Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00981/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00981-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Stockmen Bank
Defendant
Kristee Chandler
Plaintiff
Ginny Hopper
Defendant
Bill Kitchen
Defendant
Dave McMahon
Defendant
Mark Ulibarri
Defendant

Document Text:

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTEE CHANDLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA STOCKMEN BANK, DAVE

McMAHON, MARK ULIBARRI, BILL

KITCHEN, and GINNY HOPPER,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0981 OWW GSA

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 3/2/09

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 3/16/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 3/30/09

Settlement Conference Date:

3/11/09 10:00 Ctrm. 10

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 6/8/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 7/21/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-10 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

December 7, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Law Offices of Jacob M. Weisberg by Jacob M. Weisberg, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., by Matthew A. Goodin, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 29
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

27

28

2

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff asserts claims for sexual harassment and

gender discrimination under both Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.) and the California Fair

Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §§ 12940

et seq., and retaliation for complaining of harassment in

violation if California Government Code §§ 12940 et seq. 

Chandler brings this case against California Stockmen’s Bank

(which was acquired by National Bank of Arizona in early 2007),

and individual Defendants Mark Ulibarri, Commercial Loan Officer;

Bill Kitchen, Executive Vice President and Regional Manager; Dave

McMahon, Branch Manager; and Ginny Hopper, Operations Supervisor.

2. Ms. Chandler began her employment with Stockmen Bank on

April 14, 2003, in Hanford, California. She worked as a New

Accounts Representative from date of hire until her termination

on February 5, 2007.

3. Her responsibilities as a New Accounts person included

opening new accounts such as checking, certificates of deposit,

and savings accounts. While working in new accounts, Plaintiff

worked closely with the loan officer, Mark Ulibarri, hereinafter

referred to as Mr. Ulibarri. Mr. Ulibarri and Ms. Chandler

became close friends during the course of time they worked on the

platform together. They also became friends to the point that

they shared personal issues with one another. Both have children

and had conversations about their children. Mr. Ulibarri is

married and Ms. Chandler divorced.

4. In or about late October 2005, Mr. Ulibarri began to

share with Ms. Chandler that he was having problems in his

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 29
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

27

28

3

marriage and that he wanted to divorce his wife. Since Ms.

Chandler was divorced and had recently been through the process,

she was able to give him helpful advice. Ms. Chander advised Mr.

Ulibarri to try to make his marriage work. As time went on they

began to confide their problems with one another as friends do. 

Ms. Chandler always kept her conversations with Mr. Ulibarri on a

friendship level and was very careful not to let it appear to be

anything more than a work site friendship.

5. That relationship began to change, however, because of

actions taken by Mr. Ulibarri. Every year the bank sponsored an

annual holiday dinner in Kingman, Arizona. Ms. Chandler decided

to attend for the first time. The holiday party was on December

10, 2005. When Mr. Ulibarri heard what Ms. Chandler’s plans

were, he approached Ms. Chandler and asked if he could get a ride

back to Las Vegas because he wanted to gamble and then he would

fly from Las Vegas to Fresno on the Sunday following the event. 

Ms. Chandler asked Mr. Ulibarri if his wife would mind that a

single women would be driving him back to Las Vegas and he

laughed and said no, she would be fine with it.

6. Ms. Chandler did not feel comfortable at the time but

agreed to give Mr. Ulibarri a ride to Las Vegas after he returned

from lunch with a note from his wife giving permission to give

him a ride. After speaking with Mr. Ulibarri’s wife directly,

she assured Ms. Chandler that she was okay with Ms. Chandler

giving Mr. Ulibarri a ride back to Las Vegas. Shortly after

that, Mr. Ulibarri began to change the driving plans. He then

stated he would go to Las Vegas to pick Ms. Chandler up in the

company rental car, because she was already going to be in Las

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 29
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

27

28

4

Vegas visiting her sister. He stated by picking Ms. Chandler up

this would give him time to get a room at the Rio and do some

gambling before they headed to Kingman for the holiday dinner. 

He had also made arrangements for a car (limo) provided by the

Rio to take Ms. Chandler and himself back to Las Vegas from

Kingman, Arizona.

7. When Ms. Chandler asked Mr. Ulibarri why he was doing

all this he told her so she would not have to pay for the gas if

he used his car and that the company would pay for it. He also

stated that it was better this way. That night in Las Vegas, Mr.

Ulibarri propositioned Ms. Chandler by asking her to stay with

him. Ms. Chandler said “No. I told him I wasn’t interested in

having an affair or a one night stand.” Mr. Ulibarri went on to

tell Ms. Chandler that he wasn’t happy in his marriage and that

he was looking into a divorce. Mr. Ulibarri also went on to say

that he was starting to have feelings for her. Ms. Chandler

again said to him that she wasn’t interested. She had divorced

her ex-husband for cheating on her and was not interested in a

man that would cheat. Ms. Chandler told him, “once a cheater,

always a cheater.” 

8. Mr. Ulibarri began to send Ms. Chandler text messages. 

On her drive back from Las Vegas, Mr. Ulibarri sent her text

messages that said he had had an affair with the new accounts

girl at the previous bank he had worked for and the affair ended

not long after he started working for Stockmen’s Bank. Ms.

Chandler told him all he was doing was repeating the cycle by

trying to start something with her. He said that what he felt

for her was different. Ms. Chandler again told him that she was

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 29
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

27

28

5

not interested but that did not stop his pursuit.

9. Mr. Ulibarri began to pursue Ms. Chandler on a daily

basis. He would leave water bottles on her desk at work that he

had gotten at the Rio. Ms. Chandler would get text messages

asking her to go to Las Vegas with him. On January 27, 2006, Mr.

Ulibarri sent Ms. Chandler an e-mail asking her to meet him in

Las Vegas and that he would pay her way if she would just agree

to go with him.

10. On January 9, 2006, Ms. Chandler changed her cell phone

number to stop the text messages. Mr. Ulibarri told Ms. Chandler

that he was going to leave his wife but that he needed to know

there would be someone waiting for him. Sometimes he would tell

her that he and his wife had spoken and that they were going to

try to make things work. Ms. Chandler encouraged him to work on

his marriage and even gave him a book that she had purchased

called “Affairs.” The book talks about “The Split Self Affair”

and how this person builds a friendship with a colleague at work

and starts an affair with them. Ms. Chandler showed it to Mr.

Ulibarri and told him he was trying to make her that colleague. 

Ms. Chandler told Mr. Ulibarri over and over again that she was

not interested in starting a relationship with him. She told him

she had worked very hard in putting her life back together after

her divorce. She told him that it was against her principles to

have an affair with a married man.

11. In or about early January 2006, Ms. Chandler told a

fellow employee, Lourdes Torres, about the sexual harassment from

Mr. Ulibarri. She showed her the text messages she was receiving

from Mr. Ulibarri. Ms. Chandler told Mr. Ulibarri that she had

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 5 of 29
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

27

28

6

told Lourdes about the harassment. Ms. Chandler did this in the

hope of getting him to stop bothering her. He responded with

“you’re going to get us fired.” This stopped the harassment for

a little while, but not for long.

12. On February 14, 2006, Valentine’s Day, Ms. Chandler had

gone up to the boiler room to turn off the boiler to the heater

in the bank and Mr. Ulibarri followed her up there. While in the

boiler room, he grabbed Ms. Chandler and kissed her. Ms.

Chandler pushed him away saying “no” and got out of there as

quickly as she could. When she came back downstairs, Mr.

Ulibarri’s wife and little girls came in with Valentine gifts for

him and cupcakes for the bank employees.

13. On or about early April 2006, Mr. Ulibarri said that he

would be going to Las Vegas on May 5, 2006. He wanted Ms.

Chandler to go with him. Ms. Chandler again told him “no.” She

told him she was not interested in having an affair. During the

week preceding May 5, 2006, at different times during the work

day, he would bring up May 5th, trying to convince her to go with

him to Las Vegas. He again stated that he would pay her way. 

The more Ms. Chandler would tell him “no,” the more aggressive he

would get.

14. Mr. Ulibarri would go over to Ms. Chandler’s desk and

say “Just one time, that’s all I’m asking for, just have sex with

me one time, and then I will leave you alone.” On Ms. Chandler’s

breaks at work, he would come looking for her.

15. In April 2006, on one occasion while Ms. Chandler was

in the break room alone and while she had her head down on the

table, Mr. Ulibarri came in and ran his hand along the back of

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 6 of 29
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

27

28

7

Ms. Chandler’s neck. Ms. Chandler backed away and asked him not

to touch her. He would just smile and would touch her again when

it was convenient for him to do so. This progressed to hitting

Ms. Chandler playfully in front of other co-workers.

16. In May 2006, while working on a mail merge project for

his manager, Mr. Ulibarri needed help with his computer as the

mail merge was not working for him. While kneeling down next to

his keyboard, he grabbed Ms. Chandler’s buttock. In the process

of him grabbing her buttock, she grabbed his hand and was able to

almost slip his wedding ring off. Ms. Chandler told him if she

had gotten it she would keep it and hand deliver it to his wife. 

For the next three weeks, he stopped wearing his wedding ring.

17. On or about May 2006, Mr. Ulibarri told Ms. Chandler he

and Luis were going to Fresno to meet with clients and he asked

if this was Ms. Chandler’s son’s weekend with his dad. When Ms.

Chandler told him it was, he said “I was thinking I could meet

you in Fresno just one time.” At that point, Ms. Chandler cut

him off and again stated that she wasn’t interested and did not

want to hear any more about what he was thinking. Mr. Ulibarri

tried on several occasions to tell Ms. Chandler about his Fresno

“plans” but every time Ms. Chandler would cut him off and say she

was not interested.

18. On or about February, 2006, Mr. Ulibarri told Ms.

Chandler that they could meet at work early before any one got

there and have sex on the conference table. He also told her

that she would not be the other woman. On or about February 20,

2006, he sent Ms. Chandler a text message stating, “I wish there

was an easy answer, but I’m going to the office, meet me.”

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 7 of 29
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

27

28

8

19. On or about May, 2006, Mr. Ulibarri offered to buy Ms.

Chandler a Harley motorcycle. Mr. Ulibarri also stated that his

fantasy was for a woman to wear high heels and he would come up

behind her and enter her from behind. Then he stated “wearing

shoes like yours, Kristee.”

20. Mr. Ulibarri would park his car so close to Ms.

Chandler’s car that his front bumper would almost be touching her

back bumper. When she told him to back off, he would tell her it

was a sign of what they should be doing. He also sent her a text

message stating the same thing.

21. Matters accelerated when Mr. Ulibarri’s wife called Ms.

Chandler and asked her to stay away from her husband. Ms.

Chandler believes that Mr. Ulibarri’s wife got her number off of

her husband’s cellular phone. Ms. Chandler then told Mr.

Ulibarri’s wife that it was her husband who had been harassing

her and that he had been text messaging her. Mrs. Ulibarri then

began to get extremely upset when Ms. Chandler explained

everything that her husband had been doing. She asked Ms.

Chandler to talk to her further and that she wanted her marriage

to work out. Ms. Chandler explained that she had no interest in

her husband and she had considered her husband a friend and that

he had crossed that line when he began to pursue a relationship

with her. Mrs. Ulibarri began to call Ms. Chandler on a daily

basis until Ms. Chandler reported the entire situation to her

supervisor, Defendant Harper, Customer Service Manager. Ms.

Chandler did not report the harassment prior to this date in fear

of retaliation by Defendant Ulibarri, Defendant Dave McMahon, the

Manager, and other supervisors and staff. Mr. Ulibarri was very

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 8 of 29
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

27

28

9

well liked and many people just thought he was a nice person. 

Ms. Chandler was afraid of being treated differently once she

reported the harassment. Ms. Chandler believed that due to the

fact that she is a single woman, everyone would think she was the

aggressor and went after a married man.

22. And indeed, her worst fears of retaliation were

justified. Ms. Chandler reported the sexual harassment to

Defendant Hopper in late June, 2006, who referred the matter to

Defendant Kitchen, the Regional Manager. There was no formal

investigation other than Mr. Kitchen telling both Ms. Chandler

and Mr. Ulibarri that they were both at fault. He stated that

they both should have been fired but that they were going to

allow them to keep their jobs.

23. In early to mid-July, 2006, Mr. Ulibarri was moved to

the Lemoore branch but was allowed to continue to attend weekly

bank meetings and sales meetings. Ms. Chandler was then asked to

stop attending sales meetings.

24. After Ms. Chandler reported the harassment to Ms.

Hopper, Mr. McMahon and other staff members began to treat her

differently than they treated Mr. Ulibarri. Her supervisors and

co-employees saw Mr. Ulibarri as the victim and Ms. Chandler as

the aggressor, just as Ms. Chandler imagined it would be. Ms.

Chandler was treated as if she had the plague. Ms. Hopper and

Mr. McMahon did not speak to her at all unless they absolutely

had to. Mr. McMahon treated her like she was not even in the

building.

25. Immediately after Ms. Chandler reported the harassment

by Mr. Ulibarri, Ms. Chandler noticed she was being watched in

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 9 of 29
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

27

28

10

regards to her work productivity and time she spent with clients. 

Ms. Chandler’s job duties were being taken away a little at a

time. Prior to Ms. Chandler reporting the sexual harassment, she

was a full-time new accounts representative, and at the time of

her termination, she was part-time new accounts and part-time

teller. She was expected to get both jobs done in a timely and

productive manner with no room for mistakes. If mistakes were

made, a copy of those mistakes were taken and placed in Ms.

Chandler’s personnel file. During this time, however, Ms.

Chandler was never written-up. She knew she was being watched

and she always gave it 100 percent.

26. On or about November, 2006, Ms. Chandler’s desk was

moved from the platform and placed directly in front of Mr.

McMahon’s desk and in clear view of Ms. Hopper’s desk. Ms.

Chandler had been employed since April 2003 and this placement of

her desk only occurred after she reported the harassment by Mr.

Ulibarri.

27. On February 5, 2007, Ms. Chandler was terminated from

her employment and the reason given by her employer was that two

customers had written to the corporate office and complained

about her, stating she had breached customer confidentiality. No

details about the complaints were given to her and she was never

given the opportunity to respond and defend herself.

28. The termination was retaliation for Ms. Chandler’s

complaint regarding the sexual harassment by Mr. Ulibarri. The

Defendant bank officers were upset that Mr. Ulibarri was moved to

the Lemoore branch and they wanted Mr. Ulibarri at the Hanford

branch even if it meant they would have to get rid of Ms.

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 10 of 29
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

27

28

11

Chandler. This is evident as Mr. Ulibarri was brought back to

work at Ms. Chandler’s branch the week prior to Ms. Chandler’s

termination.

29. Plaintiff was hired by Stockmen’s Bank in April 2003 as

a New Accounts Representative. Defendant Mark Ulibarri started

his employment with the Bank in September 2004 as a Commercial

Loan Officer. Very shortly after he started, Ms. Chandler, who

sat at a desk right next to Mr. Ulibarri, began telling him about

various personal issues, such as her divorce and ongoing custody

battle with her ex-husband. He tried to be friendly, and started

listening to her problems. They became somewhat close in this

fashion, and over time they became friends and occasionally went

out to lunch together. 

30. The Bank’s holiday party in December 2005 was held in

Laughlin, Nevada. Mr. Ulibarri was flying out of Las Vegas the

morning after the Christmas party, and Ms. Chandler was staying

in Las Vegas with her sister. Accordingly, Mr. Ulibarri and Ms.

Chandler made plans to drive from the party to Las Vegas

together. They made the drive, they went on some rides together

at one of the casinos, and afterwards he walked her to her car.

31. However, after this incident, Mr. Ulibarri could tell

that Ms. Chandler started having feelings for him. She sent him

text messages frequently. He told her that they needed to keep

things professional and he asked her to stop text messaging him. 

After this conversation, things went very well for approximately

one month. Later, however, she again began to send him text

messages, and his wife saw one of the text messages and replied

to Ms. Chandler asking her to stop sending text messages to her

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 11 of 29
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

27

28

12

husband. Ms. Chandler then went to Mr. Ulibarri’s home on a day

where Mr. Ulibarri was working and confronted his wife. Ms.

Chandler tried to convince Mr. Ulibarri’s wife that Mr. Ulibarri

had feelings for Ms. Chandler and that Ms. Chandler would be

better for him than his wife. Ms. Chandler also asked her if she

was aware that Mr. Ulibarri had accounts at the bank without her

name on them.

32. After this incident, Mr. Ulibarri tried to limit his

interactions with Ms. Chandler at work. Thereafter, Ms. Chandler

came to his desk and confronted him asking him “so, is this how

it’s going to be? Mr. Ulibarri asked her if they could deal with

the situation later, and she replied that she could get him

fired. At this point, Ms. Chandler went to speak with Defendant

Ginny Hopper, Operations Supervisor. Executive Vice President

Bill Kitchen promptly initiated an investigation into Ms.

Chandler’s complaint. He interviewed Ms. Chandler on or about

July 21, 2006, who claimed that Mr. Ulibarri began “flirting”

with her and making references to sex in December 2005. She

claims that she told Mr. Ulibarri she did not want to be the

“other woman.” She claimed that Mr. Ulibarri’s wife intercepted

some of their text messages, and after that Mr. Ulibarri gave her

the “silent treatment.” Ms. Chandler also showed Mr. Kitchen

some cell phone text messages which, while they did not

necessarily disclose that any sexual conduct had taken place,

certainly appeared to disclose that there was at least some

flirtation going on between Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ulibarri.

33. On or about July 24, 2006, Bill Kitchen and Ginny

Hopper called Mr. Ulibarri into his office and informed him that

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 12 of 29
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

27

28

13

there had been a complaint of sexual harassment made against him. 

Defendant Kitchen interviewed Mr. Ulibarri concerning Ms.

Chandler’s accusations. Mr. Ulibarri told Mr. Kitchen that it

was Ms. Chandler who had made it clear that she had feelings for

him. Mr. Ulibarri told Mr. Kitchen that Ms. Chandler had visited

his wife and urged her to leave Mr. Ulibarri so that Ms. Chandler

and Mr. Ulibarri could be together. Ms. Chandler had told Mr.

Ulibarri’s wife that Mr. Ulibarri had accounts at the Bank

without her name on them. Mr. Ulibarri was upset to learn of

this, asserting that this was a violation of the Bank’s policies

regarding the privacy of account information. He also told Mr.

Kitchen that Ms. Chandler had called him using a private, blocked

phone number, and that the only way she could have obtained that

phone number would be through his confidential bank account

information. He further stated that on July 20, 2006, Ms.

Chandler told him that “this not talking sucks” and that she

wanted things to go back to the way they had been. When Mr.

Ulibarri replied that he could not talk at that time, she

responded that she could “get him fired.” The next day, she

confronted him again, asking “Is this the way it’s going to be? 

I warned you!” Within a day or two, Mr. Ulibarri was notified

that Ms. Chandler had complained to Ginny Hopper that Mr.

Ulibarri was sexually harassing her. Mr. Kitchen also referred

to the text messages Ms. Chandler had shown him, but Mr. Ulibarri

showed Mr. Kitchen how simple it was to make cell phone text

messages appear as though they originated from another user.

34. Mr. Kitchen also interviewed a co-worker who told Mr.

Kitchen that Ms. Chandler liked Mr. Ulibarri and confided in him. 

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 13 of 29
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

27

28

14

She also recalled that when they were watching a sexual

harassment training video, Ms. Chandler asked if it was against

bank policy for employees to date each other.

35. Finally, Mr. Kitchen interviewed Mr. Ulibarri’s wife,

Eva. She told Mr. Kitchen that she had seen Ms. Chandler’s text

messages on her husband’s cell phone and first asked Mr. Ulibarri

to tell Ms. Chandler to stop. Ms. Chandler continued texting her

husband, and Eva called Ms. Chandler to ask her to stop texting

her husband. Ms. Chandler told Eva that Mr. Ulibarri wanted a

relationship with her (Ms. Chandler), and that they had slept

together on St. Patrick’s Day. Eva knew this was not true

because Ms. Ulibarri had come home for lunch that day. Ms.

Chandler then showed up at the Ulibarris’ home and told Eva that

Mr. Ulibarri wanted a divorce. She then began “fantasizing”

asking, “Does Ulibarri put the toothpaste cap on? Does he give

Eva the silent treatment? Does he like to hold hands? Ms.

Chandler talked about her own divorce and suggested that Eva

should just “pack up and leave.” Finally, Eva told Mr. Kitchen

that Ms. Chandler told her that Mr. Ulibarri had accounts at the

Bank without her name on them.

36. Mr. Kitchen then met again with Ms. Chandler and asked

her specifically whether she had violated Bank policy by

disclosing Mr. Ulibarri’s confidential account information. She

denied having done so. Mr. Kitchen asked if she went to the

Ulibarris’ home to confront Mr. Ulibarri’s wife. She admitted

that she had done so, but claimed that Mr. Ulibarri’s wife asked

her to come to the house so that Mr. Ulibarri’s wife could

confront Mr. Ulibarri because he was lying.

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 14 of 29
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

27

28

15

37. Following his investigation, Mr. Kitchen met with Tom

Dobbins in Human Resources and Bank President, Farrell Holyoak. 

Mr. Kitchen did not know whom to believe - it was a classic “he

said, she said” situation. They ultimately agreed to give both

Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ulibarri a strong counseling memorandum

reminding them both of the Bank’s policy prohibiting sexual

harassment, and warning that if either were to engage in similar

conduct in the future, they would be terminated. In addition to

the disciplinary memo, Mr. Kitchen, Mr. Dobbins, and Branch

Manager Dave McMahon agreed that it would be appropriate to

transfer Mr. Ulibarri to the Lemoore branch and order that Mr.

Ulibarri and Ms. Chandler not have any contact with each other

except as necessary for business purposes. They instructed Mr.

Ulibarri that if he were to call the Hanford branch and Ms.

Chandler were to answer the phone, he should immediately ask to

speak with somebody else. Mr. Ulibarri continued to work for

Dave McMahon, and would attend very brief weekly meetings of Loan

Officers at the Hanford branch. Ms. Chandler and Mr. Ulibarri,

however, did not have any interactions when Mr. Ulibarri attended

these meetings.

38. In March 2006, before the allegations of “harassment”

surfaced, Dave McMahon received a complaint that Ms. Chandler had

released confidential information regarding one of the Bank’s

clients. He received a call from a manager at one of the Bank’s

other branches who relayed that a customer called her and said

that he had been in the gym, and Ms. Chandler was frequently

coming into the gym and “hitting on him.” At one point, when

other people were close enough to hear, Ms. Chandler asked him

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 15 of 29
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

27

28

16

why he had removed his wife’s name from a trust document and why

was he trying to hide money from his ex. Mr. McMahon spoke to

this customer personally and verified the nature of his

complaint. When Mr. McMahon relayed this complaint to Ms.

Chandler and asked her about it, she denied everything. He told

her that if this had occurred, it would be grounds for

termination. However, the customer was not willing to make any

type of a written complaint, and given that there was no way to

prove that Ms. Chandler had engaged in this conduct, he did not

believe it was grounds for terminating her employment at that

time.

39. However, in December 2006, another customer contacted

Dave McMahon to relay a complaint about Ms. Chandler. This

customer complained that she had been a long-time customer of the

Bank. She frequently chatted with Ms. Chandler when she visited

the Branch, and they eventually commiserated about their

respective divorces and child-custody battles. Ms. Chandler

volunteered, for example, that she followed her ex-husband and

his girlfriends. Ms. Chandler also stated that she could look up

anyone’s finances at the bank before she dated them. In the

course of these conversations the customer stated that Ms.

Chandler also made inappropriate comments about men and sex, for

example, that men are only good for sex and that married men are

the best because there is no commitment. Later, the customer got

engaged and informed Ms. Chandler of this fact. Ms. Chandler

asked who her fiancé was and what he did for a living. The

customer told Ms. Chandler her fiancé’s name and that he was a

doctor. Ms. Chandler replied that she was lucky to find a single

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 16 of 29
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

27

28

17

doctor. The customer related that over the next few months, Ms.

Chandler became increasingly interested in her fiancé, and even

started showing up at his doctor’s office. Her fiancé asked her

how she knew Ms. Chandler and relayed that Ms. Chandler had made

advances towards him and made inappropriate comments to him. She

was reluctant to provide more details about this to Mr. McMahon

due to doctor-patient confidentiality, but added that her husband

started leaving his office door open whenever Ms. Chandler

visited because he was worried about a “sexual harassment suit.” 

The customer also stated that she had seen Ms. Chandler in the

same gym frequented by her and her husband, and observed Ms.

Chandler following her husband around the gym. Each time he

would move to a new machine, Ms. Chandler would move to the

machine right next to him even though there were plenty of other

free machines. She and her husband then changed their gym

membership to another gym to avoid Ms. Chandler. This customer

promised to reduce her complaint about Ms. Chandler to writing,

and eventually forwarded a written complaint on January 24, 2007. 

In her written complaint, she asked that her name be kept

confidential because she was concerned about what Ms. Chandler

might do. 

40. Due primarily to these two customer complaints, Mr.

McMahon recommended to Tom Dobbins and Bill Kitchen that Ms.

Chandler be terminated. After reviewing the situation, Mr.

Kitchen and Mr. Dobbins approved Mr. McMahon’s recommendation. 

On or about February 5, 2007, Mr. McMahon and Ms. Hopper met with

Ms. Chandler and informed her that her employment was being

terminated due to customer complaints regarding inappropriate

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 17 of 29
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

27

28

18

behavior and release of confidential information to unauthorized

persons.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. None contemplated at this time.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff was employed by Stockmen’s Bank from

April 14, 2003, to February 5, 2007, and worked at the Hanford

Branch as a Customer Service Representative.

2. Defendant David McMahon is, and at all times

mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint, was the Branch Manager of the

Hanford Branch of Stockmen’s Bank.

3. Defendant Ginny Hopper is, and at all times

mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint, was the Operations Supervisor

of the Hanford Branch of Stockmen’s Bank.

4. Defendant Mark Ulibarri is, and at all times

mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint, was a Commercial Loan Officer

at the Hanford Branch of Stockmen’s Bank.

5. Defendant Bill Kitchen is, and at all times

mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint, was a Regional Manager at

Stockmen’s Bank.

6. Plaintiff made a complaint to Defendant Hopper

alleging that Defendant Ulibarri was sexually harassing her.

7. Defendant Kitchen interviewed Ms. Chandler

regarding her complaint of harassment.

8. Following Mr. Kitchen’s investigation, both Ms.

Chandler and Mr. Ulibarri were given a counseling memo reminding

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 18 of 29
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

27

28

19

them of the Bank’s policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the

workplace, and advising them that any future violation of this

policy would result in termination.

9. Ms. Chandler was terminated from her employment at

Stockmen’s Bank on or about February 5, 2007. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether Mr. Ulibarri, in fact, engaged in any of

the alleged acts of “sexual harassment” described by Plaintiff in

her Complaint, including but not limited to: Whether Mr.

Ulibarri insisted that Ms. Chandler share a ride with him to Las

Vegas following the Bank’s holiday party in December 2005

(Complaint ¶ 15(b)); whether Mr. Ulibarri “propositioned” Ms.

Chandler in Las Vegas (Complaint ¶ 15(c)); whether Mr. Ulibarri

asked Ms. Chandler to visit Las Vegas one more time with him

(Complaint, ¶¶ 15(e) and 15(i)); whether Mr. Ulibarri ever

pursued Ms. Chandler romantically or sexually (Complaint,

¶ 15(c)-(n)); whether Mr. Ulibarri ever grabbed and/or kissed Ms.

Chandler (Complaint ¶ 15(h)); whether M. Ulibarri asked Ms.

Chandler to have sex with him (Complaint ¶ 15(i)); whether Mr.

Ulibarri ever “ran his hand along the back of (Ms. Chandler’s)

neck,” or touched her in an unwelcome manner on any occasion

(Complaint ¶ 15(j)); whether Mr. Ulibarri ever grabbed Ms.

Chandler’s “buttock” (Complaint ¶ 15(l)); whether Mr. Ulibarri

ever told Ms. Chandler they could have sex together on the

conference room table at the Bank before anyone else arrived

(Complaint, ¶ 15(m)); whether Mr. Ulibarri talked to Ms. Chandler

about his fantasies (Complaint ¶ 15(n)); whether Mr. Ulibarri

parked his car close to hers in the parking lot and told her that

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 19 of 29
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

27

28

20

it was a sign of what they should be doing (Complaint ¶ 15(o));

whether Ms. Chandler complained to Mr. Ulibarri’s wife that Mr.

Ulibarri was harassing her (Complaint ¶ 15(p)).

2. Whether Ms. Chandler’s complaint of alleged

harassment to Ms. Hopper was fabricated.

3. Whether Ms. Chandler violated Bank policy by

disclosing confidential customer account information on any

occasion.

4. Whether Ms. Chandler pursued a romantic

relationship with Mr. Ulibarri.

5. Whether Ms. Chandler confronted Mr. Ulibarri’s

wife and tried to convince her that she should divorce Mr.

Ulibarri so that Ms. Chandler could be with Mr. Ulibarri.

6. Whether Ms. Chandler obtained Mr. Ulibarri’s

private, blocked telephone number by reviewing Mr. Ulibarri’s

confidential bank account information.

7. Whether Mr. Kitchen interviewed Mr. Ulibarri, Lisa

Risso, and Eva Ulibarri, as part of his investigation into Ms.

Chandler’s complaint of harassment.

8. Whether Defendant Ulibarri complained to Defendant

Kitchen that Ms. Chandler was harassing him and his wife and that

Ms. Chandler disclosed Mr. Ulibarri’s confidential account

information to his wife.

9. Whether, in March 2006, Branch Manager David

McMahon received a telephone call from a customer who complained

that Ms. Chandler approached him while at a gym and loudly asked

in front of other patrons why he had removed his ex-wife’s name

from a trust document at the Bank and whether the complaint was

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 20 of 29
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

27

28

21

true.

10. Whether, in March 2006, Branch Manager McMahon

confronted Ms. Chandler about the customer’s complaint and she

denied all of it.

11. Whether, in January 2007, Branch Manager Dave

McMahon received a written complaint from a customer that Ms.

Chandler had made inappropriate comments to her about men and

made inappropriate comments and advances towards her fiancé and

whether the complaint was true. 

12. Stockmen’s Bank has a published policy,

disseminated to its employees, prohibiting sexual harassment in

the workplace.

13. Whether Defendants, or any of them, or any of

Stockmen’s employees treated Ms. Chandler any differently

following her complaint of harassment. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. The parties agree that for supplemental claims,

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

4. Defendant Stockmen’s Bank is an “employer” as that

term is defined in California Government Code § 12926(d) and in

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

B. Contested. 

1. Whether Defendants, or any of them, sexually

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 21 of 29
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

27

28

22

harassed Plaintiff, including whether any of the alleged

harassing conduct attributed to Defendant Ulibarri was unwelcome;

whether such conduct was severe and/or pervasive and/or whether

such conduct affected the terms, conditions or privileges of

Plaintiff’s employment. 

2. Whether Defendants, or any of them, discriminated

against Plaintiff in compensation or in terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment because of her gender.

3. Whether Defendants, or any of them, retaliated

against Plaintiff in compensation or in terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment because she complained of sexual

harassment.

4. Whether Defendant Ulibarri is a “supervisor” under

the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and/or Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

5. Whether Defendant Ulibarri is personally liable

under any cause of action asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint.

6. Whether Defendant McMahon is personally liable

under any cause of action asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint.

7. Whether Defendant Hopper is personally liable

under any cause of action asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint.

8. Whether Defendant Kitchen is personally liable

under any cause of action asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint.

9. Whether Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in

complaining of the alleged harassment.

10. Whether Defendants took prompt, effective remedial

action in response to Plaintiff’s complaint of sexual harassment.

11. Whether Plaintiff’s termination was for a

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 22 of 29
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

27

28

23

legitimate business reason. 

12. Whether Plaintiff can establish that the reasons

for her termination were pretextual and the real reason was

unlawful retaliation or discrimination.

13. Whether Plaintiff has exercised due diligence to

mitigate her damages, if any.

14. Whether an officer, director, or managing agent of

Stockmen’s Bank acted with or ratified conduct amounting to

malice, oppression or fraud toward Plaintiff, entitling her to an

award of punitive damages.

15. Whether Plaintiff exhausted her administrative

remedies under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

and/or under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties will make their Rule 26 disclosures on or

before December 31, 2007. 

2. The parties are limited 10 depositions per side, unless

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 23 of 29
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

27

28

24

otherwise modified by stipulation or court order. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 30(a)(2)(A). The parties agree that each party may serve no

more than 50 interrogatories on any other party, unless otherwise

modified by stipulation or court order. Both parties reserve the

right to take depositions of the parties of more than one day’s

duration, subject to the parties’ agreement. The parties do not

propose any additional changes to the limits on discovery as set

forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at this time.

3. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before March 2, 2009.

4. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before January 2, 2009. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before February 2, 2009. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

5. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 24 of 29
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

27

28

25

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before March 16, 2009, and

heard on April 17, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than March 30, 2009, and will be heard on May 4,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. June 8, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. July 21, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3,

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 25 of 29
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

27

28

26

7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 10 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for March 11,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before the Honorable Gary S.

Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 26 of 29
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

27

28

27

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. The parties agree that the issue of the amount of

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 27 of 29
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

27

28

28

punitive damages, if any, shall be tried in a second phase before

the same jury, after the establishment of liability and

entitlement to punitive damages, if any. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 28 of 29
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

27

28

29

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00981-OWW -GSA Document 14 Filed 12/12/07 Page 29 of 29