lifestream right now my job today is a highlight for you the numerous tribal issues of fact that exist in this case and why judge sam or tino decision granting summary judgment should be reversed i'd like to start with the negligence c that this seems to be a seminal issue in this case because no party was able to find any specific controlling law on this particular issue and the issue is this what duty doesn't employer have once an employer decides to conduct a workplace investigation we believe that once that decision is made an employer has a duty to one hire a qualified investigator that is not biased and to the investigator must conduct a thorough and complete investigation additionally if a conclusion is reached and the report is prepared the employer has the duty to keep the protect the privacy rights of the target of the investigation we believe there's a basic duties that if you suggesting that the report should not have been given to the complainant of the issue that the complainant makes so if a complainant makes an issue of gender discrimination the complain entitle to know the results of that particular investigation and what we had here was a very unusual circumstance we had a very large report prepared it was sixteen pages but only six of those pages were dedicated toward gender discrimination the remainder of the report nine pages were on a wholly separate topic which was whether there was workplace dysfunction at the school if the report just concluded that there was workplace dysfunction we all wouldn't be here today the problem is that the report concluded it was caused by doctor look pardon me mr so this may be a maybe dysfunctional here but resigned because of that specific clause in the report it was crystal clear at the time of his resignation the school ratified the report the school told him you have because of this report you have to change your working style we can't be a dictator well i really would have boils down to he didn't like that and quit well i don't know that's about being a dictator think of it this way if you're a football coach and you're hired by the dean of the school in the football coach i want to run an office that is based on running the ball all the time but then your later told nope you have to be a passing team and the coach says why don't want to do that and i quit that's perfectly fair and that's what happened here what  you know he claims that they promised him that he could exist independently but he was that it was misrepresented to him because it's actually a shared governance situation where it seems a bit anyone that's been in academia and your client seems to be a fairly sought after individual with that's regardless of his personal style i mean he you know he's got another job and he seems that people recognize him for the things that he does but it's he's no neo fight to this ensure governance is nothing new to akademi yeah and someone that would say well yeah we'll let you run it clearly it would be hard for me to believe that someone with your client's experience would think that that means he can do whatever he wants and that he doesn't ever have to get any approval and that there isn't you know and he's been a faculty member and faculty members cherish the shared governance khan concept a lot of presidents have universities would love to get rid of it but it's just not the case so it you know it's i'm not quite understanding how he can make that claim judge hill and that is a fantastic question but what i think you're highlighting is that the jury decision that's something the jury should be entitled to answer and we should be entitled to ask the jury to answer that question with the facts that we presented university of san diego quite frankly how to who when they hired dr look he was an exceptional candidate well overqualified for this position and one of the two attractive features for dr looked to come to the school was the promise of a certain salary a which should be taught civil this is it cetera he would have that authority to make the decision we should pose he decided that this particular professor we're going to cut his shower by twenty five thousand dollars just because he's not good enough nobody would have any shame is that what his position is really know his position he always has to answer to his boss which would be the provost and ultimately the president of the university where he's trying to says he has nothing to answer to the people who are his subordinates which would mean the faculty members have to listen to them  think a good manager always listens to and well difference between listening and having to do it they tell him to do all right the point is that when we get to this negligence cause of action we presented this not do a correct investigation on that issue but i was told to put that in the report by the general counsel of the university of san diego that caused damage that affected mr  ability to remain in control quite frankly it undermined his authority to a point where he felt he had to quit his employment his reputation priests have preceded him when he took this job and i have a report that was published to basically everybody in that school through a new carpenter saying that the dysfunction was caused by him caused him damage and we should be entitled to present that factual story to a jury we're not here to decide whether or not dr lux beliefs are correct or not correct or you're saying your blog she should have said was i found no gender discrimination and not address the underlying issue it was apparent to her investigation aircooled she told to twenty people including dr walk and essentially she came back and said no gender discrimination because nobody can get along with him now well but she didn't have she said there's dysfunction in the workplace period we  wouldn't be here but she drew the conclusion and the university ratified that decision when they told him he had to change his management style by saying it was caused by doctor look she never inquired of dr look of this issue she didn't do it  me where the duty use and where the damages are given the fact that he quit and he resigned he quit because of that when you did not allege a constructive discharge well that's part of our damage of the negligence cause of action c we're saying that he quit his job because of that plus he had reputational injury in addition to the monetary injury that he would suffer but either way the amount of damage would be a tribal issue a fact anyway for a jury we're here  set the legal issue which is does the what duty does the any employer have when they conduct an investigation and we think that that duty means you have to hire an unbiased investigator who does a complete and thorough investigation and it's our allegations that the to the point is is is it amy is that a man or woman woman or ok that it's certainly is very unprofessional for  amy carpenter to just put this report out to everyone and isn't that what she just dead i mean well she shared it is so it goes it you know at the university shouldn't allow for that to say well first of all the university did caution her with regard to that what's the evidence with regard to the evidence is clear that they they asked her not to do that but remember that the university is bound also by the national labor relations act which says and the california labor code that says that you cannot constrain someone from talking about working conditions this clearly is working visions what the superbugs talking about it and giving a report that someone does are two different things aren't they well i think it's just the method of communication i've lost but it's someone else's communication it's not hers so this is the information that she has with regard to it had she characterized it certainly should be served for defamation on how she characterize that i think the national labor relations  act section seven protects the ability to do that but in any event she's not being sued for that she's being sued for for defamation because she made the complaint and the university didn't sanction that they advised her not to do that so the certainly cannot be any responsibility on the part of the university for the fact that she engaged whether professionally or not her section seven writes to communicate about the work environment with her coworkers so why did branch give dr laura no notice that dysfunctional working environment was being investigated and dr lax says that the branches internal investigation that led caused dysfunctional working environment but not gender discrimination and apparently did and according to what the appellant say in the university you now found that to be true and he didn't know that that he was told he was being investigated for gender discrimination right well but i think it's all part and parcel you're trying to find out whether or not this person was subject to a dysfunctional environment because she was a woman how had other people and sort of like i'm investigating you for pushing someone but ok you didn't push them but you spent on the sidewalk and so i don't like that either are you littered now i would say that it's like investigating someone for bullying and the question was well no they were pushed first and that's part of the relevant thing and then the person push back all that was communicated and i want to be clear on correcting one one fact that mr saltus said that is not supported by the record she investigated what it was that was going on that would cause amy carpenter to believe she was being treated differently based on gender in order to do that she needed to find out how the men we believe that they were being treated how other women believe that they were treated i would guess i would that wasn't my question i agree you would have to find it that that would be part of it but then what he's alleging is that out of it comes to finding that he's the cause of the dysfunctional work place and has to change his management style is there a finding that he it was a dysfunctional workplace the investigator included a sentence in her report that said that that was not the university that did that the evidence and it was not that the university asked for any such conclusion there is no evidence in the record on that what the evidence in the record is is that the investigator said would you like to hear the broader observations regarding the investigation and of course what what employer wouldn't in fact it would be negligent not to find out what those broader observations were those observations were included and then if they get if you look at the undisputed facts there was not then a ratification there was not a conclusion there was a there is a toxic environment those are dr luxe words he admits there was a talks environment you need to address that that's what the email from the provost and the alan said certainly that is not a breach of any duty of ordinary care to say i've learned and remember that alan had had his own conversations with the members of the faculty they had come to him and spoken to him so it wasn't just what he had heard from that again work environment as toxic so what about that his comments about what he was promised and then and now that it was all the shared governance and he really couldn't do anything that they said he could but again i think we have to look at what the undisputed evidence was the undisputed evidence is that he was told that he had to work collaboratively with faculty that he had to get the input from all stakeholders that  he had to engage a range of constituencies the concept of shared governance was certainly communicated if not in using those words that was directly communicated to him with regard to that and then what was the breach  of this he says all he would have to be allowed to do syllabus is nobody he didn't say that anybody said you can't do a syllabus that you can't do anything with regard to a course the only evidence that he says is that the reacted with backlash to that university didn't guarantee that the faculty was going to like his decisions that they were going to like his management they have to show that there was a statement of that was false as to a past or existing fact not predicting how the faculty was going to respond to his governance they have not shown that to show any misrepresentation so i think he would probably look he would probably characterize this as essential to your university poached this celebrity academic and policy expert with un credentials and then he didn't protect him during the faculty politics battles i don't think there's a legal cause of action for that they certainly haven't identified anyone there was no misrepresentation that was made you can't bring a misrepresentation claim based on that so if the answer is i don't think they adequately protected me from the political battles there is no cause of action that's brought in there is no legal claim full well and he necessarily as is common i think unease when you take get a dean they also because are already tenured they negotiate that they would be tenured at the school christine's if you research it deans don't last forever and there's an average shelf life and dean send it's pretty short so what about the next part of the process is how would you characterize that because he then said ok i'm going to be a tenure professor and then there was a dispute over the the salary well yes and then you put him at some point and paid leave got the contract specifically provided that what his salary would be if he stayed there five years it said if you stay until two thousand and seventeen or beyond this is what your salary was the contract didn't contemplate the notion that he would step down earlier than that then there was discussion he refused to work at that point in time there's no question the letters are there the letters are from mr sabah indicating unless you pay him two hundred eighty thousand and later he reduced it to two hundred ten thousand which was more than double that anybody made  in the school is of as a tenured faculty member i won't work so no that again there was no breach of any responsibility there and his labor code section to a one claim certainly doesn't apply because there's no earned wages he cites no with forty where anyone is deemed to have had an earned wage where they didn't perform the work indeed the case the only case that he cites on that is the online power case and in the online power case the person disagreed with the amount that they were going to be paid they thought they were going to be paid one hundred eighty five thousand they were paid less than that but they worked they performed the work and therefore they had a claim on the labor code that does not exist here ok  looks like i'm i'm almost out of time so i'll just just summarize say that each of the arguments that dr luck makes here would be a fundamental change with regard to california law there is no no authority that would support the fact that someone can take a representation like independent authority despite the ripley record being replete with with references to collaborative management what i just heard sounds like a fantastic trial it sounds like to me there are platter of facts it sounds like to me each side will be able to present evidence of these issues to a jury so that a jury can make a decision as to whether or not dr locke was falsely induced into accepting this job and whether or not the branch review report caused him damage there is a long history of facts that were presented to the underlying court here and they're part of this record as well if you just go back and i implore you to just read two documents in the record and those two documents summarize everything very succinctly and that is the declaration of dr luck which is on the record at four ninety five that declaration was presented obviously as part of the summary judgment motion it is like fifty or sixty pages long and it highlights in detail the representations that were made to him how things were not represented a true that were presented to him those are there's a real facts that were presented for each element of each cause of action and he should be entitled to present those facts to a jury and the other document that is important to read please is part of the record is  three seventy three and that was that supplemental brief regarding a deceit causes of action that judge them or teano asked the parties to brief after at the time of the summary judgment that brief lays out a chart of all the facts all the disputed facts for each of the elements of deceit and it lays it out specifically so that judge zimmer tino and this court can see that there are facts for each element of each cause of action that were presented to the court in the underlying case and i understand this