FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

FPDOCS 31149337.1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cleopatria Martinez,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College 

District; et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 15-01759-PHX-NVW

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants Maricopa Community College District (“MCCCD”) and Rufus 

Glasper and Debra Glasper (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) hereby answer 

Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez’s (“Plaintiff”) Verified Amended Complaint 

(“Complaint”).

Parties

1. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 1 of the 

Complaint, upon information and belief Defendants admit that Plaintiff is of Mexican 

national origin and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendants are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations and, on that basis, deny said allegations.

Pavneet Singh Uppal, SBN 016805

Shayna H. Balch, SBN 024852

Alanna R. Brook, SBN 028018

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

Telephone: (602) 281-3400

Fax: (602) 281-3401

puppal@laborlawyers.com

sbalch@laborlawyers.com

abrook@laborlawyers.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

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

2. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 2 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that MCCCD is a political subdivision of the State of 

Arizona. Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining 

allegation contained within paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 3 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Rufus Glasper (“Chancellor Glasper”) is and was the 

Chancellor of MCCCD and acted in that role. Except as admitted herein, Defendants 

deny each and every remaining allegation contained within paragraph 3 of the 

Complaint.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 4 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff has filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et 

seq.

5. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 5 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that this Court has federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1343(a).

6. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 6 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that venue is proper in this Court.

General Allegations

7. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 7 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that MCCCD has employed Plaintiff since January 7, 

1985. Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation 

contained within paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

8. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 8 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was a continuing status Professor at 

MCCCD. Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining 

allegation contained within paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

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

9. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 9 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Chancellor Glasper forwarded the “Statement of 

Charges” attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint to Plaintiff on or about August 9, 2013. 

Defendants aver that the Statement of Charges set forth numerous violations by the 

Plaintiff including her violation of MCCCD’s prohibition against a faculty member 

having a financial interest in or receiving compensation from the sale of unpublished 

instructional materials and Plaintiff’s willful and intentional failure to perform job 

duties.

10. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 10 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Chancellor Glasper concurred with the 

recommendation of MCCCD Interim Vice Chancellor for Human Resources, James 

Bowers, that prima facie cause existed for the Plaintiff’s dismissal. Defendants further 

admit that Plaintiff had been employed with MCCCD for nearly 30 years. Defendants 

deny Plaintiff’s allegation that she had no record of previous discipline and further deny 

the remaining allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 11 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit Dr. Martinez exercised her right to appeal pursuant to 

Residential Faculty Policies (“RFP”), Section 3.15.3. Defendants further aver that 

Exhibit C to the Complaint speaks for itself and requires no answer. Except as admitted 

herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained within paragraph 

11 of the Complaint.

12. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 12 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that a Hearing Committee conducted an evidentiary 

hearing and considered both testimonial and documentary evidence submitted by 

Plaintiff and MCCCD. Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every 

remaining allegation contained within paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 13 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations insofar as paragraph 13 correctly and 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

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

completely quotes the Hearing Committee’s Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit A to 

the Complaint. Defendants deny said allegations insofar as they incorrectly or 

incompletely quote the Hearing Committee’s Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit A to 

the Complaint.

14. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 14 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations insofar as paragraph 14 correctly and 

completely quotes the Hearing Committee’s Conclusions attached as Exhibit A to the 

Complaint. Defendants deny said allegations insofar as they incorrectly or incompletely 

quote the Hearing Committee’s Conclusions attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint.

15. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 15 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations insofar as paragraph 15 correctly and 

completely quotes the Hearing Committee’s Recommendations attached as Exhibit A to 

the Complaint. Defendants deny said allegations insofar as they incorrectly or 

incompletely quote the Hearing Committee’s Recommendations attached as Exhibit A to 

the Complaint.

16. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 16 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Chancellor Glasper decided to suspend Plaintiff’s 

employment without pay from March 1, 2014 through May 15, 2015. Defendants aver 

that Chancellor Glasper notified Plaintiff of her suspension by letter dated February 10, 

2014, which is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint. Defendants further aver that as 

set forth in Chancellor Glasper’s letter to Plaintiff dated February 10, 2014, the basis for 

the suspension included “the unanimous finding of an independent hearing committee 

that [Plaintiff] willfully violated the district policies set forth in the Statement of 

Charges....” Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining 

allegation contained within paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

17. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 17 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Chancellor Glasper provided Plaintiff with a 

Statement of Charges dated February 10, 2014 (which is attached as Exhibit D to the 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 4 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

5

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

Complaint) with respect to her suspension. Defendants aver that in his letter dated 

February 10, 2014, which accompanied the February 10, 2014 Statement of Charges, 

Chancellor Glasper explained that the “basis for [the suspension] is the unanimous 

finding ... that [Plaintiff] willfully violated the District’s policies set forth in the 

Statement of Charges ....” Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every 

remaining allegation contained within paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

18. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 18 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations insofar as paragraph 18 correctly and 

completely quotes the Notice of Suspension attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint. 

Defendants deny said allegations insofar as they incorrectly or incompletely quote the 

Notice of Suspension attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint.

19. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 19 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations. Defendants aver that the Hearing 

Committee concluded that: (i) Plaintiff “willfully and intentionally failed to follow 

instructions that were communicated to her when she failed to issue refunds to students 

as directed by President Solley”; (ii) Plaintiff’s testimony before the Hearing Committee 

constituted and contained her “admission of willful insubordination”; (iii) Plaintiff 

“violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.1 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and 

intentional violation of any ... MCCCD administrative regulation that affects the 

employee’s ability to perform his or her job’”; and (iv) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD 

Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional failure to 

perform job duties that have first been communicated to an employee and are within the 

employee’s scope of employment.’”

20. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 20 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations.

21. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 21 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations insofar as paragraph 21 correctly and 

completely quotes section 3.11 of the Residential Faculty Policy and its subparts. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 5 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

6

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

Defendants deny said allegations insofar as they incorrectly or incompletely quote 

section 3.11 of the Residential Faculty Policy and its subparts.

22. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 22 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

23. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 23 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that section 3.11 of the Residential Faculty Policy is 

different from section 3.13 of the Residential Faculty Policy. Except as admitted herein, 

Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained within paragraph 23 of 

the Complaint.

24. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 24 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

25. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 25 of the 

Complaint, said allegations are a conclusion of law which require no answer. To the 

extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny said allegations.

26. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 26 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations insofar as paragraph 26 correctly and 

completely quotes section 3.13.8 of the Residential Faculty Policy. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations contained within paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

27. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 27 of the

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations and aver that the quoted language 

contained within paragraph 27 contains an internal ellipses and does not correctly quote 

section 3.13.10 of the Residential Faculty Policy.

28. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 28 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

29. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 29 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

30. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 30 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 6 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

7

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

31. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 31 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations insofar as paragraph 31 correctly and 

completely quotes section 3.13 of the Residential Faculty Policy and its subparts. 

Defendants deny said allegations insofar as they incorrectly or incompletely quote 

section 3.13 of the Residential Faculty Policy and its subparts.

32. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 32 of the 

Complaint, Defendants aver that Chancellor Glasper forwarded the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendations to the Governing Board on February 10, 2014 and Plaintiff’s counsel, 

Steve Montoya, was copied. Defendants further aver that the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendations were forwarded to the Governing Board by Plaintiff’s counsel on 

March 12, 2014. Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining 

allegation contained within paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

33. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 33 of the 

Complaint, in imposing the suspension Chancellor Glasper sought the advice of 

MCCCD’s General Counsel as required by section 3.11.3 of the Residential Faculty 

Policy. Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation 

contained within paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

34. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 34 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

35. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 35 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

36. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 36 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that the Hearing Committee concluded that MCCCD did 

not carry its burden of proof relating to Plaintiff’s violations of federal copyright laws or 

MCCCD’s cash handling policy. Defendants, however, aver that the Hearing Committee 

specifically concluded that: (i) Plaintiff willfully and intentionally failed to follow 

instructions that were communicated to her when she failed to issue refunds to students 

as directed by President Solley; (ii) Plaintiff’s testimony before the Hearing Committee 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 7 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

8

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

constituted and contained her “admission of willful insubordination”; (iii) Plaintiff 

“violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.1 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and 

intentional violation of any ... MCCCD administrative regulation that affects the 

employee’s ability to perform his or her job’”; and (iv) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD 

Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional failure to 

perform job duties that have first been communicated to an employee and are within the 

employee’s scope of employment.’”

37. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 37 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

38. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 38 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

39. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 39 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that the Statement of Charges dated February 10, 2014 

references MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 with respect to a 

student’s complaint that Plaintiff had refused to provide a receipt for materials which 

Plaintiff required the student to purchase. Defendants aver that the aforesaid Regulations 

were referenced in the Statement of Charges dated February 10, 2014 with respect to 

Plaintiff’s intentional violation of a direct instruction to issue refunds to students to 

whom she sold course materials in violation of the cash handling policy. Defendants aver 

that these issues were fully heard and considered by the Hearing Committee which 

concluded that: (i) Plaintiff “willfully and intentionally failed to follow instructions that 

were communicated to her when she failed to issue refunds to students as directed by 

President Solley”; (ii) Plaintiff’s testimony before the Hearing Committee constituted 

and contained her “admission of willful insubordination”; (iii) Plaintiff “violated 

MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.1 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional 

violation of any ... MCCCD administrative regulation that affects the employee’s ability 

to perform his or her job’”; and (iv) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative 

Regulation 6.7.3 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional failure to perform job 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 8 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

9

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

duties that have first been communicated to an employee and are within the employee’s 

scope of employment.’”

40. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 40 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that the Statement of Charges dated August 9, 2013 do not 

specifically reference MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.12.2 and 1.12.3. 

Defendants aver that the Statement of Charges dated February 10, 2014 pertaining to the 

suspension of Plaintiff reference MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.12.2 and 1.12.3

with respect to a student’s complaint that Plaintiff had refused to provide a receipt for 

materials which Plaintiff required the student to purchase. Defendants further aver that 

the aforesaid Regulations were referenced in the Statement of Charges dated February 

10, 2014 with respect to Plaintiff’s intentional violation of a direct instruction to issue 

refunds to students to whom she sold course materials in violation of the cash handling 

policy. Defendants aver that these issues were fully heard and considered by the Hearing 

Committee which concluded that: (i) Plaintiff “willfully and intentionally failed to

follow instructions that were communicated to her when she failed to issue refunds to 

students as directed by President Solley”; (ii) Plaintiff’s testimony before the Hearing 

Committee constituted and contained her “admission of willful insubordination”; (iii) 

Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.1 which prohibits the 

‘[w]illful and intentional violation of any ... MCCCD administrative regulation that 

affects the employee’s ability to perform his or her job’”; and (iv) Plaintiff “violated 

MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional 

failure to perform job duties that have first been communicated to an employee and are 

within the employee’s scope of employment.’”

41. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 41 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

42. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 42 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 9 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

10

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

43. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 43 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

44. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 44 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

45. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 45 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny that the Residential Faculty Policy required Chancellor 

Glasper to submit the issue of Plaintiff’s suspension to the Governing Board. Defendants 

aver that Residential Faculty Policy sections 3.13.8-3.13.10 speak for themselves and 

require no answer. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained 

within paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

46. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 46 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Chancellor Glasper was not required to submit the 

issue of Plaintiff’s suspension to the Governing Board. Defendants aver that Residential 

Faculty Policy sections 3.13.8-3.13.10 speak for themselves and require no answer. 

Defendants admit that the Statement of Charges dated August 9, 2013 involved 

dismissal. Defendants aver that the Hearing Committee’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of law, and Recommendations were provided to and received by the Governing Board.

Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation 

contained within paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

47. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 47 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

48. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 48 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

49. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 49 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

50. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 50 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 10 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

11

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

51. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 51 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations.

52. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 52 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

53. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 53 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

54. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 54 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations. Defendants aver that the Fall 2015 class 

schedule was published prior to the end of Plaintiff’s suspension.

55. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 55 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

56. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 56 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny that it is normal procedure to ask professors who have been 

suspended for egregious conduct, such as the Plaintiff, which classes they want to teach 

in advance of publishing a class schedule. Defendants deny each and every remaining 

allegation contained within paragraph 56 of the Complaint.

57. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 57 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

58. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 58 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

59. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 59 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny that the normal procedures for professors who have been 

suspended for egregious misconduct, such as the Plaintiff, is to allow them to “bump” 

adjuncts. Defendants further deny each and every remaining allegation contained within 

paragraph 59 of the Complaint.

60. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 60 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 11 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

12

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

61. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 61 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

62. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 62 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny that a professor who has been suspended for egregious 

misconduct, such as the Plaintiff, would have access to her office and computer to 

prepare for classes. Defendants further deny each and every remaining allegation 

contained within paragraph 62 of the Complaint.

63. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 63 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

64. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 64 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

65. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 65 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

66. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 66 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

67. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 67 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

68. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 68 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

69. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 69 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

70. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 70 of the 

Complaint, said allegations are a conclusion of law which require no answer. To the 

extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny said allegations.

71. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 71 of the 

Complaint, said allegations are a conclusion of law which require no answer. To the 

extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 12 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

13

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

72. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 72 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

73. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 73 of the 

Complaint, said allegations are a conclusion of law which require no answer. To the 

extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny said allegations.

74. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 74 of the 

Complaint, said allegations are a conclusion of law which require no answer. To the 

extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny said allegations.

75. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 75 of the 

Complaint, said allegations are a conclusion of law which require no answer. To the 

extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny said allegations.

76. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 76 of the 

Complaint, Defendants aver that the Hearing Committee concluded that: (i) Plaintiff 

“willfully and intentionally failed to follow instructions that were communicated to her 

when she failed to issue refunds to students as directed by President Solley”; (ii) 

Plaintiff’s testimony before the Hearing Committee constituted and contained her 

“admission of willful insubordination”; (iii) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative 

Regulation 6.7.1 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional violation of any ... 

MCCCD administrative regulation that affects the employee’s ability to perform his or 

her job’”; and (iv) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 which 

prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional failure to perform job duties that have first been 

communicated to an employee and are within the employee’s scope of employment.’” 

Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s suspension was entirely justified. Except as admitted 

herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained within paragraph 

76 of the Complaint.

77. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 77 of the 

Complaint, Defendants aver that the Hearing Committee concluded that: (i) Plaintiff 

“willfully and intentionally failed to follow instructions that were communicated to her 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 13 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

14

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

when she failed to issue refunds to students as directed by President Solley”; (ii) 

Plaintiff’s testimony before the Hearing Committee constituted and contained her 

“admission of willful insubordination”; (iii) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative 

Regulation 6.7.1 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional violation of any ... 

MCCCD administrative regulation that affects the employee’s ability to perform his or 

her job’”; and (iv) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 which 

prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional failure to perform job duties that have first been 

communicated to an employee and are within the employee’s scope of employment.’” 

Defendants admit that counsel for the Hearing Committee made the statements set forth 

in paragraph 77 of the Complaint insofar as paragraph 77 correctly and completely 

quotes Exhibit I to the Complaint. Defendants deny said allegations insofar as they 

incorrectly or incompletely quote Exhibit I to the Complaint. Defendants further aver 

that as set forth in Exhibit I to the Complaint counsel for the Hearing Committee advised

that “[t]he Hearing Committee has found that there is evidence of Dr. Martinez’ 

insubordination.”

78. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 78 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

79. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 79 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Interim President Chris Haines gave Plaintiff the 

option of signing the agreement attached as Exhibit J to the Complaint, which Plaintiff 

refused. Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining 

allegation contained within paragraph 79 of the Complaint.

80. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 80 of the 

Complaint, Defendants aver that the proposed Agreement speaks for itself and requires 

no answer. To the extent that an answer is required, Defendants deny said allegations.

81. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 81 of the 

Complaint, Defendants aver that Exhibit J [sic] and the letter of Interim President, Chris 

Haines, speak for themselves and require no answer. To the extent that an answer is 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 14 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

15

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

required, Defendants deny said allegations. Defendants further aver that Plaintiff has 

continued her insubordination, which she was found guilty of by the Hearing Committee,

by refusing to reimburse students for the monies which she improperly collected.

Specifically, the Hearing Committee concluded that: (i) Plaintiff “willfully and 

intentionally failed to follow instructions that were communicated to her when she failed 

to issue refunds to students as directed by President Solley”; (ii) Plaintiff’s testimony 

before the Hearing Committee constituted and contained her “admission of willful 

insubordination”; (iii) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.1 

which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional violation of any ... MCCCD administrative 

regulation that affects the employee’s ability to perform his or her job’”; and (iv) 

Plaintiff “violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 which prohibits the 

‘[w]illful and intentional failure to perform job duties that have first been communicated 

to an employee and are within the employee’s scope of employment.’” Defendants deny 

each and every remaining allegation contained within paragraph 81 of the Complaint.

82. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 82 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that President Haines’ letter contains the statements set 

forth in paragraph 82 of the Complaint insofar as paragraph 82 correctly and completely 

quotes Exhibit K to the Complaint. Defendants deny said allegations insofar as 

paragraph 82 of the Complaint incorrectly or incompletely quotes Exhibit K to the 

Complaint. Defendants further aver that Plaintiff has continued her insubordination, 

which she was found guilty of by the Hearing Committee, by refusing to reimburse 

students for the monies which she improperly collected. Specifically, the Hearing 

Committee concluded that: (i) Plaintiff “willfully and intentionally failed to follow 

instructions that were communicated to her when she failed to issue refunds to students 

as directed by President Solley”; (ii) Plaintiff’s testimony before the Hearing Committee 

constituted and contained her “admission of willful insubordination”; (iii) Plaintiff 

“violated MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7.1 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and 

intentional violation of any ... MCCCD administrative regulation that affects the 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 15 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

employee’s ability to perform his or her job’”; and (iv) Plaintiff “violated MCCCD 

Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 which prohibits the ‘[w]illful and intentional failure to 

perform job duties that have first been communicated to an employee and are within the 

employee’s scope of employment.’ Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and 

every remaining allegation contained within paragraph 82 of the Complaint.

83. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 83 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

84. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 84 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

85. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 85 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

86. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 86 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

87. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 87 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admits said allegations.

88. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 88 of the 

Complaint, Interim President Chris Haines’ written response to Plaintiff speaks for itself 

and requires no answer.

89. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 89 of the 

Complaint, Defendants aver that Plaintiff’s email to Interim President Chris Haines 

dated October 15, 2015 speaks for itself and requires no answer.

90. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 90 of the 

Complaint, Defendants aver that the Interim President Chris Haines’ written response to 

Plaintiff dated October 27, 2015 speaks for itself and requires no answer.

91. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 91 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 16 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

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

Jury Demand

92. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 92 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial.

COUNT I

(Chancellor Glasper – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Liberty Interest)

93. Defendants incorporate by reference herein the answers, defenses, 

responses, denials and averments to all allegations contained within paragraphs 1 

through 92 above as though fully set forth herein.

94. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 89 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

95. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 90 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

96. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 91 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

COUNT II

(Chancellor Glasper – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Property Interest)

97. Defendants incorporate by reference herein the answers, defenses, 

responses, denials and averments to all allegations contained within paragraphs 1 

through 96 above as though fully set forth herein.

98. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 93 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

99. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 94 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

100. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 95 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 17 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

18

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

COUNT III

(District– 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Liberty Interest)

101. Defendants incorporate by reference herein the answers, defenses, 

responses, denials and averments to all allegations contained within paragraphs 1 

through 100 above as though fully set forth herein.

102. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 97 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

103. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 98 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

104. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 99 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

105. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 100 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

COUNT IV

(District– 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Property Interest)

106. Defendants incorporate by reference herein the answers, defenses, 

responses, denials and averments to all allegations contained within paragraphs 1 

through 105 above as though fully set forth herein.

107. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 102 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

108. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 103 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

109. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 104 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 18 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

19

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

COUNT V

(District– Declaratory Relief)

110. Defendants incorporate by reference herein the answers, defenses, 

responses, denials and averments to all allegations contained within paragraphs 1 

through 109 above as though fully set forth herein.

111. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 111 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations. Defendants aver that Plaintiff is still 

subject to the December 9, 2010 directive because, inter alia, Plaintiff has copied and 

used a large volume of copyrighted material without permission and, according to expert 

copyright counsel, has exposed MCCCD to an unreasonable risk of a copyright 

infringement lawsuit. Defendants further aver that Plaintiff remains subject to the 

directive because she has intentionally engaged in actions to circumvent and violate the 

directive, and such actions by the Plaintiff have caused the President of Phoenix College 

to lose confidence that Plaintiff will respect applicable copyright laws.

112. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 112 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

113. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 113 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations.

114. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 114 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of law, and 

Recommendations of the Hearing Committee are set forth in Exhibit A to Complaint.

Except as admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation 

contained within paragraph 114 of the Complaint.

115. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 115 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit that RFP 3.13.7 provides that “the Hearing Committee 

shall render binding written findings of fact and conclusions of law and forward these 

along with its recommendation regarding dismissal to the Chancellor.” Except as 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 19 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

20

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

admitted herein, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation contained within 

paragraph 115 of the Complaint.

116. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 116 of the 

Complaint, Defendants deny said allegations.

117. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 117 of the 

Complaint, Defendants admit said allegations. Defendants aver that Plaintiff is still 

subject to the December 9, 2010 directive because, inter alia, Plaintiff has copied and 

used a large volume of copyrighted material without permission and, according to expert 

copyright counsel, has exposed MCCCD to an unreasonable risk of a copyright 

infringement lawsuit. Defendants further aver that Plaintiff remains subject to the 

directive because she has intentionally engaged in actions to circumvent and violate the 

directive, and such actions by the Plaintiff have caused the President of Phoenix College 

to lose confidence that Plaintiff will respect applicable copyright laws.

118. All allegations not specifically admitted herein are denied.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the damages or other relief 

sought in her prayer for relief.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that each and every count of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be denied in its entirety, that Plaintiff take nothing, and that Defendants be 

awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to any statutes and rules 

which would allow Defendants to recover its attorneys’ fees, costs, or other relief.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by her failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.

2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of 

absolute and/or qualified immunity.

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based on the collateral 

estoppel doctrine.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 20 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

21

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. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based on the res judicata

doctrine.

5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, based on Defendants’ 

good faith reliance upon the advice of counsel, Lewis and Roca, in implementing certain 

restrictions on Plaintiff’s ability to copy and distribute materials to her students.

6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute 

of limitations.

7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by her failure to mitigate 

damages.

8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to 

exhaust her administrative remedies.

9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the after acquired 

evidence doctrine.

10. Defendants reserve the right to amend and/or add affirmative defenses as 

discovery proceeds.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray as follows:

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by this action;

2. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants;

3. For costs of suit and for reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendants; 

and

4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 23rd day of November 2015.

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

By s/ Pavneet Singh Uppal

Pavneet Singh Uppal

Shayna H. Balch

Alanna R. Brook

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 21 of 22
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

201 E. Washington Street, Suite 1450

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

(602) 281-3400

22

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of November 2015 I electronically 

transmitted the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for 

filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF 

registrant(s):

Tod F. Schleier

Schleier Law Offices, P.C.

3101 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1090

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Kevin Koelbel

Law Offices of Kevin Koelbel, P.C.

7303 W. Boston Street

Chandler, AZ 85226

Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/ Eileen Kane

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 15 Filed 11/23/15 Page 22 of 22