- 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 

Edmundo P. Robaina (No. 018125) 

Thomas T. Griffin (No. 022475) 

Ashley A. Marton (No. 029442) 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-3231 

Telephone: (602) 682-6450 

Facsimile: (602) 682-6455 

epr@robainalaw.com 

ttg@robainalaw.com 

aam@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-PHX-NVW 

PLAINTIFF’S CONTROVERTING 

STATEMENT OF FACTS IN 

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and LRCiv. 56.1(a), Plaintiff Cleopatria Martinez 

(“Martinez”) submits the following Controverting Statement of Facts in support of her 

Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“CSOF”). Martinez’s 

separate Statement of Materials Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“PSOF”) [Doc. 72], is incorporated herein by reference. For purposes of the 

instant motion only, Martinez admits the facts stated in Paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 18, 

22, 23, 24, 27 and 36 of Defendant’s Statement of Facts to Support its Motion for 

Summary Judgment (“DSOF”) [Doc. 73] but denies that the facts stated therein are 

sufficient to grant summary judgment in this matter. Plaintiffs’ responses to the 

remaining paragraphs are stated below. 

/// 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 14
 - 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 

Response to Defendants’ Statement of Facts 

1. Disputed: In response to Paragraph 1, Martinez admits that the Maricopa 

County Community College District (“MCCCD”) 2012-2013 Residential Faculty 

Policies (“2012-2013 RFPs”) were in effect and applied to residential faculty during the 

2012-2013 school year, but disputes that the effective date was September 1, 2013. The 

effective date of the policies was July 1, 2012. [PSOF at ¶ 9; Excerpts of Dr. Rufus 

Glasper Deposition (“Glasper Depo.”) at 7:18-8:15, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF 

Exhibit 1]. 

3. Disputed: In response to Paragraph 3, Martinez admits that the MCCCD 

2013-2014 Residential Faculty Policies (“2013-2014 RFPs”) were in effect and applied 

to residential faculty during the 2013-2014 school year, but disputes that the effective 

date was July 1, 2012. The effective date of the policies was September 1, 2013. [PSOF 

at ¶¶ 11, 12]. 

6. Disputed. In response to Paragraph 6, Martinez disputes the legal 

conclusion that she had exposed MCCCD to substantial risk of liability for copyright 

infringement. “Opinion, suggested inferences, legal arguments and conclusions are not 

the proper subject matter of a Local Rule 56.1 statement. Including legal arguments in a 

56.1 statement is wholly improper, redundant, unpersuasive and irksome; in short, it 

advances neither the interests of the parties nor of the court.” Breeser v. Menta Grp., 

Inc., NFP, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1155 (D. Ariz. 2013) (citation omitted), aff’d sub nom. 

Breeser v. Menta Grp., Inc., No. 13-16512, 2015 WL 6919145 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2015). 

Moreover, Defendants’ statement is contrary to the evidence. After completion of the 

November 18, 2013 evidentiary hearing regarding Martinez’s dismissal, the Hearing 

Committee found that: 

[Phoenix College] failed to carry its burden of proof relating 

to violation of MCCCD’s cash handling rules found in 

MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.17, violation of 

Residential Policy Manual 3.2.4 (relating to financial 

interests in unpublished materials), violation of U.S. 

Copyright Law and fair use guidelines, and violation of 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 2 of 14
- 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 

MCCCD Administrative Regulations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 related 

to copyright regulations. 

[PSOF at ¶ 30]. 

9. Disputed. Paragraph 9 mischaracterizes the facts. The Hearing 

Committee’s Findings of Fact stated: 

Dr. Martinez read the Copyright Act of 1976 and believed 

that it authorized her to use small portions of other scholars’ 

work under the “Fair Use” doctrine because she was using it 

only for classroom teaching purposes on a not for profit 

basis and her use of the material did not undermine the 

potential market for the other scholar’s work. 

Per the “Fair Use” doctrine of the Copyright Act, the “use of 

a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, 

comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple 

copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an 

infringement on copyright.” 17 U.S. § 107. 

[PSOF at ¶ 30-32]. 

10. Disputed in part. Martinez admits that MCCCD Administrative Officials 

explained their copyright related concerns to her, however, Martinez denies that she 

continued to ignore federal copyright law. Indeed, the Hearing Committee found that: 

Per the “Fair Use” doctrine of the Copyright Act, the “use of 

a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, 

comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple 

copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an 

infringement on copyright.” 17 U.S. § 107. [PSOF at ¶ 32]. 

Moreover, Martinez discontinued use of the “lecture notes” in question 

immediate after being notified of the possible violations by MCCCD’s Vice President of 

Academic Services, Ronnie Elliot, on or around January 12, 2010. [See infra CSOF at 

¶¶ 8, 10]. 

11. Disputed in part: Martinez admits that Anna Solley issued the December 

9, 2010 Directive but denies that there was unacceptable legal risk. The Hearing 

Committee’s binding Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 3 of 14
- 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 

found that Phoenix College, represented by Defendants’ current legal counsel, failed to 

carry its burden of proof relating to violation of MCCCD’s cash handling rules found in 

MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.17, violation of Residential Policy Manual 3.2.4 

(relating to financial interests in unpublished materials), violation of U.S. Copyright 

Law and fair use guidelines, and violation of MCCCD Administrative Regulations 3.2.4 

and 3.2.5 related to copyright regulations. [PSOF Exhibit 4 at ¶ 63]. 

12. Disputed: Paragraph 12 mischaracterizes the facts and is an improper legal 

conclusion not supported by the evidence. The Hearing Committee’s binding Findings 

of Fact and Conclusions of Law, found that Phoenix College, represented by 

Defendants’ current legal counsel, failed to carry its burden of proof relating to violation 

of MCCCD’s cash handling rules found in MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.17, 

violation of Residential Policy Manual 3.2.4 (relating to financial interests in 

unpublished materials), violation of U.S. Copyright Law and fair use guidelines, and 

violation of MCCCD Administrative Regulations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 related to copyright 

regulations. [PSOF Exhibit 4 at ¶ 63]. Moreover, the Committee also found that “Dr. 

Martinez has not used any of the four sets of “lecture notes” since the Spring of 2010 

when Phoenix College first raised its concerns regarding the notes.” [Id. at ¶ 24]. 

Martinez also testified at the November 18, 2013 evidentiary hearing that the materials 

Defendants accused her of allegedly copyrighting were never used after Spring 2010. 

[DSOF Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript), at 197:2-13; 203:23 – 

205:15]. Defendants’ legal argument (that she continued to violate copyright laws after 

the photocopying restrictions were put in place) to the contrary is both mistaken and 

improper. Breeser, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 1155. 

13. Disputed: Paragraph 13 mischaracterizes the facts. The statement does 

specify a time frame for the alleged copyright violations that Mr. Sean Garrison 

reviewed. Attorney Sean Garrison only reviewed Martinez’s course material in fall 

2010. [DSOF Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript) at 95:3-13]. 

Moreover, at the November 18, 2013 Hearing, Martinez’s private copyright expert 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 4 of 14
 - 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 

attorney Fredrick Bellamy testified that the “lecture notes” he reviewed did not violate 

copyright law because they fell under the “Fair Use” doctrine. [DSOF Exhibit 23 

(November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript) at 282:25 – 283:11; PSOF Exhibit 4 at ¶¶ 30-

32]. 

15. Disputed: Paragraph 15 mischaracterizes the facts and is an improper legal 

conclusion not supported by the evidence. The Hearing Committee’s binding Findings 

of Fact and Conclusions of Law, found that Phoenix College, represented by 

Defendants’ current legal counsel, failed to carry its burden of proof relating to violation 

of MCCCD’s cash handling rules found in MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.17., 

violation of Residential Policy Manual 3.2.4. (relating to financial interests in 

unpublished materials), violation of U.S. Copyright Law and fair use guidelines, and 

violation of MCCCD Administrative Regulations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 related to copyright 

regulations. [PSOF Exhibit 4 at ¶ 63]. Moreover, Martinez never ‘sold’ any material to 

her students but instead made a set of the materials available to her students to copy at 

their own expense or offered to copy the materials at Staples if the students agreed to 

reimburse her for her out-of-pocket copying expenses. [Defendants’ Exhibit 23 

(November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript) at 214:15–215:14]. 

16. Disputed: Paragraph 16 mischaracterizes the facts and is opinion not 

supported by evidence. First, Martinez never ‘sold’ any material to her students but 

instead made a set of the materials available to her students to copy at their own expense 

or offered to copy the materials at Staples if the students agreed to reimburse her for her 

out-of-pocket copying expenses. [Defendants Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2013 Hearing 

Transcript) at 214:15–215:14]. Martinez did not make any money in reference to the 

materials. [Id. at 214:15–215:14]. Martinez repeatedly testified that she lost money. [Id.

at 214:15–215:14]. Moreover, the 2012-2013 RFPs state, “Faculty will determine 

curriculum and relevant subject matter for course, recommend the appropriate 

pedagogy, textbooks and other material relevant to teaching their subject.” (RFP 3.1.) 

[PSOF Exhibit 2 at -11-]. The spirit of ‘academic freedom’ for residential faculty goes 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 5 of 14
 - 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 

against the statements made Defendants. 

17. Disputed: Paragraph 17 is misleading. Martinez never ‘sold’ any material 

to her students but instead made a set of the materials available to her students to copy 

at their own expense or offered to copy the materials at Staples if the students agreed to 

reimburse her for her out-of-pocket copying expenses. [Defendants Exhibit 23 

(November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript) at 214:15–215:14]. 

19. Disputed: Paragraph 19 mischaracterizes the facts. At the Pre-Disciplinary 

Conference, Martinez was not given an opportunity to respond to the charges against 

her but rather was asked to sign an agreement and felt threatened. [Defendants Exhibit 

23 (November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript) at 248:6–250:4]. 

21. Disputed: Paragraph 21 mischaracterizes the facts. Under the 2012-2013 

RFPs § 3.15., regarding faculty member dismissal, residential faculty have a right to 

have a Hearing Committee constituted to conduct a hearing regarding the allegations 

against the faculty member (3.15.4.); and the right to attend the hearing, present 

testimony, evidence or statements, oral or written, in his/her behalf and be represented 

by legal counsel (3.15.6). [PSOF at ¶ 23].

25. Disputed: Paragraph 25 is based on inadmissible hearsay and lacks 

foundation. Evidence produced to support motions for summary judgment must be 

admissible and otherwise adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 

56(e)(1). The Ninth Circuit requires that evidence offered in support of a motion for 

summary judgment be admissible both in form and in content. Canada v. Blain's 

Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir.1987); Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship 

Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir.1976). Thus “evidence containing hearsay statements 

is admissible only if offered in opposition to the motion. “Because ‘[v]erdicts cannot 

rest on inadmissible evidence’ and a grant of summary judgment is a determination on 

the merits of the case, it follows that the moving party's affidavits must be free from 

hearsay.”” Quanta Indem. Co. v. Amberwood Development Inc, 2014 WL 1246144 (D. 

Ariz., March 26, 2014) citing Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F.Supp.2d 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 6 of 14
 - 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 

1110, 1121 (E.D.Cal.2006). Here, Dr. Glasper’s affidavit, wherein he states that it was 

the Hearing Committee that suggested unpaid suspension in a meeting on January 24, 

2014, is not supported by the evidence and is being suggested for the first time in 

support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

26. Disputed: Paragraph 26 based on inadmissible hearsay and lacks 

foundation. Evidence produced to support motions for summary judgment must be 

admissible and otherwise adhere to the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 

56(e)(1). The Ninth Circuit requires that evidence offered in support of a motion for 

summary judgment be admissible both in form and in content. Canada v. Blain's 

Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir.1987); Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship 

Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir.1976). Thus “evidence containing hearsay statements 

is admissible only if offered in opposition to the motion. ‘Because ‘[v]erdicts cannot 

rest on inadmissible evidence’ and a grant of summary judgment is a determination on 

the merits of the case, it follows that the moving party's affidavits must be free from 

hearsay.’” Quanta Indem. Co. v. Amberwood Development Inc, 2014 WL 1246144 (D. 

Ariz., March 26, 2014) citing Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F.Supp.2d 

1110, 1121 (E.D.Cal.2006). Here, Dr. Glasper’s affidavit, wherein he states that it was 

the Hearing Committee that suggested unpaid suspension in a meeting on January 24, 

2014, is not supported by the evidence and is being suggested for the first time in 

support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

28. Disputed: Paragraph 28 is misleading. While Martinez and her former 

counsel, Stephen Montoya, met with Vice Chancellor Bowers on March 7, 2014, it was 

not a meaningful discussion as Bowers had no authority to overturn the Chancellor’s 

decision. [PSOF at ¶ 22]. 

29. Disputed. Paragraph 29 is misleading in that it suggests that Martinez, 

through her former attorney, submitted a legal brief to the Governing Board or 

otherwise received a meaningful opportunity to present her case and for the Governing 

Board to decide on the imposition of a 16-month unpaid suspension. [See infra CSOF at 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 7 of 14
 - 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 

¶¶ 22-24]. 

30. Disputed: Paragraph 30 is misleading in that it suggests that Martinez 

received a meaningful opportunity to present an argument to the Governing Board 

regarding her suspension. Martinez has never had the opportunity to “argue” her 

position in front of the Board, rather she has presented, in person (at the “Citizen’s 

Interim”) or by letter (with the written contents of her presentation) a three-minute 

presentation regarding her suspension. [Excerpts from Dr. Cleopatria Martinez 

Deposition (“Martinez Depo.”) at 109:4-19, 112:23-114:14, attached hereto as 

Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 2]. While Martinez and Stephen Montoya (as an individual 

and not as Martinez’s attorney) appeared for the March 25, 2014 Board Meeting, it was 

for the Citizen Interim and the Board could not discuss the issue or take legal action. 

[Deposition of Rule 30(b)(6) Teresa Toney (“Toney Depo.”) at 10:3-6, 16:8-23, 

attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 3]. The Citizen’s Interim is opportunity for 

the public to give a brief statement, limited to five minutes, on matters that may or may 

not be on the meeting’s agenda [Id. at 11:14-17; 16:24-17:4, attached hereto as 

Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 3]. Martinez and Montoya’s brief statements regarding her 

suspension were not on the Board’s agenda and the Board meeting minutes demonstrate 

that the Governing Board did not seek or was not going to seek any further information 

regarding the suspension. [Id. at 8:13-15:8, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 

3]. 

31. Disputed: Paragraph 31 is misleading in that it suggests that Martinez 

received a meaningful opportunity to present an argument to the Governing Board 

regarding her suspension. Martinez had no right under 2013-2014 RFP § 3.11 to have 

the suspension reviewed by the Governing Board [PSOF ¶ 22], and other than in 

“Citizen’s Interim” (also known as calls to the public), during which the public is 

allowed to speak at public Board meetings for approximately five minutes [Toney 

Depo. at 10:3-6, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 3], Martinez never spoke to 

the Board about her situation. Indeed, Martinez has never had the opportunity to 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 8 of 14
 - 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 

“argue” her position in front of the Board, rather she has presented, in person (at the 

“Citizen’s Interim”) or by letter (with the written contents of her presentation) a threeminute presentation regarding her suspension. [Martinez Depo. at 109:4-19, 112:23-

114:14, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 2]. Moreover, it is undisputed that 

the Board never responded Martinez’s concerns, and never made any determinations as 

to, or any pronouncements with regard to, Martinez’s suspension. [Excerpts from Judy 

Castellanos Deposition (“Castellanos Depo.”) at 23:24–25:4, attached hereto as 

Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 4; Glasper Depo. at 51:25-53:9, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s 

CSOF Exhibit 1]. As a result, Glasper’s action went un-reviewed, Martinez did not 

work from April of 2014 until the Fall of 2015, and she was without pay or benefits for 

16 months. [PSOF ¶ 46]. 

32. Disputed: For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 31, supra. 

33. Disputed: For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 31, supra. 

34. Disputed: For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 31, supra. 

35. Disputed: For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 31, supra. 

37. Disputed in Part. While Martinez admits that she never refunded the $11 

to the students, the fallacious basis for the requirement was that Plaintiff violated 

copyright law and MCCCD’s cash handling policies. The Hearing Committee found 

that MCCCD failed to prove either allegation. [See supra ¶ 6]. 

Plaintiff’s Additional Statement of Material Facts 

1. The 2012-2013 RFP § 3.1, titled “Instructional Rights/Academic 

Freedom,” provides that: 

Faculty are entitled to instructional freedom in discussing 

their subject with students, and they should exercise their 

best effort to ensure topics are relevant to their subject. 

Faculty will determine curriculum and relevant subject 

matter for courses, recommend appropriate pedagogy, 

textbooks, and other materials relevant to teaching their 

subject. 

[PSOF Exhibit 2 at pg. 50 of 117]. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 9 of 14
 - 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 

2. The 2012-2013 RFP § 3.9 further states that: “Nothing in this policy shall 

be construed to deny or diminish any individual rights that a member has under the 

law.” [Id.]. 

3. During the times relevant to this matter, Martinez and her colleagues 

routinely borrowed mathematics problems from other mathematicians to use in their 

student handouts for educational purposes on a not for profit basis. [PSOF Exhibit 4, 

Hearing Committee Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations, 

MCCCD/Martinez03845 at ¶ 6]. 

4. The borrowing of mathematics problems is a longstanding, widespread 

custom throughout MCCCD and academia at large. [Id. at ¶ 7]. 

5. Instead of requiring her mathematics students to purchase textbooks, 

Martinez prepared her own course materials and distributed them to her students. [Id. at 

at ¶ 8]. 

6. Martinez believed that the Copyright Act of 1976 authorized her to use 

small portions of other scholars’ work under the “Fair Use” doctrine because she was 

using it only for classroom teaching purposes. [Id. at ¶ 8; DSOF Exhibit 23 (November 

18, 2013 Transcript) at 188:6-10]. 

7. Indeed, the Hearing Committee ultimately found that pursuant to the “Fair 

Use” doctrine of the Copyright Act, the use of copyrighted work for purposes such as 

teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) is not an infringement of 

copyright. [PSOF Exhibit 4, Hearing Committee Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 

and Recommendations, MCCCD/Martinez03846 at ¶ 10]. 

8. Despite the applicability of the Fair Use doctrine to Martinez’s use of the 

textbook materials, on or around January 12, 2010, MCCCD’s Vice President of 

Academic Services, Ronnie Elliot sent an email to Martinez notifying her that there 

were alleged copyright-related problems with the materials she had printed for the Fall 

2009 and Spring 2010 semester. [Id. at ¶ 16]. 

9. Over the next several weeks, other members of MCCCD’s administration 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 10 of 14
 - 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 

also communicated to Martinez alleged copyright-related concerns. [Id. at ¶¶ 18-20 and 

23-24]. 

10. Thereafter, Martinez did not use any of the “lecture notes” in question. 

[Id. at ¶ 24; DSOF Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript) at 197:2-13; 

203:23 – 205:15]. 

11. Martinez, further, obtained written permission from the publisher of 

Sullivan & Sullivan’s “Precalculous,” to copy materials from their book. [PSOF Exhibit 

4, Hearing Committee Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations, 

MCCCD/Martinez03846 at ¶ 28]. 

12. On December 9, 2010, Phoenix College President Anna Solley, concluded 

that Martinez’s alleged misconduct posed an unacceptable risk of a copyright 

infringement claim and imposed restrictions on Martinez’s photocopying privileges. [Id.

at ¶ 36]. 

13. The December 9, 2010 Directive prohibited Martinez from utilizing any 

course materials of her own creation. [Id. at ¶ 41]. Solley noted that violation of the 

directive would be considered grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including 

termination. [DSOF Exhibit 20 (December 9, 2010 Directive) at p. 2]. 

14. Instead, Martinez was required to only use course materials that are 

“approved by the mathematics department” or that are “available in the bookstore for 

sale to students and that are authored by persons other than [Martinez].” [Id.]. 

15. At the beginning of the Fall 2012 semester, Martinez informed her 

students that they were not required to purchase a course textbook and that she would 

provide them with her own course materials in lieu of a textbook. [Id. at ¶ 44]. 

16. Martinez further did not submit her Fall 2012 materials to the 

Mathematics Department Chairperson for approval. [Id. at ¶ 46]. 

17. On August 25, 2015, Phoenix College Interim President Chris Haines sent 

a letter to Martinez indicating, in pertinent part, that restrictions imposed by the 

December 9, 2010 directive were still in effect and that she intended to enforce them. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 11 of 14
 - 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 

[Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint ¶¶ 81-82 and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Exhibit 

11; Defendants’ Amended Answer ¶¶ 81-82]. 

18. On October 12, 2015, after she resumed her teaching duties, Martinez sent 

an email to Interim Phoenix College President Chris Haines requesting that she remove 

the restrictions on her from the 2010 directive. [Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint ¶ 87; 

Defendants’ Amended Answer at ¶ 87; A clean copy Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 

Exhibit 12 (October 12, 2015 email to Haines) is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF 

Exhibit 5]. 

19. Martinez noted that the basis for the directive (the alleged copyright 

violations) no longer exists, the directive obstructs Martinez’s teaching capacity by not 

allowing her to write test questions of her own, not allowing her to use examples that 

she constructs in her daily lectures, and not allowing her to use anything that she 

develops. [Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 5]. Martinez further noted that “the departmental 

barriers resulting from the directive have placed unjustified stress on [her] spontaneous 

teaching.” [Id.; Martinez Depo. at 132:21-136:2, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF 

Exhibit 2] 

20. Martinez cited, as an example, the fact that she submitted a test to be 

approved because the problems that she used were based on material covered in class 

and addressed the needs of the students; that it was rejected because she did not copy 

problems directly from the textbook, and the rejection threw off her teaching schedule. 

[Id.]. 

21. She further noted that the restrictions stifle her innovation; place limits on 

her ability to teach based on the needs of the students and what the students need to 

learn. [Id.]. 

22. The restrictions, however, were not lifted. [Martinez Depo. at 125:14-20, 

attached hereto as Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 2]. 

23. Martinez had no right under 2013-2014 RFP § 3.11 to have the suspension 

reviewed by the Governing Board [PSOF ¶ 22], and other than in “citizens’ interims” 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 12 of 14
 - 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 

(also known as calls to the public), during which the public is allowed to speak at public 

Board meetings for approximately five minutes [Toney Depo. at 10:3-6, attached hereto 

as Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 3], Martinez never spoke to the Board about her situation. 

Indeed, Martinez has never had the opportunity to “argue” her position in front of the 

Board, rather she has presented, in person (at the “citizen’s interim”) or by letter (with 

the written contents of her presentation) a three-minute presentation regarding her 

suspension. [Martinez Depo. at 109:4-19, 112:23-114:14, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s 

CSOF Exhibit 2]. 

24. Moreover, it is undisputed that the Board never responded Martinez’s 

concerns, and never made any determinations as to, or any pronouncements with regard 

to, Martinez’s suspension. [Castellanos Depo. at 23:24–25:4, attached hereto as 

Plaintiff’s CSOF Exhibit 4; Glasper Depo. at 51:25-53:9, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s 

CSOF Exhibit 1]. 

25. As a result, Glasper’s action went un-reviewed, Martinez did not work 

from April of 2014 until the Fall of 2015, and she was without pay or benefits for 16 

months. [PSOF ¶ 46]. 

DATED this 17th day of April 2017. 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

By /s/ Edmundo P. Robaina 

 Edmundo P. Robaina 

 Thomas T. Griffin 

 Ashley A. Marton 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 13 of 14
 - 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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of April 2017, I caused the foregoing 

document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF 

System for filing and transmittal to the following CM/ECF Registrants: 

Pavneet Singh Uppal 

Shayna H. Balch 

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 

3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 805 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425 Attorneys for Defendants 

By /s/ Gaynell Carpenter 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80 Filed 04/17/17 Page 14 of 14