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

Israel G. Torres (#020303)

James E. Barton, II (#023888)

Saman J. Golestan (#031710)

TORRES LAW GROUP, PLLC

2239 West Baseline Road

Tempe, Arizona 85283

480.588.6120

James@TheTorresFirm.com

Saman@TheTorresFirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JAMES ROGERS, an individual 

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT, a political 

subdivision of Arizona; MARIA WISE, an 

individual; AND VIVIAN MIRANDASTRAWBRIDGE, an individual

Defendant

Case No.

COMPLAINT 

 

INTRODUCTION

This complaint is a civil action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“the 

ADA”), 42, U.S.C. §12132, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“The Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. 

§ 794, the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1), and Intentional 

Infliction of Emotional Distress, to enjoin the unlawful discrimination and retaliation against and 

to provide relief to James Rogers (“J.R.”). As alleged in further detail below, Defendant Maricopa 

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 1 of 17
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

County Community College District, discriminated against J.R., interfered with his FMLA 

protections and created a working environment so hostile and stressful that he diagnosed with 

work related PTSD. The conduct of Defendants Wise and Miranda-Strawbridge also rose to the 

level of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. This action is authorized by and initiated under 42 U.S.C. § 12133, and 29 U.S.C. § 794.

3. The discrimination, retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleged to 

be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona. 

PARTIES

1. James Rogers (“J.R.”) is a citizen of the United States of America and a citizen and 

resident of the State of Arizona.

2. Defendant Maricopa County College District (“MCCCD”) is a political subdivision of 

Arizona. 

3. MCCCD is headquartered and operates business in the State of Arizona, county of 

Maricopa and has continuously has at least 15 employees. 

4. Defendant Maria Wise, Ed.D. is, and at all relevant times was, the Vice President of 

Academic & Student Affairs and Title IX Coordinator of Gateway Community College, a 

Maricopa Community College. 

5. Defendant Vivian Miranda-Strawbridge is, and at all relevant times was, Dean of Student 

Services & Retention of Gateway Community College, a Maricopa Community College.

-2-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 2 of 17
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. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in 

an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

2000e(b), (g) and (h). 

7. At all relevant times, J.R. was an employee of Defendant. 

GENERAL ALLEGTIONS

4. J.R. is a current employee of MCCCD. 

5. In his position as a Disability Resources & Services Manager at Gateway Community 

College (GWCC), J.R. identifies student needs related to disability—through interviews, 

documentation, and perceived disability—provides mandatory services including issuing 

accommodations, and serves as an advocate for disabled students. 

6. J.R.’s work was met with constant opposition from the administration and faculty. 

7. During J.R.’s tenure at GWCC, Dr. Abdul Awad, a Math & Science professor and Dr. Jim 

Baugh, Department Chair of Math & Science, often challenged J.R. concerning ADA mandated

accommodations for students. 

8. In one incident, Dr. Awad refused every accommodation a diabetic student in his class 

requested. He revealed her disability during class and harassed this student. In the spring of 2016 

Dr. Awad continuously interfered with the student’s testing accommodations. 

9. During this period, J.R. continuously advocated for this student to be given the 

accommodations she was entitled to. 

10. Dr. Peter Zawicki, Physical Therapy Program Director, and J.R. had multiple hostile 

confrontations in both public and private that the administration failed to resolve. 

11. These conflicts originated in PTA students J.R. advocated for who were entitled to 

accommodations after Dr. Zawicki refused them. 

-3-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 3 of 17
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. Dr. Zawicki was also a principle player in the discrimination of a PTA student who filed 

an OCR complaint.

13. As a result of J.R.’s insistence that accommodations be met Dr. Zawicki was hostile and 

verbally assaulted J.R. even in public settings.

14. In the beginning of spring 2016 J.R. stood up for a DRS student who was being bullied by 

Mike Corry and Jim Kenny while participating in the HVAC program. The student was denied 

his accommodations on multiple occasions and Corry and Kenny refused to even sign the 

student’s accommodation form. They explicitly declared that they would not allow any 

accommodations in the HVAC classes. 

15. J.R. faced open hostility from faculty members Dr. Bryan Dodd, Division Chair, Health 

Sciences and Margi Schultz, Nursing Division Chair, for advocating for students to receive their 

required accommodations. 

16. Due to his advocacy for students, JR has been in constant conflict with and faced 

opposition from the Administration and faculty. 

17. The Administration failed to resolve these conflicts. 

18. In December 2016, contrary to well-established college policy on reviewing student 

accommodations, a new practice was instituted allowing Dr. Zawicki approve or deny 

accommodation on every Instructor Notification of disability accommodations as they pertained 

to any lab class in the Science or Healthcare departments. This statement was a restriction and a 

denial of accommodations to students with a documented disability.

19. Under then and current district policy, 

In the event the instructor believes the modification determined by 

DRS would alter an academic requirement that is essential to the 

instruction being pursued by the student, or to a directly related 

licensing requirement, the instructor will first meet with the 

director of the DRS office within three working days of receipt of 

the determination and attempt to resolve the issue informally. If the 

-4-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 4 of 17
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

faculty member’s concern remains unresolved, within three days of 

the above meeting, he or she may submit a written request to the 

college’s chief academic officer (or a comparably qualified 

administrator designated by the college president) for his or her 

academic judgment on the question.

MCCCD Policy 2.8.1 Eligibility for Accommodations & Required Disability Documentation, 

available at https://chancellor.maricopa.edu/public-stewardship/governance/administrativeregulations/2-students/2.8-students-with-disabilities/2.8.1-eligibility-for-accommodationsrequired

20. J.R. objected to this policy because it ignored the limited circumstances in which an 

accommodation could be altered. 

21. On December 13, 2016, V.P. Wise and Dean Miranda-Strawbridge instructed J.R. that it is 

not within the scope of his job description to advocate for students or to enforce the ADA to the 

campus community. 

22. On February 1, 2017, J.R. met with V.P. Wise and Dean Miranda-Strawbridge to discuss 

the critical understaffing in DRS, which had risen to the point that it interfered in providing 

legally required services. 

23. This conversation resulted in a new hire, who served only one day before being rejected 

by the administration.

24. On or about February 2, 2017, J.R. spoke with President Steven Gonzales regarding the 

retaliation J.R. was experiencing. 

25. The President told J.R. he should consider looking for work somewhere else, noting that 

J.R. “didn’t want to end up in court like Michael Corry” and reiterated that neither J.R. nor OCR 

was the enforcer of ADA compliance on campus. 

26. This remark was in conflict with the guidance from District Legal, as expressed by 

attorney Rebecca Currey.

27. J.R. received reports from three students that their instructor made it clear that the 

instructor did not like students with disabilities. 

-5-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 5 of 17
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. Special instructions were issued by instructors Peter Melenovich and Ashley Garneau 

about how to schedule their exams at the Testing Center with a requirement to e-mail the 

instructor confirming that they had in fact scheduled at the Testing Center (and not through DRS 

office). The instructors told the students to follow the process given by the instructors and not 

those required by the DRS office. 

29. The administration reprimanded J.R for advocating for these students. 

Mental and Emotional Attacks Against J.R. in Retaliation

30. J.R. attempted to bring GWCC into compliance as early as January 20, 2016, when he 

attempted to explain a flexible attendance schedule for a student with an active and documented 

seizure disorder to a member of the faculty only to be attacked. Dr. Jim Baugh’s shouting at J.R. 

over the phone was loud enough to be overheard by Ms. Tanner, outside J.R.’s office. Zach 

Rivenbaugh, an IT Tech and Avery Drew an ASU social work intern who were present at the 

time, each drafted a statement regarding Dr. Baugh’s outlandish behavior that was forwarded to 

the President.

31. Over the objections of Ms. Tanner, Dr. Baugh barged into J.R.’s office claiming he had to 

“have this out with him right now!” Dr. Baugh’s outburst occurred in front of two students and 

ASU interns. 

32. The next day, President Gonzales asked J.R. if he was “going to do anything” about the 

conflict. When J.R. explained that he would do so if it would end positively, the President replied 

that the faculty would not change their behavior and acknowledged that J.R. was doing good 

work with a “tough” job. 

33. In March 2016, Susan Mills, Department Chair, Arts & Humanities, Social & Behavioral 

Sciences, denied J.R. the opportunity to teach a social work class at the college—despite the fact 

-6-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 6 of 17
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

that Vince Hoffman had already hired him and that J.R. was the only person with a MSW on 

campus at the time.

34. The Counseling Chair, Frank Zamora, urged Ms. Mills not to do this. She explained that 

the faculty “did not like” J.R. because of his role as DRS Manager. This was witnessed by Chris 

Mins, Dr. Vince Huffman, Donald Hall and Martha Beinert. 

35. J.R. suffered a heart attack on March 23, 2016 in response to the public humiliation 

associated with this incident and the stress of the increasingly hostile environment in his 

department. 

Removal of Furniture Thereby Interfering with Providing Services to Students

36. Due to the volume of student needs, the administration, for nearly a year, publicly stated 

that they would be expanding the physical space of the DRS office. The DRS had no private area 

to meet with students, and were forced to use public spaces. 

37. V.P Wise asked J.R. and Frank Zamora the Counseling Dept. Chair, to choose which 

department to relocate. Mr. Zamora offered to leave the shared space and drew up remodeling 

plans for that purpose, ordering new furniture and equipment for Counseling. 

38. Beginning January 4, 2017, and continuing throughout the month, Dean MirandaStrawbridge repeatedly rejected J.R.’s DRS Area Usage proposal which was submitted according 

to her specific instructions to J.R. This is despite the fact that designing the layout and use of the 

DRS workspace was well within the purview of J.R.’s position. 

39. On January 10, 2017 in likely retaliation for J.R.’s continual advocacy to faithfully 

execute student accommodations despite faculty and administrative resistance, the Dean ordered 

that two DRS rooms be cleared of all furniture. 

-7-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 7 of 17
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

40. On January 12, 2017, VP Tony Asti directed J.R. on how the DRS Dept. should use the 

office space that had been vacated by the Counseling Dept. Again taking away J.R.’s decision 

making power and interfering with DRS services to students at GWCC. 

41. V.P. Asti directed Ms. Tanner to remove all DRS “things” from the last 3 DRS rooms 

(IE1208, IE1207, IE1206) because Facilities would be coming early the next morning to remove 

everything. 

42. The administration demonstrated a reckless disregard for three rooms full of $30,000 

worth of assistive technology, software, and sensitive files that were moved to an unknown 

location without sufficient manpower. Instead the task to secure the rooms was given to Ms. 

Tanner, without any assistance. 

43. The next day, with the assistance of two ASU Social Work interns, J.R. and Ms. Tanner 

removed the highest priority items from the rooms, although this was only after workers present 

had already begun the refurbishing process. 

44. Following the incident V.P. Wise harshly reprimanded J.R. for being in the DRS office 

instead of employee break-out classes. 

45. As a result of the calculated public humiliation of stripping the DRS offices of their 

furniture, the hostile attacks on J.R.’s efforts to serve the students, and the false claims regarding 

J.R.’s failure to follow procedures, J.R. suffered a nervous breakdown. 

Restructuring ASU Internship Program

46. Between February 13, and March 3, 2017 the ASU internship program was restructured. 

47. J.R. initiated and managed an ASU Internship program/partnership. J.R. established this 

program explicitly for DRS and the program participants anticipated working in disability 

services.

-8-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 8 of 17
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

48. V.P. Wise and Dean Miranda-Strawbridge selected Ruben Saenz, Director of College 

Student Educational Services to act as Field Supervisor for the ASU Social Work interns.

49. The interns were re-assigned outside of disability services.

50. Before Saenz completed the certification with ASU required to accept the assignment, 

Dean Miranda-Strawbridge disparaged J.R. repeatedly, alleging that the internship program was 

mismanaged. 

51. On February 15, 2017, a formal internship meeting was held by V.P. Wise, seven ASU 

social work interns, ASU Social Work Internship Liaison, Tom Haines, Dean MirandaStrawbridge, and Ms. Tanner. During this meeting Tom Haines announced that the DRS office 

and the Gateway campus constituted “a hostile and unhealthy learning environment” for their 

students and that he and his associates at the ASU School of Social Work, intended to “pull the 

plug” on the partnership.

Miscellaneous Acts of Hostility

52. On February 6, 2017, Wise and Dean Miranda-Strawbridge demanded that J.R. write up 

Ms. Tanner for assisting a student, Sara Street, with her grievance complaint with the college in 

2016, under the mistaken belief that Tanner was the sole author of the grievance. J.R. recognized 

that V.P. Wise intended to fire Ms. Tanner for activity protected by the ADA and refused to 

participate in this illegal activity. He went home sick as a result of the stress associate with the 

incident. 

53. The administration also began to aggressively marginalize J.R.’s role and retaliate against 

him and the DRS department, after the Street case received the OCR Resolution Agreement. The 

bullying and hostile working environment it created posed a serious health risk for J.R. 

54. On February 13 2017, Dean Miranda-Strawbridge admitted to retaliating against J.R. 

based on these efforts to bring the department into compliance. In a conversation with Ms. 

-9-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 9 of 17
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

Tanner, the Dean said that J.R. had “gone over our heads” numerous times; she repeatedly 

referred to wrong-doing and incorrect information that J.R. allegedly gave Ms. Tanner in order to 

sway Ms. Tanner into trusting the Dean as the temporarily acting DRS Manager while J.R. was 

on FMLA.

55. On February 27 2017, the Dean, unsolicited, told Ms. Tanner that J.R.’s health condition 

was something he had before she came to campus “so it had nothing to do” with the Dean.

56. In this same meeting the Dean directed Ms. Tanner to prepare a comprehensive report 

listing of all the things that J.R. would have done as Manager but didn’t finish because he was on 

leave.

57. On March 28, 2017, Dean Miranda-Strawbridge maligned J.R. while sitting at the front 

counter of DRS, claiming that J.R.’s proposed Area Usage Plan and the Axis Camera Install 

Proposal were rejected because he failed to submit them on time. This contradicts the Dean’s 

previous public admission on February 15, 2017, that the proposal’s failure was due to her lack of 

knowledge of the process. 

58. During an internship meeting on February 15, 2017, Dean Miranda-Strawbridge confessed 

that the Proposal’s failure was her fault. In a recording of the meeting she sates: 

Dean Miranda-Strawbridge: “When a department vacates an area there is a 

repurposing proposal that must be done. Because I am new here, I had no idea that 

there was a proposal process; that was my fault that the repurposing proposal did 

not meet the submittal deadline and that’s why that decision was put on hold. That 

decision [the use of an area] cannot be made until there’s a formal process that’s 

satisfied. 

V.P. Wise: We need to get that finalized and put to the Team.

-10-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 10 of 17
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

Dean Miranda-Strawbridge: There are many other areas [departments] on 

campus that have their eye on that [DRS] space.

V.P. Wise: We want the opportunity to plan for the ideal environment and 

negotiate reasonable repurposing of the space; that’s my job. We then will take it 

to the Executive Team. It goes to Vivian, then to Maria, then to the Team. This 

[repurposing] goes back a while. I talked to both Frank [Zamora] and J.R. I asked, 

What’s best for both departments? They came back to me that the greater value to 

DRS was to commingle with Enrollment services. We do have a process in place 

to develop repurposing an area

59. On April 3, 2017, Ms. Tanner questioned Dean Miranda-Strawbridge what function the 

newly hired DRS Manager would hold when J.R. returned from FMLA leave. The Dean 

dismissed the question, claiming that things would “work out” and directed Ms. Tanner to remove 

J.R.’s personal things from his office and store them in room IE1204, despite the adverse impact 

this arrangement would have on DRS serving GWCC’s disabled students.

60. On April 6, 2017, Dean Miranda-Strawbridge wrote to Ms. Tanner, instructing her to 

remove J.R.’s personal things from his office. 

61. Additionally, the Dean revealed to Ms. Tanner that two DRS offices would be given to 

another department, stating that DRS is “no different than any other [department] on campus.” 

62. On April 11, 2017, Dean Miranda-Strawbridge, remarked to Ms. Tanner, that the Dean 

and VP Wise were “really mad” when J.R. moved his office to the end of the hall, (IE1205) 

saying that “He shouldn’t have done that. We believe he needs to be out here (gesturing to the 

previous private office location IE1208) so he can see what’s going on.” 

63. On May 5, 2017 Dean Miranda Strawbridge reported to Ms. Tanner that J.R. lied to the 

Dean by describing a class Ms. Tanner attended at ASU as lasting only five weeks. Although the 

-11-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 11 of 17
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

Dean and J.R. had previously discussed Tanner attending classes in meetings before she was 

hired. 

64. On May 9, 2017, Dean Miranda-Strawbridge disparaged J.R. claiming that the DRS 

Department was “dysfunctional” and rife with student files that have “no documentation.” These 

remarks were made in a public forum in earshot of disability professionals from throughout the 

district who knew J.R. 

65. Furthermore, the Dean blamed J.R. and his staff for GWCC’s high number of pending 

OCR cases, which was also reported to the President of the College. Dean Miranda-Strawbridge 

falsely accused J.R. of encouraging students to file OCR complaints—ironically failing to 

understand his role in assisting students.

66. On May 11, 2017, Dean Miranda-Strawbridge accused J.R., to his subordinate Ms. 

Tanner, of creating practices that needed improvement, poorly managing DRS services, creating 

an employment contract with Jessica Galarza that was improperly made, and other general 

failings. 

67. Throughout the period between March 13, 2013 through February 6, 2017, J.R. reported 

issues involving the matters above and others to Rebecca Currey, MCCCD’s Legal, his ADA 

employee representative Dr. JoAnn Pina, and Catherine Hernandez at Gateway Community 

College.

68. J.R. has also suffered numerous cardiovascular incidents brought on by the stress caused 

by the hostile treatment against him by MCCCD faculty and administration. He has been

diagnosed with work-related PTSD.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

ADA & Rehabilitation Act Retaliation

69. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 

-12-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 12 of 17
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

70. The first claim for relief is against MCCCD defendant only.

71. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, “No person shall discriminate against any 

individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter 

or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). 

72. Additionally, “[i]t shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any 

individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or 

enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the 

exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b).

73. The shouting, physical threats, public humiliation and adverse employment actions that 

J.R. endured were in response to his having “aided or encouraged any other individual in the 

exercise of any right granted or protected by [the ADA].”

74. These actions also constitute retaliation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

75. As a direct result of the retaliation against J.R., he lost the ability to be engaged in his 

life’s work and is currently on long-term disability with little hope of returning to work.. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Inflictions of Emotional Distress

76. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 

77. The second claim for relief is against all defendants.

78. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) requires (1) extreme and outrageous 

conduct by the defendant, (2) the defendant must either intend to cause emotional distress or do 

so with reckless disregard to the near certainty that such distress with result from the conduct, and 

(3) severe emotional distress indeed results from the defendant’s conduct. An employer is liable 

-13-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 13 of 17
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

for failing to investigate and respond to conduct satisfying these elements. Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 

153 Ariz. 38, 43, 734 P.2d 580, 585 (1987)

79. J.R. endured shouting, physical threats and public humiliations that reach a level of 

extreme and outrageous conduct to satisfy an IIED claim. 

80. The actions of V.P. Wise and the Dean, particularly the personal attacks against J.R., the 

forcible relocation of his office, and the refusal to allow him to teach his class, were so offensive 

and harmful that they ultimately resulted in J.R.’s cardiovascular incidents and PTSD. 

81. The individual actions taken by V.P. Wise and the Dean hold them liable for J.R.’s 

emotional distress. 

82. The administration knew or should have known of the harassment V.P. Wise and the Dean 

inflicted on J.R. 

83. Respondeat superior holds an employer vicariously liable for the actions of its employees 

when those employees are acting within the scope of their employment. Engler v. Gulf Interstate 

Engineering, Inc. 

84. V.P. Wise and the Dean were acting within the scope of their employment during the 

relocation of J.R.’s office and through their hostile actions disguised as work-related comments.

85. These actions occurred during V.P. Wise and the Dean’s working hours, within their 

typical managerial duties and were ostensibly in furtherance of the Employer’s interest in their 

positions as Vice President of Academic & Student Affairs and Title IX Coordinator, and Dean of 

Student Services & Retention, respectively. 

86. J.R. notified MCCCD of the harassment he was experiencing through his reporting of the 

various incidents to President Steven Gonzales, on January 21, 2016 and again on February 2, 

2016. 

-14-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 14 of 17
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

87. MCCCD failed to respond to the bullying and harassment inflicted upon J.R. even after he 

reported the abuse to President Gonzales. 

88. Therefore under respondeat superior, MCCCD is vicariously liable for the intentional 

emotional distress they inflicted on J.R. through their employees actions and personally liable 

through their failure to respond to the harassment after J.R. reported it to the administration. 

89. The administration knew or should have known that such distress would result from the 

harassment he endured at the hands of V.P. Wise and the Dean. 

90. Additionally the administration knew or should have known that MCCCD’s own failure to 

respond to that harassment would result in emotional distress. 

91. To the extent the actions of V.P. Wise and the Dean were outside the scope of their 

employment, they, in their personal capacity, knew or should have known that such emotional 

distress would result from the harassment J.R. endured at their hands.

92. As a direct result of Defendants’ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, J.R. has 

experienced several cardiac events and emotional episodes, as well as diagnosed PTSD that 

severely interferes with his ability to return to work. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Interference with FMLA/Failure to Provide ADA Accommodation

93. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 

94. The third claim for relief is against MCCCD defendant only.

95. J.R. was out on FMLA leave and was entitled to return to the same or an equivalent 

position as the one he held before taking the leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1).

96. Under FMLA, it is unlawful for an employer to interfere with, restrain or deny the 

exercise of any rights given under FMLA. 

-15-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 15 of 17
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

97. The District hired a new DRS Manager, and cleared out J.R.’s office which made it 

functionally impossible for him to work.

98. In the alternative, MCCCD has failed to accommodate J.R.’s disability created by the 

work-related PTSD triggered by MCCCD’s actions. 

99. J.R. has provided District Legal with a list of alternative jobs that he would be willing to 

work that would be possible in light of his PTSD, but MCCCD has failed to accept these 

suggestions or find any alternative other than J.R.’s returning to the very job, supervised by the 

perpetrators of the acts against him.

100. These actions taken by the District interfered with J.R.’s rights protected under the 

FMLA. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief: 

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant its officers agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with it, for retaliation for 

opposing discriminatory practices. 

B. Order Defendant to make whole James Rogers, by providing him appropriate 

compensatory damage payments in amounts to be determined at trial and other affirmative 

relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices complained above, 

including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and 

humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. 

C. An order awarding Plaintiff costs and attorneys’ and

D. Such other and further relief as may be appropriate. 

Dated this 22nd of February, 2018 

-16-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 16 of 17
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

___________ 

_____________ _/s/ James E. Barton II_____________

James E. Barton II

Torres Law Group, PLLC

2239 W. Baseline Road 

Tempe AZ, 85283

Attorney for Plaintiff 

-17-

Case 2:18-cv-00605-DWL Document 1 Filed 02/23/18 Page 17 of 17