EXHIBIT 1 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 80
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 

Edmundo P. Robaina (No. 018125) 

Thomas T. Griffin (No. 022475) 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC

5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 682-6450 

Facsimile: (602) 682-6455 

epr@robainalaw.com 

ttg@robainalaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cleopatria Martinez, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Maricopa County Community College 

District, et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. CV 15-01759 NVW 

DECLARATION OF CLEOPATRIA 

MARTINEZ 

Cleopatria Martinez, states and declares as follows: 

1. I am a Hispanic single woman with over 40 years of teaching experience. 

2. I have a Ph.D in mathematics, and I have worked as a mathematics 

professor for MCCCD since 1985. 

3. Prior to April 2, 2012, I had never been involved in any type of litigation 

other than divorce proceedings in the late 1980s. 

4. In November of 2009, I submitted an internal “Discrimination Complaint 

Form” to MCCCD’s Human Resources Department in relation to, among other things, 

my concern that Phoenix College had failed to appoint any person of Hispanic origin 

from the Math Department to serve as a member of the College’s Title V advisory 

committee. 

5. Prior to my internal complaint, I had never received any disciplinary 

actions. 

6. In January of 2010, MCCCD accused me of potentially violating 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 80
 - 2 - 

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 

copyright laws because I used mathematics problems from copyrighted textbooks, a 

widespread practice at MCCCD and in academia at large. 

7. MCCCD also restricted my copying privileges, issued me a disciplinary 

action, issued me a poor evaluation, and hyperscrutinized my work, including my 

supervision of work study students and the content of my classroom presentations. I was 

not allowed to provide my own teaching notes to students, even though the contents of 

those notes did not come from any copyrighted source, nor was I allowed to use them 

myself to guide my lectures. I was not even allowed to use math words or symbols that 

were not found in the textbook. For example, I was reprimanded for putting a “+” sign 

at the front of the infinity symbol because the author had not done so. I was also told I 

could not use the words “highest” and “lowest” to describe extrema because the author 

had not done so, even though other authors and instructors used these words. 

8. On June 28, 2010, I filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) alleging national origin 

discrimination and retaliation. 

9. On August 19, 2011, the EEOC found “reasonable cause” to believe that 

MCCCD had retaliated against me by accusing me of violating copyright laws, 

restricting and suspending my copying privileges, issuing me disciplinary action, and 

issuing me a poor evaluation. 

10. On April 2, 2012, I filed a lawsuit against MCCCD alleging Title VII 

claims for national origin discrimination and retaliation, and a claim for race 

discrimination, harassment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

11. On or about August 9, 2013, MCCCD’s Chancellor notified me of his 

intent to recommend termination of my employment in relation to alleged copyright 

violations, alleged violations of MCCCD’s cash handling policies, and alleged 

insubordination related to the cash handling allegation. 

12. I hired a highly experienced employment attorney named Stephen 

Montoya to represent me in the hearing regarding my proposed dismissal. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 80
 - 3 - 

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. On October 16, 2013, MCCCD filed a motion for summary judgment in 

the Discrimination Lawsuit. 

14. On November 18, 2013, a hearing on my proposed dismissal was held 

before a Hearing Committee. 

15. On December 9, 2013, the Hearing Committee issued binding findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, in which it found that MCCCD had not shown that I had 

violated copyright law or MCCCD’s cash handling policies, but I had been 

insubordinate in relation to my failure to issue refunds to students who had reimbursed 

me for the copying costs of “course materials,” which consisted of an unpublished 

textbook written by my colleague that was the classroom textbook, and which MCCCD 

had alleged violated its cash handling policies. The Committee further recommended 

that I not be dismissed. 

16. Thereafter, Mr. Montoya recommended to me that I end the Title VII 

litigation against MCCCD. 

17. Because I hoped to end my problems with MCCCD, I followed Mr. 

Montoya’s advice, and January 3, 2014, the parties agreed to dismiss the litigation with 

prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

18. However, on or about February 10, 2014, the Chancellor notified me that 

pursuant to his sole authority under RFP 3.13,1

 he was suspending me without pay from 

March 1, 20142

 to May 15, 2015, and that my teaching responsibilities and pay would 

resume in the Fall of 2015 unless I chose to retire. 

19. I immediately filed for unemployment, which MCCCD fought, but I 

ultimately won after a hearing. 

 

1

 The letter actually refers to RFP 3.11.3, but the Court’s reference to 2013-14 RFP 

Section “3.13” regarding suspensions is adopted. 

2

 The suspension actually began in April of 2014. I was told that I was not allowed to 

go on campus or contact anyone related to my work until August of 2015, when I 

returned.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 80
 - 4 - 

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. In the meantime, in the absence of any mechanism to appeal or address 

the suspension, Mr. Montoya and I attempted in various ways to seek some form of 

review of Glasper’s action from the Governing Board. 

21. Mr. Montoya, for instance, wrote a letter to the Governing Board in which 

he argued that Defendants’ actions violated my due process rights because, among other 

things, the Chancellor’s new Statement of Charges contained allegations that were 

expressly considered and rejected by the Hearing Committee; the new Statement of 

Charges set forth allegations, Administrative Regulations 1.12.2 and 1.12.3, that were 

not set forth in the original Statement of Charges and were never considered by the 

Hearing Committee; the Chancellor failed to allow me any opportunity to present 

evidence refuting the new Statement of Charges before a neutral finder of fact; and a 

fourteen-month suspension is the economic equivalent of dismissal, and the Chancellor 

should not be allowed to de facto terminate employees without first obtaining approval 

by the Governing Board. See Attachment 1 attached hereto. 

22. In desperation, Mr. Montoya and I also attempted to bring the matter to 

the Governing Board’s attention with a 3-5 minute maximum presentation during the 

“citizens’ interim” (or “call to the public”) portion of a Governing Board meeting, and I 

wrote letters to the Board, but I do not know if they were seen by the Governing Board. 

23. The Governing Board never responded in any way. 

24. I was extremely distraught by the turn of events, which effectively left me 

without a substantial source of income, or benefits, from April 2014 to August of 2015, 

when classes started. 

25. I hired attorney Kevin Koelbel to review the matter. Mr. Koelbel 

associated Tod Schleier, one of the preeminent employment attorneys in Arizona, to 

review the matter and ultimately to act as the lead attorney in this case. 

26. Mr. Schleier and Mr. Koelbel filed suit on my behalf on September 2, 

2015, and filed a Verified Amended Complaint on November 4, 2015, in which they 

alleged that MCCCD and Glasper had violated my due process rights, and requested 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 80
1 declaratory relief regarding ongoing issues with MCCCD. 

' 0 

2 27. For reasons unrelated to any concerns about the merits of the case, I 

3 parted ways with Mr. Koelbel and Mr. Schleier in or about March of2016. 

4 28. I hired Edmundo Robaina of Robaina & Kresin PLLC to review the 

5 matter in or about April of 2016, and he agreed to take over my case shortly thereafter. 

6 29. I filed my first case against MCCCD because I believed I was victim of 

7 discrimination and retaliation and the federal government (EEOC) found that there was 

8 reasonable cause to believe that MCCCD had retaliated against me in violation of Title 

9 VII. 

10 30. I ended that litigation based upon the advice of Mr. Montoya after having 

11 received a recommendation from the Hearing Committee that I be retained. 

12 31. I decided to pursue my current case against MCCCD, not because of any 

13 desire to engage· in another litigation with MCCCD, but because subsequent to my 

14 agreeing to dismiss the initial litigation, Defendants took a course of action that I 

15 believed was unjust and damaging to me. 

16 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best 

17 of my knowledge and belief. 

18 EXECUTED on this 15111 day of December 2017. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 5 -

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 6 of 80
ATTACHMENT 1 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 7 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00436

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 8 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00437

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 9 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00438

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 10 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00439

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 11 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00440

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 12 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00441

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 13 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00442

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 14 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00443

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 15 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00444

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 16 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00445

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 17 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00446

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 18 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00447

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 19 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00448

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 20 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00449

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 21 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00450

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 22 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00451

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 23 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00452

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 24 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00453

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 25 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00454

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 26 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00455

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 27 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00456

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 28 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00457

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 29 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00458

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 30 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00459

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 31 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00460

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 32 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00461

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 33 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00462

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 34 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00463

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 35 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00464

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 36 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00465

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 37 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00466

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 38 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00467

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 39 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00468

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 40 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00469

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 41 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00470

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 42 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00471

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 43 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00472

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 44 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00473

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 45 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00474

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 46 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00475

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 47 of 80
MCCCD/Martinez 00476

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 48 of 80
EXHIBIT 2 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 49 of 80
EEoCF 0 rm5{11/09) 

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s): 

This fonn Is affected by the Privacy Act of 197 4. See enclosed. Privacy Act D FEPA Statement and other info1111at1on before completing this fonn. 

. 00 EEOC 540-2010-02919 

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Civil Rights Division and EEOC 

State or local Agency, If any 

Name (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.) Home Phone (Incl. Area Code) Date of Birth 

Ms. Cleopatria Martinez (602) 678-0151 04·21-1948 

Street Address City, State and ZIP COde 

7030 N. 21st St., Phoenix, AZ 85020 

Named Is the Employer, labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe 

Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If mo.., than two, list under PARTICULARS below.) 

Name No. E111J1oyees, Menmers Phone No. (Include Area Code) 

. PHOENIX COLLEGE Unknown 

Street Address City, Slate and ZIP Code 

1202 W. Thomas Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85020 

Name No. Erq:lfoyees, Merrbers Phone No. (Include Area Code) 

StreeJ Address City, Stele and ZIP Code 

. DISCR.IMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).) DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE 

Ear1iest Latest 

DRACE D COlOR 0 SEX 0 RELIGION 00 NATIONALORIGIN 05-01·2010 

00 RETALIATION D AGE 

. . D OTHER(Spaclfy) 

D DISABILITY D GENETIC INFORMATION 00 CONTINUING ACTION 

THE PARTICULARS ARE (II addilional paper is n-d. attach ex/ta sheel(s)): 

I have been working for Phoenix College since 1985 as a tenured faculty member of the Math Department. In or around 

August and September 2009, I voiced my concerns with management regarding the fact that no one of Hispanic origin 

was selected to serve from the Math Department as a member of the College's Title V advisory committee. I brought up 

concerns that the committee was not addressing or serving the needs of Hispanic students after receiving. grant monies. 

I have always been an outspoken advocate for un(jer-represented students. ~ 

= -· = ,. On or around September 2009, management began to hyper scrutinize my work, including but not limited t~he := . .,., 

supervision of my work study students, their access of computers and passwords, the content of my t;~sromm ··: ;;:, 

presentations, and even the contents of my trash can. I filed an internal EEO complaint with Human Resoul'tslls ~ r''O 

11/9/2009. I have been subjected to discipline as a result of this hyperscrulinization when others (non-Hisp~ic) ~ 

engaged in similar activities with out repercussions. I was notified on or around May 2010, that I will be su~te~o>sli 

"administrative evaluation• in the fall semester that could result in my termination. :;:: .; 8 . ~ . I believe I have been discriminated against and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights ~t o8 964, 

as amended. . ~ 

I want this charge filad with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, W any. I NOTARY- When necessSIY for State and Local Agency Requirements 

will advise the agencies WI change my address or phone number and I Will 

cooperate fully with them In the processing of my charge in accordance with their 

procedures. I swear or affinn that I have read the above charge and that His true to 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above Is true and correct the best of my knowledge, infonnation and belief. 

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT 

~-fL· ~ ..h :...fM.,., /-, ~ nl'. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE 

Jun 2812010 (month, day, yea/) 

Dale I Charging Party Signature ?J 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 50 of 80
EXHIBIT 3 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 51 of 80
Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 52 of 80
Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 53 of 80
EXHIBIT 4 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 54 of 80
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 

Trisha Kirtley, Esq. (013905) 

Kirtley Wells Law Office 

3800 North Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Telephone: 602-264-7424 

tk@kwlolaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Martinez 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cleopatria Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maricopa County Community College 

District and Phoenix Community 

College 

Defendants. 

Cause No.: 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez, for her complaint against Defendants, alleges as 

follows: 

1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this complaint and to adjudicate the 

claims stated herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, and 1345 to redress the 

unlawful deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights secured, guaranteed and protected by federal 

law. The Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2207 relating 

to declaratory judgments. 

2. The action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (Title VII) and §102 of the Civil Rights Act of 

1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A and 42 U.S.C §1983. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 55 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 1 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

3. Venue is proper in this Court because the practices complained of 

occurred in the District of Arizona and the Defendants can be found in the District of 

Arizona. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D (“Plaintiff” or “Professor 

Martinez”), at all relevant times, was a resident of Phoenix, Arizona and a tenured 

member of the faculty at Phoenix Community College (“Phoenix College”). 

5. Defendant Maricopa County Community College District (“MCCCD”) 

is organized and operating under the laws of State of Arizona and directs and controls 

the actions of Defendant Phoenix Community College (“Phoenix College”) and its 

employees and agents. 

6. Phoenix Community College is an educational institution under the 

administration, direction and control of Defendant MCCCD. 

7. Defendant MCCCD employs greater than 500 employees.

8. Defendant Phoenix College employs greater than 500 employees. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Defendants are covered employers as defined by Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 

10. Plaintiff was originally hired by Defendants in 1985 and was employed 

as a tenured faculty member in the Math Department at Phoenix College. 

11. On June 28, 2010, Professor Martinez filed a charge of discrimination 

with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) 

alleging Defendants had discriminated against her because of her national origin 

(Hispanic origin) and that they had retaliated against her because she had opposed 

practices made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

12. Specifically, Professor Martinez alleged that over the course of years, 

she had voiced her concerns regarding the fact that no one from the Math Department 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 56 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 2 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

of Hispanic origin was selected to serve as a member of Phoenix College’s Title V 

advisory committee. Specifically, in August/September 2009 she opined to her 

superiors that the College’s Title V advisory committee was not using Title V grant 

funds to address and/or serve the needs of Hispanic students. 

13. In September 2009, almost immediately after Professor Martinez voiced 

her opinions and concerns, Defendants began a campaign of discrimination, 

harassment and retaliation against Professor Martinez that included increased scrutiny 

of Professor Martinez’ work including but not limited to her supervision and 

management of work study students, unjust criticism and restrictions concerning the 

content of Professor Martinez’ classroom presentations and reviewing the contents of 

her trash in an effort to find documents and things that would incriminate Professor 

Martinez of violations of Defendants’ policies and/or the law. 

14. The discrimination, harassment and retaliation was severe and 

pervasive and has resulted in threats to Professor Martinez’ job security and holding 

her to higher and/or different standards than those imposed of non-Hispanic members 

of the Math Department. 

15. Defendants have accused, criticized and reprimanded Professor 

Martinez regarding the content of her lecture notes alleging that she has violated 

copyright law(s) and consequently have imposed mandates that prohibit Professor 

Martinez from copying and distributing her lecture and classroom notes to her 

students. 

16. Defendants’ increased scrutiny of Professor Martinez’ work included 

physically monitoring her work and accusing Professor Martinez of directing her 

work study students to grade assignments, giving work study students her HRMS 

password and not supervising her work study students. Defendants removed the work 

study students from Professor Martinez’ supervision. The accusations were without 

merit and were a pretext to cover up Defendants discriminatory intent and conduct. 

Such actions were also retaliatory. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 57 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 3 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

17. Also as a guise for its discriminatory intent and conduct Defendants 

have also made false accusations against Professor Martinez regarding the use of her 

laptop computer, accused her of putting sensitive materials in the trash as opposed to 

shredding the documents and refusing to permit Professor Martinez to see the socalled sensitive materials consequently denying her the opportunity to be fully and 

adequately informed of the allegations against her and to be able to respond to the 

accusations accordingly. 

18. Amongst other things, Defendants have prohibited Professor Martinez 

from using their copy service without scrutiny and require that she have approval 

before any documents are copied for her class. 

19. Such restrictions are a guise and pretext to cover up and distract from 

their discriminatory intent and actions and also violate Professor Martinez’ civil rights 

including her right of free speech, equal protection of the laws and academic freedom. 

20. On November 5, 2009, Professor Martinez filed an internal EEO 

complaint with Defendants’ Human Resources department. 

21. Subsequent to the filing of the EEO complaint, Defendants accused 

Professor Martinez of violating copyright laws by including examples and excerpts 

from the Math textbook she used to teach her students and also accused Professor 

Martinez of plagiarism regarding inverse trig functions. 

22. In so doing, Defendants have ignored and denied Plaintiff the right to 

use documents and things under the “fair use” doctrine of copyright law. 

23. Defendants have unjustly accused Professor Martinez of violating 

copyright laws, insubordination and have prohibited Professor Martinez from using 

her own instructional materials to teach her students. 

24. Defendants’ discrimination, harassment and retaliation also included 

convening an Administrative Evaluation in May 2010 of Professor Martinez which 

“could result” in her “termination.” 

25. Professor Martinez received a Right to Sue Notice regarding her EEOC 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 58 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 4 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

charge of discrimination and this Complaint is timely filed. 

26. Professor Martinez has complied with all of the administrative 

requirements, which are a precondition to filing suit under Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 

COUNT I

(Title VII – National Origin Discrimination and Harassment) 

27. Plaintiff hereby repleads and incorporates all allegations set forth above. 

28. Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Professor Martinez 

on account of her national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, by denying her equal terms, conditions and privileges of employment. 

29. Professor Martinez suffered unlawful harassment because of her 

national origin. 

30. The harassment was offensive, severe, pervasive, and intolerable. 

31. Professor Martinez reported the discrimination and harassment to 

Defendants and therefore, Defendants were aware of and ignored the discrimination 

and harassment suffered by Professor Martinez in violation of their duties and 

responsibilities under Title VII and other relevant laws. 

32. Defendants failed and/or refused to take corrective action to protect 

Professor Martinez from unlawful discrimination and/or harassment. 

33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Professor 

Martinez suffered and continues to suffer damages in amounts to be proven at trial, 

including embarrassment, pain and suffering, mental distress, ordeal, humiliation, 

emotional distress, lost opportunities for salary increases and teaching /lecturing 

opportunities, promotional and transfer opportunities and the ability to serve on 

MCCCD boards and committees. 

COUNT II

(Title VII - Retaliation)

34. Plaintiff hereby repleads and incorporates all allegations set forth above. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 59 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 5 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

35. Plaintiff opposed the unlawful discrimination when she advocated for 

equal treatment and opportunities for Hispanic employees. 

36. Plaintiff also opposed discrimination by filing a charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC. 

37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants retaliation, Professor 

Martinez has suffered damages, including injury to her reputation, unwarranted 

scrutiny of her work, unjust criticism of her work, unjust restriction in her ability to 

teach and present work to her students and will continue to suffer damages in amounts 

to be proven at trial. 

38. Also as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Professor 

Martinez suffered and continues to suffer damages in amounts to be proven at trial, 

including embarrassment, pain and suffering, mental distress, ordeal, humiliation, 

emotional distress, lost opportunities for salary increases and teaching /lecturing 

opportunities, promotional and transfer opportunities and ability to serve on MCCCD 

boards and committees. 

39. Defendants conduct was in reckless disregard and/or callous 

indifference of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. 

40. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages for Defendants illegal conduct. 

COUNT III

(Race Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. §1983) 

41. Martinez incorporates by reference each as if fully set forth herein the 

allegations contained in the paragraphs above. 

42. Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Professor Martinez 

on the account of her race and national origin and retaliated against her in violation of 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying to her equal terms, privileges and conditions of her 

employment and the right to contract and because she opposed unlawful 

discrimination. Defendants also retaliated against Professor Martinez by denying her 

equal terms, conditions and privileges of employment, including but not limited to, 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 60 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 6 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

unjustly scrutinizing, disciplining and criticizing Professor Martinez’ work under the 

pretext that she engaged in misconduct including insubordination and violations of the 

copyright laws. 

43. By virtue of her employment and excellent performance with 

Defendants since 1985 it cannot be successfully disputed that there were no prior 

incidents of the so-called insubordination and other issues for which Professor 

Martinez is now subject to discipline and criticism. 

44. It is undisputed that Defendants were aware and timely notified of 

Professor Martinez’ complaints of discrimination. 

45. In treating Professor Martinez less favorably than similarly situated 

individuals outside of her protected class and/or in retaliating against Professor 

Martinez and denying her equal privileges and opportunities in her employment 

Defendants have not only violated Title VII but have also violated 42 U.S.C. §1983, 

which reads in pertinent part: 

Every person who under the color of any statue, 

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any 

State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of

the United States or other person within the 

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other 

proper proceeding or redress. 

46. Acting under the color of law, Defendants harassed, discriminated and 

retaliated against Professor Martinez and denied her equal protection of the laws. 

47. Professor Martinez seeks prospective relief because Defendants have 

discriminated against her by denying her the right to be free from discrimination and 

by denying her equal protection under the law because of her race, national origin and 

in retaliation for her opposition of their illegal actions. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 61 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 7 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

48. Defendants’ actions were done with malice or with reckless indifference 

of Professor Martinez’s federally protected rights warranting punitive damages. 

49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discrimination, 

harassment and retaliation, Professor Martinez has suffered damages and continues to 

suffer damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial including but not limited to 

her ability to receive salary increases, promotional and transfer opportunities and the 

ability to serve on MCCCD boards and committees. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

50. Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHERFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court: 

A. Order Defendants to make whole Plaintiff by providing compensation for 

past and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses and compensatory damages 

resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including damages for 

emotional pain and suffering, anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, 

anxiety, fear/fright and ordeal, in amounts to be determined at trial. 

B. Order Defendants make Plaintiff whole by providing appropriate lost 

wages with prejudgment interest in amounts to be proven at trial and other affirmative 

relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants’ unlawful practices and to pay 

Plaintiff punitive damages. 

C. Order Defendant to cease and desist from denying Plaintiff the right to 

include in her teaching materials documents and things that are available for use under 

the “fair use” doctrine of copyright law and to stop unfairly criticizing and unduly 

monitoring her work activities. . 

D. Order Defendants to take appropriate remedial disciplinary action 

against all employees who discriminated and/or retaliated against Professor Martinez. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 62 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 8 of 9
Kirtley Wells Law Office

3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 615 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 264-7424 

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 - 

E. Order Defendants to implement training and monitoring programs 

regarding discrimination and retaliation, by an entity external to Defendants. 

F. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s 

right to be free from discrimination and retaliation. 

G. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from retaliating 

against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination. 

H. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices and 

programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals, 

including those whose national origin is Venezuelan, which eradicate the effects of its 

past and present unlawful employment practices. 

I. Award Plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; 

J. Award Plaintiff pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest on any 

awards at the highest rate allowed by law; and 

K. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just, appropriate and 

proper. 

 DATED this 2nd day of April 2012. 

KIRTLEY WELLS LAW OFFICE 

By /s/ Trisha Kirtley 

Trisha Kirtley 

3800 N. Central Ave., Ste. 615 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Attorney for Plaintiff Martinez 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 63 of 80 Case 2:12-cv-00702-DGC Document 1 Filed 04/02/12 Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT 5 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 64 of 80
CLOSED,STD

U.S. District Court

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12-cv-00702-DGC

Martinez v. Maricopa County Community College District et 

al

Assigned to: Judge David G Campbell

Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 04/02/2012

Date Terminated: 01/03/2014

Jury Demand: Both

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff 

Cleopatria Martinez represented by Patricia Kirtley Wells 

Kirtley Wells Law Office 

4742 N 24th St., Ste. 300 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

602-264-7424 

Fax: 866-743-4332 

Email: tk@kwlolaw.com 

TERMINATED: 12/20/2012

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Kristofer Strojnik 

Strojnik Firm LLC 

2415 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 700 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

602-510-9409 

Fax: 602-773-0370 

Email: pstrojnik@strojniklaw.com 

TERMINATED: 08/27/2013

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen G Montoya 

Montoya Lucero & Pastor PA 

3200 N Central Ave., Ste. 2550 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

602-256-6718 

Fax: 602-256-6667 

Email: stephen@montoyalawgroup.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

CM/ECF - azd Page 1 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 65 of 80
Defendant 

Maricopa County Community 

College District

represented by Pavneet Singh Uppal 

Fisher & Phillips LLP - Phoenix 

3200 N Central Ave., Ste. 805 

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2425 

602-281-3400 

Email: puppal@fisherphillips.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shayna Helene Balch 

Fisher & Phillips LLP - Phoenix 

3200 N Central Ave., Ste. 805 

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2425 

602-281-3400 

Email: sbalch@fisherphillips.com 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant 

Phoenix Community College

TERMINATED: 09/18/2012

represented by Pavneet Singh Uppal 

(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shayna Helene Balch 

(See above for address) 

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

04/02/2012 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $350.00, receipt number PHX 0970-

6595323, filed by Cleopatria Martinez (submitted by Patricia Wells). 

(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK) (Entered: 04/03/2012)

04/02/2012 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Cleopatria Martinez (submitted by Patricia Wells). 

(Attachments: # 1 Summons)(REK) (Entered: 04/03/2012)

04/02/2012 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX 0970-6595323. This case has been assigned 

to the Honorable David G. Campbell. All future pleadings or documents should 

bear the correct case number: CV 12-00702-PHX-DGC. Notice of Availability 

of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (REK) (Entered: 

04/03/2012)

04/03/2012 4 Summons Issued as to Maricopa County Community College District, Phoenix 

Community College. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(REK). *** IMPORTANT: 

When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and 

comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 04/03/2012)

CM/ECF - azd Page 2 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 66 of 80
06/07/2012 5 NOTICE re Service Re: Waiver of Service by Cleopatria Martinez . (Wells, 

Patricia) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

07/24/2012 6 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Maricopa County Community 

College District. Maricopa County Community College District waiver sent on 

7/9/2012. (Uppal, Pavneet) (Entered: 07/24/2012)

09/10/2012 7 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT re 

1 Complaint (First Request) by Maricopa County Community College District, 

Phoenix Community College. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)

(Uppal, Pavneet) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

09/13/2012 8 ORDER pursuant to 7 Stipulation For Extension of Time To Answer 

Complaint : All Defendants. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/13/2012. 

This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this 

entry. (NVO) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 9 First MOTION to Dismiss Party Phoenix Community College by Maricopa 

County Community College District, Phoenix Community College. (Uppal, 

Pavneet) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/14/2012 10 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Maricopa County Community College District.

(Uppal, Pavneet) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/18/2012 11 ORDER that the stipulation (Doc. 9 ) is granted. Defendant Phoenix Community 

College is dismissed without prejudice as a Defendant in this action. All parties 

to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge David G Campbell 

on 9/18/2012.(KMG) (Entered: 09/18/2012)

09/21/2012 12 ORDER. Rule 16 Case Management Conference set for 10/24/2012 at 04:30 PM 

in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before 

Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/21/2012. 

(NVO) (Entered: 09/21/2012)

10/19/2012 13 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Cleopatria Martinez. (Wells, 

Patricia) (Entered: 10/19/2012)

10/24/2012 14 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Scheduling 

Conference held on 10/24/2012. Discussion held. Deadlines discussed. Parties to 

file certification with the Court that they have discussed the expedited trial 

option with their clients. Certification to be filed within a week. Court will enter 

a scheduling order. 

APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Patricia Kirtley Wells for Plaintiff. 

Pavneet Uppal and Ben Gottlieb for Defendant. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) 

This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this 

entry. (TCA) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

10/26/2012 15 NOTICE re Defendant's Certification Regarding Expedited Trial Alternative by 

Maricopa County Community College District re 14 Scheduling Conference, 

Common Prompts (Text Only),,,, . (Uppal, Pavneet) (Entered: 10/26/2012)

10/31/2012 16

CM/ECF - azd Page 3 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 67 of 80
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 6/7/2013. Dispositive 

motions due by 7/5/2013.. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/31/2012. 

(See order for additional deadlines)(TCA) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

11/02/2012 17 NOTICE re Plaintiff's Certification Regarding Expedited Trial Alternative by 

Cleopatria Martinez . (Wells, Patricia) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

11/15/2012 18 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Defendant's Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure 

Statement by Maricopa County Community College District . (Balch, Shayna) 

(Entered: 11/15/2012)

11/20/2012 19 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement by Cleopatria 

Martinez . (Wells, Patricia) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

11/21/2012 20 MOTION for Extension of Time To Amend Complaint by Cleopatria Martinez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wells, Patricia) (Entered: 

11/21/2012)

11/29/2012 21 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline. The parties are 

advised that the Court will not grant further extensions to this deadline. Signed 

by Judge David G Campbell on 11/29/2012.(NVO) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012 22 STIPULATION to Withdraw as Counsel by Cleopatria Martinez. (Wells, 

Patricia) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

11/29/2012 23 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 22 Stipulation Proposed Order by 

Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez. (Wells, Patricia) (Entered: 11/29/2012)

12/11/2012 24 ORDER re 22 Stipulation filed by Cleopatria Martinez. In-Court Hearing set for 

12/20/2012 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Counsel for Plaintiff and 

Defendant shall appear personally at the hearing. Plaintiff, Cleopatria Martinez, 

is directed to personally appear at the hearing. Signed by Judge David G 

Campbell on 12/11/2012. (NVO) (Entered: 12/11/2012)

12/17/2012 25 IT IS ORDERED the motion hearing for presently set for 12/20/2012 at 3:00 

PM, is RESET. THIS IS A TIME CHANGE ONLY! Motion Hearing re motion 

for withdrawl of counsel is set for 12/20/2012 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 603, 

401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G 

Campbell. Counsel for all parties shall personally appear at the hearing. Plaintiff 

Martinez shall personally appear at the hearing. Ordered by Judge David G 

Campbell. (NVO)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document 

associated with this entry.) (Entered: 12/17/2012)

12/20/2012 26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Hearing 

re:Stipulation to withdraw counsel Patricia Wells for plaintiff held on 

12/20/2012. Court advises plaintiff of pending deadlines per the case 

management order. Plaintiff will proceed pro se unless she can locate new 

counsel. ORDERED granting 22 Stipulation to withdrawn counsel Patricia 

Wells 

APPEARANCES: Patricia Wells for Plaintiff. Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez; 

Shayna Balch for Defendant (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 

CM/ECF - azd Page 4 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 68 of 80
10:43 AM to 10:50 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF 

document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

01/14/2013 27 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Discovery Papers by Maricopa County 

Community College District . (Uppal, Pavneet) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

02/19/2013 28 ORDER A telephonic discovery conference has been set in this matter for 

February 20, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel for Defendants shall initiate a 

conference call to include pro se Plaintiff and the Court. Signed by Judge David 

G Campbell on 2/19/2013. (KMG) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

02/20/2013 29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: Telephone 

Discovery Conference held on 2/20/2013. Plaintiff to provide answers to written 

discovery by 2/28/2013. Court will not require that plaintiff provide list of 

providers or medical releases. Defendant expert disclosure deadline extended to 

4/19/13; plaintiff rebuttal expert disclosures extended to 5/17/13. Remaining 

deadlines affirmed. 

APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Cleopatria Martinez Pro Se 

Plaintiff. Telephonic appearance by Shayna Balch for Defendant (Court 

Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 3:02 PM to 3:23 PM. This is a TEXT 

ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) 

(Entered: 02/21/2013)

02/21/2013 30 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Maricopa County Community College District 

for proceedings held on 02/20/2013 before Judge David G. Campbell.. (Balch, 

Shayna) (Entered: 02/21/2013)

02/28/2013 31 NOTICE of Service of Discovery Responses by Cleopatria Martinez. (KMG) 

(Entered: 02/28/2013)

03/06/2013 32 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Conference 

Proceedings held on 2/20/2013, before Judge David G. Campbell. Court 

Reporter Patricia Lyons. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal 

or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for 

Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through 

PACER.. Redaction Request due 3/27/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set 

for 4/8/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/4/2013. (VAR) 

(Entered: 03/06/2013)

03/15/2013 33 NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Kristofer Strojnik on behalf of Cleopatria 

Martinez. (Strojnik, Peter) (Entered: 03/15/2013)

04/10/2013 34 MOTION Joint Motion to Extend Certain Deadlines in Scheduling Order by 

Cleopatria Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Strojnik, Peter) 

(Entered: 04/10/2013)

04/17/2013 35 ORDER granting 34 Motion for extension of case management dates. Discovery 

deadline extended to 7/26/2013; dispositive motions deadline extended to 

8/30/2013. The parties are advised that the Court will not grant further 

extensions in this matter. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/17/2013.

(NVO) (Entered: 04/17/2013)

CM/ECF - azd Page 5 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 69 of 80
04/19/2013 36 NOTICE re Service of Expert Witness Disclosure Statement by Maricopa 

County Community College District . (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 04/19/2013)

04/25/2013 37 NOTICE re Service of Defendant's First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by 

Maricopa County Community College District . (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 

04/25/2013)

05/22/2013 38 NOTICE re Notice of Service of Maricopa County Community College 

District's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Maricopa County 

Community College District . (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 05/22/2013)

06/04/2013 39 NOTICE of Deposition of Cleopatria Martinez, filed by Maricopa County 

Community College District. (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 06/04/2013)

06/23/2013 40 NOTICE of Deposition of Joe Sueyoshi, filed by Cleopatria Martinez. (Strojnik, 

Peter) (Entered: 06/23/2013)

06/23/2013 41 NOTICE of Deposition of Amalia Villegas, filed by Cleopatria Martinez. 

(Strojnik, Peter) (Entered: 06/23/2013)

06/23/2013 42 NOTICE of Deposition of Tim Bryan, filed by Cleopatria Martinez. (Strojnik, 

Peter) (Entered: 06/23/2013)

06/23/2013 43 NOTICE of Deposition of Anna Solley, filed by Cleopatria Martinez. (Strojnik, 

Peter) (Entered: 06/23/2013)

07/11/2013 44 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff may take the depositions of Joe 

Sueyoshi, Amalia Villegas, and Tim Bryan as noticed previously. Plaintiff may 

take the deposition of Anna Solley on or before August 8, 2013. All other 

deadlines contained in the Courts Case Management Order and its amendment 

(Docs. 16, 35) remain in effect. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 

7/11/2013. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document 

associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 07/11/2013)

07/15/2013 45 NOTICE of Deposition of Cleopatria Martinez, filed by Maricopa County 

Community College District. (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 07/15/2013)

07/16/2013 46 NOTICE of Deposition of Cleopatria Martinez, filed by Maricopa County 

Community College District. (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/16/2013 47 NOTICE of Deposition of Anna Solley, filed by Cleopatria Martinez. (Strojnik, 

Peter) (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/16/2013 48 *MOTION for Court Order re That Plaintiff's Alleged Violations of Defendant's 

Rules and Policies Is Not Relevant to This Action by Cleopatria Martinez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Strojnik, Peter) 

*Modified to correct event on 7/17/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 07/16/2013)

07/17/2013 49 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff's First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by 

Cleopatria Martinez . (Strojnik, Peter) (Entered: 07/17/2013)

07/18/2013 50 * NOTICE re Service of Defendant's Third Supplemental Disclosure Statement 

by Maricopa County Community College District . (Balch, Shayna) * Caption 

indicates Third Supplemental Disclosure Statement but text states Fourth 

CM/ECF - azd Page 6 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 70 of 80
Supplemental Disclosure Statement; attorney noticed on 7/19/2013 (LAD). 

(Entered: 07/18/2013)

07/18/2013 51 NOTICE re Service of Defendant's Fourth Supplemental Disclosure Statement 

by Maricopa County Community College District . (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 

07/18/2013)

07/18/2013 52 ORDER. Telephonic Discovery Conference set for 7/19/2013 at 10:30 AM in 

Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge 

David G Campbell. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the call to include counsel 

for Defendants and the Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/18/2013. 

This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this 

entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

07/18/2013 53 ORDER denying 48 Stipulation submitted by Plaintiff. The purported 

"stipulation" submitted by Plaintiff's counsel is rejected because it is not signed 

by defense counsel and therefore is not a stipulation. Signed by Judge David G 

Campbell on 7-18-13. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF 

document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

07/18/2013 54 MOTION For Order That Plaintiff's Alleged Violations of Defendant's Rules 

and Policies is Not Relevant to This Action by Cleopatria Martinez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Strojnik, Peter) 

(Entered: 07/18/2013)

07/18/2013 55 NOTICE re Service of Discovery Papers by Maricopa County Community 

College District . (Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 07/18/2013)

07/19/2013 56 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: 

Telephone Discovery Conference held on 7/19/2013. Plaintiff produced 750 

documents on Wednesday, 7/17/2013 to defendant. Defendant objects late 

disclosure and use of the documents at depositions today and next week. Court 

finds based on the information today the documents were not disclosed or 

identified as required by Rule 26(a). Plaintiff will not be permitted to question a 

witness about any of the documents disclosed in the last week. Plaintiff may use 

any documents that were disclosed by defendant. Plaintiff is permitted to use the 

disclosed documents at the deposition on 8/8/2013, if plaintiff provides notice 

by close of business on 7/22/2013 to defendant of the documents plaintiff 

intends to use.

APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Peter Strojnik for Plaintiff in 

attendance with counsel. Telephonic appearance by Shayna Balch for Defendant 

(Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 10:40 AM to 11:09 AM. This is a 

TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. 

(TCA) (Entered: 07/19/2013)

07/24/2013 57 NOTICE re Service of Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement by 

Cleopatria Martinez . (Strojnik, Peter) (Entered: 07/24/2013)

07/25/2013 58 ORDER denying 54 motion for determination of relevancy. Plaintiff cites no 

authority, and the Court knows of none, for the proposition that objections to 

written discovery constitute an admission for purposes of litigation. The Court 

CM/ECF - azd Page 7 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 71 of 80
does not intend by this order to endorse boiler-plate objections, but they do not 

constitute a basis for admissions. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7-25-

13. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with 

this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 07/25/2013)

07/25/2013 59 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: 

Telephone Discovery Conference held on 7/25/2013. Plaintiff to provide the 

Court by email a copy of the interrogatories with defense responses today. Court 

will review to decide if the numbers limit was exceeded and whether the 

objections and responses were sufficient or insufficient. Order to follow. Court 

will not extend the discovery deadline. Plaintiff to provide defendant 

supplemental responses by 8/2/2013. 

APPEARANCES: Telephonic appearance by Peter Strojnik for Plaintiff. 

Telephonic appearance by Shayna Balch for Defendant (Court Reporter Patricia 

Lyons.) Hearing held 3:35 PM to 4:10 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. 

There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 

07/25/2013)

07/25/2013 60 ORDER. This order will reflect decisions made after today's conference call 

with the parties and after reviewing Plaintiff's written discovery (Doc. 54-1). By 

the Court's count, Plaintiff asked about 33 interrogatories and "discrete 

subparts." Because Defendant elected to respond to 50, the Court will not 

eliminate interrogatories as exceeding the numerical limit. The Court requires 

Defendant to provide the following information. Inter. 5: For the bulleted 

violations on pages 7-8 of Doc. 54-1, Defendant shall provide the dates of these 

violations, a summary of the facts related to these violations, and the identities 

of persons who witnessed these violations. Inter. 9: Defendant shall provide the 

information called in 9(b). Inter. 11: Defendant shall identify and describe 

documented violations between June 2005 and June 2009. Inter. 14: Defendant 

shall provide the information called for by 14(c). Inter. 20: Defendant shall 

respond to this interrogatory. Inter. 21: Defendant shall respond to this 

interrogatory. Inter. 23: Defendant shall respond to 23(a) and (b) (but not the 

final paragraph of 23) with respect to paragraphs 13 and 17 of its answer. 

Defendant shall provide this additional information to Plaintiff by August 9, 

2013. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7-25-13. This is a TEXT ENTRY 

ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 

07/25/2013)

08/02/2013 61 NOTICE re Plaintiff's Timely Compliance by Cleopatria Martinez re 59 

Telephone Conference, Common Prompts (Text Only),,,,,, . (Strojnik, Peter) 

(Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/08/2013 62 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Cleopatria Martinez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Strojnik, Peter) (Entered: 

08/08/2013)

08/09/2013 63 RESPONSE in Opposition re 62 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney 

filed by Cleopatria Martinez. (KMG) (Entered: 08/09/2013)

08/13/2013 64 ORDER re 62 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Cleopatria 

Martinez. In-Court Hearing set for 8/27/2013 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 603, 

CM/ECF - azd Page 8 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 72 of 80
401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G 

Campbell. Plaintiff is required to attend this hearing in person. Counsel for 

Plaintiff and Defendants are required to attend this hearing in person. Counsel 

for Plaintiff shall provide Plaintiff with notice of this hearing and the instruction 

that she must attend the hearing in person on or before 8/16/2013. Signed by 

Judge David G Campbell on 8/13/2013. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There 

is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC, nvo) (Entered: 

08/13/2013)

08/26/2013 65 IT IS ORDERED the motion hearing for 62 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 

filed by Cleopatria Martinez presently set for 8/27/2013 at 4:30 PM, is RESET. 

THIS IS A TIME CHANGE ONLY! Motion Hearing set for 8/27/2013 at 11:00 

AM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before 

Judge David G Campbell. Plaintiff is required to attend this hearing in person. 

Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants are required to attend this hearing in 

person. Counsel for Plaintiff shall provide Plaintiff with notice of this hearing 

and the instruction that she must attend the hearing in person by the close of 

business on 8/26/2013. (DGC, nvo)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no 

PDF document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/26/2013)

08/27/2013 66 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell: 

Motion Hearing held on 8/27/2013. Discussion held. ORDERED granting 62

Motion to Withdraw Attorney. Attorney Peter Kristofer Strojnik withdrawn as 

counsel of record for plaintiff. Plaintiff will have 30 days to locate new counsel 

or proceed representing herself. All discovery deadlines have passed. Court will 

extend the dispositive motion deadline to afford plaintiff an opportunity to 

locate new counsel. Dispositive motions due by 10/11/2013. Clerk's Office to 

add plaintiff as pro se to the docket so that she may receive any orders or notices 

that are filed in this case. Mr. Strojnik to provide plaintiff a copy of this minute 

entry.

APPEARANCES: Peter Strojnik for Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez - Present. 

Shayna Balch for Defendant (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) Hearing held 

11:05 AM to 11:11 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF 

document associated with this entry. (TCA) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

10/11/2013 67 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Maricopa County Community 

College District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)

(Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/11/2013 68 STATEMENT of Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by 

Defendant Maricopa County Community College District. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit 1-6, # 2 Exhibit 7-9, # 3 Exhibit 10a, # 4 Exhibit 10b, # 5 Exhibit 10c, # 

6 Exhibit 10d, # 7 Exhibit 11-12, # 8 Exhibit 13-20, # 9 Exhibit 21-30, # 10

Exhibit 31-40, # 11 Exhibit 41-48)(Balch, Shayna) (Entered: 10/11/2013)

10/11/2013 69 (Filed at doc.#71) LODGED Proposed Defendant's Notice of Motion and 

Motion for Summary Judgment re: 67 MOTION for Leave to File Excess 

Pages . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File 

or Amend is granted. Filed by Maricopa County Community College District. 

(Balch, Shayna) Modified on 10/16/2013 (KMG). (Entered: 10/11/2013)

CM/ECF - azd Page 9 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 73 of 80
10/16/2013 70 ORDER that Defendant may exceed the presumptive seventeen (17) page limit 

provided by Local Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 7.2(e) by five (5) pages with 

regard to its Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to accept for 

filing the document lodged as Doc. 69 on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge 

David G Campbell on 10/16/2013.(KMG) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

10/16/2013 71 NOTICE/MOTION for Summary Judgment by Maricopa County Community 

College District. (KMG) (Entered: 10/16/2013)

11/12/2013 72 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant's Motion for 

Summary Judgment by Cleopatria Martinez. (LSP) (Entered: 11/13/2013)

11/18/2013 73 ORDER Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Doc. 72 ) is granted. Plaintiff 

shall file her response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment on or 

before January 3, 2014. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not grant further 

extensions to this deadline. Plaintiff has stated in her motion for extension of 

time that she has now retained counsel in this case. Plaintiff's new counsel shall 

file a notice of appearance with the Clerk of Court on or before November 27, 

2013. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/18/2013.(KMG) (Entered: 

11/18/2013)

11/21/2013 74 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen G Montoya on behalf of Cleopatria 

Martinez. (Montoya, Stephen) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

01/02/2014 75 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Cleopatria Martinez. 

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Montoya, Stephen) (Entered: 

01/02/2014)

01/03/2014 76 ORDER that the stipulation (Doc. 75 ) is granted. The above entitled action is 

dismissed with prejudice. Each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. 

Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/3/2014. (KMG) (Entered: 01/03/2014)

PACER Service Center 

Transaction Receipt 

12/15/2017 15:28:57

PACER 

Login: rp0431:2626184:0 Client Code: 

Description: Docket Report Search 

Criteria: 

2:12-cv-00702-

DGC 

Billable Pages: 7 Cost: 0.70 

CM/ECF - azd Page 10 of 10

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?425585021790097-L_1_0-1 12/15/2017

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 74 of 80
EXHIBIT 6 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 75 of 80
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Edmundo P. Robaina (No. 018125) 

Thomas T. Griffin (No. 022475) 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

TeleJ?hone: (602) 682-6450 

Facsimile: (602) 682-6455 

epr@robainalaw .com 

ttg@ro bainalaw. com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cleopatria Martinez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Maricopa County Community College 

District, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 15-01759 NVW 

DECLARATION OF EDMUNDO 

ROBAINA 

15 Edmundo Robaina states and declares as follows: 

16 1. I am an attorney licensed in the State of Arizona, and I make this 

17 declaration in support of Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez's Response to Defendants' 

18 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. 

19 2. As background, I have been practicing law since 1997, and during the 

20 majority of that time I have practiced almost exclusively employment law. 

21 3. For many years, I have represented police associations with members all 

22 over the state, as well as numerous teachers, college professors, firefighters and other 

23 public employees. 

24 4. I have handled dozens, if not into the hundreds, of administrative hearings 

25 in jurisdictions throughout Arizona, and have fully litigated many cases in state and 

26 federal courts. 

27 5. Over the years, I have received some peer recognition. I am rated as A V 

28 Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell, and have been named in "Arizona's Finest 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 76 of 80
1 Lawyers," "Best Lawyers in America," and "Southwest Super Lawyers." I was recently 

2 informed that our firm has been named by U.S. News and World Report as one of the 

3 "Best Law Firms in Arizona" for 2018. 

4 6. I have spoken, and sat on several panels, regarding employment law and 

5 litigation issues for organizations such as the State Bar of Arizona, the Federal Bar 

6 Association, and the Society for Human Resources Management. 

7 7. I have been a board member of the Arizona Employment Lawyers 

8 Association (2013-2015), and recently agreed to serve on the board of the Maricopa 

9 County Bar Association Employment Law Section. 

10 8. I met with Dr. Martinez for the first time in approximately April of 2016. 

11 9. It is not my typical practice to take over cases that other attorneys have 

12 filed, but it depends on the circumstances. 

13 10. In this case, one of the attorneys that represented Dr. Martinez was Tod 

14 Schleier, who I believe to be one of the preeminent employment lawyers in Arizona. I 

15 have used Mr. Schleier as a mediator several times, served with him on a State Bar CLE 

16 panel, reviewed transcripts of one of his administrative hearings, and read his book. I 

17 believe his reputation is well deserved. 

18 11. Prior to Mr. Schleier' s representation, Dr. Martinez was represented by 

19 Steven Montoya, who I know only by reputation to be a very smart, tenacious and 

20 experienced lawyer. 

21 12. Based on my discussions with Dr. Martinez, I was satisfied that Dr. 

22 Martinez's parting of ways with her previous attorneys had nothing to do with the 

23 merits of her case. 

24 13. Prior to agreeing to represent Dr. Martinez, however, I reviewed several 

25 documents, including the Residential Faculty Policies; the Hearing Committee Findings; 

26 Mr. Montoya's letter to the Governing Board dated March 12, 2014, and the attached 

27 documents; the Amended Complaint that that Mr. Schleier and Kevin Koelbel filed and 

28 the attached documents; and Defendants' Answer. 

- 2 -

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 77 of 80
1 14. Although I have counseled with or represented hundreds, if not into the 

2 thousands, of public employees, I have never seen a case similar to Dr. Martinez's case. 

3 15. I have never seen a case in which an employer started with one process 

4 designed to allow neutral arbiters to decide the matter, but that ended with one of the 

5 parties using a completely separate provision to determine the outcome. 

6 16. I have also never seen a case, and could find no published cases, in which 

7 an employee was suspended without pay for such a long period of time. 

8 17. Over my career, I have read dozens of public employee personnel policies. 

9 18. Section 3.13 1 is unlike any disciplinary provision I have seen for someone 

10 who has a property right in their employment, and it contradicts another provision in the 

11 RFP Section 6.3.2 (Doc. 72-3 at 58 of 125), which provides that employees may not be 

12 suspended without 'just cause." 

13 19. The just cause provision, as well as the appointment provisions, indicated 

14 to me that MCCCD could only suspend Dr. Martinez with full due process, and I 

15 believed, based on Cleveland Board of Educ. v. Loundermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), and 

16 other cases, that RFP 3.13, on its face, did not satisfy the requirements of due process. I 

17 also suspected that because under 3 .13, suspensions were "normally" with pay; that the 

18 "without pay" proyision, which required consultation with the District's General 

19 Counsel, was likely meant for emergency situations. 

20 20. In evaluating the case~ I considered how the events unfolded: the fact that 

21 the hearing committee made binding findings that MCCCD had not proven what I ' I , I, 1 

22 believed were the main allegations - the alleged copyright violations and the alleged 

23 cash handling vi~lations, and that the Committee had recommended that Dr. Martinez 

24 be retained; the fact that Dr. Glasper, who had recommended termination, could have, 

25 but did not, go to the Governing Board with his recommendation for a suspension. Had 

26 he done so, the Board would have held a hearing on the matter, in order Dr. Glasper to ,''' I ' 

27 

28 1 I adopt herein the Court's use of2013-2014 Section 3.13 as the suspension policy . 

.. 3-

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 78 of 80
1 persuade them to suspend Dr. Martinez for the draconian period of 14 months, rather 

2 than a more usual period of weeks or a month. But, instead, Dr. Glasper used 3.13. 

3 21. I also looked at the rather confusing Statement of Charges dated February 

4 10, 2014. Like Mr. Montoya and Mr. Schleier, I believed the Statement of Charges 

5 noted violations of policies that were not set forth in the original Statement of Charges, 

6 and to which Dr. Martinez had the right to respond and be heard by a neutral 

7 decisionmaker. 

8 22. I also thought about the length of the suspension, which occurred after the 

9 hearing committee recommended against termination; Dr. Glasper's not so subtle 

10 suggestion in the suspension letter that Dr. Martinez could retire; the fact that Dr. 

11 Martinez was not provided benefits during the tenn of the suspension, but had to take 

12 COBRA benefits; and fact that she was granted unemployment benefits, so that at least 

13 one tribunal saw the action as a termination. 

14 23. I agreed with Mr. Montoya and Messrs. Koelbel and Schleier that because 

15 of the length of time and the financial impact to Dr. Martinez, the action was more in 

16 the nature of a termination than a suspension, despite the fact that Dr. Martinez could, 

17 and did, return in the Fall of 2015. But I could find no analogous cases. 

18 24. During the course of the case, I took Dr. Glasper's deposition, and 

19 confirmed, among other things, that he could have recommended to the Governing 

20 Board that it suspend Dr. Martinez; and that inhis 11 years as Chancellor, he had never 

21 previously u~ed Section 3.13 to suspend any employee without pay. 

22 25. I also took the deposition of a human resources representative who also 

23 acted as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness, but was singularly unknowledgeable about the RFP 

" 

24 policies; and I took the deposition of a witness who confirmed the inaction of the 

25 Governing Board in response to Mr. Montoya and Dr. Martinez's requests for review. 

26 26. My associate and I also spent a good deal of time researching due process 

27 caselaw. While we could not find cases directly on point, we found several Supreme 

28 Court and Ninth Circuit cases which we believed indicated that Dr. Glasper's actions 

- 4-

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 79 of 80
1 violated Dr. Martinez's due process rights. We also found cases from other 

2 jurisdictions that we believed supported our position. 

3 27. If at any time during this case, I had concluded that Dr. Martinez's 

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 

intention in filing this lawsuit was to harass MCCCD, or that her position in the case 

was unreasonable, frivolous or meritless, I would have sought to end the case, or I 

would have ended my representation. I never came to those conclusions. 

I declare, under penalty of perjury, the foregoing is true to the best of my 

knowledge. 

EXECUTED on this 15th day of December 2017. 

Edmundo Robaina 

- 5 -

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 107-1 Filed 12/15/17 Page 80 of 80