Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01719/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01719-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEIDRE BROWN, LYNN CAIN, CHERYL

GERALD, DEBRA JONES, DONNA

KELSAY, ANNE M.Z. NOVOTNY and

GLORIA SALAZAR, on behalf of

themselves and all others

similarly situated,

NO. CIV. S-98-1719 LKK/JFM

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, Cheryl Gerald, is a class representative in a class

action against Sacramento Regional Transit District (“the

District”) alleging gender discrimination in promotions,

reclassification, pay and training. The court approved a consent

decree in 2003 and a Special Master was appointed.

Pending before the court are two appeals of the Special

Master’s rulings. Plaintiff appeals the Special Master’s March 6,

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

2007 ruling regarding her salary grade. Defendant appeals the

Special Master’s March 22, 2007 ruling regarding Ann Gorman’s

complaint of retaliation.

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to ¶ 29.6 of the Consent Decree: 

The Special Master's decisions shall be final unless

either Party requests review by the court within ten

(10) days. The court shall use the "clearly erroneous

or contrary to law" standard in all appeals of decisions

by the Special Master. The Special Master and/or Court

shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any issue timely

raised prior to the expiration of the Consent Decree.

A “finding of fact is clearly erroneous if [the reviewing

court has a] definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.” Burdick v. C.I.R., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992).

This standard “plainly does not entitle a reviewing court to

reverse the finding of the trier of fact simply because it is

convinced that it would have decided the case differently.”

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985).

Where there are “two permissible views of the evidence, the

factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Id.

at 574. 574. The standard is “significantly deferential” to the

fact finder. Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v.

Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508

U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

////

////

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The court notes that neither party explains what grade 15 1

actually means. Ms. Gerald simply states: 

RT assigns salary grades as set forth in its General Pay

and Management and Confidential Families ("MCEG"). Exh.

G at 4. Salary grades in the General Family category

salary grades range from Grade 01 to Grade 31 and in the

MCEG category range from MC 01 to MC 31. Id. Each of

the salary grades has a minimum and maximum value.

Pl.’s Appeal at 2. This explanation simply furthers confusion. 

3

II.

ANALYSIS

At the outset, it is worth remarking that both parties

assume a level of knowledge that the court does not share. This

case is complex and complicated. Generally speaking, the

parties’ briefs failed to sufficiently explain basic background

information, making resolution of the pending appeals

unnecessarily difficult. 

A. Plaintiff’s Appeal

Ms. Gerald seeks reversal of the Special Master’s March 7,

2007 Order. As explained herein, Ms. Gerald fails to establish

that the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

1. Relevant Facts 

Cheryl Gerald currently works in the District’s Information

and Technology Department (“IT”) as a Information Technology

Analyst. Until recently, Ms. Gerald was paid at grade level

15. On January 5, 2006, Ms. Gerald filed a Request for 1

Reclassification of her position pursuant to ¶ 55 of the Consent

Decree. The District granted Ms. Gerald’s request and hired an

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

outside consultant to study her position. Once this study was

complete, the District determined that Ms. Gerald was

appropriately “classified.” Ms. Gerald appealed this decision

to the Special Master, also pursuant to ¶ 55 of the consent

decree.

On October 11, 2006, the Special Master issued a ruling

finding that: 

[T]he reclassification study and corrected study

appropriately compared and analyzed Ms. Gerald's

position and that the request for a further

reclassification study is, therefore, not well taken.

Oct. 11, 2006 Ruling, Ex. B of Thomas Decl. The Special Master

did, however, conclude that further study of Ms. Gerald’s salary

was warranted: 

RT does not deny that Ms. Gerald's position remains at

the same salary grade while the [male] Analyst I and

II positions were upgraded in 2004. Thus, relative to

those she supervises, Ms. Gerald's salary does not

have the same spread as it did before the

reorganization and the lack of salary adjustment may

well have violated an agreement to move her position

up if the Analyst I & II positions were moved up

[citations omitted]. 

The Special Master finds that the reclassification

study and corrected study appropriately compared and

analyzed Ms. Gerald's position ...[h]owever, the Special

Master finds that Ms. Gerald's position should be

studied with respect to its salary.

The Special master {sic} notes that other salary

assessments and adjustments have been made in the

Information Technology Department, including the new

manager and in light of the fact the lower

classification salaries were adjusted, but not Ms.

Gerald's, an inference of discrimination and/or

retaliation is created.

In order to dispel any inference of

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

discrimination or retaliation, the Special Master

orders RT to do a thorough and complete salary

analysis of Ms. Gerald's position.

Id. It is undisputed that the District complied with the

October 11th Order and hired an additional consultant to prepare

a salary survey of Ms. Gerald’s salary level. 

Upon completion of this salary study, the District

recommended that the appropriate salary level for Ms. Gerald was

MC17. The recommendation was submitted to the Special Master

who approved the MC17 grade level in an order dated December 29,

2006. Ex. C, Thomas Decl. 

Soon thereafter, the District prepared an Issue Paper for

approval by the District’s Board of Directors in an effort to

implement the Special Master's December 29, 2006 ruling. The

Issue Paper provided the following explanation of the proposed

action for approval by the Board of Directors:

Pursuant to a December 29, 2006 ruling of the Special

Master, it was ordered that the District reallocate

one Senior Information Technology Analyst position

from salary grade G15 to salary grade MC17, effective

as of February 1, 2005. Since the decision relates

solely to the incumbent who presently holds this

position; the other two Senior Information Technology

Analyst positions will remain at salary grade G15,

pending completion of the District-wide salary survey

project.

In order to implement the Special Master's ruling, the

District has created the salary grade applicable to

the one Senior Information Technology Analyst position

as salary grade G15A. Salary grade G15A shall be

aligned at the level of the MC17 grade pursuant to the

terms of the Special Master's order. Since this

position is not considered eligible for

reclassification to that of a MCEG, this proposal

satisfies the conditions of the order and maintains

the allocation of this position within the General

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 5 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Family.

Ex. D to Thomas Decl. The District was attempting to harmonize

the fact that Ms. Gerald was working at the appropriate level

(i.e., that she was appropriately classified) with the Special

Master’s order to increase Ms. Gerald’s pay grade. 

Counsel for Ms. Gerald objected to the Issue Paper and

raised several issues. On February 5, 2007, counsel for Ms.

Gerald sent a two page letter containing several exhibits to the

Special Master requesting "an order compelling compliance with

the Special Master's ruling that the 'appropriate class for

[Cheryl Gerald] is MC17, as proposed by Regional Transit." Ex.

D & E, Thomas Decl. 

On February 22, 2007 the District submitted to the Special

Master a response to Ms. Gerald’s concerns. Ms. Gerald replied

and alleged that the District’s implementation of the Special

Master's order served as further evidence of discrimination

and/or retaliation. Ex I, Thomas Decl. At that point, the

matter was submitted and the District was not given an

opportunity to reply to Ms. Gerald’s new allegations of

discrimination.

On March 6, 2007 the Special Master issued an order which

Ms. Gerald now appeals to this court. The March 6th Order

attempted to clarify the December 29th Order. The Special

Master conceded that there was confusion between the terms

“classification” and “salary grade” and explained that the focus

of the December 29th Order was salary grade not classification

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 6 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

or reclassification: “[t]he classification issue had been

decided in the October 11, 2005 Order.” March 7, 2007 Order at

2, Ex. I, Thomas Decl. (In the October Order, the Special

Master found that Ms. Gerald was appropriately classified). 

In the March 6th Order, the Special Master concluded that

the District had properly implemented its prior ruling in

“providing that Ms. Gerald’s salary is equivalent (aligned with)

Grade MC17 and paying back as ordered. There was no violation

of the Consent Decree by taking the issue to the Board.” March

7, 2007 Order at 3, Ex. I, Thomas Decl. 

2. Analysis 

Ms. Gerald seeks reversal of the Special Master’s March 7,

2007 Order. As explained herein, Ms. Gerald fails to establish

that the March 7, 2007 Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to

law. 

Ms. Gerald makes two general arguments, neither of which

establish that the Special Master’s decision should be reversed. 

First, Ms. Gerald argues that the March 7th Order contradicts

the Special Master’s previous orders. Specifically, Ms. Gerald

explains that in her October 11, 2006 Order, the Special Master

found that “Ms. Gerald's salary does not have the same spread as

it did before the reorganization and the lack of salary

adjustment may well have violated an agreement to move her up if

the Analyst I & II position were moved up.” Oct. 11, 2006

Order. Ms. Gerald then argues that “despite these factual

findings, the Special Master ruled [in March 2007] that [the

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 7 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

District’s] assignment of Ms. Gerald to the same salary grade

with a designation of Grade 15 A met the requirements of her

initial order.” Pl.’s Appeal at 7. In short, Ms. Gerald argues

that although she is being paid more at the 15A grade level, she

is not obtaining the benefits of being at the MC17 grade level. 

The court is sympathetic to Ms. Gerald’s position, however,

the record simply does not support her argument. The District’s

Issue Paper (which is part of the record) specifically stated

that although Ms. Gerald would be paid at the newly created 15A

grade, she would receive all the benefits of a MC17 employee. 

The District explained that it created the grade 15A in an

effort to pay Ms. Gerald more while simultaneously respecting

the fact that the Special Master had concluded that Ms. Gerald

did not need to be reclassified. 

The Special Master’s March 7, 2007 Order is clear on this

point. The Special Master, responding to Ms. Gerald’s concerns,

specifically explained the ambiguity in her previous orders. 

Laying out all the relevant facts, the Special Master explained

that the issue of classification had been decided in the October

11, 2006 Order. On December 29, 2006, the Special Master then

ordered that Ms. Gerald be paid at the MC17 grade level. In her

March 7, 2007 order, the Special Master essentially found that

the District’s creation of the 15A grade level was permissible

as the 15A grade level is aligned and equivalent to MC 17. To

the extent that the Special Master concluded that the two pay

grade levels are aligned, there is no grounds to disturb this

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 8 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

factual finding.

At oral argument the court asked plaintiff’s counsel for

clarification on this point. Specifically, the court asked

whether or not there were benefits to being at the MC17 grade

versus at 15A. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that there were

differences between the two pay grades, but failed to explain

where in the record the court would find such evidence. 

Moreover, counsel for the District contended that the two grade

levels were in fact aligned – that Ms. Gerald would receive

identical benefits at the 15A grade level. In support of this

proposition, counsel for the District cited to the Issue Paper

drafted by the District and submitted to both plaintiff and the

Special Master. 

While Ms. Gerald presents a compelling argument, it is

simply not clear that the record supports her position. 

Moreover, the court gives great deference to the Special

Master’s factual findings. See Concrete Pipe and Products of

California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for

Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). The Special

Master reviewed the record and concluded that the two grade

levels were equivalent. Ms. Gerald fails to cite to any part of

the record which would suggest the Special Master’s order was

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Ms. Gerald also argues that the “Special Master’s failure

to consider Ms. Gerald’s evidence ofcontinued [sic] gender

discrimination and retaliation is contrary to law.” Pl.’s

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 9 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

Appeal at 8. Ms. Gerald maintains that she presented evidence

to the Special Master that “the District modified its

classification from MC 17 to Grade 15 A less than two weeks

after Ms. Gerald testified at a hearing before the Special

Master for another class member Ann Gorman who also alleged

gender discrimination and retaliation.” Pl.’s Appeal at 9. 

As the District properly points out, Ms. Gerald’s arguments

about continued gender discrimination were first raised in her

reply brief to the Special Master, thereby precluding the

District from responding to these allegations. Accordingly, the

issue of continued discrimination was not clearly before the

Special Master as it was briefed only by Ms. Gerald. This would

explain why the Special Master’s March 7th Order did not address

the allegation or consider the evidence presented by Ms. Gerald.

Even if the court were to assume that the Special Master

could have, or should have, considered the additional

allegations of discrimination, it is not clear that the Special

Master’s failure to consider Ms. Gerald’s argument is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. Ms. Gerald’s appeal to this court

contains only two pages on this issue and fails to provide any

meaningful justification for why this court should reverse the

decision of the Special Master. 

In sum, it remains unclear how, if at all, the March 7th

Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Ms.

Gerald’s appeal is DENIED.

///

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 10 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

B. The District’s Appeal

The District appeals the Special Master’s March 22, 2007

ruling regarding the complaint of Ann Gorman. For the reasons

discussed herein, the Special Master’s ruling must be affirmed. 

1. Relevant Facts 

The facts surrounding the District’s appeal are relativity

clear and undisputed. Ms. Gorman was employed as an

Administrative Assistant II with the Accessible Services

division within the District. Her position is governed by the

Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”) between the District and the

Administrative Employees Association (“AEA”). 

It is undisputed that Ms. Gorman has been subject to

several disciplinary actions. In August of 2006, Ms. Gorman

received two charge letters. The first alleged that Ms. Gorman

mishandled her supervisor’s mail and the second alleged that Ms.

Gorman taped conversations with her boss without her boss’

knowledge. Ms. Gorman filed a complaint with the Special Master

alleging that the two charge letters were in retaliation for her

earlier request for reclassification of her position. On March

5, 2007, following an evidentiary hearing, the Special Master

found that Ms. Gorman had not established retaliatory conduct. 

Ms. Gorman received two additional charge letters in

January of 2007. It was these two letters which became the

subject of the Special Master’s March 22, 2007 Order. The first

of these disciplinary actions relates to allegations that Ms.

Gorman impermissibly altered her time sheets and the second

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 11 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

action relates to allegations that Ms. Gorman forged her

supervisor’s signature. Ms. Gorman denies the allegations. 

Meanwhile, Ms. Gorman’s employment was terminated effective

January 27, 2007. 

Both of these disciplinary actions are subject to the

administrative appeal process contained in the AEA MOA. See

Sacramento Regional Transit District – Personnel Rules and

Procedures for Salaried Employees, District’s Ex. D. Neither of

these proposed disciplinary actions have been pursued to the

final step of the grievance process, although Ms. Gorman is in

the process of pursuing these administrative remedies. 

Ms. Gorman appealed her termination to the Special Master,

arguing that her termination was in retaliation for pursuing her

rights under the Consent Decree. In support of her appeal, Ms.

Gorman argued that the District terminated her "although the

appeals process had not been completed pursuant to its policies

and procedures, and provided her with less than a day's notice

of her termination meeting" for "pursuing her rights under the

Consent Decree." Compl. of Ann Gorman, District’s Ex. E. She

further contended that her termination was done in a manner

"that was not in compliance with RT's previous representations

that Gorman would be placed on administrative leave until the

issues in [the Charge Letter] were resolved." Id.

The Special Master held a conference call with counsel for

both parties on March 22, 2007. During that call, counsel for

the District requested a hearing on the issue of retaliation. 

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 12 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

The request was denied. 

On that same day, the Special Master issued a two page

ruling, which provided in full: 

Based on the Special Master's evaluation of the

evidence presented in support and opposition to the

Complaint regarding the termination of Ann Gorman as

well as information and arguments provided at the

conference call of March 22, 2007, the Special Master

makes the following ruling:

1) The evidence supports a finding that a prima 

facie case of retaliation has been established by Ms.

Gorman; 

2) The District has provided some evidence that the

disciplinary issues were not motivated by a

retaliatory motive; however because the District did

not follow its own appeal policies and gave

conflicting and confusing information to the Claimant

about her status pending resolution of the issue, the

Special Master finds that an inference of retaliation

has been established and that the Districts'

explanation is pretextual;

3) The Special Master, therefore, orders that RT

shall complete the appeal review procedure set forth

in its own procedures (RT Complaint Procedures

5-5.206) and render a final decision with respect to

Ms. Gorman's termination based on Charge Letter # 3

(dated January 3, 2007).

4) During the completion of RT's appeal review, RT

is ordered to place Ms. Gorman on paid administrative

leave as previously indicated would be done by her

Supervisor, Ms. Ham (See Memo dated January 5, 2007,

sic. January 8, 2007, Exhibit 5 to Complaint).

5) RT is further ordered to advise Ms. Gorman of the

results of said review and advise Ms. Gorman pursuant

to Code of Civil Procedure 1094.6(f) of her right to

bring a Writ of Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure 1094.5.

March 22, 2007 Order, District’s Ex. A. 

It is the March 22, 2007 order that the District appeals. 

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 13 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

In its appeal to this court, the District maintains that

subsequent to the Special Master’s findings, the appeal process

is underway and that in accordance with the Special Master’s

findings, Ms. Gorman has been placed on administrative leave

during the completion of the appeals process. See Def.’s Appeal

at 7.

2. Analysis 

The District argues that the Special Master’s ruling is

clearly erroneous because the finding of pretext ignores

established retaliation law and because it is premature to make

a finding of retaliation as Ms. Gorman is still on

administrative leave and has not yet been terminated. For the

reasons discussed herein, the Special Master’s ruling must be

affirmed. 

The District misconstrues the Special Master’s order. The

order is relatively straight forward. The Special Master

concluded that given the proximity between the time that Ms.

Gorman sought reclassification and the time that she was

terminated, there was evidence which supported a finding of

retaliation. The Special Master also found that the District

was not following its own appeal policies and had given

conflicting and confusing information to Ms. Gorman about her

status pending resolution of her appeal. For these reasons, the

Special Master ordered that the District comply with the appeal

review procedure set forth in its own set procedures and that

pending the appeal, Ms. Gorman be placed on paid administrative

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 14 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

15

leave. 

Prior to the Special Master’s order, the District had in

fact terminated Ms. Gorman. Indeed, it was only after the

Special Master’s order that the District placed Ms. Gorman on

administrative leave. For this reason, the District’s argument

that Ms. Gorman’s termination has not been finalized is without

merit. 

Moreover, the Special Master was not making a final

determination as to retaliation. The Special Master simply

found that there was evidence which supported a finding of

retaliation and accordingly, it was appropriate to place Ms.

Gorman on administrative leave. 

The District’s argument that the Special Master did not

sufficiently cite to the record in support of her ruling is also

without merit. The first sentence of the order specifically

states that the Special Master based her order on the evidence

presented in support of and in opposition to Ms. Gorman’s

complaint.

Even if the court were to give the District the benefit of

the doubt, the District fails to establish how, if at all, the

March 22nd Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. For

these reasons, the District’s appeal must be DENIED. 

III.

Conclusion 

1. Plaintiff’s Appeal is DENIED.

2. Defendant’s Appeal is DENIED.

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 15 of 16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 9, 2007.

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 230 Filed 05/10/07 Page 16 of 16