16 124. In March 2006, Plaintiff was neither aware nor imagined that the attempt of the
17 plant manager, Dan James, to block Plaintiff’s return to the plant after short-term disability
18
related to Plaintiff’s open heart surgery was a broader preemptive move. The Defendant’ action
19
against Plaintiff to remove Plaintiff from the central plant or fire Plaintiff from the job was for a
20
completely different reason than Plaintiff thought for many years thereafter. Plaintiff believed
21
22 that helping his coworker, William Buckans, with his whistle-blowing complaint about the
23 Defendant’ misconduct in unlawfully discharging machine oil into the Scaramanto River via a
24
city storm drain for seven years was the was the main reason why the Defendant sought to
25
remove Plaintiff from the central plant in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
26
125. In March 2006, it was most likely that Plant Manager Dan James did not know the
27
28 real reason why he was ordered to attack Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s coworker, Buckans.
2 the Defendant would carry out ill and despicable plan and abruptly remove Plaintiff from the
3 central plant and reassign him to a different shop with threats of termination of employment
4
although he was the most experienced power plant operator.
5
127. Plaintiff does not remember exactly how this ended, but after Plaintiff came back
6
7 to work after short term disability than he then learned that his coworker William Buckans had
8 become a target of physical threats by other employees from Jackson 5 group. The situation in
9 the plant became so volatile that every morning’s operational meeting was like a war zone. One
10
of the Jackson 5 employees, Steve McGrath, was promoted to Central Plant maintenance
11
supervisor, which emboldened the Jackson group of employees to attack Plaintiff, William
12
13 Buckans and rick Tunello during the shift-turnover morning meetings. In September 2006.
14 Plaintiff coworker Rick Tunello was wrongly accused of missing a medical freezer alarm and
15
was served with unjustified suspension without pay. Plaintiff quickly found out that Rick Tunello
16
was groundlessly accused and was able to help Rick reverse the suspension decision, but Rick
17
Tunello was so fed up with being endlessly harassed and bullied by Jackson 5 group and plant
18
19 manager that he quit the job. This fact that Plaintiff helped Tunello turned the Plant Manager
20 and his Jackson allies entirely against Plaintiff , and they were furious that Plaintiff defended
21
Rick Tunello, whom they hated so badly and wanted fired him for reasons that were undescribed
22
and not understandable to Plaintiff and others workers.. They just hated him. Plaintiff’s loud and
23
24 clear complaint finally forced the Central Plant manager to advise his allies to stop attacks
25 against Plaintiff and Buckans. William Buckans was fed up with the attacks and in September
26 2006 reported the Central Plant manager Dan James for entertaining himself by viewing porn in
27
his cubicle on company time not knowing that reporting Dan James did not make any
28
2 brought him to Central Plant. The two high school educated individuals Charles Witcher and
3 Steve McGrath were already on the Stephen Chilcott’s and Director Robert Taylor’s list as a
4
replacements for Tony Moddessette’s and Dan James’ positions. .
5
7
128. The Human Resources attorney Stephen Chilcott, who was deployed to
8
UC Davis Medical in 2005 to carry out Defendant plan to remove Plaintiff and William
9
Buckans from the Plant conducted the investigation of Central Plant manager Dan James porn
10
activities in his cubicle on company time.
11
129. Shortly after the porn activities complaint was lodged against the central
12
plant manager, Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Department Manager Tony
13
Moddessette became a scapegoat and was forced to resign and Charles Witcher was assigned as
14
the interim PO&M department manager. The difference between Moddessette and Witcher was
15
16 education. Moddessette had an MBA and Witcher, who was high school educated, could not
17 write a simple memo without help from HR or his secretary, but was willing to do harm to others
18 without asking questions. Also, Witcher was no challenge for Director Robert Taylor. Plaintiff
19 believes that Moddessette refused to participate in hunting down Plaintiff and Buckans right after
20 Buckans filed his whistleblowing complaint in August 2005 and that this also was one of the
21 reasons why he had to end his employment with the UC Davis Medical Center.
22
23 The December 2006-March 2007 “WITCH HUNT” Aimed At Plaintiff and William Buckans
24
130. On November 26, 2006, Stephen Chilcott sent an e-mail to William
25
Buckans entitled “Hostile Work Environment” and informed Buckans that he had concluded
26
investigation without any information about the findings. On December 4, 2006, just eight days
27
after Stephen Chilcott concluded his investigation, the especially assigned “witch hunter” from
28
15 Chilcott and other attackers. Even Plant Manager Dan James and Plant Superintendent Tom
16 Kavanaugh refrained themselves from attacking Plaintiff and Buckans during the orchestrated
17 Kangaroo Court pseudo-investigation conducted by assigned witch hunter Bettye Andreos from
18 the UCDMC Equal Opportunity Committee. The fabricated accusations were based on the
19 supposed statements taken from fraudulently hired employees, nicknamed the Jackson 5.
20 Plaintiff walked out of the second interview conducted by a appointed Communist “Stalin-type”
21 prosecutor and judge Bettye Andreos, who had no clue what she is doing but was instructed to
22 prosecute Plaintiff and Buckans and end their employment with UC Davis Medical Center.
23 Plaintiff expressed his feelings about Bettie Andresos’ interrogation skills very loudly on his way
24
out from the Pathology Building on February 27, 2007. Also, he expressed his view about this
25
investigation about physical threats toward William Buckans during a meeting with HR Labor
26
Relations Supervisor Mike Garcia.
27
The March 8, 2007 “Investigation Report
28
16 consistently uses hate and biased-based comments when engaged with co-
17 workers. There is no evidence that I was able to obtain that indicates Central
18 Plant management was assertive in addressing the issue of hate and biased-
22
135. As a result of reporting safety hazards and seven years of unlawful
23
massive machine oil discharge to the Sacramento River via city storm drain from the UC Davis
24
Medical Center Central Plant, on March 22, 2007, William Buckans received a Letter of
25
26 Expectation.
27 136. The Letter of Expectation Buckans received was made up out of the blue,
28 and the Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment was the shorter version of the March 8,
15 Center .
16 139. For his successful mission in 2007 to remove Plaintiff from the Central Plant,
17 Chilcott was promoted to USCDHS HR labor relations supervisor; in 2008 Chilcott replaced
18 USDHS HR Labor Relation Manager Michael Sheesley and, at the end of 2009, Chilcott
26 The Retaliatory Unlawful Suspension and Reassignment to the UC Davis Medical Center
HVAC Shop
27
28
15 administration.
16 144. The scenario of attacking employees with this manifesto is simple. The
17 “accusation of racism, bigotry, violence”; then, Policy 1616 and Policy 380-15; then, the witch
18 hunt began with a witch hunter assigned by UC Davis administration executives . In charge of
19 In the event this intended action is taken, you will have the right to request
20 review of the action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70,
21 Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of the final action, you
22 must do so in writing as explained in the above policy, using the appropriate
23 complaint form. Your written request for review must be received in the
24
Employee & Labor Relations Office no later than 30 calendar days from the
25
date of the letter of suspension.”
26
147. Director Robert Taylor was one of the individuals who carry out
27
retaliation against Plaintiff and Buckans in December 2006 –March 2007. . On March 30, 2007,
28
7 The 2007 Complaint - Step I and Step II under the UC Davis Personnel Policies for
Staff Members PPSM 70,
8
10 148. The University of California Personnel Policies for Staff Members PPSM
11 70, Complaint Resolution, or Administrative Remedies are main subject in the Palmer v.
12 Regents of the University of California, 107 Cal.App.4th 899, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 567 (Cal.App.
13 Dist.2 04/08/2003) and Janet Campbell v. Regents of the University of California (Supra
14 S113275).
15 149. On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 from
16 Witcher’s and Taylor’s decisions. Again, Director Robert Taylor was assigned as the Reviewer
17
for the Step I Complaint under PPSM 70 and denied Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint on May 10,
18
2007.
19
150. On April 20, 2007, after one month of administrative leave Plaintiff
20
reported himself to UCDMC Plumbing/HVAC Shop per Charles Witcher’s April 16, 2007,
21
Letter of Suspension and Notice of Reassignment. Plaintiff in HVAC shop was assign to monitor
22
and dispatch critical alarms on the day shift in UC Davis Medical Center via the computer
23
Metasys System. The Plumbing/HVAC shop Manager was Patrick Putney with Senior
24
Development Engineer and Shop supervisor was Dorin Daniliuc.
25
UCDMC Plant Operation & Maintenance Interim Manager Charles Witcher in his March 23,
26
27
2007
14
oppressive employment practices,*fn2 evaluations serve the important
18 vehicle for informing the employee of what management expects, how the
19 employee measures up, and what he or she needs to do to obtain wage
20 increases, promotions or other recognition. Thus, the primary recipient and
21 beneficiary of the communication is the employee.”
22
153. Plaintiff 2006/2007 Evaluation stated:
23
8
Jerry was very instrumental in the setup of the computer and office area for the
9
Building Automation Monitoring. He has shown a strong knowledge of
10
computer software and hardware. He has been able to solve many computer
11
problems and install software programs when needed.
12
13
His overall job performance is outstanding. He is always willing to accept
14
extra work and is very dependable.”
15
16
The Annual Employee Evaluation period in UC Davis is from July 1 to June 30 next year and
17
had three grade levels: “Exceeds Expectation,” “Meets Expectation,” “Does Not Meet
18
Expectation.” Meets Expectation it was what an employee gets because of pay raises related to
19
evaluations. Plaintiff also received his normal wage increase due to receiving “Meets
20
Expectation” annual review.
21
After several time extensions and unsuccessful attempts to mediate the conflict through the HR
22
Mediation Office, on August 31, 2007, Plaintiff submitted to HR a Labor Relation Step II Appeal
23
from Director Taylor I Step Decision HR Case No: 03-PPS-013-06107. According to the UC
24
PPSM 70-Step II Review by Complaint Resolution Officer, the Complaint Resolution Officer
25
26 must convene a Step II meeting within 20 calendar days of the appeal to Step II. According to
27 HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia, HR had an enormous problem finding anyone to act
28 as Complaint Resolution Officer to conduct a Step II hearing, which was required to include an
4
154. On November 13, 2007, HR Labor Relation Supervisor Mike Garcia
5
assigned UCDMC Director Mike Boyd as Step II Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) to hear
6
Plaintiff’s case of unlawful suspension and reassignment. Mike Garcia wrote in his letter to Mike
7
Boyd who was listed in FAC and SAC as an individual Defendant.
8
“The Office of Labor Relations received the enclosed complaint filed in
9
10
accordance with Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM), Complaint
11 Resolution 70 (CR 70). Jaroslaw Plaintiff’s complaint was reviewed at the Step
13 Taylor. Jaroslaw Plaintiff was not satisfied with the Step I Response and has
14 filed a timely appeal to Step II. “In accordance with CR 70 and UCD
15 Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the Complaint Resolution Officer
16 (CRO) for the Step II review of the above referenced matter. In accordance
17 with CR 70 and UCD Procedure 70.2, you have been appointed as the
18 Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO) for the Step II review of the above
19 referenced matter. As the CRO, you are charged with convening a Step Il
20
meeting. Please convene a Step II meeting on or before December 3, 2007.”
21
22 155. Mike Boyd in the period of 1998 to 2014 held the title of UC Davis
23 Medical Center Executive Director, Facilities Planning, Design and Construction. By his duty, he
24 was directly involved in construction of the Central Plant, commissioned in 1998. Director Boyd
25 is solely responsible, together with colleague UCDMC Director Robert Taylor, Director Shelton
26 Duruisseau PhD, UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance (PO&M) Manager and Defendant
27 Charles Witcher, and UCDMC PO&M Principal Engineer Mike Lewis for unlawful—under state
28
21 money from contractors. Dennis Curry was Plaintiff’s superior from 2007 to 2012.
23 (Defendant in this case), who operated his private HVAC business and his church business on
24 university time, disclosed to Plaintiff that he was given his supervisor position in UCDMC
25 HVAC shop by UCDMC Director Robert Taylor and Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph .D in
26 exchange for installing and maintaining heating and air-conditioning equipment in their private
27 residences. It was reported to UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo in July
28
17 Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost from the UC Davis Academic Personnel Offices
19 162. The coordinator on the UC Davis Medical Center site was the newly
20 promoted HR Labor Relation Manager and attorney at law listed defendant in FAC and SAC
15 of business and bring the revenue back, regardless of the fact that the UC Davis Central Plant
17 165. To prepare himself for the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff reviewed the
18 University of California and UC Davis policies and was trying to find the University of
19 California policy that could allow management to remove and reassign an employee to the
20 different shop against that employee’s will and as a disciplinary measure.
21 166. The Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62 Corrective Action
22 Policy had no such option.
23 167. Plaintiff found only the Principles of Reassignment for the UC Davis
24
Medical Center on the UC Davis Website, which had nothing to do with disciplining employees,
25
but forgot to present it during the arbitration.
26
168. Plaintiff submitted by e-mail the mentioned UCDMC Principles of
27
Reassignment to Hearing Officer Ms. Connie Melendy on November 9, 2008.
28
15 desires.”
16 171. The Step III –Arbitration decision did not leave any doubt for Plaintiff that the
17 assigned University Hearing Officer would rule against Plaintiff if Plaintiff had not, by pure luck,
18 found the UC Davis Principles of Reassignment and sent it to Ms. Connie Melendy after the
19 Arbitration hearing. UC Arbitrator had no choice but to rule against the University and order the
20 University to let Plaintiff return to the central plant. To justify her decision against the University
21 and in favor of Plaintiff, Ms. Melendy, on pages 9 and 10 of her decision, explained in detail the
22 UC Davis Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) 62. Corrective Action —
23 Professional and Support Staff. These policies were well known prior to the arbitration for
24
witch hunter Bettye Andreos, Charles Witcher, Director Shelton Duruisseau, Director
25
Robert Taylor and Director Steven Chilcott, who hunted down Plaintiff and his coworker
26
William Buckans, and caused Plaintiff enormous humiliation, stress, anxiety, fear of losing
27
his employment and financial loss.
28
16 “Jerry can be counted on to make the right operational decisions regarding the
17 plant, and to keep his supervisor informed of the operational status of the plant
19 success of the Medical Center.” (Performance reviews from 2000, 2001, 2003,
20 2004, 2005, 2006)
21 There are no comments regarding threatening behavior or inappropriate
22 language in any of the annual evaluations from the time of Mr. Waszczuk’s
23 first evaluation in 2000 and including the 2006 evaluation that was written
24
prior to the suspension and reassignment. The University presented no
25
evidence to show that there were verbal or written discussions or performance
26
appraisals intended to caution or warn Mr. Waszczuk about inappropriate
27
behavior prior to the October 2007 evaluation (University Exhibit 13), which is
28
10 The Settlement –Agreement with the Regents of the University of California, Signed in
February 2009
11
12
172. After prevailing in the arbitration process, Plaintiff did not go back to the Central
13
Plant where his position was already replaced and where a group of employees from the Jackson
14
area who were hired fraudulently were helping Directors Shelton Durrisuseau, Robert Taylor,
15
Mike Boyd, and Charles Witcher to hunt down Plaintiff and William Buckans, which did not
16
18 173. Further, UC Davis assigned arbitrator Connie Melendy; in her 2008 decision,
19 besides the slanderous and untrue accusation aimed at Plaintiff, she suggested and strongly advised
20 Plaintiff to consider very thoughtfully and seriously, whether the environment of the
21 HVAC/Plumbing Shop, with its current supervisor and colleagues, would be more conducive to
22 Plaintiff’s future success. Under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to return to a worksite
23 where there is “animosity,” as Connie Melendy described, instead referring to it as a hostile work
24 environment that caused later the suicide one of the Central Plant Operator Todd Goerlich .
25 In April 2007 Todd Goerlich was hired as a Plaintiff’s replacement.
26
174. Plaintiff seriously considered the Arbitrator, Connie Melendy’s, suggestions to stay
27
permanently in the HVAC shop and never expected that two and one-half years after Plaintiff
28
15 included $ 13, 500 one time extra pay Plaintiff received 2009 Settlement –Agreement) ; in 2010
16 it was $80,500 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings of $70,000 ; in 2011—after the 2010
17 blackmail pay-raise of 12% (a six steps pay-up pay raise and an additional step in May 2011),
18 Chris Gangl’s annual earnings jumped to $100,000; in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
19 of $ 63,300; in 2012, Gang’s earnings was $97,300 in comparison with Plaintiff’s annual earnings
20 of 70,000;( the last year of Plainiff’s employment) in 2013, it was $98,700; and in 2014, it was
21 $104,000.
22 178. This was the reason why in March 2011, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical
23 Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher and asked respectfully
24
for Charles Witcher to increase Plaintiff’s base salary accordingly, in one step (not six steps )
25
from Middle Step of $71,640/year to the 3rd Step of $80,922/year.
26
179. Plaintiff had no intention to pursue his request if denied because of the Settlement-
27
Agreement, which stated that Plaintiff was to be provided wages of $70,000/year. It was an error
28
15 182. The other issue was that some Central Plant operators were hired 10 years after
16 Plaintiff was hired, and they received in December 2010 the 12% wage increase, and in May 2011,
17 the additional pay raise. Not one UC Davis skilled trade nonunion employee in December 2010
18 was dreaming to receive one penny in wage increase because of the strict budget constraint and
19 furlough of UC campuses. Some of employees were employed for more than 20 or 30 years and
20 were not considered for any wage increase in 2010.
21 183. Besides the $70.000.00 per year salary, Plaintiff received in the Settlement-
22 Agreement a small compensation in the amount of $13,500.00 for lost wages due to the witch hunt,
23 which resulted in suspension without pay and refinement in March 2007.
24
Shortly after Plaintiff signed the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement, the Regents of the
25
University of California UC Davis HR Assistant Director Dawn Capp, UC Davis attorney in
26
arbitration, lost her job. Most likely, Ms. Capp was fired or forced to quit a few months after
27
arbitration. The Hearing Officer, Ms. Connie Melendy, disappeared from the UC Davis landscape
28
6 185. At the time when Plaintiff signed the Settlement-Agreement, February 2009,
7 Plaintiff understood that the Defendant, if alleged of any violation of the Settlement-Agreement
8 by Plaintiff, would inform Plaintiff if Plaintiff had breached or violated the signed Settlement-
9 Agreement. Then, if Plaintiff disagreed, then the Defendant had the right to enforce the agreement
10 in a court of law. This was how Plaintiff understood this employee–employer contract. The
11 Defendant never alleged in one word anywhere that Plaintiff violated the signed Settlement-
12 Agreement, but freely slandered and defamed Plaintiff in at least six pseudo-investigation reports,
13 multi-investigatory leave letters, the April 2012 notice of intent to suspend without pay, the
14 September 2012 notice of intent to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, and the December 2012 letter
15
of employment termination.
16
The Working Environment In The UC Davis Medical Center Plumbing/HVAC
17
187. By title Associate Development Engineer title , Plaintiff basically became
18
Assistant for Plumbing/HVAC Shop Manager Patrick Putney who held the title of Senior
19
20
Development Engineer. Patrick Putney, who is also listed as the Defendant in this FAC and
21 SAC got very upset for reasons unknown to Plaintiff when he got news that Plaintiff settled the
22 case and became an exempt employee in his shop. Putney complained about to HR and started
23 pitting Shop Supervisor Dorin Daniliuc against Plaintiff .Daniliuc was given his supervisor job
24 in Plumbing job by Directors Robert Taylor and Shelton Durusseau in exchange for HVAC
25 service Daniluc provided to them in in their private residences by his private HVAC business
26 188. Everything settled down, and Plaintiff became very n isolated employee in
27 a small glass cage and was monitoring and dispatching UC Davis Medical Center critical alarms,
28
15 employees. Putney was trapping pigeons on the UCDMC roofs, bringing his kids to the shop for
16 babysitting and schooling, and selling soda from his private vending machine that he brought to
17 the shop.
18 Plaintiff later described his new working environment as a gypsy village in Eastern Europe,
19 which closely resembled the one portrayed by Sasha Cohen in the movie Borat.
20 190.. Dorin Daniliuc, who was and still is Patrick Putney’s assistant,
21 concentrated most of his attention on his private HVAC business, which he operated on company
22 time via cell phone; he would often disappear for most of the day with his business-equipped
23 van. Daniliuc was also bringing some foreign workers (Romanian nationals) to the shop to repair
24
his private vehicles. Daniliuc did not care much about what people thought about his unrelated
25
employment activities in the workplace. Daniliuc installed and maintained HVAC equipment for
26
two important UCDMC directors in their private residences, which apparently assured him of his
27
importance; his understanding was, “It’s nobody’s business what I am doing on company time.”
28
13
The December 2010 secret 12% Pay Increase for UCDMC Central Plant Operators,
14
192. Plaintiff’s employment with the UC Davis Medical Center would have
15
lasted longer, and most likely Plaintiff would retire from University at age of 66 without any
16
problems. In March 2011 Plaintiff was 60 years old and it was Plaintiff goal to retire from
17
18
University six years later. . It did not happen and Plaintiff’s employment was converted by the
20 193. In September 2010, one of the UCDMC Central Plant Operators, Jeff
21 Lancaster, discovered on the Sacramento Bee Webpage (Salary for Public Employees in
22 California) that Plaintiff’s 2009 annual salary was $82,295.00, not knowing that Plaintiff’s 2009
23 salary was a combination of Plaintiff’s $70,000.00 base salary and $13,500.00 extra pay per
24 February 2009 Settlement –Agreement for Plaintiff’s lost wages due to Plaintiff’s unlawful
25 reassignment from the Central Plant to the Plumbing/HVAC Shop in March 2007.
26 194. Jeff Lancaster was one of the few from the Central Plant who in
27 2005/2007 was used by UCDMC directors, Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor, Mike Boyd and
28
15 and fried of the Central Plant manager Steve McGrath from his previous employment. A few
16 years back, Steve McGrath’s first wife committed suicide; now, his friend and former coworker
17 After the Todd Georlich suicide traumatized Central Plant Manager Steve McGrath tried
18 unsuccessfully to get a job in the UCDMC Carpenter shop and later in the HVAC shop.
19 198. Jeff Lancaster agitated another three individuals, Chris Gangl, Timothy
20 Cooper and Greg Russ to write and sign a petition and demanding a $4.00/hour pay raise,
21 pointing at Plaintiff’s salary and stating in the petition that Plaintiff was paid $15,000.00 more
22 per year than Central Plant Operators. Beside Plaintiff’s wages, these individuals were very
23 dissatisfied that their help and sacrifices for directors. Shelton Duruisseau, Robert Taylor and
24
Mike Boyd did not do and good because Plaintiff and Buckans was not fired from their jobs in
25
2005-2007 due to a witch hunt, They constantly bragged about and bullied and harassed William
26
Buckans after Plaintiff left the Central Plant in 2007.
27
199. Plaintiff received the copy of the undated black –mail petition signed by
28
15 conducted by the UC Davis Chancellor’s office related to massive machine oil discharge to the
17 202. However, Dennis Curry did not ignore Plaintiff’s discovery about the
18 blackmail pay increase petition and alerted Charles Witcher or Director Taylor a and the petition
19 for pay raise was rewritten and signed by 11 central Plant Operators .
20 203. The memo, letter, or petition, dated September 20, 2010, signed by 11
21 “Central Plant Operators” was addressed to CHARLES WITCHER, Manager of
22 PO&M,Department identified the subject matter as “…the monitoring of the Johnson Controls
23 Metasys Software program and dispatching of emergency and same day service calls to the Central
24 Plant during graveyard and weekend shifts.” In other words, the subject was the fact that the
25 Central Plant Operators covered shifts that Plaintiff did not work.
26 204. The memo, letter, or petition continued “…the Metasys and dispatching has
27 become a full time job to monitor and respond too (sic)...several years ago, we reached a point
28
16 207. The Central Plant Operation and the petition was just a black-mail
17 petition to get pay raise for something completely different than inability to operate the plant.
18 UCDMC Directors, Robert Taylor, Shelton Duruisseau Ph, D. Mike Boyd, Charles Witcher and
19 Stephen Chilcott did not have much choice. They bent to the petition demands and pay raise
20 most likely got approval from the UC Davis Chancellor’s office or the University of California
21 Office of the President due to the strict budget constraints and furlough on the campuses and the
budget crisis in the whole state, including State of California Courts.
22
23 208. The 12% pay raise for all Central Plant Operators was provided to all
24 Central Plant Operators. Some of them were hired a short time before the blackmail petition was
25 submitted, and it was unthinkable for anybody to get a 12% or six steps up pay raise as a non-
26 exempt union or non-union and even exempt University of California employee working only
27 for one or two years for University.
28
10
The Attorney Danesha Nichol’s Deployment From The UC Davis Campus to UC Davis Medical
11
Center Human Resources Department in October 2010
12
13
210. After Plaintiff’s conversation with Dennis Curry, UC Davis Health
14
System HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott (defendant) requested that the UC Davis
15
Chancellor’s office deployed .Danesha Nichols, the listed Defendant in FAC and SAC to UC
16
Davis Medical Center to monitor the situation with the pay raise demanded by blackmail petition
17
for the Central Plant Operators.
18
211. Danesha Nichols was the UC Davis HR attorney who in 2007/2008 was
19
involved in Plaintiff’s Step III Appeal arbitration process against UC Davis Medical Center
20
management, and she was very familiar with the crime that was committed in the Central Plant
21
in the period of time spanning from 1998 to 2009 and Nichols was familiar with Plaintiff’s file .
22
212. Danesha Nichols arrived at UC Davis Medical in October 2010 with the
23
title of Investigation Coordinator in similar circumstances as Stephen Chilcott in 2005 and she
24
reported directly to Director Stephen Chilcott.
25
213. As Plaintiff stated previously, the UC Davis Medical Center’s newly built
26
in 1998 Cogeneration Power Plant/Central Plant was a pride and legacy left behind for former
27
UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef and Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D., who was appointed to
28
16
215. Mike Lewis was Project Manager for Central Plant construction, start-up, and
17
commissioning. Mr. Lewis was the person who, by his title, position, and duty, was most responsible;
18
“he was obligated” to stop machine oil discharge from the leaking Cooling Tower gear boxes from
19
dispensing into the river and soil to prevent contamination of the natural environment. Mike Lewis, as
20
Principal Engineer, grossly neglected his duty and did not take any preventive measure to stop the oil
21
leak and discharge into the natural environment. Mike Lewis had no problem noticing William
22
23
Buckans’s feet elevated on the console and viewed it as disrespectful to him but was completely
24 unable to notice William Buckan’s accident underneath the cooling tower’s oily surface. Mike Lewis
25 also did not observe—for 7 years—the badly designed cooling tower gear boxes and unlawful massive
26 machine oil discharge into the nearby river and soil surrounding the cooling tower. Apparently, he was
27 ordered to do nothing about by Director Taylor or Director Shelton Duruisseau Ph.D or Director
28
4 216. Five days after the Principal Engineer Mike Lewis issued his dramatic
5 memo about the incoming investigation to find perpetrator Central Plant Operator, Todd
6 Goerlich committed suicide. Then, the rest of the Central Plant Operators received a 12% pay
7 raise despite strict UC budget constraints and furlough in UC Campuses and no power sale
8 contract . Thereafter, everything got quiet. Nobody was questioned by an HR investigator or the
9 UC Davis Police Department about locker burglary. No more comments were made by any
10 Central Plant supervisors about Jeff Lancaster’s burglarized locker, no more dramatic memos
11
from the Principal were issued and Todd Georlich’s tragic death was quickly forgotten.
12
13 The Secret 12 % Pay Raise For Central Plant Operators –March 2011
14
217. Around March 5, 2011, Plaintiff somehow got into a conversation with
15
the operator from the central plant William Buckans about the December 2010 12% pay raise,
16
and Plaintiff received from Buckans a copy of the UCDMC Plant Operation and the letter from
17
18
maintenance manager Charles Witcher dated December 20, 2010, which confirmed a 12% pay
20 218. The December 2010 12% pay raise that was secretly provided to central
21 plant operators was discriminatory to other non-union employees of the UC Davis Medical
22 Center who did not get one penny in wage increase in the last three years due to strict budget
23 constraints in the whole University of California system. The disclosure about the secret pay
24 raise for small groups of employees became a subject of discussion among workers at the other
25 shops in the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff confronted his shop manager Patrick Putney and
26 Plaintiff asked Putney why the HVAC shop staff did not get a pay raise. Putney’s response was
27 that he knew about the pay raise, but was told to be silent about it to avoid any turmoil among
28
6
The Restricted Access to the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant
7 in March 2011
8
219. Consequently, right after Plaintiff asked his supervisors about the secret
9
12% pay raise for the Central Plant Operators, Department Principal Engineer Mike Lewis
10
issued a memo dated March 11, 2011, instructing Central Plant crew to do the following:
11
12 “Please inform all Central-Plant personnel that access to the Central Plant is
14 University. All operators not on duty and other personnel with no direct reason
15 to be in the Central Plant shall not be granted access to the Central Plant. If
16 illegal access is gained to the Central Plant please call 4-2555 for a non-
17 emergency event or 911 for an emergency.
18 “If an employee not on duty or other individuals with no direct need to gain
19
access to the Central Plant request access to the Central Plant please contact
20
Charles Witcher, Mike Lewis, or Dennis Curry for direction. Thank you.”
21
That was a shocking memo. Never before had access to the Central Plant been restricted for off-
22
shift personnel.
23
24 The March 13, 2011, Plaintiff letter addressed to UCDMC Plant Operation and Maintenance
Manager Charles Witcher
25
26
27 220. A few days after Mike Lewis issued the memo about access to the Central
28 Plant, Plaintiff on March 14, 2011, sent a letter to Charles Witcher and asked him respectfully
13 officers .
21 It is appears that Cogen Operators wages under Title Code 8094 for Non —
22 Represented were increased from level 5. to level 11.0. (Six levels up)
23
I would not write this letter but money talk and stirring people mind and saying
24
more simply I just feel discriminated in this share of goods.
25
26 At the best of my ability to write, I will try to explain why I feel discriminated
28
2
Last year in August 2010 after I came back to work from vacation, my
3
coworker from HVAC shop, Bill Rabidoux asked me if I will be willing to
4
work swing shift because HVAC shop manager told him that second shift
5
would be created for the Metasys System operation outside the Central Plant.
6
14 Shortly after, in September 2010, I received by copy of the undated but signed
15 petition by four Central Plant operators in regards to Metasys Operation
16
After I read the petition and attached to the petition the wages disclosure
17
printed from the Sacramento Bee website, the first my thought was that the
18
petition is a follow up to their earlier complaint which I thought they submitted
19
in August during my vacation absence. The petition itself alleged that Metasys
20
System operation has became full time job to monitor and it was my
21
understanding from the petition that the $ 4.00 /hour wage increase for them
22
would magically convert the full time Metasys Operation job to relaxing
23
leisure in nice resort.
24
10
involved in writing this petition for Central Plant Operators.
11 I did not want to engage myself in any conflict or discussion with these
12 individuals who are attacking my wages and my duty and I did pass the copy
13 of the petition to Mr. Dennis Curry.
14
Thereafter I forgot about it and concluded this event as a "NEVER ENDING
15
TRAUMA IN THE CENTRAL PLANT " taking in consideration that the same
16
group of individuals viciously and recklessly attacked me and other people in
17
the past, caused me enormous stress, suspension, my departure from the
18
Central Plant and loss of thousands of dollars in my earning"
19
20 At the end of December 2010 I got e-mail from William about his pay raise
21 and I thought that he is joking and I wrote him back that I got five thousand
22 dollars raise, than he sent me congratulation etc. I did not believe him in spite
23 of State financial crisis, furlough, budget constraints and UC President memos
24
about the cuts and possibility of big lay off in IJC system. Basically, I ignored
25
William information and was no further discussion about the pay raise in the
26
Central Plant.
27
The other subject in December 2010 in discussion was the tragic death of the
28
10 The other December 2010 story from the Central Plant is a story of the Jeff
11 Lancaster burglarized locker and supposedly stolen photos from the Jeff's
21 action.All lockers will have their locks replaced with new and the master file
23 or how they will be notified.In light of the professional attitude and excellent
20
The wages subject came again to my attention last week because William did
21 mention again his raise and again I thought that he is trying to "pull my legs"
22 and is joking. and in light of budget cuts e.tc I did not believe what is William
23 telling me until he sent me copy of your memo which stated that he got the pay
24 raise.
25 I am working in UC Davis Medical Center almost 12 years. A lot longer then
26 many operators in the Central Plant.
27 With my departure from the Central Plant I received by the Settlement —
28
16 I wrote the introduction and I summarized the latest events in the Central in
18 The petitioners have the right to say in the petition whatever they want about
19 my job but I know how to operate the Central Plant and could go and do it if
20 really needed or requested by management
21 I am not sure if the petitioners would be so happy to work in the place
22 where no designated place to eat meal at lunch is or break, where they
23 would have to use filthy bathrooms, no warm and clean locker room to
24
change clothes at the winter time. I am happy for Central Plant operators
25
they got the wage increase. However, I am asking for fair and equal
26
treatment in regards to wages
27
It is my understanding from my job description that my position has primary
28
5
Beside the Metasys Alarms I am doing other stuff requested by Patrick Putney
6
and I have well documented what I am doing beside the Metasys Operation.
7
Some days I am very busy and "dizzy" from the alarms but I don't have any
8
major problem to handle the job.
9
I don't take brakes with exception to lunch and I would like to have both
10
brakes integrated into lunch and take one hour lunch instead of two 15 minutes
11
brakes and 1/2 hour lunch. This would allow me to leave the shop to eat lunch
12
outside in cafeteria or walk around the campus to relax and get my blood
13
circulation normal
14
16 accordingly to next level under Title Code 7182 for Non —Represented
18 Sincerely
19 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
20
21 221. Plaintiff learned that prior to Todd Goerlich’s suicide, Goerlich frequently
22 complained to his friend Dereck Cole and his girlfriend that he had been harassed and bullied in
23 the Central Plant “by a person named Jeff.” That corresponds with William Buckans’s
24
observation how badly Todd Goerlich disliked Jeff Lancaster and, in particular, how different
25
and unapproachable Todd became when he worked a shift with Jeff Lancaster.
26
Dereck Cole was a newly hired HVAC Technician in a shop where Plaintiff worked. Cole was
27
hired just one month after Todd Georlich committed suicide, and Todd Georlich was the person
28
16 223. The news about the pay raise got around, and in fear of turmoil, the UC
17 Davis Chancellor’s Office or UC Office of the President ordered a 2% pay raise to all UC Davis
18 Medical Center non-union employees, including to Central Plant Operators who had already
19 received a 12% pay raise. Normally, employees would receive a pay raise on July 1st if it were
20 approved after the Annual Performance Review to be given to employees for the 2010/2011
21 year. Plaintiff received the pay raise in May 2011 as well, and his salary increased from
22 $70,000.00 to $71,600 per year.
23 The April 2011 Retaliation
24
224. Instead of any response to my letter from Charles Witcher in April 2011,
25
Plaintiff’s manager, Patrick Putney, blatantly blamed him for missing and not dispatching a
26
hospital refrigerator critical alarm that resulted in a complaint against him by the hospital
27
pharmacy personnel. In a heated discussion, Putney humiliated Plaintiff in front of his teenage
28
15 responded, “I am trying to make you perfect.” Plaintiff said ok and continued to train himself to
16 be perfect with these false alarms and not to miss the real one. Missing critical alarms and not
17 dispatching it could lead to enormous losses or even patient death in UC Davis Medical Center
18 Hospital.
28
15 punished, as this had happened to one of his coworkers, Rick Tunello, in the central plant. Rick
16 Tunello had been wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted by Dennis Curry, and wrongfully
17 suspended for a missing refrigerator alarm without pay. Plaintiff’s intervention in the case, and
18 proof that it not was not Tunello’s fault, reversed Dennis Curry’s conviction.
19 229. The behavior and vicious attacks of Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniluc, Dennis
20 Curry and Charles Witcher aimed at Plaintiff in March, April, May, June and July of 2011
21 reminded Plaintiff of the training class he attended in March 30, 2000.
22 230. The March 30, 2000 training course, “Labor Principles in Public
23 Employment” for UC Davis Medical Center supervisors exactly resembled Putney, Daniliuc,
24
Curry and Witcher’s approach to resolving the dispute. The abovementioned course for supervisors
25
was hosted by UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources Executive Director Gloria Alvarado.
26
Ms. Alvaradao’s course lecture had nothing to do with labor principles in public employment, but
27
was a class that coached supervisors how to inflict fear, to intimidate and silence employees who
28
14
May 2011
15
232. In May 2011, Plaintiff held two separate meetings with Department Head ,
16
17 Charles Witcher, to clarify the issue with the missing refrigerator alarm, to discuss the unusual and
18 psychotic behavior of Patrick Putney toward me, which was not limited to stalking Plaintiff from
19 his dark office, suddenly opening his dark office door from the inside and screaming “What are
20 you doing?” Thereafter, within minutes Dennis Curry showing up in the shop and talking to
21 Plaintiff like Plaintiff did something wrong, they both laughed in Patrick Putney’s Office. .
22 233. In May 2011 Patrick Putney held meetings with the crew and in a
23 threatening manner told everybody how good he is at firing people from the job if they not behave
24 up to his standards. One of the new shop employees, Dereck Cole, became so frightened that he
25 asked Putney if he was aiming his threats at him. One year later, Dereck Cole became another
26
victim of Patrick’s Putney, Dennis Curry, and Charles Witcher’s schemes and yet another
27
candidate to look for new employment. He was unspeakably victimized and asked me to represent
28
15 Patrick Putney. I would prefer for the situation to improve somehow and for
17 appear that this will be the case. Patrick is still working very hard to get on my
15 and dumped on my desk the policy and procedures for central plant operators,
16 which explains how to operate the Metasys system, plus my job description.
17 He clearly intended to intimidate me, speaking the following words: "Do you
18 understand what this policy is for?" I thanked him the next day for providing
19 me with the Metasys policy three years after I had joined the HVAC shop and
20 12 years after I had begun operating Metasys. To participate in his "game," I
21 decided to provide him with the link to the UC Davis Medical Center
22 (UCDMC) Parking and Transportation Services Office and to advise him to
23 pay for his parking permit. For the past three years, he had parked for free on
24
the UCDMC premises by hiding his car inside the shop and playing a little
25
"catch me if you can” game with the parking cops. On top of this, I decided to
26
make this comment to him "What kind of managerial example is he setting for
27
his crew by showing that it is okay to cheat and steal from the employer while
28
15 create a confrontation with me for any reason. I simply told him not to worry
16 and that I had been reviewing and closing all of the completed work orders for
17 almost two years using Putney’s name and password, which was, of course, a
19 The previous incident and today's incident show clearly that Patrick has no
20 remorse about hunting me down. From my perspective, I do not have a choice but
21 to defend myself against his vicious and unpredictable aggression.
22 I was surprised and shocked today that I was kicked out of my office after 3:15
23 PM by Dennis per Patrick’s request and thus could not finish this letter then. I
24
still don't understand why I got kicked out. I did not park my car without a
25
permit, and I did not do private jobs in the company shop. I just wanted a few
26
minutes after work to finish my letter to the PO&M manager.
27
I am not sure how I will concentrate on and do my job tomorrow as required if my
28
15 information about the Central Plant’s operation and electric power, steam, hot water, and chill
16 water production.
17 236. Plaintiff thought that the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed
18 with the Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, would protect Plaintiff from the
2 238. Due to continuous harassment and sabotaging the Plaintiff’s job, the
3 condition of Plaintiff’s employment became intolerably stressful to the point that on June 22, 2011,
4 on short notification, Plaintiff asked Department Head Charles Witcher to give Plaintiff 3 days of
5 vacation to get away from Patrick Putney. The vacation days were granted and Plaintiff went home.
6
Regardless of the stress and feelings, in good faith and will, Plaintiff sent an email to Patrick
7
Putney and asked him to restore and normalize professional relationship.
8
239. Plaintiff did not get any response from Putney. Plaintiff did not know in June 2011
9
that a similar action to 2006/2007 action against Plaintiff was underway; a false complaint was
10
filed against Plaintiff with the HR Department and Plaintiff became the subject of second witch
11
hunt within two years taking into consideration date of the Settlement –Agreement Plaintiff signed
12
with the Regents of the University of California in February 2009. The month of June was the
13
month of annual employee performance review for the year 2010/2011 .In June 2011 Plaintiff did
14
not receive his employee performance review from his two supervisors Patrick Putney and Dorin
15
17 July 2011
18
240. On July 8, 2011, Plaintiff held a meeting with HR Labor Relation
19
Consultant Gina Harwood about the harassment and retaliation Plaintiff was experiencing. During
20
the meeting, Harwood deliberately failed to disclose the fact that the false and fabricated complaint
21
was filed by Plaintiff’s two supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. A few days later,
22
Plaintiff was officially informed that the complaint has been filed against him and that an HR
23
investigator had been assigned to investigate the allegation. The assigned HR Investigator was HR
24
attorney Danesha Nichols, who was deployed from the UC Davis campus to UC Davis Medical
25
Center in October 2010 after Central Plant Operators submitted a black mail petition for pay raise.
26
27 241. Danesha Nichols was very familiar with the previous attack against Plaintiff
28 in 2006/2007 due to her involvement in Plaintiff’s arbitration process against the Defendant in
16 Drown about the Settlement-Agreement violations by the Defendant, the UC Davis Chief
17 Compliance Director, Wendy Delemendo, contacted Plaintiff and tried to convince Plaintiff to
18 file the complaint under the UC Whistle Blowing Policy. Plaintiff refused due to his and his
19 coworker’s experience in 2006/2007 when he helped his coworker William Buckans with the
20 Whistle Blowing case related to massive machine oil discharge via a storm drain to the Sacramento
21 River.
22 244. On July 29, 2011, Plaintiff responded to Delmendo’s whistleblowing
23 complaint invitation by letter with many questions about HVAC shop supervisor Dorin Daniliuc’s
24
relationship with two UC Davis Medical Center directors, Robert Taylor and Shelton Duruisseau
25
The Daniliuc’ relation with these two directors was to provide them HVAC services in their
26
private residences in exchange for Daniluc’s supervisory position in the HVAC shop. The
27
questions were never answered by UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo or any
28
15 illegally accessing shop computers. Bill Rabidaux’s son was a twice-convicted child
17 order and was not allowed access to any computer with Internet. He should not have been
19 248. This individual was a frequent guest in the HVAC shop, and his presence
20 was tolerated by Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc because Bill Rabidaux had a special
21 relationship with Charles Witcher’s assistant, Dennis Curry.
22 After Kenny Diede reported to Plaintiff that Bill Rabidaux’s son was accessing a company
23 computer, Plaintiff told Kenny Diede that Plaintiff would pass the information on to Patrick Putney
24
when he came back to his office. When Plaintiff told Putney about it, he got upset that Kenny
25
Diede had not waited for him with information and angrily asked Kenny whose side Kenny is s
26
on—“Jerry’s (Plaintiff’s) side or Putney’s side?” Kenny’s response was that he was not on
27
anybody’s side and that he was working in the shop and did not appreciate having a child
28
15 70. Annual Performance Reviews (Evaluations) are the most important documents in the
16 employee–employer relationship; Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 18 Cal.
18 251. Only Stephen Chilcott as the HR Executive Director had the power to
19 order not to provide Plaintiff with his annual evaluation and deprive him of administrative
20 remedies under the UC Policy PPSM 70.
21 252.. In July and August 2011, UC Davis Health System HR Executive Director
22 Stephen Chilcott, in conspiracy with Director Michael Boyd and HR Workers Compensation
23 Manager Hugh Parker (Chilcott’s subordinate), made an attempt to remove Plaintiff from the
24
premises through the false and fraudulent Workers Compensation Claim. Plaintiff refused to file
25
a false claim, but a claim was filed on Plaintiff’s behalf anyway.
26
253. It is possible that UCDMC HR Workers’ Compensation Manager Hugh
27
Parker forged Plaintiff’s signature and filed the Workers’ Compensation claim on Plaintiff’s behalf,
28
17 my office for a one-hour lunch. This was a trigger point for my decision to
18 ask my doctor for a medical leave. The person who apparently fried my
19 hard drive with higher voltage knew what he was doing and how to do it. I
20 did not find any external physical damage to my hard drive but, after I
21 removed the cover, I found that the circuit board and motor had been
22 burned.
23 I am almost certain of who and why it was done, but I did not catch anybody by
24
hand. Therefore, I can only write and whine about this event. I did not take any
25
chances by remaining in my office any longer and getting electrocuted like my HD.”
26
255. It happened after over three months of nonstop attacks against Plaintiff including,
27
and not limited to, stalking and sabotaging Plaintiff’s job as orchestrated by the UC Davis Health
28
8 August 2011
9
257. In July 2011, Plaintiff asked many times and begged for the harassment to stop, as
10
well as the sabotaging of Plaintiff’s duties and job, so as not to escalate the conflict. Plaintiff’s
11
appeals did not work, and Plaintiff had to evacuate himself from the job site due to enormous
12
emotional distress caused by PO&M, the HR department management, and HR investigators.
13
Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on work-related stress sick leave until September 1, 2011. By
14
going on work-related stress sick leave, Plaintiff was hoping that, during his absence from work,
15
everything would settle down and Plaintiff would be able to continue his employment. Plaintiff
16
17 was also hoping that the UCDM HR assigned investigator, Attorney Danesha Nichols, would
18 interview all Plaintiff’s coworkers from the shop and would clarify the issues of the false and
19 fabricated accusations against Plaintiff. Plaintiff forgot or did not know in August 2011 that
20 Danesha Nichols was involved in the previous Plaintiff’s case together with Stephen Chilcott and
21 that Danesha Nichols was deployed in October 2010 to UC Davis Medical Center to monitor the
22 situation with the black –mail pay raise for the central plant operators.
23 258. Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, was slandered and defaced on his annual
24 evaluation by Patrick Putney for reporting a twice-convicted child pornography felon for
25 accessing company computers. Later on, Plaintiff represented Kenny Diede in his complaints
26
pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70 and Whistleblowing Retaliation
27
Policy to keep his job with UC Davis Medical Center.
28
16 262. Plaintiff became very upset, stressed, and angry that could not go back to
17 work. Plaintiff got feeling that he would never get his job back, knowing that it was already
18 awarded to Bill Rabidaux, the father of the twice-convicted child pornography felon. Bill
19 Rabidoux should be punished, together with shop supervisors, for his participation in covering up
20 the parole violation of his sick-minded relative, instead of having the job granted to Plaintiff by
21 the Settlement-Agreement with the UC Regents. Also, Plaintiff would like to mention that when
22 Plaintiff was leaving the shop on August 2, 2011, Plaintiff had not had any problems with any of
23 his coworkers throughout the course of Plaintiff’s employment in the HVAC shop for four years.
24
25 September 2011
26
263. The UC Davis Medical Center PO&M Department Manager Charles
27
Witcher’s letter, dated August 31, 2011, placing Plaintiff on investigatory leave was an
28
15 265. Plaintiff was informed by the UC Davis Public Record Act office that
16 Nichols’s report that was issued as a cause to terminate Plaintiff on September 23, 2011, was
17 destroyed and was not available to Plaintiff to obtain from Nichols. Nichols most likely lied to
18 Public Record Act personnel because Nichols provided the copy of the Report to HR Workers
19 Compensation Office Manager Hugh Parker who was coordinator in May 2012 to end Plaintiff’s
20 employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.
21 266.. Plaintiff responded angrily to Danesha Nichols’ request and refused to
22 participate, similar to 2006/2007 UCDMC’s prosecution.
23 267. Plaintiff asked the Mistreatment Office Manager, Cindi Oropeza,(listed
24
Defendant in FAC and SAC) to add Danesha Nichols and Charles Witcher to Plaintiff’s
25
mistreatment complaint, which Plaintiff filed against Patrick Putney on August 30, 2011.
26
268. Following Danesha Nichols’ request for a meeting with her on September
27
12, 2011, Charles Witcher sent me a letter and accused me of inappropriate communication with
28
17 I am not your and Mr. Chillcot’s hostage and you both have to end this hostage
12
270. Plaintiff was so stressed out and already was using antidepressant and
13
nitroglycerine, and escalation of the conflict by Defendant forced Plaintiff to seek a doctor and
14
15 psychologist’s help to cope with the enormous emotional stress and anxiety in relation to
16 employment situation.
17 272. On September 22, 2011, Plaintiff’s physician placed Plaintiff on the work
16 stop the constant assault, harassment and vicious vendetta against me for last
27
278. On October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State Bar of
28
8 Witcher, and others, Plaintiff thought that maybe someone had filed the false complaint with the
9 UC Davis Police Department and accused me of violence and discrimination and other crimes
15 unfounded accusations fabricated by the Defendant against Plaintiff. Captain Joyce Souza, in her
16 response, wrote:
20 283. Plaintiff noticed that Captain Joyce Souza cc’d her e-mail response to her
21 superior, UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer
22 Wendy Delmendo, who assigned, in July 2011, UC Davis attorney Danesha Nichols to conduct a
23 pseudo-investigation against Plaintiff to fabricate a cause for Plaintiff’s termination of
24 employment on September 23, 2011, which did not happen.
25
284. On the same day, October 6, 2011, in response to Captain Souza’s
26
information, Plaintiff replied to and thanked Captain Souza for information about Plaintiff’s
27
police record, and Plaintiff cc’d his response to Chief Annette Spicuzza; Lt. John Pike; UC Davis
28
10 changed course and were trying to find for Plaintiff a new place to work in UCDMC. Plaintiff
11 did not pay much attention to Mr. Dark’s proposition because his job in the HVAC shop as
12 Assistant Development Engineer fit Plaintiff perfectly and Plaintiff had no restrictions or
13 limitations to do the job with Plaintiff’s health and condition, with the exception of the stalking
14 and harassing by Plaintiff’s supervisors who made his life miserable and work conditions
15 intolerable.
16 286. On October 10, 2011, the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator and attorney
17 Danesha Nichols sent to HVAC shop employee Kenneth Diede a threating and intimidating e-mail
18 message. Kenneth Diede was the employee who in July 2011 was reported to be a twice-convicted
19
child pornography felon on parole who had illegally accessed the HVAC shop computer and was
20
prohibited by court order to have or touch any commuter, especially one with Internet. Danesha
21
Nichols covered up the child porn criminal activities issue in her pseudo-investigation reports.
22
287. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant with
23
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Harassment, Retaliation, and ongoing
24
conspiracy against Plaintiff in the University of California Davis Medical Center.
25
288. On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff sent a request to the UC Davis Public
26
record Act office and requested documents related to the UCDMC CENTRAL PLANT - JEFF
27
28
18 the organization and operation of the campus. With the investigation by Ms.
10 It is almost one month passed by since I asked Vice President Duckett for
12 I would like to mention that the previous UC HR Vice President Mrs. Judith
15 loud voice, did not give me any choice but to evacuate myself from the shop
19 another psychopath supervisor like Patrick Putney who victimized not only
20 myself but others too.
21 The question must be asked whether Patrick Putney is mentally sick or
22 unstable and UCDMC shall request psychiatric evaluation. Whether he should
23 be present around other employees not to mention supervising others. Beside
24
the stalking me, I observed that his hands are almost constantly shaking
25
especially when he got excited or mad or even for no reason.
26
Hypothetically, I wondering what would happen if instead of 60 years old Jerry
27
Waszczuk, a younger female employee would be working in the office and
28
15 Putney to protect stalked female employee or hunt her down for complaining
16 listed individuals.
5
CC: Vice President- Dwaine Duckett
6 UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer - Wendy Delmendo
Director Epperson
7 Office of UC Regents .
8
Office of the President Yudof
Liberty Mutual”
9
November 2011
10
11 291. In November 2011, Plaintiff spent most of his time dealing with the
12 Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, which deprived Plaintiff of legitimate short-term
13 disability benefits. After Plaintiff used all his sick leave days and vacation days, Plaintiff was
14 basically left without income. The FMLA 90-day protection also ran out. UCDMC HR Labor
15 Relations Consultant Gina Harwood, for reasons unknown to Plaintiff, on November 14, 2011,
16 offered to Plaintiff an additional 12 weeks of supplemental FMLA time protection, which
17 Plaintiff declined. The short-term disability benefits had been denied to Plaintiff, so it was
18
nonsense to accept the FMLA protection extension to stay employed without the income.
19
292. In the response letter, dated November 23, 2011, to Gina Harwood,
20
Plaintiff wrote:
21
“At this point, I am not considering to file for an extension of my
22
medical leave under the Supplemental FMLA University Policy 2.210.
23
I am under enormous stress and pressure, and I have had enough. I was left
24
without a paycheck, so an extension of medical leave won’t help with at all.
25
The Settlement-Agreement I signed with the UC Regents in 2009 and my civil
26
rights were grossly violated by the University of California.
27
28
Contacting the benefits office regarding my current situation to discuss the
15 294. The premediated pepper spray attack ordered by Chancellor Katehi on November
16 18, 2011, was solely used to replace UC Davis Chief of Police Annette Spicuzza with Lt. Matt
17 Carmichael; fire from the job Lt. John Pike, who was ordered and used to casually and very visibly pepper
18 spray students; and force to retire UC Davis Captain Joyce Souza. Just after the premediated pepper spray
19 attack, Lt. Matt Carmichael, who on November 18, 2011, was in the UC Davis Medical Center, instantly,
20 as most likely planned, was assigned as the interim UC Davis chief of police. In May 2012, the new UC
21 Davis chief of police participated with Lt. James Barbour in the operation to provoke and kill or end
22 Plaintiff’s employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
23
24 295. On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the State of California
25 Department of Insurance against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston for denying to
26 Plaintiff short-term disability benefits. The Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, without
27 conducting any reasonable investigation concerning its obligations under the contract,
28
16 publications “Chemical Katehi,” on November 18, 2011, ordered gas attacks against peacefully
17 protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. In this way, Katehi observed and marked the 38th
18 anniversary of the student massacre at Athens Polytechnic by the Greek fascist military junta that
19 killed 25 people and injured over 1,000. In 1973, Linda Katehi was a student at Athens
20 Polytechnic.
21 298. A few days later, on November 23, 2011, UC Davis Vice Chancellor Claire
22 Pomeroy, who was in charge of UC Davis Medical Center School of Medicine, cried out in her e-mail
23 how the community was deeply shaken and disturbed by the pepper spraying of protesting students:
24
“Our university community is shaken by the deeply disturbing images we have
25
seen over the past few days. The video of the police action against peaceful
26
students stands in stark contrast to our deeply held commitments to freedom of
27
expression and to our UC Davis principles of community”
28
4
Can you do something about the National Socialism doctrine oriented and
5
entirely corrupted management in the UC Davis Medical Center, Plant
6
Operation and Maintenance and Human Resources Departments? The
7
8 Principles of Community does not exist in UCDMC and it is the empty slogan.
10 and others are receiving my letters for quite long and you and others don’t care
12 destroying my and others livelihood and life. I am sending a few letters again
13 to you with hope that I will be heartened to see Ms. Pomeroy will order to
14 conduct a true investigation against the corrupted individuals in both
15 departments and restore a normal work environment in the UCDMC PO&M
16 Department.
17
Best regards and good luck with your commitment to freedom of expression.
18
JerryWaszczuk
19
Associate Development Engineer
20
21 300. Shortly after Plaintiff sent his message to Vice Chancellor Pomeroy cc’d to many
22 other University of California decision makers, Vice Chancellor Pomeroy was forced to resign due to
23 illegal medical experiments conducted under Pomeroy’s supervision for years by two UC Davis Medical
24 Center Dutch neurosurgeons, Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar and Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, which caused
several patients’ deaths. So far, Plaintiff, with his words about the UC Davis Medical Center
25
National Socialism doctrine, was taking into consideration inhumane, illegal medical
26
experiments on humans in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz conducted on camp inmates
27
by the notorious Dr. Joseph Mengele.
28
6 access to the university e-mail, with accusations that Plaintiff was sending inappropriate content
7 in his emails. Mr. Witcher also added a threat about the dismissal of Plaintiff’s employment if he
8 continued to communicate with others about the investigation and about hunting Plaintiff down.
9 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Witcher’s accusations and his denial of Plaintiff’s e-mail access with a
25 304. The conclusion of this chapter is that the Defendant with Liberty
26 Assurance Company of Boston, by their malicious conspiracy against Plaintiff, left Plaintiff
27 without any source of income, which they thought would be a very convincing argument to make
28 Plaintiff quit his job. When it was done, UC Davis Medical Center HR Benefits Manager John
7 305. In December 2011, Defendant again forgot that in February 2009 they
9 agreed to employ Plaintiff indefinitely. The agreement was to be enforced by the California
10 Court according to the state of California’s laws if violated by any party which signed the
11 settlement- agreement.
12 306. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher, to Plaintiff’s
13 disbelief, sent to Plaintiff another threatening letter during Plaintiff’s sick leave due to work-
14 related stress, in which Witcher ordered Plaintiff to go to an investigatory interview with
15
Danesha Nichols on December 12, 2011. Four years after this, Plaintiff is still in disbelief that it
16
actually happened, but taking into consideration that Plaintiff’s employment almost ended in UC
17
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11 due to an unsuccessful provocation crafted by the same
18
management on May 30, 2012, then anything is possible at University of California.
19
307. To add another example, if one of workers for whom Plaintiff was
20
providing representation can be despicably attacked by the same UC Davis management during
21
his mother’s funeral, then employment at UC Davis Medical Center is full of surprises.
22
308. Plaintiff ignored Charles Witcher’s letter and his irresponsible threats to
23
dismiss Plaintiff from his employment during his stress-related sick leave. Removing Plaintiff
24
25 from sick leave unconditionally without Plaintiff’s physician’s permission and place Plaintiff on
27 309. Plaintiff was without income; the situation could not get any worse, and
28 Witcher’s threating letter was nothing else but ill-minded harassment and an attempt to
16 313. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
17 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
18 Plaintiff on the same day that Plaintiff would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings
19 from his office. Gina Harwood responded that she set up the meeting with Danesha Nichols on
20 December 22, 2011, and that all Plaintiff’s belongings would be delivered to the HR building in
21 the morning and available for pick up at the time of Plaintiff’s appointment with Danesha
22 Nichols.
23 314. Gina Harwood also informed Plaintiff that the computers containing the
24
hard drives Plaintiff made reference to were deployed outside of the HVAC shop due to the
25
sensitive nature of the systems on those computers and the department being concerned about
26
removing the hard drives at that time. Also, Gina Harwood asked Plaintiff to provide receipts
27
showing the purchase of these hard drives, and the university would reimburse him for the cost.
28
15 Plaintiff finally convinced two of his supervisor to bring used computers from the warehouse that
16 were already decommissioned and provide them to the crew for work orders and time cards.
17 Plaintiff cleaned, repaired and reprogrammed the old computers and provided them to HVAC
18 shop crew members to make their everyday job a lot easier and more efficient.
19 318. Besides the above, Plaintiff informed Gina Harwood that Plaintiff was
20 willing to have a meeting with HR Investigator Danesha Nichols if she was willing to meet
21 Plaintiff on the same day that he would be retrieving his personal file and his belongings from
22 his office.
23 319. Gina Harwood did set up an appointment with Danesha Nichols on
24
December 22, 2011.
25
320. When on December 22, 2011, Plaintiff arrived for the meeting with
26
Danesha in the UC Davis Medical Center HR building, a UC Davis police cruiser with officers
27
inside was on standby next to the building and Danesha Nichols had the assistance of a male
28
15 investigatory leave or administrative leave with pay. Plaintiff lost track of whether he was on
17 323. The Defendant’ reckless and unwarranted attacks against Plaintiff in 2011
18 and gross violation of the 2009 settlement-agreement, along with harassment, retaliation,
19 enormous stress and anxiety, and the fear of losing employment, caused Plaintiff financial losses
20 in relation to his employment, which amounted to the approximate sum of $21,000.00, taking
21 into consideration accrued sick leave and vacation hours, which Plaintiff was forced to use due to
22 stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendant and the Defendant’ conspiracy with Liberty
23 Assurance Company of Boston, which resulted in Plaintiff’s short-term disability being denied.
24
25 January 2012
26
324. On or about January 10, 2012, Plaintiff noticed on his pay stub for the pay
27
period with an end date of 12/24/2011, that Plaintiff’s title had been changed without his
28
16 326. If, in January 2012, Plaintiff would have known that the Defendant’ goal
17 was to separate Plaintiff from Metasys System and from any data and information related to the
18 UC Davis Medical Central Plant operation, then Plaintiff would most likely have taken a
19 different approach to the problem. Plaintiff would have attempted to renegotiate the signed
20 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement with the Defendant, regardless of the psychological terror,
21 harassment and despicable attacks on Plaintiff’s character and integrity that the Defendant
22 committed.
23 327. Plaintiff had no clue as to why this was done or who did it, but the
24
Defendant ignored the fact that according to the February 2009, the Settlement-Agreement,
25
Plaintiff’s position and work place cannot be changed without Plaintiff’s consent or a Court
26
Order.
27
328. On January 18 , 2012, Plaintiff noticed by looking at his pay stub dated
28
16 Disability Insurance with the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston and Plaintiff
17 advised John Peklar that he make sure that that premium for this insurance will not be
19 331. On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to the UC Office President
20 liaison Mike Waldman, who was responsible for administrating the supplemental short-term
21 disability benefits, to intervene with Liberty Assurance Company Boston to pay Plaintiff’s
22 legitimate benefits, which were denied in November and December 2012. Plaintiff did not get
23 any response from Mr. Waldman.
24
332. At the end of January 2012, Plaintiff learned that his long-time physician,
25
who placed Plaintiff on stress-related sick leave for fourth months, wouldn’t provide any longer
26
medical service for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s psychologist’s residence in Lodi was raided by
27
the State of California Department of Social Services.
28
17 of California.
18 336. Plaintiff in good faith also forwarded to Cindy Oropeza the latest e-mail
19 correspondence with Danesha Nichols, the investigator UC Davis Medical Center assigned to the
20 case, which stated that, if Plaintiff’s employer is looking for an informal resolution of the
21 problem, then Plaintiff would prefer not to see or read Danesha Nichols’ investigation findings
22 and the Defendant’ action based on Danesha Nichols’ findings. It would save Plaintiff’s and
23 others’ time and, if Plaintiff read the findings, would turn the ongoing conflict in a new direction
24 and open up a new, unpleasant dispute. Plaintiff also stated that he is very tired and very stressed
25 out from dealing with this conflict. Cindy Oropeza responded that UC Davis Medical Center’s
26
HR Labor Relation Manager will contact Plaintiff shortly and will set a meeting with Plaintiff to
27
discuss the possibility of resolving the conflict informally.
28
15 340. Plaintiff does not know why Plaintiff was asked to meet with Mike Garcia,
16 but Plaintiff believed that the Right to Sue Letter dated January 26, 2012, which Plaintiff
17 received from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Right Division and of which a carbon copy
18 was sent to the UC Davis Medical Center was one of the reason for explore possibility of
19 informal resolution.
20
341. In February 2012 and for a long time thereafter, Plaintiff had no intention
21
to sue the Defendant; instead, Plaintiff was hoping that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
22
Commission (EEOC) would help him deal with his ongoing employment dispute with the
23
24
Defendant. However, when Plaintiff filed a complaint with U.S. EEOC against Defendant and
25 subsequently went to the EEOC’s San Francisco Office for an interview, Plaintiff was dismayed
26 to find that the EEOC intake officer was terrified of filing a complaint against the University of
27 California and dealing with UC attorneys. Plaintiff had no choice but to ask for a Right to Sue
28 Letter. Plaintiff could not find an attorney and was trying to get an extension of the Right to Sue
10 343. Defendant were perfectly aware that Plaintiff would be outraged by any
11 negative remarks in the reports about him. Plaintiff, since February 2009, was working for
13 Engineer and had reminded the Defendant in almost every correspondence with them since April
14 2011 that they were breaching and violating the Settlement – Agreement they had signed with
15 Plaintiff.
16 344. In addition to the above, Plaintiff learned in February 2012 that HR Labor
17 Relation Manager Mike Garcia replaced HR Consultant Gina Harwood with experienced
18 attorney Jill Vandeviver to handle Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s coworkers’ complaints from the
19
same Department in which Plaintiff worked.
20
345. Besides the above, Plaintiff’s two coworkers, Kenny Diede from the
21
HVAC Shop and William Buckans from the Central Plant, asked Plaintiff to represent them in
22
their complaints pursuant to UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. Plaintiff agreed
23
to represent Kenny Diede and William Buckans with their complaints Step II appeals.
24
25
March 2012
26
15 348. Plaintiff’s second letter to the UC Davis chief counsel, dated July 24, 2011,
18 349. In response to Plaintiff’s complaints to the UC Davis chief counsel about the
19 2009 Settlement-Agreement violation by the Defendant, on July 26, 2011, UC Davis Chief
20 Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo sent Plaintiff an invitation to file a whistleblowing complaint.
22 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s invitation and advised her that none of the
23 violations she outlined in her letter were qualified to file a claim against under the “UC
24 Whistleblower” policy.
25 351. Furthermore, the mentioned violations should have been be corrected
26 immediately by UC Davis Medical Center senior management through the administrative
27 process. The violations were so obvious and known by the general employee population in the
28
18 stating that he understood that Plaintiff is representing William Buckans and Kenny Diede
19 through the PPSM 70 complaint appeal process. However, since Plaintiff was on paid
20 investigatory leave, Plaintiff would not be permitted to attend any procedural meetings with
21 (CRO) related to both of Plaintiff’s clients’ (as he stated) complaints until a decision was made
22 in the matter related to the allegations made against Plaintiff. Furthermore, Humberto Garcia
23 stated that the university was amenable to placing both the William Buckans and Kenny Diede
24 complaints in abeyance until a decision was made in the matter referenced above and that
25 Plaintiff may elect to submit his arguments to the CRO in writing or Plaintiff’s clients (as he
26 stated) may elect to be represented by someone else.
27
28 357. Plaintiff met Humberto Garcia on February 14, 2012 in the UC Davis
14
358. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto Garcia’s e-mail letter dated March 21,
15
2012, differently than Plaintiff looked at it in March 2012. Today, Plaintiff looks at Humberto
16
Garcia’s e-mail letter, , as a letter that may have saved Plaintiff’s life, taking into consideration
17
who was in charge of the UC Davis Police Department in March 2012 and why Mathew
18
Carmichael was assigned as interim UC Davis Police Chief by UC Davis Administration.
19
Humberto Garcia and HR attorney and Humberto Garcia assistant Jill Vanderviver, did not
20
survive long after February 2012 attempt to resolve informally with Plaintiff ongoing dispute.
21
22 359. In addition to the above, on March 19, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to
23 University of California Senior Vice President Chief Compliance and Audit Officer Sheryl Vacca
24 and asked her for an independent investigation. Also, Plaintiff requested under the Public Record
25 Act provision all the documents related to Danesha Nichols and Wendi Delmendo’s pseudo-
27 April 2012
15 would contact Plaintiff when the administrative review has been completed without any specifics
17
18 April 2012- The Complaint with U.S Department of Labor , OFCCP Office
19
15 denied in November and December 2011 to Plaintiff. . Further, Plaintiff’s complaint against
16 Liberty had been pending with the state insurance commissioner’s office since November 2011.
17 UC Davis HR Benefits Manager John Peklar was the person who disenrolled Plaintiff from
18 medical insurance in December 2011 without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Since Plaintiff did not want
19 to risk being left without medical insurance, he enrolled himself and his wife in medical
20 insurance with Nordstrom Corporation, where Plaintiff’s spouse has been employed since 1990,
21 paying an extra $200/month.
22
April 2012 – Letter Of Intent to Suspend with 10 Days without Pay
23
24
366. Instead of a response from the Defendant in regard to the informal
25
resolution initiated by the Defendant in February 2012, Plaintiff, on April 13, 2012, received
26
from the Defendant a Letter of Intent to Suspend signed by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher—the same Charles Witcher who,
28
15 Specifically, the Defendant’ lies accused Plaintiff that his behavior was in violation of UCDHS
16 Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and UC Davis Policy and
18 lies in the letter implied that Plaintiff failed to adhere to specific instructions during the
19 investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications with witnesses, which interfered
20 with the investigation, as outlined in the report.
21 368. Furthermore, the unfounded allegations in the Letter of Intent to Suspend
22 were made that on March 8, 2011, April 21, 2011, and May 5, 20011, Plaintiff engaged in
23 behavior that violated UCDHS Policy 1616—Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace. It
24
was alleged that Plaintiff’s behavior was disruptive and intimidating to Dorin Daniliuc when he
25
allegedly pointed his finger in his face and used profanity on March 8, 2011. Further, on April
26
21, 2011, Plaintiff allegedly became disruptive and intimidating toward Patrick Putney during a
27
discussion regarding the Putney and Daniliuc ’s work performance as Plaintiff understood the
28
15 State of California Court of Law, not by slanderous pseudo-investigation reports that financially
17 370. At the end of the letter, Plaintiff was instructed that Plaintiff has the right
18 to respond, either orally or in writing, to the notice of intent to suspend. Plaintiff’s response must
19 be received by the Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius (916-734-6572), within eight (8) calendar
20 days from the date of issuance of this letter.
21 371. The assigned Skelly Reviewer, Michael Pansius, was the subordinate of
22 UC Davis Medical Center Director Mike Boyd from the facilities construction and design
23 department.
24
372. In July 2011, Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical
25
Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became Charles Witcher’s superior.
26
373. Director Mike Boyd took charge of the UC Davis Medical Center Plant
27
Operation and Maintenance Department after his partner in crime, Director Robert Taylor, left
28
16 financial losses in 2011 and Plaintiff lost all accrued vacation and sick leave hours. Plaintiff’s
17 total financial losses in 2011 amounted to approximately $21, 000, due to the inhumane
19
376. On April 15, 2012, Plaintiff requested from Defendant all available
20
documents related to the UC Davis Medical Center HR investigator pseudo-investigation. The
21
requested documents that were included were all generated by Danesha Nichols’ investigatory
22
reports.
23
24
377. On April 20, 2012, Plaintiff responded to the Defendant’s Letter Intent to
25 Suspend signed by Charles Witcher and, in his 26-page response, demanded from the assigned
26 Skelly reviewer, who did not know Skelly law, to entirely disregard and dismiss all lies and
2 378. In great disappointment over the investigatory reports and the unwarranted
3 attack on Plaintiff with the Letter of Intent to Suspend, on April 27, 2012, Plaintiff sent a short
4 email to Danesha Nichols expressing his feelings about her reports. Plaintiff attached to the e-
5
mail a video clip/slide show entitled “Welcome to Romania.” It shows post-communist
6
devastated Romania and some scenes in the slide show had lot in common with the landscape in
7
the HVAC shop supervised by Dorin Daniliuc and Patrick Putney.. Later, the “Welcome to
8
Romania” slide show was exploited and repeatedly used to attack Plaintiff and as cause and
9
pretext to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
10
379. Danesha Nichols attempted to bully and intimidate Plaintiff, and she
11
received a proper response from Waszczuk. Waszczuk reported Nichols and Chilcott to the State
12
Bar in October 2011and 2013 and reported Nichols to UC Davis Police (Captain Souza and Lt.
13
Pike). If the UC Davis investigator was to investigate Nichols for anything, it would be Central
14
15 Plant Operator Todd Georlich’s suicide, which occurred on December 22, 2010; Central Plant
16 Operator Jeff Lancaster’s locker burglary; the secret 12% pay raise for central plant operators in
17 December 2010, based on blackmail petition; Daniliuc’s involvement in his private enterprise on
18 company time, as well the fact that he was employed by two UCDMC Directors—Robert Taylor
19 and Shelton Duruisseau—in their private residences in exchange for giving him a supervisor
20 position and access to free HVAC parts and equipment and presence in the HVAC shop, though
21 he was a twice-convicted child pornography felon who illegally was accessing the UCDMC
22 HVAC shop computer during his probation or parole time.
23 380. Danesha Nichols swept under the rug the child pornography felony matter
24
in her report instead of turning porn felon into authorities and obtaining a restraining order.
25
Instead, in her reports Nichols made Plaintiff look five times worse than , a twice-convicted child
26
pornography felon; thus, Nichols grossly violated law by not reporting a felon on probation to
27
authorities and grossly violating the 2009 Settlement–Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the
28
7 May 2012
May 2012- Defendant Preparation for the May 31, 2012 Provocation to Kill Plaintiff
8
9
381. In April and May 2012, Plaintiff did not know or was aware that the
10
Defendant were negotiating the new power sale contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utility
11
12 District (SMUD) and the UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant cogeneration facility. The
13 Defendant got very inpatient with Plaintiff’s continued presence on the Defendant’ payroll list.
14 382 .The psychological terror, abuse, harassment, and retaliation that Plaintiff
15 was subjected to for almost one year, which was orchestrated and carried out by the Defendant’
16 lawyers, managers, and psychologists at the UC Davis Medical Center HR Department with the
17 full support of the UC Davis Chancellor Office and the University of California Office of the
18 President did not work to force Plaintiff to quit voluntarily The decision was made to eliminate
19 Plaintiff by provocation and by means of a bullet from the pistol of UC Davis Police Lt. James
20 Barbour who was assigned by Defendant to carry out assassination on May 31, 2012.
21 383. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff did not know how close Plaintiff was to being
22 killed or his employment ending in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11 due to the
23 ill-crafted provocation of an especially assembled team, which Plaintiff later nicknamed in
24
documents “UC Davis Death Squad.”
25
384. The first stage of preparation to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the
26
February 14, 2012, fruitless meeting with Humberto Garcia from the UC Davis HR Department,
27
which was intended to informally resolve conflict or let Plaintiff return to work after six months
28
15 387. The fourth preparation step to provoke and eliminate Plaintiff was the April
16 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend Plaintiff without pay for 10 days during Plaintiff‘s already
17 nine (9) months forced absence from work. The letter of intent to suspend did not even say or
18 Arizona. Mr. Lohse is a member of the State Bars of California and Arizona.
21 391. Plaintiff was very impressed with Director John Lohse professional career
22 and achievements. However, in the situation Plaintiff found himself in with respect to his
23 employment, Plaintiff was convinced that Director Lohse was coordinating unknown actions
24 against Plaintiff and that Director Lohse perfectly fit the profile of framing Plaintiff. Plaintiff
25 expressed his thoughts in a response letter to Director John Lohse dated May 14, 2012. After
26 Plaintiff responded to Mr. Lohse’s letter and sent to his office a few other documents related to
28
6
393. On May 11, 2012, Charles Witcher was ordered to serve Plaintiff a 10-
7
day suspension without pay from May 16, 2012, to May 30, 2012. The letter was based on
8
unspecified and fabricated accusations and allegations that were never witnessed by anybody.
9
Plaintiff’s stress levels and blood pressure went up, and nitroglycerine and Lorazepam were very
10
helpful.
11
May 11, 2012
12
13
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
524 Swallow Lane
14 Lodi, CA 95240
15
RE: Letter of Suspension
16
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am suspending you for a
17
period of ten (10) working days without pay, commencing May 16, 2012
18
through May 30, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued
19
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in
20
violation of UCDHS Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the
21
Workplace and UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of
22
Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to adhere to specific instructions
23
during the investigation to refrain from engaging in email communications
24
25
with witnesses interfered with the investigation as outlined in the report.
26 The suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on
27 Wednesday, May 30, 2012. You are expected to report to work at 8 a.m.
17 Employee & Employee & Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30)
19 Charles Witcher
20 Manager, Plant Operations and Maintenance
Attachments: Proof of Service
21 Skelly Decision
22
cc' [Department File]
[UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations w/attachment]
23 [UCDHS HR Records w/attachment]
24
25 394. In Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension, dated May 11, 2012, Plaintiff
26 was instructed to report to Charles Witcher’s office on May 31, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. Plaintiff was
27 not aware that just a day before, Charles Witcher had been instructed by Brent Seifert, Cindy
28
8 May 2012 – The Defendant Attack Aimed at Plaintiff Coworkers , Kenny Diede
and William Buckans
9
10
397. In further preparation to send Plaintiff to the trauma unit, on May 18 and
11
23, 2012, PO&M Manager Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney, Dennis Curry, and Mike Lewis, in a
12
retaliatory manner, attacked the two coworkers Plaintiff was representing in complaints against
13
some of the above-mentioned individuals. Within one week, Kenny Diede and William Buckans
14
were served with despicable Letters of Expectation, which were based on phony, unfounded, and
15
fabricated accusations.
16
17 May 2012- Plaintiff Protest Letter Entitled “ The Retaliation Isn’t Wise’
18 398. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff issued a 13-page protest letter entitled, “The
19 Retaliation Isn’t Wise,” against management’s vicious attack on Kenny Diede and William
20 Buckans and sent it to the perpetrators and senior management and administration at UC Davis
12
401. May 30, 2012, was Plaintiff’s 61st birthday and on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff
13
did not know that the HR Workers Compensation Manager was a coordinator of the assembled
14
15 “UC Davis Death Squad” and planning to end Plaintiff’s employment with the University of
16 California on May 31, 2012 (the next day) at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit. Plaintiff
17 also did not know on his 61st birthday that the host of the stress management class Marjorie
18 Trogdon Shock was also a member of the assembled “UC Davis Death Squad,” the goal of which
19 was to end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Trauma unit # 11 because Defendant signed
20 power sale contract for UCDMC Central Plant with Scaramanto Municipal Utility Distict
21 on May 29, 2012.
22 402. On May 31, 2012, per Defendant’ suspension letter dated May 11, 2012,
23 Plaintiff was scheduled to return to work after 10 months of absence and report to Charles
24
Witcher’s office in Bldg. 68.
25
403. Plaintiff had heard from his coworkers that the carpenter shop was
26
building two extra offices on the first level of Building 68, and Plaintiff was hoping that
27
Defendant would eventually move Plaintiff from the HVAC shop to Bldg. 68 and that the
28
4 404. On May 31, 2012, I drove to work and parked my car next to HVAC shop
5
as usual with a valid parking permit. Before Plaintiff reported to the Department Head Charles
6
Witcher’s office, Plaintiff went to the Marriott Hotel across from the HVAC shop to eat
7
breakfast in the cafeteria. I met my two coworkers, who joined me for breakfast.
8
405. Plaintiff was not expecting to be placed on investigatory leave again,
9
which Plaintiff hated, and Plaintiff wanted to go back to work after such a long period of absence
10
regardless of the fact that Plaintiff had been subjected by Defendant to more than one year of
11
psychological terror, harassment, retaliation, significant loss of income, and multiple threats of
12
employment termination. Plaintiff could expect anything but never expected that that highly
13
regarded University of California would assemble a “Death Squad” to resolve the dispute with
14
15 the employee by using the police force to end the employee’s career with the university at the
16 trauma unit.
17 406. On May 30, 2012, just one day before the ill-planned provocation, HR
18 Supervisor Brent Seifer sent an e-mail to HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott stating that
19 Plaintiff’s superior Charles Witcher understands that Jerry (Plaintiff) will report to his office
20 tomorrow at 8 am. As soon as Jerry (Plaintiff) arrived, Charles would be issuing the
21 investigatory leave letter and directing him to meet with me.
22 407. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at 8:00 a.m. at the Department Head
23 Charles Witcher’s office, and Charles Witcher handed Plaintiff a letter and sent him to the HR
24
Building Tycon III for an interview with HR Supervisor Brent Seifert. Maybe if Plaintiff had read
25
Charles Witcher’s letter in his office and found out that the Defendant were placing Plaintiff again
26
on investigatory leave and not letting him return to work after 10 days suspension, Plaintiff would
27
probably not have appreciated such actions. If Plaintiff had known that Defendant had maliciously
28
10
408. Plaintiff did not read the letter in Charles’ office and went straight to the
11
Human Resources Tycon Building for the meeting with Brent Seifert. HR Supervisor Brent Seifert
12
looked at Plaintiff upon his arrival like he wanted to ask Plaintiff what Plaintiff was doing in the
13
HR building meeting. At the end of the meeting—which was about phony, new, unfounded, made-
14
15 up, and out-of-the-blue accusations against Plaintiff and life in Romania, of which Brent Seifer
16 did not even know where it was located, Plaintiff asked Brent Seifert, “What’s next?” In response,
17 Brent Seifert said, “Didn’t you read the letter Witcher gave you? You are on investigatory leave
19 409. Plaintiff looked at the letter he received from Witcher, said ok, then left the
20 HR Building and Plaintiff went home. Plaintiff did not like the investigatory leave and Plaintiff
21 expressed his feelings thereafter in a letter entitled “I feel again like a Hunted Jew during the
22 Holocaust.” This is how the HR “Death Squad’s” plot to send Plaintiff the UC Davis Medical
23 Center # 11 failed.
24
410. Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, knew that something was wrong but Plaintiff
25
did not know any details about the malicious plan of the UC Davis Death Squad, “Kill Waszczuk,”
26
nor the unsuccessful provocation, until Plaintiff received relevant documents under the Public
27
Record Act Provision of November 2011. The documents are very clear as to what Defendant had
28
3 JUNE 2012
4 June 1,2012- Hugh Parker’s E-Mail to the Members of the ” UC Davis Death Squad”
5
6
411. On June 1, 2012, one day after falling ill and the maliciously crafted
7
provocation by the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, the coordinator of the provocation, HR
8
Workers Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, sent e-mail message to the other members of the
9
assembled UC Davis Death Squad members stating that
10
“Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) had returned to work yesterday from his
11
suspension and was placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At
12
issue are writings sent by Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr.
13
Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when told he was being
14
16 412.. The Hugh Parker e-mail statement read: “At issue are writings sent by Mr.
17 Waszczuk (Plaintiff) while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk (Plaintiff) did not display any anger when
18 told he was being place on investigatory leave.” This translates to the following: that Plaintiff,
19 after almost one year of absence due to the Defendant’ psychological terror aimed at Plaintiff,
20 including threatening Plaintiff’s employment and livelihood by means of multiple investigatory
21 leave letters, which Plaintiff received from the Defendant as ill-planned provocations, should be
22 triggered to become angry and violent so that the UC Davis renegade Police Lt James Barbour,
23 bribed by means of a $35,000 wage increase by UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11,
24
will do the job to eliminate Plaintiff from the UC Davis Medical Center landscape forever.
25
Apparently, UC Davis assembled Death Squad members underestimated Plaintiff and mistook
26
Plaintiff for somebody whose employment they had ended with UC Davis in this way.
27
28
15 among the eleven names of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad, but Stephen Chilcott’s name
16 appeared in the email dated May 30, 2012, which was sent by HR Supervisor Brent Seifert to
17 Stephen Chilcott in preparation for the ill-minded provocation and Plaintiff’s execution by UC
18 Davis Police.
15 granted to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement signed with the UC Regents, which HR
16 Director Stephen Chilcott grossly solicited and supervised then violated and disregarded.
18 and the Locally Designated Official (LDO), with full knowledge of wrongdoing, conspired in a
19 premeditated fashion with other Defendant and UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi
20 Delmendo to cover the others’ crimes and gross misconduct, deliberate interference, and
21 retaliation against Plaintiff for reporting management misconduct and violation of state and
22 federal law and established University of California Policies and Procedures.
23 420. HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott, with malice and disregard for
24
state and federal law, conspired and dedicated himself to ending Plaintiff’s employment, doing
25
whatever it would take, and conspired with others, known and unknown, to kill Plaintiff or end
26
Plaintiff’s employment on May 31, 2012, in UC Davis Trauma Unit # 11, thus violating not only
27
Plaintiff’s civil rights but also, despicably, Plaintiff’s human rights to work and live.
28
18 subordinate.
15 which information was leaked out regarding the attempt to terminate Plaintiff, and Plaintiff did
16 not report to the UCDMC HR Building on this day. The Danesha Nichols Report for termination
19 with HR Labor Relation Manager Mike Garcia for informal conflict resolution. Plaintiff, in good
20 faith, held the meeting with Garcia and presented his proposition to resolve the conflict. Instead
21 of a counter offer or proposition to resolve, Plaintiff was suspended in May 2012 for 10 days
22 without pay, his two coworkers to whom Plaintiff provided representation came under vicious
23 attack, Garcia was replaced by a new HR Labor Relation Manager, and Garcia’s assistant Jill
24
Vandeviver was fired. Oropeza’s name is listed in a group of UC Davis employees who were
25
members of a specially assembled team nicknamed in the documents by Plaintiff “The UC Davis
26
Death Squad.”
27
428. On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff became the subject of an ill-crafted but
28
17 Plaintiff met Neil Speth in 2005 through the course of his employment at the UCDMC Central
18 Plant. Dr. Neil Speth almost killed Plaintiff in 2005 by forcing Plaintiff to take a spirometer test
19 against Plaintiff’s will. As a result of Dr. Speth’s irresponsible actions, Plaintiff landed
20 unconscious in the UCDMC ER. Plaintiff informed Dr. Speth at the relevant time that because of
21 Plaintiff’s medical condition, Plaintiff could not take a spirometer test. Plaintiff intended to take
22 legal action against Dr. Speth, but a few months later, Plaintiff had open-heart surgery and dropped
23 the idea to take Dr. Speth to court.
24
432. Plaintiff is not sure what kind of assignment Hugh Parker, the coordinator
25
of the HR Death Squad action against Plaintiff, gave to Dr. Speth for May 31, 2012, but it is
26
apparent that Dr. Speth had an assignment to ensure that Plaintiff stop breathing in the Trauma
27
Unit after the Lt. James Barbour’s response to UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh Parker’s
28
12
435. CAROL KIRSHNIT, Ph.D, and MARJORE TROGODON SHOCK,
13
LCSW—Members of the UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENETR HR Academic and Staff Assistance
14
15 Program.
16 436. Carol Kirshnit is a licensed clinical psychologist and the coordinator of the
17 Academic and Staff Assistance Program at UC Davis Health System, and Marjorie Trogodon
18 Shock is a licensed clinical social worker with over 20 years of clinical experience.
19 Plaintiff believes that Carol Kirshnit, Ph.D, was the person who, as a doctor of psychology,
20 professionally advised her Superior HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and the UC
21 Davis Death Squad coordinator Hugh Parker as to whether Plaintiff was properly primed
22 and aroused to be provoked and killed on May 31, 2012, and whether Plaintiff’s
23 employment would end in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit .
24
437. Marjorie Trogodon Shock was the person who, on May 30, 2012,
25
together with the Death Squad Coordinator, removed Plaintiff from the stress management class.
26
Apparently, Shock was perfectly aware and informed about the ill-crafted provocation of May
27
31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that her participation in the plot was to comfort
28
10 Plaintiff’s employment termination and that Parker would become a coordinator of the UC Davis
11 Death Squad and of the maliciously crafted provocation to kill Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, or end
12 Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center. Plaintiff hopes that Hugh Parker
13 sooner or later, together with the co-conspirators, will get what he deserves according to
20 assembled UC Davis Death Squad. In May 2012 and thereafter, Lindsey was looking for any
21 reason she could use to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff looked at Lindsey’s job
22 history and credentials on the Web and it appears that Lindsey never advanced in his attorney
23 legal career beyond the position of associate attorney in four different law firms from January
24 2003 to May 2012. The working record also shows that Lindsey never worked in a Human
25 Resources department at any private enterprise or public employment, did not have any
26 supervisory or managerial experience, and had not directly handled any labor issues prior to
27 being hired by UC Davis Medical Center in 2012.
28
17 Center, it creates an unbelievably chilling picture of what the “HR Death Squad Members,”
18 including Karen Kouertas, had in their sick minds in relation to the meticulously and maliciously
19 crafted provocation of May 31, 2012, to eliminate Plaintiff from UC Davis Medical Center
20 landscape.
21 445. In July 2013, Plaintiff made an attempt to find out through the State of
22 California Board of Registered Nurses the capacity of Karen Kouretas’s involvement in the
23
activity of the assembled UC Davis Death Squad.
24
446. It is very important for the Board of Registered Nursing to know that the
25
board is issuing licenses not only to nurses who work very hard to take care of sick and ill people
26
but also to nurses, like Karen Kouretas, who collaborate and associate themselves with a group
27
of people whose goals are to provoke, kill, and deliver their victims to her unit for unspecified
28
16 Davis Compliance Office due to borrowing from contractors who were working in UC Davis
18 450. Dennis Curry was removed from the premises just two weeks before he
22
451. On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff sent a 24-page letter to the UC Davis Medical
23
Center Compliance & Privacy Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman. The letter was entitled:
24
“THE SUMMARY OF THE FEW UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN UC DAVIS
25
8
June13, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
9
452. On June 13, 2012, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and
10
Maintenance Department Head Charles Witcher sent an email letter to Plaintiff stating that
11
Plaintiff’s investigatory leave was being extended from June 14, 2012, through June 27, 2012.
12
Furthermore, the e-mail stated that Plaintiff was thereby relieved from all work duties for the
13
duration of this investigation. This duration was intended to allow additional time to collect
14
15 relevant information and determine the facts surrounding e-mails that Plaintiff sent, which were
16 believed to contain discriminatory content. Plaintiff would remain on pay status during that time.
17 During this leave, Plaintiff would not be allowed to have access to the work place. Plaintiff
18 would remain available during business hours should it be required that Plaintiff participate
19 in this investigation. There was no word in Witcher’s e-mail that Plaintiff violated the 2009
20 Settlement-Agreement signed by Plaintiff with the UC Regents.
21 June 14, 2012-The State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office Decision
22
23 453. On June 14, 2012, two weeks after the unsuccessful provocation to end
24
Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11, Plaintiff received a
25
decision from the State of California’s Insurance Commissioner Office in regard to the complaint
26
Plaintiff filed in November 2011 against the Liberty Assurance Company of Boston, which, in
27
conspiracy with the Defendant, denied Plaintiff Short Term Disability Benefits. The decision,
28
15 Campus or UC Davis Medical Center) from the period of November 1, 2011, to the present time.
16 455. Furthermore, in his letter to Captain Joyce Souza, Plaintiff stated that
17 based on multiple correspondences that Plaintiff forwarded to Captain Souza’s office, Captain
18 Souza was most likely aware that Plaintiff had not been working since August 2, 2011. Plaintiff
19 spent eight months of this period on administrative leave and investigatory leave plus 10 days of
20 suspension without pay as a retaliation. Plaintiff elaborated in his letter to Captain Souza that it is
21 not difficult for anyone to figure out that the eight months on administrative and investigatory
22 leave indicate that something went terribly wrong or is going to go terribly wrong for a long time
23 in the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and Human
24
Resources Department.
25
The UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident investigation took only five months to issue the final
26
report. (From November 2011 to March 2012) and Plaintiff’s case has been going since
27
March 13, 2011.
28
15 were filed under Policy PPSM 70 and to whom Plaintiff was providing representation. Gina
16 Harwood was removed by Humberto Garcia in January or February 2012 to handle Plaintiff and
17 his coworkers’ complaints, which were assigned to HR consultant Jill Noel Vanderviver.
19 about Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from UC Davis Medical Center with
20 a 10-page letter.
21 June 27, 2012 – The Investigatory Leave Extension
22 459. On June 27, 2012, Plaintiff called UC Davis Medical Center Plant
23 Operation Manager Charles Witcher and asked him about Plaintiff’s status because the last
24
investigatory leave letter had expired on June 27, 2012. Thereafter, Charles Witcher sent Plaintiff
25
another routine two-weeks extension, stating that the letter confirmed that Plaintiff’s
26
investigatory leave was being extended from June 28, 2012, through July 11, 2012. Plaintiff was
27
hereby relieved from all work duties for the duration of this investigation. This would allow
28
10 enjoyed being UC Davis Medical Center management’s prisoner, sentenced to one year of home
11 arrest for unknown causes, Plaintiff responded to Witcher’s investigatory extension letter as
12 follows:
13 “Do you have any clue who is being investigated and why this investigation is
14 causing me this Investigatory Leave for such a long time?
15
Did you receive any threats against me and are you keeping me out of the
16
Medical Center for my safety or is it for a different reason?
17
I am just curious because it is weird and makes me very nervous that I am still
18
on the UC Payroll for so long and I can’t work. I am getting all kinds of
19
information and it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes of
20
your Investigatory Leave. I am not sure if all the information I am receiving is
21
true but, almost always, rumors and gossip contain 5% of the truth.
22
Today, I received information about the Director Taylor and Mike Pansius’
23
24
retirement. A few weeks ago, I heard about Dennis Curry’s suspension or
25 administrative leave just before his retirement. Last Friday, I received official
26 information about Mike Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver’s departure from the
28 Today, my Investigatory leave was forgotten. It was a very hard decision for
15 and I only built my positive opinion of Corey from the HVAC and PM shops
17 Do you know who is in charge of the HR Labor Relations after Mike Garcia
18 left? I thought a few my months back that Jill Noel Vandeviver was going to
19 replace Mike with her very aggressive introduction to the ongoing matters
20 related to myself, Kenny Diede, and William Buckans, as well as associated
21 PO&M personnel. It is my understanding that an Investigatory Leave Letter
22 has to be approved by HR Labor Relation Chief.
23 Also, there is an issue with my employee evaluation for 2010/2011. I am still a
24
UC employee and would appreciate it if you provide me with the evaluation
25
for 2010/2011. At least for the period I was in the shop and was working until
26
August 2, 2011. The time for 2011/2012 evaluations is approaching, and I am
27
not sure how I should be evaluated when I am not working and due to a
28
6
July 3, 2012—HR Consultant Gina Harwood’s Letter Entitled
7 “Jerry Waszezuk Timeline/Summary”
8
9
461. On July 3, 2012, notoriously deceptive UC Davis Medical Center HR
10
Consultant Gina Harwood sent an e-mail to her supervisor, Brent Seifert, with the attached letter
11
(“Jerry Waszczuk Timeline /Summary”) described by Gina Harwood as “thrown together really
12
quick.” Besides, the mentioned summary was full of slanderous lies and unfounded, made-up
13
accusations about Plaintiff, which she began generating in 2011 and is repeating with demeaning
14
lies about Plaintiff in this summary. Gina Harwood also complained to Brent Seifert about
15
dismissed in June the HR Labor Relation Consultant, Jill Noel Vandrviver . HR consultant Jill
16
17
Noel Vandrviver was dismissed together with the HR Labor Relation Manger, Humberto Garcia
18 in June 2012. Gina Harwood was removed in January or February 2012, from handling Plaintiff
20 management misconduct, retaliation and harassment. It was most likely that Gina Harwood
21 contributed much of her effort to make Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vanedviver dismissed
22 from their jobs in retaliation for being removed from the assignment.
23 462. In her July, 2012, full-of-lies defacing-the-Plaintiff summary, Gina Harwood wrote:
24 Jerry Waszczuk Timeline/Summary
25 “Jaroslaw Waszczuk is an employee in the HVAC Shop as an Associate
26 Development Engineer, he has been employed for 13 years. He is responsible
27
for monitoring the Metasys system which monitors alarms throughout the
28
15 received a complaint letter from Mr. Waszczuk with. Multiple allegations, this
16 all took place at the end of May beginning of June. Mr. Waszczuk stated that
17 Mr. Witcher was handling his complaint. Ms. Harwood asked to meet with Mr.
18 Waszczuk as a follow up to his complaint, meeting took place the second week
19 of July. Prior to the meeting, Patrick Putney filed a violence in the workplace
20 incident related to the April and May incidents. Ms. Waszczuk made several
21 allegations in his email and during the meeting related to misuse of University
22 resources by his supervisors, Ms. Harwood sent the information to Wendi
23 Delmendo for review and Danesha Nichols was appointed to investigate the
24
allegations from Mr. Waszczuk and the Violence in the Workplace complaints.
25
During the investigation, Mr. Waszczuk was placed on investigatory leave. He
26
began a letter/email writing campaign to multiple UC employees. The email
27
communications were inflammatory and contained discriminatory comments
28
15 denied to file. He applied for Liberty Mutual and his claim was denied,
25
463. The Summary itself as no so much interesting but interesting is why HR
26
Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert requested the summary on Plaintiff from Gina Harwood.
27
Brent Seifert listed in Hugh Parker’s e-mail chat dated June 1, 2012 about May 31, 2012 ill crafted
28
15 without knowing why and in contrary and in light of the widely publicized in media November
16 18 , 2011 pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and investigation of
17 this incident which concluded within five months . Plaintiff did not understand for what crime his
18 being kept hostage for one year on investigatory leave and why he is being investigated.
19 466. Beside the letters to Captain Souza and Compliance Investigator Gina
20 Gauilaumme –Holleman Plaitiff on June 27, 2012 sent letter to his Department Head Charles
21 Witcher and demanded answer why Plaintiff is kept on investigatory leave and why he is not
22 being permitted to go back to work and do his duty . Plaintiff never received response from Charles
23 Witcher to his inquiry.
24
July 3, 2012 – The Plaintiff’s , Kenny Diede ‘s and William Buckan’s Complaints under UC
25 Davis Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPMS 70
26 467. On July 3, 2012 Plaintiff and his two coworkers Kenny Diede and William
27 Buckans received from HR Consultant Gina Harwood Decisions in Step I Complaints Plaintiff
28
15 Defendant for serving Plaintiff every two weeks for almost one year letters of Investigatory
16 Leave and denying Plaintiff right to work It was done in violation of UC Davis Policy PPSM 63
18 322. The other Plaintiff complaint Step I under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 was still pending
15 interview revelation and his disclosure about conspiracy to frame Plaintiff because in July 2012
16 Plaintiff did not know at that time anything about May 31, 2012 provocation to kill him or end
18 476. Plaintiff suspected that something was wrong but did have any evidence to
19 proof anything bedside that he was removed from stress management class on May 30, 2012 and
20 was served with Investigatory Leave letter on May 31, 2012 and was not permitted to work by
21 Defendant.
22 477. Few days later mark Montoya called Plaintiff and confirmed what Kenny
23 Diede told Plaintiff about his interview with Gina Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’on July 18, 2012.
24
325. On July 23, Plaintiff decided for the record to write few additional words to Gina
25
Gaulliuaume –Hollmann’as follow;
26
“Dear Ms. Guillame -Holleman:
27
For the record and in addition to my previous e-mail I would like to inform
28
15 reason was behind for their statements but I don't care much it because I never
16 had any problem with any of my coworkers in the HVAC shop during my
17 employment from March 2007- to August 2, 2012 and will not have any
19 I will not make big deal about my" photo and your question “Apparently you
20 was instructed by somebody to find cause for my employment termination. I
21 like to mention that at first I got outraged about your interview with my
22 coworker but after the interviewed person called me about than I told my to
23 myself: . Why I have to stress myself for something I have no control over
24
until the whole case go to court. "
25
You as an employee of UCDMC Compliance office shall follow Canons of
26
Ethic during the interview. By showing my photo and trying makes me like
27
most wanted at large bandit is not going to help my employer in any way but
28
16 reminder.
17 Jerry”
July 25, 2012 – HR Director Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail
18 to HR Labor Relation Manager Travis Lindsey
19
9
481. On August 1, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff another two-week extension of
10
the Investigatory Leave. This time the Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles Witcher,
11
who routinely signed the investigatory leave letter, which was at this point close to the one-year
12
anniversary of the first investigatory leave letter that Witcher signed on September 1, 2011.
13
14
August 2, 2012 – The UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo’s e-mail
15 to Kenney Diede
17 Delmendo sent an e-mail to the Plaintiff’s coworker Kenney Diede, attempting to drag Kenny
18 Diede into a deceptive and useless whistleblowing complaint, just as she had attempted to do
19 with Plaintiff in July 2011. Plaintiff was almost killed on May 31, 2012, due to Wendy
20 Delmendo’s effort and dedication to destroy the UC Davis employees life’s and livelihoods
21 instead of providing help to them .
22 483. In her August 2, 2012, email letter to Kenny Diede (whom Plaintiff was
23 successfully representing in his complaints against management misconduct under the UC Davis
24 Policy PPSM 70), Wendy Delmendo wrote:
25
“I recently learned that you have filed a grievance in which you allege you
26
have been subject to retaliation. I am writing to inform you that your allegation
27
of retaliation may also be eligible for review under the University’s
28
15 misconduct, harassment, retaliation, abuse of power, violation of state and federal law, and
16 Delmendo openly participating in Plaintiff’s employment termination in 2012 and almost getting
19 decline Wendy Delmendo’s deceptive and misleading offer with the following words in
20 response:
21 Dear Ms. Delmendo:
22 I appreciate your concern. However, I am not sure what you are referring to in
23 your letter in regard to my complaints.
24
For your information, I filed two complaints against my manager Patrick
25
Putney’s vendetta and retaliation. (I believe that you are very familiar with this
26
person’s name). I am not only a victim of Patrick’s Putney behavior. My two
27
complaints against Patrick Putney are pending and problems probably would
28
17 questions.
19 E-Mail: ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net “
20 487. In addition to the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Title, on February 2, 2014,
21 Wendy Delmendo accrued the “Lead Discrimination Officer” title per order of the University of
22 California President Janet Napolitano after an enormous discrimination scandal on the University
23 of California, Los Angeles campus.
24
The Lead Discrimination Officer title fits Wendy Delmendo perfectly. She advanced herself in
25
her skill in how to discriminate and hurt employees while advising UC Davis administration
26
without leaving a trace of discrimination and harassment.
27
28
15 Plaintiff’s coworker William Buckans, to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, received
17 August 9, 2012 – The Letter of Expectation served to HVAC Technician Dereck Cole .
18
490. Following the UC Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendi Delmendo’s
19
invitation to her whistleblowing “Russian Roulette” game and Gina Harwood’s letter prohibiting
20
Plaintiff from working and representing his coworkers, Defendant attacked another coworker of
21
Plaintiff called Dereck Cole.
22
24 Dereck Cole was attacked by means of a maliciously crafted Letter of Expectation that gave
25 Plaintiff goose bumps. The letter of expectation by UC Davis Policy PPSM 62 should not even
26 be considered disciplinary action and should be served to employees as a tool for performance
27 and behavior improvement.
28
15 work place prior to taking his own life. In March 2011, Plaintiff brought this information to the
16 Defendant’ attention.
17 494. Todd Goerlich, who replaced Plaintiff in April 2007, was Dereck Cole’s
18 best friend since high school and he left behind a one-year-old child.
19 495. Shortly after this, Dereck Cole was attacked and turned to Plaintiff for help.
20 Plaintiff agreed to represent him in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, regardless of
21 the fact that Plaintiff had little time and was very busy with his own defenses and those of his two
22 coworkers against harassment and the Defendant’ retaliation. Plaintiff had to sacrifice a lot to take
23 on and handle another retaliation and harassment case against the vicious, unscrupulous, malicious,
24
and vindictive UC Davis management and administration.
25
August 16, 2012-The Extension of the Investigatory Leave
26 (August 16, 2012-September 28, 2012)
27 496. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant sent Plaintiff another extension of the
28
16 498. This long extension of investigatory leave passed the one-year anniversary
17 of the September 1, 2011, first investigatory leave letter, which the Defendant had served
18 Plaintiff. Plaintiff became very concerned that something more drastic was going on with
19 Plaintiff’s employment due to the vicious attack against Plaintiff’s coworker Dereck Cole, as
20 well as Wendy Delmendo and Gina Harwood’s letters to Plaintiff’s coworker, Kenny Diede, and
21 the endless pseudo-investigations conducted by the assigned Defendant, two of “UC Davis Death
22 Squad’s” members, Brent Seifert and Cindy Oropeza, from the UC Davis Medical Center HR
23 Department.
24
499. Plaintiff was not mistaken that that something more drastic was going on
25
and finally uncovered it after Plaintiff, in November 2011, received a bulk e-mail
26
correspondence exchange between the perpetrators, who were plaining another provocation to
27
deliver Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Center # 11 to silence Plaintiff forever. Plaintiff was
28
10
13 501. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to Compliance and Privacy
Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman about the unfair overtime distribution in the
14
HVAC shop with following information and concerns.
15
16 “I am sending you the copy of the letter of expectation issued for HVAC
15 plumber.”
16
502. The subject of the unfair overtime distribution was one of the HVAC shop
17
technicians, George Ursu, who is the friend the HVAC shop supervisors Dorin Daniliuc. It was
18
most likely that the excessive overtime was a fraud and George Ursu never worked most of the
19
20
overtime but got paid the same as Dorin Daniliuc, who was officially working full time, though
21 he actually employed himself in his private HVAC business and private church more than 50
23 503. After the complaint was made by Dereck Cole, George Urusus’s overtime
24
dropped $10,000 in 2013, and after Dereck Cole, in retaliatory action against him, was removed
25
from the HVAC shop, George Urus’s overtime bounced back with $11,000 in 2014.
26
27
August 28, 2012–E-mail from UC Davis Health System HR Workers' Compensation,
28 Ergonomics, Disability Manager Hugh Parker
15 August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did not know who replaced Humberto Garcia, and HR Consultant
16 Gina Harwood was unresponsive when Plaintiff asked her who her manager was after she sent
17 information to Plaintiff on June 22, 2012 that Humberto Garcia and Jill Noel Vandeviver were
19 506. On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff did know that Hugh Parker was the
20 coordinator and conductor for the assembled group of UC Davis employees, nicknamed by
21 Plaintiff in the documents as “The UC Davis Death Squad,” which on May 31, 2012, in the ill-
22 planned provocation, attempted to kill or end Plaintiff’s employment at the UC Davis Medical
23 Center Trauma Unit #11. From the Public Act Records documents, Plaintiff learned about Hugh
24
Parker’s special assignment that had coordinated an assault on Plaintiff to terminate his
25
employment through ill-minded and orchestrated provocation on May 31, 2012.
26
507. In July and August 2011, Plaintiff exchanged with Hugh Parker his
27
opinion about the UC Davis Medical Center fraudulently using the Workers Compensation
28
15 509. In May 2012, Plaintiff learned from the Public Record Act documents he
16 received that Hugh Parker had requested the investigation report on Plaintiff from HR
17 Investigator Danesha Nichols, which was fabricated for the purpose of the ill-planned
19 The information about the planned attempt to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was leaked and
20 the plan failed. HR Investigator Danesha Nichol’s report, which Hugh Parker requested from her,
21 was destroyed according to the UC Davis Public Record Office, and a copy was never provided
22 to Plaintiff.
23 Plaintiff is not certain”, but it appears that September 23, 2011 was the Defendant’s first
24
attempt to provoke the physical confrontation from Plaintiff, physically hurt him, and then
25
dismiss him with accusations that he was violent.
26
510. Plaintiff’s opinion is based on the fact that, two days prior to September
27
23, 2011, he received a letter from his Department Head Charles Witcher stating that he would
28
8
511. On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from the Compliance and
9
Privacy Program Investigator Gina Guillaume-Holleman.
10
512. By means of this letter, Plaintiff was notified that the UCD Davis Health
11
System (UCDHS) Compliance Department had completed its investigation of allegations and
12
was advising of possible policy violations regarding a PO&M manager who allegedly accepted
13
money from vendor(s) for personal use and a PO&M supervisor allegedly using a paintball gun
14
on university premises. Both matters had been investigated and no proof of violations was
15
provided by Plaintiff or obtained during the investigation.
16
18 18, 2012, interviewed one of Plaintiff’s coworkers from the UCDHS HVAC shop, Mark Montoya.
19 During the interview, Gina Guillaume-Holleman showed Mark Montoya Plaintiff’s photo and
20 asked him whether Plaintiff was a threat to him and, thereafter, she made an attempt to solicit Mark
21 Montoya to sign an affidavit that Plaintiff was dangerous. Outraged by her demand, Mark Montoya
22 left the interview and went to the HVAC shop and mentioned what had happened to one of
23 Plaintiff’s other coworkers, who called Plaintiff and disclosed the information about Mark
24 Montoya’s interview. A few days later, Mark Montoya personally confirmed the information about
25 Gina Guillaume-Holleman’s demand.
26
514. At the end of August 2012, Plaintiff was not worried about any investigation
27
but was worried about his own status due to the almost year-and-a-half-long, ongoing, vicious,
28
12 SEPTEMBER 2012
13 September 4, 2012—Kenneth Diede’s Letter to Department Head Charles Witcher.
14
516. On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff’s coworker from the HVAC shop to
15
whom Plaintiff was providing representation under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70, submitted a
16
17 complaint letter against HVAC shop manager and supervisor Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
18 These two individuals attacked Kenneth once again and converted his 2012 annual employee
20 517. Since July 2011, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc had been making
21 Kenneth Diede’s life miserable and his working conditions intolerable after Kenneth Diede
22 reported twice-convicted child pornography felon, Sean Robideaux , who was illegally
23 surfing the web on the HVAC shop commuters with Patrick Putney’s knowledge and permission.
24 Being on parole for his second child pornography strike Sean Robideaux , was not allowed to
25 touch a computer connected to the Internet per federal court order (Case: 2: 6 –cr- 00418-LKK,
26
The United States of America v. Sean Christopher Robideaux, United States District Court, Eastern
27
District of California, Indictment Violation(S) 18 U.S.C § 2252 () (4)(B) –Possession of Visual
28
9
September 9, 2012—Plaintiff Letter to Brent Seifert—UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor
10 Relation Supervisor and Principal Labor Relation Consultant
11
519. For over one year, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff to malicious
12
13
psychological terror, persecution, civil and human rights violations, enormous stress and worries
14 as a result of losing his home and, most likely, his employment at the age of 61 and a slim
16 520. Due to unknown means regarding the ways in which the Defendant intended to do
17 Plaintiff further harm on September 9, 2012, Plaintiff sent a letter to UC Davis Medical Center HR
18 Labor Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert with an inquiry to update Plaintiff about his bogus
19 investigation against Plaintiff to which he was assigned in May 2012. Plaintiff wrote the following
20 in his September 9, 2012, letter: The original letter was edited by the Professional Proof Reader
21 for the purpose to avoid confusion about merit in the letter-Original upon request)
22
“Dear Mr. Seifert:
23
25 status of the phony investigation you have been conducting since May 31,
26 2012. I am not sure if you remember that you have been assigned to investigate
27 to determine the facts surrounding the e-mails I supposedly sent that were
28
7 resources department with probable help from the former FBI Agent
11
When I read it on the Association of Workplace Investigators web page, I
12
choked and said to myself, “This guy with such an impressive background
13
career and connections that he is a perfect guy to frame me.”
14
15 The May 31, 2012, provocation followed Witcher’s and the HR department’s
16 cowardly and ill-crafted action that placed me on ten days’ suspension without
17 pay after Danesha Nichols’ phony investigation and my five-month
18 administrative/investigatory leave.
19
It is not coincidental that the Mr. Lohse got involved to help cover up the UC
20
21
Davis and UC Davis Medical Center management’s corrupted and unlawful
22 activities, which are happening in every pointed place and involving UC Davis
23 “chiefs and Indians” including, but not limited to, HR Chief Stephen Chilcott;
25 Teresa Porter; internal audits chief and UC Davis police officers such as Lt.
26 James Barbour, who once gave me special advice with former U.S. President
27 Ronald Reagan regarding the U.S. Marines. UC Davis Chief Compliance
28
7 leave letter and launch another phony investigation against him. If he will snap
8 and get hostile, then Lt. Barbour will take care of him and he will be done.
9
What a mistake. Jerry Waszczuk never became hostile and never snapped.
10
Instead, Jerry Waszczuk used his pen and computer to defend himself and
11
others abused and harassed by vicious, vindictive, corrupt, and criminally
12
minded UCDMC chiefs.
13
21 The meeting that you improvised was about the country of Romania,
22
Romanians, and Reggae. I have summarized the meeting in the letter I wrote to
23
you the day after we met and there is no need to elaborate further about it.
24
25 The reason why I am writing to you is to determine the status of this “after
26 unsuccessful provocation” and phony investigation for which you had been set
28
7 sell my house and if it does not go through, then I will let the house be
11 will pay the bill for this reckless harassment and assault on me and I will
12 pay for a new house of my choice.”
13
521. The September 9, 2012, Plaintiff’s letter to Brent Seifert was the first time that
14
Plaintiff informed the Defendant of Plaintiff’s awareness that the May 31, 2012, reckless Defendant
15
action against Plaintiff was nothing but the Defendant’ malicious and ill-crafted provocation to harm
16
Plaintiff.
17
522. On September 9, 2012, Plaintiff did not have any evidence or documents proving
18
that for the May 31, 2012, provocation, the Defendant assembled a special team nicknamed in
19
Plaintiff’s document “The UC Davis Death Squad” to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC
20
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Plaintiff based his opinion on observed event facts,
21
information from his coworkers, the Defendant’ reckless attacks in May 2012 aimed at Plaintiff and
22
his coworkers to whom Plaintiff was providing representation, and by removing Plaintiff from the
23
stress management class one day before the provocation on May 30, 2012.
24 “
September 12, 2012—The e-mail entitled “Review of the Waszczuk Investigation”
25
26 523. On September 12, 2012, at 9:36 PM, the UC Office of General Counsel
27 Senior Legal Counsel Mia Belk sent an e-mail to UC Davis Medical Center HR Labor Relation
28
15 Delmendo, UC Davis Health System Chief Counsel Anna Orlowski and UC Davis Health System
16 Chief Compliance Officer Teresa Porter and to let them know that the HR department was
19 Lindsey to make suggested revisions and finalize the documents and letter of intent to terminate
20 the issue as soon as possible. In addition to the letter of intent to terminate, HR Executive Director
21 Stephen Chilcott instructed Travis Lindsey to discuss the assignments of the Skelly officer with
22 Plaintiff’s superior, UC Davis Medical Center Executive Director Mike Boyd.
23 527 The UCDHS HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott’s confidential
24
communication response is interesting because it shows that HR Equal Employment Opportunity
25
and Diversity Manager Cindi Oropeza was not copied on Stephen Chilcott’s e-mail. Cindi Oropeza
26
was assigned with Brent Seifert to fabricate a bogus report as the cause for Plaintiff’s termination
27
of employment.
28
17
“This is in response to your faxes dated 9/25/2011 and 9/30/2011 to Vice
18
President Duckett in which you raised several concerns about management
19
actions at UC Davis Medical Center. I understand that these issues are
20
currently being investigated by the UC Davis Compliance Officer, Wendi
21
Delmendo.The Office of the President provides oversight to the ten Campus
22
University of California system, while the Chancellor of each campus has
23
responsibility for the organization and operation of the campus. With the
24
investigation by Ms. Delmendo currently in progress, it would be
25
28 this investigation. We are confident that your serious concerns are being
8
Director Christopher Simon letter.
9 532. UC Senior Counsel Mia Belk disappeared from the University of California
10 landscape two months after she issued her confidential review of Waszczuk’s investigation. Mia
11 Belk was not the only individual who disappeared from the University of California landscape
19 September 13, 2012—The UC Davis Death Squad Preparation for Plaintiff’s Final Departure
from the University of California. (By documents received from UC Davis Public Record Act
20 Office)
21
534. Following the September 12, 2012, University of California Office of the
22
General Counsel’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment the UCDHS HR Executive
23
Director Stephen Chilcott sent on September 13, 2012, the information about Plaintiff’s planned
24
employment termination to the UC Davis police and assembled a group of UC Davis
25
representatives (nicknamed in Plaintiff’s documents as the UC Davis Death Squad, due to an ill-
26
crafted provocation by the Defendant on May 31, 2012, to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in
27
the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit.
28
13
536. On September 14, 2012, UC Davis Death Squad Coordinator Hugh
14 Parker’s secretary, Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez, sent an e-mail invitation for a meeting to other
15 UC Davis Death Squad members with the following subject in the e-mail: “Threat Assessment -
16 J. Waszczuk.” The message read, “Please provide me with the best time and date, from the
17 options below, to discuss the item in subject. I’d like to send out a meeting invitation as soon as
18 possible.” The message was ended with Muriel Strode’s quote “Do not follow where the path
19 may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
20 537. Sonia Guerrero-Rodriguez sent her message to the following member
21 members of the UC Davis Death Squad: Brent Seifert, the UCDMC Labor Relations Supervisor;
22 UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour; UCDMC HR Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
23
Manager Cindi Oropeza;UC Davis Health System Counsel David Levine; UC Davis Risk
24
Management Department employee Debra Schmidt; UC Davis Medical Center Emergency
25
Preparedness Coordinator Glynis Foulk; Manager of Workers’ Compensation, Ergonomics, and
26
Disability Hugh Parker, who wanted to see Plaintiff in July 2011 on workers compensation leave
27
and, in May and September 2012, wanted to see Plaintiff disabled in UC Davis Medical Center
28
15 Program; Neil Speth, D.O., the medical director of UCDMC HR Employee Health Services; and
16 Travis Lindsay, the new UCDMC HR labor relation manager who replaced MikeGarcia in May
17 2012.
18 539. The proposed dates for the UC Davis Death Squad’s meeting were
19 September 18, 2012, from 10 to 11 AM; September 20, 2012, from 1 to 2 PM, and September 21,
20 2012, from 9 to 10 AM.
21 540. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour responded that he was available for the
22 meeting on Tuesday, September 18, 2012. Plaintiff does not know when the meeting took place
23 because 21 pages of e-mail chat between UC Davis Death Squad Members that Plaintiff received
24
from the UC Davis Public Record Act Office were blacked out in same manner as the e-mail chat
25
of this group for the May 31, 2012, provocation to send Plaintiff to the UC Davis Medical Trauma
26
Unit.
27
541. The presence and participation in this group including the UC Davis
28
9 542. Plaintiff, who was subjected to psychological terror by the Defendant, was
10 put under extreme stress after being forced again to leave the premises for the month-and-a-half-
11 long investigatory leave, which was issued and served to Plaintiff on August 16, 2012.
12 543. On September 23, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to his
13 Department Head, UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager Charles
14 Witcher, entitled
15 A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE LATEST COMPLAINTS UNDER THE PPSM 70 AGAINST
16
STEVE McGRATH AND PATRICK PUTNEY. (OPEN LETTER).
17
Plaintiff wrote the letter just two days before Witcher was ordered by HR Executive Director
18
Stephen Chilcott to sign the Notice to Intent to Dismiss (Plaintiff) for Serious Misconduct.
19
544. Aside from Plaintiff’s latest complaints about coworkers, made under UC Davis
20
Policy Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM70, the, Plaintiff elaborated about the previous
21
Department Head, Tony Moddessette, who was forced to leave in 2006 and was replaced by
22
Charles Witcher. This happened shortly before Plaintiff and his coworker William Buckans were
23
subject to the vicious attack and persecution orchestrated by the Defendant, which resulted in
24
Plaintiff’s suspension in March 2007 and his abrupt removal from the UC Davis Medical Center
25
26 Cogeneration Power Plant (“Central Plant”), where Plaintiff had been employed since June 1999.
27 Plaintiff’s suspension and reassignment in March 2007 was affirmed by Charles Witcher, who
28 was then the interim manager of the Plant Operation and Maintenance Department. While
15 and Maintenance Department. At the time, there were problems within the
17 issues.
18 Moddessette was “rough and tough” and sometimes was unpleasant, but he did
19 not ever hesitate to come to the Central Plant, sit at the center of the control
20 room, and have an open discussion about the problems within in the plant.
21 Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to tell me, “Jerry, I don’t give a f...k what
22 you say,” but he would listen and fix the problems.
23 Tony Moddessette had no problem reversing the Plant Manager’s unjustified
24
decision to issue a written warning to one of the Central Plant operators. He
25
also did not hesitate to tell Jeff Lancaster that he was not hired to wash his
26
personal cars on company time.
27
Tony Moddessette did not hesitate to remove Tom Kavanaugh from his Central
28
15 hospital/campus and was not a place to illegally park his personal vehicle,
17 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher never told HVAC Shop Supervisor
18 Dorin Daniliuc that he had to work 8 hours every day, that company time
19 should not be used to run a private business, or that he should not bring his
20 personal auto mechanics in and use the UCDMC shop for his private HVAC
21 business.
22 Unlike Tony Moddessette, Charles Witcher immediately began to torment
23 others after taking over the department from Tony Moddessette in 2006. Six
24
years later, Witcher’s persecution continues.
25
The last six years speak for themselves. Those who have engaged in this
26
persecution must love to watch other people suffer and live in misery.
27
THE COMPLAINTS
28
16 Dan James and Tony Moddessette were Vietnam War veterans. I have a lot of
17 respect for their sacrifices and their choice to risk their lives for the greatest
18 country on Earth.
19 Apparently Steve McGrath and Mike Lewis did not think or did not care that
20 harassing, bullying, and constantly retaliating against William for years in an
21 effort to make him quit his job would bring Dan James back into the mess that
22 they have created and participated since 2006.
23 You probably don’t know that William Buckans and Rick Tunello had a very
24
good relationship with Dan James because of their common life experiences.
25
However Dan James was quickly overpowered by the Jackson clique, and he
26
turned on Rick and William because the Jackson clique hated them. You
27
probably don’t know that William Buckans had a very good relationship with
28
15 I would like to mention that, not so long ago, Hugh Parker from HR sent me an
16 email and wrote that he is not interested in labor relations issues. Mr. Parker
18 is strictly related to him. He will soon be dealing again with the labor relations
18 as I can with the limited resources I have after being banned and isolated from
24
546. As Plaintiff anticipated that something would happen to him during the
25
one-and-a-half month investigatory leave and the lack of response from HR Labor Relations
26
Supervisor Brent Seifert’s investigation, on September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received by overnight
27
mail the Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. It was
28
8 Maintenance. The reason for this action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis
10 1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the Principles of
11 Community.
12
On or about April 27, 2012, you sent an e-mail to Danesha Nichols,
13
UCDHS Investigations Coordinator stating your disagreement with an
14
investigation report she had issued dated February 9, 2012. The report found
15
that it was more likely than not that you had violated UCDHS Policy 1616
16
(Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace) ("1616"), UC Davis Policy
17
21 13, 2012, informing you that I intended to suspend you without pay for ten
22 days. Attached to your April 27, 2012 e-mail was a video slideshow entitled
23 "Welcome to Romania". Based on the subject matter and content of the
24 communication, an investigation was requested to determine if the
25 communication violated University policies and procedures. During this time
26 you were placed on investigatory leave-.
27
Brent Seifert, Employee and Labor Relations Supervisor and Cindy Oropeza,
28
8 language (see attached e-mails). The following are excerpts from these e-mail
9 communications:
10
May 10, 2012 - "Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him
11
or will send Gestapo on his Ass"
12
13 June 6, 2012 - "because you will go straight to Hell for what you have done to
21
environment culture in the HVAC shop is closely akin to the culture of Eastern
25
Mr. Seifert and Ms. Oropeza concluded their investigation and issued a report
26
dated September 20, 2012, which is attached to this Notice. The investigation
27
report substantiated that you sent disruptive and intimidating e-mail
28
8 expectations that you abide by all UC policies and procedures, show respect
9 and remain professional at all times in the workplace, and follow the direct
10 orders given to you by a supervisor. After the Skelly process was completed
11 you were issued a Letter of Suspension on May 11, 2012 outlining the
12 expectations noted above. Additionally, you were provided the pertinent text
13 from UCDHS policy 1616 and UC Davis P&P Chapter 380-15 as part of the
14 investigation report issued by Ms. Nichols, and attached to the Letter of Intent
15 to Suspend.
16
Despite my repeated efforts to address your inappropriate and discriminatory
17
20 classifications. Your failure to follow direct orders and the expectations set for
21 you is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Your actions imply that you
22 believe you are above the rules and I cannot subject staff and your co-workers
23 to your continued discriminatory comments. Your blatant disregard for the
24 policies and procedures of this University, combined with your failure to
25 follow directives has left me with no alternative but to dismiss you from
26 University employment.You have the right to respond to this notice of intent to
27
dismiss for Serious Misconduct either orally or in writing. Your response must
28
8
Relation Supervisor Brent Seifert and let him know that Plaintiff was aware that May 31, 2012,
9 was the date of the maliciously and ill-crafted provocation by the Defendant, somebody had the
10 idea to lure Plaintiff to the premises and hand Plaintiff the Notice of Intent to Dismiss with such
11 outrageous and sickening accusations in an attempt to provoke Plaintiff and expose him to the
15
548. Instead of luring Plaintiff to the premises, the UC Davis Death Squad decided that
16
the UC Davis Police would issue a poster bearing Plaintiff’s photo and the verbiage “PERSON
17
NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY,” which was similar to the “FBI’s Most Wanted”
18
signage.
19
21
“Jaroslaw Waszczuk is currently on administrative leave from
22
employment with the UC Davis Med Center. Mr. Waszczuk is not
23
authorized to be on UC Davis property without a legal reason or a medical
24
emergency.
25
26 Mr. Waszczuk is described as an older white male with brown and gray
5
550. The UC Davis Police poster that said “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED
6
ON PROPERTY” and included Plaintiff’s photo and description was distributed around the UC
7
Davis Medical Center Campus and most likely was sent to managers and UC Davis employees
8
by electronic mail. UC Davis Police did not inform Plaintiff that he was not authorized on UC
9
Davis premises, and Plaintiff did not know what UC Davis Police would do if Plaintiff
10
12 551. Plaintiff spent over one year on investigatory leave, under which he was
13 prohibited from being on the UC Davis premises, and Plaintiff never intended to go uninvited to
14 UC Davis Medical Center when he was on investigatory leave. Plaintiff did not understand why
15 Davis Public Record Act office for documents related to another of the Defendant’ acts of
16 psychological terror, which Plaintiff had been subjected to for over one year.
17
19
20 558. The Defendant war-like hysteria and propaganda did not end with
21 placing the “Persona Non Grata” poster complete with Plaintiff’s photo and description around
22 UC Davis Medical Center.
23 559. On September 26, 2012, the UC Davis Health System HR Executive
24
Director Stephen Chilcott, who directly communicated the operation to the UC Office of the
25
President, sent an e-mail entitled “Confidential – Jerry Waszczuk (Plaintiff)” to the HR Labor
26
Relations Department Manager Travis Lindsey to ask the UC Davis Police department to offer to
27
speak to any of the supervisors or employees of the Plant Operation and Maintenance
28
15 562. UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour was reassigned from the UC Davis
16 Campus to the UC Davis Medical Center, which represented an enormous demotion and
17 involved a decrease to his salary, after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray attack against
18 protesting students on the UC Davis Campus. Documents show that Lt. James Barbour got
19 sucked into the action against Plaintiff by the “UC Davis Death Squad,” most likely not knowing
20 what the case was about. Apparently, he was promised that his salary would be restored to its
21 normal level. By reading the Public Record Acts documents, one can see that Lt Barbour was
22 dedicated to attacking Plaintiff in 2012 by any means.
23 September 26, 2012 – The Confidential Investigation Report
24
563. On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff received the Confidential Investigation
25
26 Report from the Defendant; it was attached to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious
27 Misconduct.
28
8
Report and December 2011 and February 2012 Danesha Nichol’s reports. The only difference
9 was that Romanians were used in the reports instead of Jews to make Plaintiff look like a KKK
12 the report, responded to Cindi Oropeza and Brent Seifert with an open letter dated September 28,
13 2012.
14 567. In addition to the open letter response, Plaintiff sent an inquiry to the UC
15 Davis Public Record Act office for all documents related to the Defendant’ Notice of Intent to
16 Terminate Plaintiff.
17 OCTOBER 2012
18
19
October 1, 2012—Open Letter to the UC Davis Police Chief
20
21
568. Plaintiff was outraged by the UC Davis Police Department’s humiliating and
22
disparaging “PERSON NOT AUTHORIZED ON THE PROPERTY” poster, which was
23
issued and distributed around UC Davis campus on September 26, 2012.
24
569. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff wrote an open letter to new UC Davis Police Chief
25
Matt Carmichael, who replaced Annette Spicuzza and to Chancellor Katehi, who ordered the
26
firing of his colleague, Lt. John Pike, in August 2012.
27
28 570. In September 2011, Plaintiff asked a UC Davis Police captain Joyce Souza for
15 few more current photos of myself. My photo on the UC Davis Police Warrant
16 is outdated and was taken probably 10 years ago, prior to my 2006 open heart
17 surgery and left eye surgery. HR has a newer photo, which was taken when I
19 development engineer.
20 I have no doubt that the UC Davis Police bulletin with my outdated photo was
21 issued to humiliate me, as it sounds like an arrest warrant. This is an
22 outrageous abuse of authority by the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation
23 and Maintenance Department (UCDMC PO&M), the HR Department and the
24
UC Davis Police Department. Such management actions were taken to cause
25
Waszczuk severe emotional distress, and they were done with a willful and
26
conscious disregard of both the law and UC policies.
27
The conduct of UCDMC management and the UC Davis Police Department
28
15 573. The Defendant have not mentioned in any previous document this
17 humiliated Plaintiff.
16 stability. This is an additional reason to provide me with the time extension for
18 I believe that you are aware that I am already on nine different prescription
19 medicines.
20 I am assuming that you have read my last open letter to Mrs. Oropeza and that
21 you or Brent Seifert will question Dorin Daniliuc about his (and others’) lies,
22 which were inserted into the report.
23
24
Sincerely,
25
Jerry “
26
27
576. In addition to Plaintiff’s response to Charles Witcher’s extension, on October 3,
28
13 October 1, 2012
14
RE: Workers’ Compensation Stress/Psychiatric related claim
15
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
16
17 In an e-mail we received dated 10/01/2012 you indicate that you have suffered
18 “severe emotional distress” from your employment at the UC Davis Health
19
System. As such, if you wish to pursue a psychiatric injury claim, related
20
to your employment at UC Davis Health System, please fill out the
21
enclosed DWC-1 Form and return to our office at:
22
24
Workers’ Compensation Dept.
25
26
27 Sincerely,
28 Michael Tyler
15 582. On May 30, 2012, Hugh Parker removed Plaintiff from stress management
16 class instead of encouraging Plaintiff to attend such classes, despite knowing what Plaintiff was
18 583. On May 30, 2012, Plaintiff did not know that Hugh Parker was a
19 coordinator for the Defendant’ specially assembled group of UC Davis employees, which
20 Plaintiff nicknamed the “UC Davis Death Squad” in the officially generated document
21 584. On May 31, 2012, and in September 2012, Hugh Parker (as conductor of
22 the aforementioned group) coordinated a malicious but unsuccessful provocation involving UC
23 Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and Lt. James Barbour to ambush and kill Plaintiff or
24
otherwise end his employment at the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit #11.
25
585. Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’ offer to file a false workers’
26
compensation claim. Apparently the Defendant attempted to escape enormous legal liability
27
using frequent workers’ compensation claims to further attack and distract Plaintiff from the real
28
6
586. One month after the Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued, on October 22, 2012,
7
Plaintiff received an interesting letter from HR Consultant Gina Harwood, who replaced Jill Noel
8
Vandviver on June 22, 2012. Gina Harwood’s letter stated:
9
Re: Service as PPSM Complaint Representative
10
Dear Mr. Waszczuk:
11 This letter is to inform you that due to the completion of the investigation, you
12 are no longer on investigatory leave. Your leave status has changed to
13 administrative leave with pay while the personnel action is pending.
14 Due to the change in your status, you will be permitted to serve as the
15 representative in complaint meetings for Kenneth Diede, William Buckans
16 and Dereck Cole. The following complaints will be removed from abeyance
15 Davis Police Department issued and distributed the poster with Plaintiff’s photo and
17 589. In a letter to Gina Harwood dated October 17, 2012, Plaintiff asked Gina
18 Harwood specific questions that she, as the Defendant’ representative, failed to answer in her
15 September 26, 2012. Gina Harwood knew that Plaintiff had, in February 2009, signed the
16 Settlement-Agreement with the Regents of the University of California. Gina Harwood and other
17 perpetrators knew that the UC Davis Police poster was an indefensible breach of the Settlement-
18 Agreement signed by the Defendant and Plaintiff. The Defendant’ poster went beyond
19 disparaging Plaintiff. It was an act of malice beyond of human decency aimed at Plaintiff, and it
20 alone can be the subject of litigation against the Defendant.
21 October 30, 2012-The UC Davis Medical Center HVAC Shop Supervisors Patrick Putney and
Dorin Daniluc’s Attempt to Provoke Dereck Cole for Physical Confrontation
22
23
592. Just two days after Plaintiff wrote a letter to Director Boyd about UC Davis
24
management’s despicable retaliation and vendetta against HVAC shop technician Dereck Cole
25
26 on October 30, 2012, two of Dereck Cole’s supervisors, Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc,
27 approached him in the hospital cafeteria during his break and verbally assaulted him in front of a
28 surveillance camera with clear intention to provoke him into physical confrontation and end
16 Respectfully,
17 Dereck
18 595. After meeting with Lindsey, Dereck Cole was removed from the HVAC shop and
19 reassigned to the preventive maintenance shop. The surveillance footage from the hospital
20 cafeteria should be checked, and appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against Patrick
21 Putney and Dorin Daniliuc. Dereck Cole was a victim of two UC Davis medical supervisors
22 supported by Department Head Charles Witcher, HR Labor Relations staff, corrupt UC Davis
23 Chief of Police Matt Carmichael, and his lieutenant James Barbour. If Dereck Cole had called
24
UC Davis police right after incident in the cafeteria, then he would most likely be accused and
25
investigated instead of Patrick Putney and Dorin Daniliuc.
26
597. Plaintiff represented Dereck Cole in his complaints against these two supervisors
27
in a retaliation complaint pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70. Right after the confrontation in
28
8
NOVEMBER 2012
9
November 2, 2012 – Public Record Act Request
10
11
599. On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff received a response from the UC Davis Public
12
Record Act (PRA) office to his request for PRA documents related to the Defendant’s Notice
13
Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012.
14
15 600. Plaintiff briefly reviewed the received PRA documents and several pages of e-
16 mail correspondence dated June 1, 2012, which were sent by the UC Davis Health System
18 David Levine, Debra Schmidt, Marjorie Trogodon Shock, Neil Speth, Carol Kirshnit, Karen
19 Kouretas, Cindy Oropeza, Glynis Foulk, James Barbour, and Travis Lindsay.
20 601. On the first page of the e-mail with subject “Jaroslaw ‘Jerry’ Waszczuk –PO&M
21 employee,” Hugh Parker wrote:
22
23 “Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
24 Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
told he was being place on investigatory leave.”
25
26 602. After Plaintiff read Hugh Parker’s e-mail message, checked Hugh Parker’s
27 recipients, and found out who these people were, Plaintiff got goosebumps realizing that this e-
28
7
604. Plaintiff combined Karen Kouretas’s name with Neil Speth, James
8
Barbour, Glynis Foulk, and David Levine with what happened to Plaintiff on May 30, 2012 and
9
what Plaintiff wrote in his letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert and the UC Davis
10
Police. On September 26, 2012, a defaming “Persona Non Grata” poster with Plaintiff’s photo
11
and description surfaced. Plaintiff had no any doubt that May 31, 2012 was a maliciously crafted
12
provocation to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit
13
No. # 11.
14
15 605. Plaintiff already covered this subject in the Statements of Facts, June
16 2012 chapter.
17
19
28
7 August 2, 2011, with exceptions of the few hours to interview with ‘Danesha
9 Garcia in February 2012, and maybe 2 hours during the interview with Brent
10 Seifert on May 31, 2012. Total reimbursement should equal approx., $768.00;
18 have receipts for the disks. I don’t, but I need my HDs back or need to be
19 reimbursed approx.$150.00.
20 Sincerely,
21 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
22
607. The Defendant never reimbursed Plaintiff for the parking permit or the
23
two hard drives.
24
November 12, 2012- The Brief for Oral Response Submitted by Plaintiff to Assigned Skelly
25 Reviewer. UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson
26
6 Dated September 25, 2012 by “The UC Davis Medical Center ‘HR Death
7 Squad’”
8
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
9
18 It clearly appears from the bulk of the e-mail correspondence that certain
27 The assigned executor to carry out the plot to send me to my death or send me
28 to the UCDMC trauma unit to meet Karen Kouretas was the UC Police Lt.
10 I am hoping that eventually the FBI and district attorney will step in and break
18 609. The letter to Allen Tollefson was the first time Plaintiff nicknamed the assembled
19 Defendant group “HR Death Squad,” which in criminally minded, unsuccessful provocation
20 attempted to end Plaintiff’s employment at UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11. Later,
21 Plaintiff changed the nickname from “HR Death Squad” to the “UC Davis Death Squad” due to
22 the involvement of the UC Davis police in the ill-planned assaults on Plaintiff.
23 610. On November 13, 2012, Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson responded to Plaintiff’s
24
letter and scheduled the meeting with Plaintiff on November 16, 2012 on the UC Davis campus.
25
611. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff attended the meeting with assigned Skelly
26
Reviewer and UC Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson to discuss Plaintiff’s unwarranted
27
and without-valid-cause employment termination.
28
15 back. Plaintiff was unaware on November 16, 2012 and a long time after the meeting that
16 Plaintiff’s fate was already decided a long time before the meeting with Allen Tollefson’ by the
17 Regents of the University of California the UC Office of the President,(UCOP) and the UC
18 Office of the General Counsel for a completely different reason. Plaintiff thought he was being
19 hunted down like an animal or subhuman by the UC Davis administration’s designated thugs.
20 614. On November 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent to Skelly Reviewer Allen Tollefson the
21 meeting summary letter entitled “Our Meeting on November 16, 2012. -The Notice Intent to
22 Dismiss Dated September 25, 2012 BY “The UC Davis Medical Center “’HR Death
23 Squad.’”
24 (Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s letter to Allen
Tollefson was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
25
Re: Our Meeting on November 16, 2012.
26
The Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
27
Dear Vice Chancellor Tollefson:
28
16 25, 2012. The notice not say too much besides some quotes taken out of
17 context from my letters that I wrote due to the vicious and unscrupulous
18 war against me, which has lasted over one year and is still going.
19
The very powerful forces from the UCDMC Human Resources Department
20
and the UC Davis campus, as well as the involvement of the director of the
21
investigation sent from the UC Office of the President against me in May
22
2012, make me believe that the reason or reasons to harm me were not
23
my reporting of Patrick Putney’s chickens, roosters, goats, sheep and
24
other animals for sale in the UCDMC HVAC shop. I do not believe
25
27 employer out of the parking fee for four years by hiding his car inside
7 writing in the letter dated March 13, 2011, referring to the central plant
8 operator Todd Georlich’s tragic suicide that took place in December 2010
9 as well as the secret and fraudulent 12% pay raise the central plant
11
The other reason that I was thinking it could be is the child pornography
12
issue reported in August 2011 by my coworker Kenny Diede in his
13
2010/2011 employee evaluation complaint under the PPSM 70. The
14
complaint is still unresolved. Kenny Diede became a subject of retaliation
15
by Patrick Putney with Charles Witcher’s support and approval. I am
16
representing Kenny with his complaints under PPSM70. It is very bizarre
17
19 Nichols in her investigation report, but the graphic video clip about the
9
Although stress and anger affect everyone, anger can be problematic if people
10
use it to gain control and express it unprofessionally.”
11
12 I received information about the class on May 23, 2012, from my former
13 central plant coworker William Buckans, who on the same day received a letter
19 I showed up to class on time with my two colleagues. Before the class had
20 begun, Hugh Parker, with the help of Licensed Clinical Social Worker Mrs.
21 Marjorie Trogdon Shock, kicked me out of the class.
22
It was quite a surprise to me because I was constantly being accused that I
23
24
am angry, hostile etc. Such a class would be appropriate for a person who
26
If I knew that Mr. Hugh Parker, along with Mrs. Trogdon Shock and the
27
other members of the “HR Death Squad,” had planned to send Jerry to the
28
8
“Mr. Waszczuk returned to work yesterday from his suspension and was
9 placed back on investigatory leave the same day. At issue are writings sent by
Mr. Waszczuk while on leave. Mr. Waszczuk did not display any anger when
10 told he was being place on investigatory leave.
11
Hugh R. Parker, Manager”
12
13
Could you imagine what would or could have happened if Mr. Parker,
14
along with Mrs. Shock, would not have “shocked” me and did not kick me
15
16
out from the “Class on Stress Management” on May 30, 2012?
28
19 The interviews did not happen until October 10, 2012 after I sent the letter
20 to the members of UC Davis Ethics and Compliance Risk Committee.
21
In addition to, I am forwarding to you an e-mail which I sent l to UC Davis
22
24 Nichols’ false accusations against me, which alleged that I am violent and
26 kind of phony report to the police and that Danesha Nichols was in
9 minds by believing that they could set me up and make me seem violent
18 fraud.
19 It seems to me that Mr. Chilcott was trying to train his crew on how to deal
20
with “rebellious” workers, knowing that I would not give up so quickly, and he
21
was trying to find out how long I would resist the attacks and his blitzkrieg.
22
23 Maybe it was a bit of everything and at some point got so out of control and
24 had so many people involved for no reason; now, somebody must pay the cost
9 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
10 Enclosed:
15 mail mailing list; Letter dated September 9, 2012 to Brent Seifert with
16 request for investigation status update. In that letter, on the pages 2 and
19 many people from the HR department, UCDPD police, trauma unit, and
20 UCDMC counsel until Waszczuk received documents under the Public
21 Record Act Provision in October 2012; Letter dated September 23, 2012
22 (Two days before the notice intent to terminate issued by Charles
23 Witcher on September 25, 2012 followed by the “Most Unwanted” Lt.
24
James Barbour’s warrant); October 4, 2012 e-mail from Michael Tyler as
25
an acknowledgment that I decline the offer for the workers-compensation
26
claim. I don’t file fraudulent claims.
27
CC: To Whom It May Concern
28
15 was replaced by Gina Harwood. Plaintiff was searching for clue as to what triggered the
16 Defendant’ brutal and merciless action against Plaintiff. In his letter to Jill Noel Vandeviver,
17 Plaintiff wrote:
(Note: to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s e-mail to Jill Noel
18 Vandeviver was corrected by a professional proofreader.)
19
Re: Brief for Oral Response -Notice Intent to Dismiss. - UCDMC “HR Death
20
Squad”
21
Good Morning Ms. Vandeviver:
22
I am writing a few words to you because it appears that my employer, UC
23
Davis Medical Center made an attempt to frame me, provoke me, and kill me
24
25 or send me to the trauma unit in bad shape in May of 2012. Somehow, it did
26 not work out for the UCDMC “HR Death Squad.” I perfectly described the
28 2012, not knowing anything about it until I got a PRA request almost one
15 617. In November 2012, Jill Noel Vandeviver worked for the State of
17
18 DECEMBER 2012
9 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am dismissing you from your
11 at UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012. The reason for this
28 with a benefits counselor to determine the effect of this action on your benefits.
7
619. The Skelly Reviewer , UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen
8 Tollefson’s decision dated December 3, 2012 and Charles Witcher’s Letter of Termination were
10 performance review (evaluations) were mentioned. Neither decision mentioned the February
11 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the regents of the University of California,
12 which guaranteed Plaintiff a job with the University as the Associate Development Engineer.
13
“December 3, 2012
14 Travis Lindsey
Manager
15 Employee & Labor Relations
University of California, Davis, Health System
16
Re: Letter of Intent to Dismiss--Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17
27
actions were taken out of context and that he has the right to voice his opinion
28 about the wrong doings of the Department. Mr. Waszczuk has a very negative
16
“In Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194, the California
17 Supreme Court ruled that:
18
‘as part of constitutionally guaranteed due process, public employees are
19 entitled to certain procedural safeguards before discipline, which is
sufficiently severe to constitute a deprivation of a liberty or property right is
20 imposed on them. The constitutionally protected liberty interests requiring
Skelly protections arise whenever the allegations against an employee are
21 sufficiently onerous to seriously impact the employee’s ability to find future
work in his/her chosen career.’”
22
23
621. Skelly Reviewer Allan Tollefson held a meeting with UCDHS HR Labor
24
Relation Manager Travis Lindsey on September 24, 2012 and was coached on what decision
25
was expected from him in Plaintiff’s case.
26
622. Just before Plaintiff’s loss of employment, Plaintiff lost his house on a short sale
27
28
and rented a house so as not to deal with a mortgage company during his unemployment.
3 623. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail inquiry to USDHS HR Labor
4 Relation Consultant Gina Harwood for clearance to enter the HR building on December 20,
5
2012 to take care of his remaining benefits upon termination of employment:
6
Subject: Meeting with Janette Manuel in the Ticon III Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00
7
Hi Gina:
8
Would you please provide me clearance with UCDPD to go to Ticon III
9
Bldg. on 12/20/2012 at 9:00 a.m. for a meeting with Janette Manuel?It
10
came to my attention that the UCDPD “Most Unwanted” police warrant
11
with my photos is still hanging in the HVAC shop and probably in other
12
UCDMC places. I don’t want be shot by in the back by Lt. James
13
Barbour’s forces for entering the Ticon III Bldg. to discuss my benefits
14
17 Jerry
28
7 Agreement signed with Plaintiff and in disregard of Plaintiff’s outstanding working record ,
8 slandered and defamed Plaintiff with the Employment Development Department, thus causing
10 627. By the reckless, despicable and inhumane Defendant’ continuous attack aimed at
11 Plaintiff, the Defendant caused Plaintiff additional enormous stress, anxiety and financial harm
12 in the period when Plaintiff was not eligible yet for earlier Social Security Benefits and was
13 awaiting to cash out his University Retirement money and transfer it to an IRA account.
14 628. Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits case is pending in the State of
15 California Court of Appeal 3rd Appellate District, Case Caption Waszczuk v. California
16
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board No. C079254, the County of Sacramento Superior
17
Court Case No. 34201380001699CUWMGDS.
18
JANUARY 2013
19
20 January 3, 2013- Plaintiff’s Step I Complaint Pursuant to the UC Davis Complaint Resolution
Policy PPSM 70.
21
22 629. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Step I Complaint pursuant to the UC Davis
23 Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70. The Step I complaint was the initial appeal from the
24 Defendant’ decision terminating Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
25 630. The termination letter stated that Plaintiff has rights to request review of the
26 Defendant’ employment action under Personnel Policies for Staff Members 70 - Complaint
27
Resolution.
28
15 634. Plaintiff’s mind was and still is constantly and unstoppably occupied by the
16 Defendant’ criminally minded May 31, 2012 provocation. Undoubtedly it was the Defendant’
17 goal to kill Plaintiff or end his employment in the UC Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit # 11.
18 Plaintiff is still obsessively thinking about and can’t get it out of his mind because the Defendant
19 never in one word in any document address their own disgraceful, despicable and criminally
20 minded action against their own employee, who provided service for the Defendant for 13 years
21 and almost ended his employment in death.
22 635. Plaintiff expressed and emphasized his feelings about the Defendant’ way to
23 resolve the labor dispute with Plaintiff in the cover letter to the Step I Complaint Plaintiff sent to
24
UCDHS HR Labor Relation Consultant Gina Harwood on January 2, 2013.
25
636. Together with a cover letter, Plaintiff sent to Gina Harwood a copy of the
26
February 2009 Settlement–Agreement, the copy of Plaintiff’s Brief for Oral Arguments sent by
27
Plaintiff to Skelly Reviewer, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor Allen Tollefson, on
28
7
Re: The Letter of Termination Dated December 5, 2012- Request
8 for Review under PPSM 70.
10
The Letter of Termination issued by Mr. Witcher states:
11
“You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel Policies
12
for Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of
13
this action, you must do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint form. A
14
written request must be received in the UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations
15
office no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this letter.”
16
I did not have any intention to follow the Letter of Termination advice and file
17
a request for review with the HR Labor Relation Office, which has caused the
18
termination of my employment with University of California after 13 years of
19
20 service.
21 I was sure that filing a request for review under PPSM 70 would be
23 page brief for the Oral Response to The Notice Intent to Dismiss dated
17 Three of the cases that I reviewed caught my attention, and this is why I have
18 decided to file a request for review under the PPSM 70. I have to be certain
19 that I would not be precluded to file the wrongful termination lawsuit or else I
20 will be defeated like the two Plaintiffs in Janet Campbell v. Regents Of The
21 University of California S113275; Ct.App.1/1 A097560; San Francisco Super.
22 CT. No. 312736 and Patricia M. Palmer v. Regents Of The University of
23 California 2nd App. Div.7 B154868; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.BC
24
187036.
25
The third case is the newest wrongful termination lawsuit, which is interesting
26
because of the astronomical jury verdict for Plaintiff. The Ani Chopourian v.
27
Catholic Healthcare West wrongful termination case in Federal Court included
28
16 The date of May 31, 2012 constantly occupies my mind with unanswered
19 Would I have survived or would have been disabled for the rest of my life if I
20 survived? If I was taken to the UCD Trauma Unit, would my IV be filled with
21 toxic doses of drugs that could have contraindicated the medicines I am
22 currently taking, since the UCD wouldn’t know my medical history? Would I
23 become part of a deadly and illegal medical experiment? Ani Chopourian is
24
not asking herself these questions. I do not wish anybody to have his/her mind
25
occupied by such trauma that the UC Davis Medical Center Human Resources
26
Department caused me. “Sometimes I think that I should have never asked for
27
the documents that I received under the Public Record Act because of how
28
15 and human and employee rights; they are also abusing the power given to them
16 by the UC System
18 in the Letter of Suspension. The May 31, 2012 death trap, the Notice Intent to
15 and planned deadly assault on Waszczuk May 31, 2012. Without a doubt, it
19 Sincerely,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
20
CC: UC President Mark Yudof, UC Regents, UC Davis Chancellor Lynda Katehi,
21 and UC Davis Vice Chancellor Ralph Hextler.
22
23
January 3, 2013 –Addendum to the Wrongful Termination Complaint PPSM 70 Step I Appeal
24
638. In the Step I Complaint and the addendum to the complaint, Plaintiff
25
alleged as follows.
26
16 government or law enforcement agency; Labor Code Section 1102.5 and Right
17 of state employees to blow whistle Gov. Code Sections 10543.
18 ADDENDUM TO THE WRONGFUL TERMINATION COMPLAINT
19 De sc r i be y o ur c o m p la i n t i n de ta i l , i nc l u d i ng t he fo l lo w i ng
fiv e po i n ts . Atta c h a d di tio na l s he e t s if ne e de d .
20
3. How did the management act violate policy or procedure?
21
23 violation of law and is pure and undisputable retaliation against Waszczuk for
8 The UCDMC management by firing Waszczuk from his job breached and
9
violated the 2009 Settlement-Agreement between Waszczuk and the Regents
10
of the UC. As early as of July 2011. Waszczuk submitted two letters of
11
complaint to the UC Davis campus Chief Counsel Mr. Steven A. Drown and
12
asked him to advise violators of the signed Settlement-Agreement to stop
13
assaulting Waszczuk and to restore order in Waszczuk’ workplace. The letters
14
dated July 17 and 24, 2011 are self-explanatory, and no reason exists to
15
elaborate further about my employment malice in relation to the settlement –
16
agreement. It is only appropriate to mention that Mr. Drown as the UC Davis
17
chief counsel signed the mentioned agreement on behalf of the UC Regents.
18
19 Mr. Drown was obligated to act to prevent further violation of the agreement,
21 Police’s assaulting Waszczuk with a deadly weapon on May 31, 2012, as well
28 for our employees. Supervisors are always expected to have "just cause" when
15 I will leave to my attorney the further interpretation of the UCDHS just cause,
16 to lead.
17 I am so traumatized when I think about the UCDMC trauma unit, which was
19 However, today I am less surprised about Mr. Chillcot’s war game, after the
20 newspapers and television (TV) news have announced that under the
21 supervision of humanitarian off the Year, Mrs. Claire Pomeroy and UCDMC
22 CEO Mrs. Ann Madden Rice, the UCDMC created an oasis for neurosurgeons
23 whose activities were closely akin to Dr. Mengele’s from the Auschwitz Death
24
Camp—characterized by ill-minded illegal medical experiments. The only
25
difference was that Dr. Mengele was declared a war criminal and sentenced to
26
death in absentia. The two UCDMC “Mengeles” were fired from their jobs,
27
and Mrs. Pomeroy resigned from her position under false pretenses. Mrs. Rice
28
17 I am not sure what more should I write in this final complaint under PPSM 70.
18 I am so traumatized and stressed out, but thanks to God, I escaped the May 31,
15 investigator has ignored and covered up the entire issue in her report.
18 Waszczuk believes that the father of the convicted child pornography felon
19 was promised to have Mr. Waszczuk’s job and position a long time before
20 April 2011. This was yet another reason to retaliate against and harass
21 Waszczuk as well as to later terminate his employment.
22 6. Resolution Requested
23
24
Waszczuk is requesting in good faith the following resolution to end the
25
conflict without further costly litigations.
26
After receiving and reviewing my request/complaint, the UC immediately
27
shall restore my employment in the spirit of the signed 2009 Settlement-
28
21 January 19, 2013- UC Davis PPSM Step II Decisions in the unwarranted Letters of
Expectation Plaintiff’s coworkers William Buckans, Kenny Diede and Dereck Cole were
22 attacked by UC Davis Management in May and August 2012.
23 640. On or around January 19, Plaintiff received from UCDHS HR Labor
24 Relation the Step II Appeal- decisions for the complaints Plaintiff filed on his three coworkers,
25 Kenneth Diede, William Buckans and Dereck Cole were served in May and August 2012.
26 Plaintiff provided representation for the mentioned coworkers pursuant to UC Davis Compliant
27 Resolution Policy PPSM 70.
28
15 violation of law, for which disclosure would have more serious consequences.
16 February 2013
17
26 complaint. The complaint alleges that your dismissal from employment was a
27 violation of University policy and did not follow the just cause standard. The
16
645. The actual three-page Step I Appeal Review was signed by USDHS
17
18 Manager of Facilities Design and Construction Thomas Rush, whom Plaintiff never heard of or
19 met. Normally Step I Appeal is reviewed by the Department Head, which was Charles Witcher,
20 who signed the termination letter. In such a situation, HR, by writing the review, had to insert a
22 646. Thomas Rush was a subordinate and colleague of the USDHS Facilities
23 Design and Construction Executive Director Mike Boyd, who in July 2011 also became Director
24 for the UC Davis Medical Center Plant Operation and Maintenance Department and became the
25 direct superior of Charles Witcher and indirectly Plaintiff superior. It was no coincidence that
26 Thomas Rush’s name was selected for Step I review. It is the second time Mike Boyd’s
27
subordinate was assigned to review Plaintiff’s appeal. First was Michael Pansious in May 2012,
28
15 attorney. The Thomas Rush decision is even worth to be pasted into this amended complaint.
16
18
19 648. On February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Step II Appeal from the December 7, 2012
20 Employment Termination Pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 asking $10,000,000 for the
21 unthinkable psychological tortures that Plaintiff experienced from the Defendant in one year and
22 a half of inhumane prosecution and attempts to provoke and kill Plaintiff. In his 19 –page
23 appeal , Plaintiff just vented out his stress and anger knowing that any appeal will not do Plaintiff
24
any good after the Defendant attempted to provoke and kill Plaintiff and UC Davis Police issued
25
and distributed around UC Davis Campuses the “Most Unwanted Persona Non Grata” poster
26
with Plaintiff’s photo and description on it.
27
649. In conclusion of the Step II Appeal request, Plaintiff wrote:
28
7
MARCH 2015
8
9
March 7, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint with UC
10
Davis Vice Chancellor and Provost Office
11
13 Interference Complaint with the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s Office due to Plaintiff’s protected
6
651. Plaintiff with his Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference complaint
7
form submitted to the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s office a 35-page brief, 1500 pages of
8
supportive documents and a cover letter, which stated:
9 ‘March 7, 2013
The Honorable Ralph J. Hexter
10 Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
11 University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
12 Davis, CA 95616
13 Re: Retaliation and Interference Complaint
14 Dear Vice Chancellor Hexter,Enclosed is a copy of my Retaliation and
15 Interference Complaint against certain individuals who are managing the UC
16 Davis Medical Center in Sacramento, California, where I was employed for
17 over thirteen years and where my employment was abruptly and without valid
18
and legitimate reason terminated on December 7, 2012.
19
In addition to the managing officers at the UC Davis Medical Center, who are
20
included in the complaint, UC Davis Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and his
21
subordinate, Lieutenant James Barbour, are included in the complaint for
22
alleged act(s) of provocation and conspiracy with other individuals listed in the
23
complaint in an attempt to murder me on May 31, 2012 or send me to the UC
24
Davis Medical Center Trauma Unit in a state of extreme harm.
25
It is very disturbing—even unthinkable—that UC Davis leaders should
26
use the UC Davis Police Department to resolve labor disputes with
27
12 was transferred from the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s and Provost office to the UC Office of the
13 President (UCOP) Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services.
14 653. The UC Office of the President Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg was assigned
15 to investigate Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation and Interference Complaint.
16 654. The investigation was presided over by two UC Senior Vice Presidents, Sheryl
17
Vacca and Daniel Dooley.
18
655. Plaintiff met UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg twice. Plaintiff’s coworker
19
William Buckans witnessed the meetings. Investigator Judith Rosenberg was not very anxious to
20
investigate and she showed her feelings about. The UCOP Principal Investigator probably knew
21
that the Regents, Office of the President and UC Office of the General Counsel were responsible
22
for Plaintiff’s termination without knowing the cause.
23
656. One year later in June 2014, Judith Rosenberg issued her investigation Report,
24
which had nothing to do with any investigation. Judith Rosenberg repeated the defaming and
25
defacing statements made about Plaintiff by three previous investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent
26
27 Seifert and Cindi Oropeza who portrayed Plaintiff far worse, as a two time convicted child
28 pornography felon who was illegally accessing UC Davis Medical Center HVAC shop
17 Rosenberg found that you had made protected disclosures under the
11 661. The question is whether the UC Senior Vice President, who was overseeing Judith
12 Rosenberg, was aware of all the details of the case and why Plaintiff became a subject of such a
13 vicious retaliation from the Defendant, which lasted for more than a year and half and was
14 continued by the Defendant after Plaintiff’s termination through the State of California
15
Employment Development Department and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal
16
Board than in State of California Sacramento of Sacramento Superior Court Department 23 with
17
Presiding Judge Hon. Shaleyanne Chang.
18
662. The University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Principal
19
Investigator Judith concluded her pseudo-investigation in Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation
20
and Interference Complaint on June 23, 2013, which was a year and four months since Plaintiff
21
filed the complaint on April 7, 2013 with UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor Office.
22
663. Judith Rosenberg’s Confidential Investigation Report issued on June 23, 2014
23
was more or less a summary of the previous several fabricated reports as a cause for Plaintiff’s
24
25 May 2012 ten-day suspension without pay and employment termination on December 7, 2012.
26 664. Judith Rosenberg’s investigation report has nothing to do with any investigation
27 and was basically based on slanderous and libelous fabrication issued by UC Davis Health
28 System HR-assigned investigators, Danesha Nichols, Brent Seifert and Cindi Oropeza.
16 misleading way the February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with the Regents
19 and experienced attorney at law, was perfectly aware what the 2009 Settlement-Agreement was
20 about and how grossly and unscrupulously it was violated by the Defendant.
21 670. Judith Rosenberg was perfectly aware that the Defendant defamed,
22 defaced and libeled Plaintiff by issuing, two months before he was terminated, the “PERSON
23 NOT AUTHORIZED ON PROPERTY” poster. Plaintiff’s photo and description were also
24
included on the poster, which was distributed around the UC Davis Medical Center Campus and,
25
most likely, sent to managers and UC Davis employees by electronic mail. Plaintiff was still a
26
University employee and received treatment like a “Most Wanted” criminal by the FBI.
27
671. Plaintiff is not certain whether Judith Rosenberg was aware or knew prior
28
15 the President and the University of California Office of the General Counsel or that the very
16 narrow group of the University officials knew what this case was about.
17 674. The 2009 Settlement-Agreement Plaintiff signed with the Regents of the
18 University of California was not mentioned in by UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley in his
19 decision.
20 675. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley resigned or was forced to resign from
21 his $400,000 job with the University of California shortly after he signed the decision in
22 Plaintiff’s Whistleblowing Retaliation Complaint.
23 676. UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley from November 2011-April 2012 was a
24
member of the Task Force Team, which investigated a pepper spray attack ordered by UC Davis
25
Chancellor Katehi against protesting students on November 18, 2011. The Task Force Team, of
26
which UC Senior Vice President Daniel Dooley was a member, caused unemployment for UC
27
Davis Police Captain Joy Souza , Lt. John Pike and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza
28
7 April 3, 2013 – The letter to UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
Termination of Plaintiff’s Employment – PPSM 70 Step II Appeal Hearing on April 2, 2013
8
677. On April 2, 2013, the Step II Appeal hearing took place in Plaintiff’s employment
9
termination pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 with the presiding Complainant
10
Resolution Officer at the hearing, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd, who
11
was Plaintiff’s indirect superior and, by the position and title, was responsible for Plaintiff’s
12
employment termination.
13
678. Plaintiff followed the instruction in the Letter of Termination dated December 5,
14
2012 and filed the complaint pursuant to the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70.
15
16 679. In 2013, Plaintiff was uncertain whether he should pursue his employment
17 termination complaint under the UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 or file the lawsuit to enforce the
18 February 2009 Settlement-Agreement that the Defendant i.e., the Regents of the University of
20 700. Plaintiff, by filing the complaints pursuant to UC Davis Policy PPSM, had little
21 hope that his employment and position, provided to him by the 2009 Settlement-Agreement,
22 would be eventually restored without litigation or knowing that the decision to terminate him
23 came from the Defendant’ Headquarters in Oakland, CA and was carried out by Director Boyd
24 and others.
25
701. Plaintiff summarized the April 2, 2013 Step II Appeal Hearing as follows:
26 April 3, 2013
9 statements that were outlined in the Notice Intent to Dismiss for Serious
10 Misconduct.
13 employer during the pending internal appeals under the PPSM 70appeals.
14 The abovementioned appeal with the California Insurance Appeal Board is
15 similar to my PPSM Step II Appeal, but is more focused and specifically
16 addresses the out-of-context statement written in Charles Witcher’s Notice
17 Intent to Dismiss dated September 25, 2012.
18
Together with this letter, I am sending you a copy of my Appeal Brief and the
19
relevant exhibits I submitted to the California Insurance Appeal Board.
20
I hope that the enclosed documents and your careful review of Oropeza and
21
Seifert’s Investigatory Report, which is based on lies, false statements and
22
fabricated accusations by a handful of people, will help you understand that
23
this case will not end with your hearing or in arbitration but, instead, will
24
ultimately be pursued in a court of law and justice will be served.
25
Besides the above, I am respectfully asking you for help on behalf of my
26
HVAC shop coworker, Kenny Diede, whose life and working conditions in the
27
16 Best Regards,
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
17 CC: HR, Charles Witcher , Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, Kenny Diede .
18
MAY 2013
19 May 2, 2013 – UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd’s – PPSM 70 Step II
Appeal Decision In Plaintiff’s Employment Termination Complaint
20
702. On May 2, 2013, UC Davis Health System Executive Director Mike Boyd
21
issued a decision in Plaintiff’s Step II Appeal employment termination complaint as follows
22
703. Plaintiff’s hope that Director Boyd, with his executive power, would find
23
a different solution was broken like a soap bubble”?
24
May 5, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Response to Director Boyd’s Step II Decision
25
26
10 Mr. Boyd:
On April 2, 2013, we held a meeting on the UC Davis Campus. On the same-day, UC
11
12 Davis Chief Compliance Officer Wendy Delmendo wrote me a letter and informed me
13 that she had accepted my complaint under the university’s Whistleblower Protection
14 Policy.
15
18 Page No. 1
19
Boyd: “During the meeting, Mr. Waszczuk asserted that the
termination was an act of retaliation that is linked to complaints he
20 made about his supervisors and management staff within PO&M when
working at the Central Plant from 1999 to 2007 and more recent
21 allegations and concerns that he raised in 2010 and 2011. This assertion is
consistent with similar assertions he made in his Step I Appeal and in the
22 documentation provided in the Step II Appeal submittal. He also maintains
that the disciplinary actions have been taken represent a breach of the
23 2009 Settlement-Agreement between him and the University.”
11 During our discussion, I pointed out to you the following fragment from
12 Seifert and Oropeza’s report, in order to help you understand how Seifert and
13 Oropeza crafted cause for you to terminate my employment.
14
19 After I read you this fragment from Oropeza and Seifert’s report, I asked you
20 the following question in relation to Putney’s lies:
21
“Mr. Boyd, you were born in and have lived your entire life in the USA,
22
right?” You answered, “yes.” I then asked you, “Do you know or did you
23
ever hear any ethnic slurs in this country directed against Romanians,
24
similar to nigger, Pollack, wetback, or other such slurs?” You responded
25
26
that you didn’t know, and that you never heard any slurs directed
28 Putney whether he or Daniliuc know any ethnic slurs about Romanians, not to
12
UC Davis’ Policy PPSM 70.
13 706. On December 5, 2013, exactly one year after the Defendant terminated
14 Plaintiff’s employment, Plaintiff held a meeting with Boyd in the UC Davis Medical Center.
15 Boyd was assigned as the Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) Step II Reviewer in the Case No.
16 03-PPS-011-12/13. During the meeting, Plaintiff was representing HVAC Technician Dereck
17 Cole in his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 for his 2011/2012 “Does Not Meet
18 Expectation Employee Performance Review (Evaluation).” The “Does Not Meet Expectation
19 Evaluation” was basically the last step for the employee to be terminated if he did not improve
20 his performance and behavior and achieve the goals for the next evaluation period, as outlined by
21
the supervisors or managers in the employee evaluations.
22
23 707. Mike Boyd, as Executive Director and Complaint Resolution Officer, and
24 as Plaintiff’s superior, knew that the Employee Performance Reviews (evaluations), mandated by
25 UC Davis Policy PPSM 23, are the most important documents to make a decision in any adverse
15 provide him with evaluations for the last two years of his employment mandated by UC Davis
16 Policy PPSM 23, thus maliciously depriving Plaintiff of the UC Davis administrative remedies
17 under UC Davis Policy PPSM 23 and violating his employment and civil rights to be treated
19
22
YEAR COMMENT SUPERVISOR
23
1999-00 “…performance very good” Kavanagh
24 “has become a very knowledgeable and effective central, plant
operator” --
25 “very conscientious and thorough” --
“can be counted on to make the right operational decisions” --
26 “valuable employee” --
“committed to the future success of the Medical Center” --
27 VERY GOOD often exceeded expectations and standards --
9 712. On May 7, 2013, Plaintiff obtained the Right To Sue Notice from the State
10 of California Department of Fair Employment and Housing DFHH Matter: 112740-49836-R
11 after losing hope that the wrongful termination and discrimination that the Defendant caused him
12 could be resolved without litigation.
13 DECEMBER 2013
14 December 4, 2013 – Plaintiff’s Wrongful Termination Complaint Against the Defendant with
the State of California County of Sacramento Superior Court
15
16
713. On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff in Pro Per filed in State of California,
17
County of Sacramento Superior Court the Wrongful Termination Complaint.
18
714. On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff simultaneously filed in the State of
19
California, County of Sacramento Superior Court a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,
20
Administrative Mandamus (CCP § 1085;1094.5) to order the California Unemployment
21
Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and/or The Employment Development Department (EDD) to
22
calculate and provide unemployment benefits to Plaintiff or a remand for a rehearing to award
23
such benefits related to Plaintiff’s December 7, 2012, employment termination.
24
715. Defendant in further despicable violation and breach of the February
25
2009Settlement-Agreement, with an evil spirit, defaced and defamed Plaintiff with the State of
26
California Employment Development Department for the purpose of denying Plaintiff ‘s
27
unemployment benefits after terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
28
13
718. On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the University of California
14
Office of the President (UCOP) Principal Investigator Judith Rosenberg, who had been handling
15
Plaintiff’s whistleblowing retaliation complaint since June 2013. Plaintiff filed the
16
whistleblowing retaliation complaint with the UC Davis Provost and Vice Chancellor’s Office on
17
19 719. The purpose of Plaintiff’s March 11, 2014, 10-page-long letter to Judith
20 Rosenberg was to summarize Plaintiffs’ meeting with her, which took place in Defendants’
22 720. In his letter to Judith Rosenberg, Plaintiff mentioned the interview the UC
23 Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru issea u ga ve to Sacramento African-
24 American magazine Sub Cultural Hub. The interview was conducted by Donna Michelle Ramos
25 on August 6, 2012, and was entitled “A Look Back.”
26 721. Dr. Shelton Du ru isseau wa s o ne o f De fe nda n ts and p e rpe tra tors
27
who pa rtic ip a ted in the d esp ica b le re ta lia to ry p re em p tive ac tion a ga in st Pla intiff
28
6 threw a retirement party in his Eldorado Hill residence. The two guests of
7 honor at the party were Mayor of Sacramento Mr. Kevin Johnson and Mr.
9 Taylor. Besides the lavish retirement party, Dr. Duruisseau gave an interview
14 While reading the “A look back” interview with Dr. Duruisseau, a few
15
statements caught my attention. The first statement that caught my attention
16
was:
17
24
25
26 I am very skeptical about Dr. Duraisseau’s statement that the Central Plant sold
27
enough energy in its first four years of operation to cover the cost of building
28
18 DeRusso, and Principal Engineer from Brown and Caldwell James L. Bartlett.
19
20 Apparently, in 1998 Dr. Duraisseau and Project Manager Mr. Mike Lewis had
21 no clue what a cogeneration facility stands for and what criteria such a facility
22 must meet to be in compliance with federal law (FERC).
23
24
By reading the 2012 “A look back” interview and seeing Dr. Duraisseau’s
25
name on the plaque in the Central Plant, it is not difficult to conclude that the
26
Central Plant for him and others was like a sacred and untouchable place built
27
for future generations to remember “great” UC Davis leaders. However, the
28
15 Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w, she had no p rob lem figu rin g ou t
16 why in Ma rc h 20 07 Pla in tiff was remo ve d fro m the Cen tra l Pla nt why De fe nda n ts
17 sign ed Se ttlem en t-Ag ree men t with Plain tiff in Feb ru ary 200 9 , an d why Pla intiff
19 m illio ns of do lla rs o f reve nue fro m the produ c tion and sa le of ele c trica l e ne rg y
20 b y the UC Dav is Me d ica l Cen tra l Pla n t was th e issu e an d b ig p ro b lem
21 724. Plaintiff is familiar with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s
22 (FERC’s) regulation and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) because
23 prior to his employment with UC Davis Medical Center, Plaintiff worked for a private corporation
24
with a similar cogeneration facility that did not meet FERC and PURPA requirements to be
25
certified as a “qualified cogeneration facility.” Plaintiff’s previous employer committed enormous
26
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers and settled out of court for $100
27
million. The $100 million fraud occurred after only six years of unlawful cogeneration facility
28
8
726. Besides the letter to the UCOP Investigator, on March 17, 2014, Plaintiff
9
sent a six-page letter to Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
10
Ramos about her August 6, 2012, interview with UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr.
11
Shelton Du ru isseau .
12
13 “A few days ago, I wrote letters to two UC Office of the Presidents’ officials,
14 Principal Investigator Ms. Judith Rosenberg and UC Senior Vice President
15
Dan Dooley, and I mentioned your interview with Mr. Shelton Duruisseau in
16
my letter because Mr. Shelton Duruisseau made a statement about the UC
17
Davis Medical Center Central Plant where I was employed for several years. I
18
am enclosing both letters for context.”
19
727. Even after the reading Dr. Shelton Du ruisse au ’s u n in te ntiona l
20
c on fe ssion du rin g the in te rv ie w a bou t th e en ormo us p ro fit th e Ce ntra l Plan t
21
g ene ra ted and after writing a Ma rc h 11 , 2014 , le tte r to UCOP In ve stiga to r Jud ith
22
Ro se nbe rg , Pla in tiff d id no t th in k tha t th e De fen da nts’ v ic ious re ta lia tion
23
strik es ag ainst Pla in tiff wa s a pree mp tiv e we ll-orche stra te d De fend an ts ac tio n
24
25 re la ted in direc tly o r to the $ 100 ,0 00 ,0 00 fraud co mm itte d by Pla in tiff’s prev iou s
27 728. Plaintiff during his employment with UC Davis Medical Center was not
28 interested in ever looking into the issue of whether or not the Central Plant was being operated
15 autonomy and independence from the state and federal laws and regulations.
16 732. Even if Plaintiff would have thought about the Central Plant’s PURPA
17 qualification, Plaintiff was not willing to spend his own $10,000 and lose his job again at his
18 age for the purpose of filing a complaint with FERC in an attempt to nullify the Central Plant
19 certification issued by FERC and obtained by Defendants in the self-certification process (if
20 any). Also, it would never would crossed Plaintiff’s mind that Defendants committed fraud
21 against another entity in the same manner that Plaintiff’s previous employer did because Central
22 Plant was built to provide utility for UC Davis Medical Center and that surplus energy should be
23 sold because electric energy cannot to be stored like the other product.
24
733. The previous Plaintiff’s employer committed an enormous $100,000,000
25
fraud against Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers in 1989–1996, violating the PURPA
26
mandated requirements for operating a cogeneration facility.
27
734. The March 11, 2014, letter to the UCOP Principal Investigator Judith
28
15 improve situation and Plaintiff was threatened with employment termination when Plaintiff
18 736. After Plaintiff wrote the letter to UCOP Investigator Judith Rosenberg on
19 March 11, 2014, and Sac Cultural Hub Senior Staff Writer/News Reporter Donna Michelle
20 Ramos on March 17, 2014, Defendants reacted sharply and went viral to divert Plaintiff’s
21 attention from the huge 70 million profits generated by the Central Plant from electrical energy
22 sale in 1999-2003 which was disclosed by UC Davis Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton
23 Du ru isseau in h is in te rv ie w with Donn a Ram os.
24
737. On March 20, 2014 Plaintiff received e-mail correspondence from UC
25
Davis Health System Human Resource (HR) Labor Relations Manager Travis Lindsey. More
26
than two years after Plaintiff’s employment termination, attempted to advise Plaintiff of where
27
Plaintiff should send information about Defendants and where not to send it. Plaintiff responded
28
15 737. In March 2014, Plaintiff was also not aware of the fact that on February
16 24, 2014, the attorney in the unrelated Plaintiff’s wrongful termination case pending in the same
17 Sacramento Superior Court (Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the University of California, Case
19 against Judge Shelleyanne Chang in which Attorney Mary -Alice Coleman declared that:
20
“The Honorable Shelleyanne W. L. Chang, the Judge before whom the
21
trial in the aforesaid matter is pending or to whom the aforesaid trial is
22
assigned, is prejudiced against me or Plaintiff so that Plaintiff cannot or I
23
believe that Plaintiff cannot have a fair and impartial hearing before this
24
25 Judge.”
28 738. Hon. Shelleyanne Chang has been the subject of a Peremptory Challenge
15 attitude toward Plaintiff and his witnesses could best be described with her statement after
16 Plaintiff made a statement about his coworker’s suicide, caused by Defendants’ hostile working
17 environment. ALJ Marilyn Tays responded: “All right, I guess he is not here.” When Plaintiff
18 heard this, I had no doubt where ALJ Marilyn Tays was going with her hearing.
8
745. Following the March 2014 Hon. Shelleyanne Chang reassignment, Travis
9
Lindsey’s email correspondence, and Plaintiff’s letters to UCOP Investigator
10
Judith Rosenberg ,the California Deputy Attorney General Ashante L. Norton, who represents
11
CUIAB as a Legal Counsel , filed on April 1, 2014, a frivolous Notice of Demurrer in Plaintiff’s
12
Writ of Mandamus case to distract Plaintiff and made Plaintiff forget about UC Davis Assistant
13
Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton Du ru isse au ’s in te rv ie w with Donn a Ram os.
14
15 746. On April 17, 2014, Defendants as the Real Party in Interest in the Writ of
16 Mandamus case filed in the court a Joinder supporting CUIAB’s legal counsel Notice of
17 Demurer. Defendants’ Joinder supporting CUIAB Demurer would perhaps not been strange to
18 Plaintiff if the four top-notch attorneys from the UC Office of the General Counsel had not
19 appeared on Joinder pleading, including Charles F. Robinson, UCOP General Counsel; Karen J.
20 Petrulakis, UCOP Chief Deputy General Counsel; Cynthia A. Vroom, UCOP Senior Counsel;
21 and Margaret L Wu, UCOP Managing Counsel.
22 747. Writ of Mandamus for the unemployment insurance benefits is not the
23 million-dollar case that required the involvement of the four top-notch legal counsels from the
24
UC Office of the General Counsel, especially the UC General Counsel Charles F. Robinson,
25
reports directly to UC Regents.
26
748. In addition to the above, in January 2015, Plaintiff filed an Objection to
27
the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP Motion and included the Assistant Vice Chancellor Dr. Shelton
28
15 Governors members and the members of the Board of University of California Reagents are
16 nominated by the governor of California and confirmed by the State of California Senate.
17 751. In 1999–2003 ISO was the distributor of electric power sold by UC Davis
18 Medical Center Central Plant on the open market. Plaintiff was employed in the UC Davis
19 Medical Center Central Plant by Defendants from June 1999 to March 2007.
20 752. The UC Davis Medical Center Central Plant in 1999–2003 was selling
21 power at the highest bids on the spot in the market via ISO exactly in same way as Enron or
22 former Plaintiff employer Dynegy, manipulating power and causing a rolling shortage of energy
24 753. Defendant were manipulating the electric power sale on a small scale in
25 comparison to Enron or Dynegy, but even selling 15 MW was enough to provide electricity for
26 15,000 people. In 2002, the former Plaintiff employer Dynegy and 10 other energy suppliers that
27 contributed to California’s energy crisis and rolling blackouts were fined with small fines in the
28
10 employee performance review (evaluation) for 2006–2007, and Plaintiff’s evaluation looked
11 nothing like what happened in 2006–2007 in contrary to the suspension and reassignment March
13 755. In January 2007, Charles Robinson joined the University as the General
14 Counsel, and he knew all of the secrets about the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration
15 facility’s electric power production, distribution, and sale via California Independent System
16 Operator (ISO).
V. CONCLUSION
17
18
19 756. The reason for Defendant’ despicable conspiracy against Plaintiff did not
20 cross Plaintiff’s mind until June 2015 during Plaintiff’s preparation to file Plaintiff’s Opposition
21 to the Defendant’ Legal Fees and Cost in relation to Defendant’ Anti- Strategic Lawsuit Against
23 757. Plaintiff did not had a clue that Plaintiff’s victory in 2008 arbitration
24 against Defendant —which ended with the 2009 Settlement-Agreement that Plaintiff signed with
25 Defendant—was signed by Defendant in evil spirit and bad faith. The arbitration and the
26 Settlement –Agreement was just a short and unexpected delay for the Defendant before the
27 Defendant exercised and launched a second preemptive retaliatory strike against Plaintiff to end
28 Plaintiff’s employment with the University of California which orchestrated by UC Davis Health
20 772. Plaintiff in November 2008 did not realize that the prevailing, in
21 arbitration, and signing the Settlement – Agreement in February 2009 in good faith with the
22 Defendant was only a short time before Defendants would carry out their evil-spirited plan to
23 terminate the Plaintiff’s employment. The Plaintiff outlined and described the extreme,
24 outrageous, atrocious, and utterly intolerable conduct of the Defendants in paragraphs and
25 subparagraphs 1 through 144.
26 773. The Defendant, the Regents of the University of California, by and through its
27 own employees, agents, and officers, kept Plaintiff out of the workplace for over one year for no apparent
28
18 DISPARAGEMENT neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants were to disparage each other. Plaintiff at all
19 times expressed his good faith beliefs in the truth. When, in reality, Plaintiff was a valuable employee,
20 who had the best interests of the hospital always in mind, the Defendants not only disparaged Plaintiff
21 but made Plaintiff look like the most-wanted criminal.
22 777. In September 2012, two month before Plaintiff’s employment termination, the
23 Defendant ordered own officers, agents, and UC Davis Police to issue a poster similar to the FBI’s “Most
24 Wanted” criminals posters with Plaintiff’s photo and description on. The issued UC Davis Police
25 poster was distributed around UC Davis Campuses without informing Plaintiff about it. The Defendants
26 wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s employment on December 7, 2012.
27 778. The written Settlement - Agreement contains an implied covenant of good
28
27
783. The Plaintiff loss of 2011 base salaries earnings were $8,328.40 plus 10% daily
28
16 785. The Plaintiff’s loss due to breach of contract in 2012 involved base salary
17 earnings of $8,882.00 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay to
18 Plaintiff the requested amount.
19 44.28 hours at a rate of $34.31/hour were accrued or would have been accrued in sick leave if
20 the Defendants had not breached the contract and if Plaintiff had been employed by the Defendants.
21 44.28 hour x $34.1 = $1,519.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the
22 Defendants pay Plaintiff the requested amount.
23 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff for
24 2012 in sum of $10,401.20 plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
25 pay to Plaintiff the requested amount.
26
27 The Plaintiff’s Employment Termination by the Defendant Five Years prior to the Plaintiff’s
28
2 786. The Plaintiff’s base salary earning from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017,
3 would be $358,200 if the Defendants had not breached the contract, and Plaintiff would have earned the
4 above amount until Plaintiff retired at the age of 66 and a half on December 31, 2017, as Plaintiff planned
5 to do.
6 787. The Plaintiff’s earning would be higher if Plaintiff were to receive pay raises in
7 this period or if the Defendants would reclassify Plaintiff’s annual salary. The Middle Salary Grade for
8 Associate Development Engineer pursuant to the UC Davis Title Code 7182 has been changed
9 effective July 1, 2014 from $ 71,640.00 to $76,600.00 annually.
10 $71,640 base annual salary x 5 years = $358,200. Plaintiff would earn this if
11 employed by the Defendants plus 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants
12 pay the requested amount.
13 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
14 $358,200 plus 10% daily compound interest
15 788. The 221.4 hours of accrued sick leave and 886.2 hours of accrued vacation
16 at a pay rate of $34.31 = $38,001.00. Plaintiff would earn this if employed by the Defendant plus
17 10% daily compound interest for the time period until the Defendants pay the requested amount.
18 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay total due to Plaintiff in sum of
19 $38.001 plus 10% daily compound interest
20
23
789. Defendants breached the signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully
24
terminated Plaintiff on December 7, 2012 at the age of 61 and a half. The Plaintiff, at age 61 and
25
a half, was not eligible to receive even the earlier Social Security income benefits for which
26
Plaintiff could apply in May 2013. For the full Social Security income benefit would have work
27
until year 2017.
28
9 and terminated the 61-and-a-half-year-old Plaintiff without the possibility of the Plaintiff being
10 hired by any employer at his age, thus depriving Plaintiff of any income until Plaintiff received
11
earlier retirement Social Security income benefit at age of 62 or the University Retirement
12
Benefits.
13
23 792. By Breaching contract and violating the Skelly Law, the Defendants
24 terminated Plaintiff without the possibility of finding other employment at his age and with his
25 health. They denied Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance benefits, thus Plaintiff was left without
26 any income, health insurance, or life insurance.
27 793. n such a situation, Plaintiff was forced to cash out a lump sum from his
28
3 798. In 2011, Defendants grossly and despicably breached the contract and
4 performed inhumane harassment of the Plaintiff in an attempt to terminate Plaintiff or force him
5 to quit. The Defendant, through town agents and officers, de-enrolled Plaintiff from the Medical
6 and Dental Health Insurance benefits and denied Plaintiff’s Short Term Disability Insurance
7 benefits when Plaintiff was on stress-related sick leave caused by the Defendants’ agents and
8 officers.
9 799. When Plaintiff noticed in January 2012 that the Defendants had de-enrolled
10 Plaintiff from the Health and Dental Insurance and changed Plaintiff’s position without the
11 Plaintiff’s knowledge from an Associate Development Engineer to Programmer I (Demotion),
12 Plaintiff thought that Plaintiff would be terminated soon and so Plaintiff’s spouse enrolled Plaintiff
13 in her employer Nordstrom’s Corporation Health and Dental Insurance Benefits in January 2012.
14 Thanks to Plaintiff’s wife’s employer, Plaintiff has Health and Dental Insurance coverage
15 including medicine.
16 800. The Defendants re-enrolled Plaintiff into the Health and Dental Plan in
17 January 2012 but Plaintiff did not de-enroll himself from his spouse’s employer health insurance
18 and dental plan because he would be not able to re-enroll if Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s
19 employment, which occurred in December 2012.
20 801. Since February 2012, Plaintiff maintained his health and dental insurance
21 with his spouse’s employer Nordstrom Corporation, and this insurance would be maintained until
22 Plaintiff’s spouse’s retirement in September 2017. This increased the Plaintiff’s spouse’s monthly
23 premium for health and dental insurance from $94.00/month to $382.00/month. The difference
24 in premium, which is $288/month.
25 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Plaintiff , shall be compensated by the Defendants
26 from February 2012 to September 2017 until Plaintiff’s wife retires from Nordstrom at age 66,
27 which is 56 months x 288= $16,128.00 total sum due to Plaintiff
28
4 802. For 13 years of employment with the University of California, Plaintiff was
5 paying premiums every paycheck to the amount of $149.90 for Supplemental Life Insurance, A&D,
6 and Dependents Life Insurance, totaling $23,384 in premiums alone for 13 years. Plaintiff was
7 insured by Supplemental Life Insurance to the amount of $280,000, by Accidental Death and
8 Dismemberment Insurance to the amount of $500,000, and by Dependents Life Insurance to the
9 amount of $100,000.
10 803. The Defendants erased the above-mentioned Plaintiff’s benefits due to their
11 reckless violation of a signed contract with Plaintiff and unlawfully terminating Plaintiff’s
12 employment on December 7, 2012, at the of age 61 and a half, knowing that the Plaintiff had had
13 open-heart surgery and other health problems and that Plaintiff, at his age and health, would either
14 not be able to obtain Life Insurance, Accidental Death and Dismemberment, and Dependents Life
15 Insurance at all or, if so, that the premiums would be so high that Plaintiff wouldn’t even be able
16 to dream about having Life Insurance.
17 804. Due to their breach and violation of the signed February 2009 contract with
18 Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable for paying his spouse the mentioned benefits if Plaintiff dies.
19 THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants pay the mentioned benefits to his
20 spouse if the Plaintiff dies.
21 805. The other option is that Plaintiff will find an insurance company that would be
22 willing to provide these benefits to Plaintiff and Defendant will pay the premiums until the
23
Plaintiff dies. EXAMPLE: Banner Life Insurance Company-
24
Semi-Annually: 4,720.05Quarterly:2,406.30Monthly (EFT):809.81
25
28
28 819. To be sure, Defendant, and Defendant’s agents sand officers knew Plaintiff is, and
16 The Violation and Breach of Settlement –Agreement by the and Defendant’s Discrimination
against Plaintiff Base on his Mental and Medical Condition
17
18
829. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers by breeching and violating the
19
2009 Settlement –Agreement, further discriminated against Plaintiff based on his mental
20
disability and medical condition as described herein.
21
22 830. Defendant and its agents, managers and employees, by violating and breaching the
23 signed Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff violated California Government Code §12940, by failing
24 to adequately supervise, control, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and failures to
25 act as described herein. As such, Defendant and the Individual Defendant failed to fulfill their statutory
26 duty to take all reasonable and necessary steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from
28 831.. Despite Plaintiffs complaints about violation and breach of 2009 Settlement Agreement
28
3
839. Defendant and Defendant’s agents and officers purposely and with evil spirit
4
violated and breached the signed 2009 Settlement –Agreement with Plaintiff as part and parcel
5
6 of their ongoing, continuing, and repeated retaliation, harassment, for the purpose to cover up
7 and conceal their misconduct, violation of state and federal law ,engaged in a course of action
8
that constituted not be released from liability under § No. 7 and § No 8. of the settlement –
9
agreement to be sue for and Defendant is liable for violation of not limited to the Immigration
10
Reform and Control Act; the Family Medical Leave Act and the Higher Education Employer-
11
12 Employee Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil
13 Rights Act of 1991, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with
14
Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act), the
15
law of contract and tort; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
16
28
11 843. The California Legislature enacted Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5 because
12 “… it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the
13 medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe
14 patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients
15 and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health
16 care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply primarily to
17 issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended to conflict
18 with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer relations…”
19 (Emphasis Added)
20 844. Section 1278.5(b) (1) provides “No health facility shall discriminate or retaliate, in
21 any manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
22 worker of the health facility because that person has…Presented a grievance, complaint, or report
23 to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the
24 medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity…” (Emphasis Added)
25 845. Section 1278.5(d)(1) states (d) (1) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that
26 discriminatory action was taken by the health facility, or by the entity that owns or operates that
27 health facility, or that owns or operates any other health facility, in retaliation against an employee,
28
8 DATED:
9
10 By: _________________________
11
12 Jaroslaw Waszczuk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28