FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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’ RESPONSES AND 

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL 

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and L.R. Civ. 56.1, 

Defendants Maricopa County Community College District, Rufus Glasper, Ph.D. and 

Debra Glasper (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, 

hereby submit their responses and objections to Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts in 

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“PSOF”). Defendants Responses 

and Objections to Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment are set forth in bold italics following each numbered paragraph 

of PSOF. References to “PSOF ¶ __” refer to the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s 

Statement of Material Facts In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 

Doc. 72. References to “DSOF ¶ __” refer to the numbered paragraphs of Defendants’ 

Statement of Facts In Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at Doc. 73.

Pavneet Singh Uppal, SBN 016805

Shayna H. Balch, SBN 024852

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

Telephone: (602) 281-3400

Fax: (602) 281-3401

puppal@fisherphillips.com

sbalch@fisherphillips.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

2

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

1. Martinez began her employment as a full-time mathematics professor with 

MCCCD in 1985, and has taught at MCCCD’s Phoenix College campus since 1995. 

[Deposition of Dr. Cleopatria Martinez on August 16, 2016 (“Martinez Depo. Vol. I”) at 

17:19-19:13, attached hereto as Exhibit 1].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 1.

2. MCCCD is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. [Plaintiff’s 

Verified Amended Complaint, ¶2; Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Amended 

Complaint at ¶2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 2.

3. On August 9, 2013, Glasper, who, at relevant times, was MCCCD’s

Chancellor, issued Martinez a notice, copied to MCCCD’s Governing Board, of

MCCCD’s intent to dismiss Martinez from her employment. [Deposition of Dr. Rufus

Glasper (“Glasper Depo.”) at 6:21-7:5, 10:10-11:9 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 3 (August

9, 2013 Notice of Dismissal and Statement of Charges) at page 1 of 4, attached hereto as

Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute that on August 9, 2013, MCCCD Vice Chancellor 

Glasper issued a notice to Plaintiff with the Re line “Intent to dismiss you from 

employment.” Copied on the notice was the MCCCD Governing Board, Phoenix 

College President Anna Solley and Vice Chancellor of Human Resources Jim 

Bowers. [DSOF 20 (DSOF ¶ 27)]. 

4. Glasper was MCCCD’s Chancellor from 2003 until the end of February

2016. [Glasper Depo. at 6:21-7:5, 65:11-24, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 4.

5. In the notice, Glasper wrote that Interim Vice Chancellor of Human

Resources James Bower had reviewed the charges against Martinez, in consultation with 

the MCCCD Legal Office, and recommended to Glasper that there existed prima facie 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 2 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

3

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

cause for Martinez’s dismissal. [Glasper Depo. at 10:10-11:9 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 

3 (August 9, 2013 Notice of Dismissal and Statement of Charges) at page 1 of 4,

attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶5. 

6. Glasper further wrote that he concurred with Bower’s recommendation.

[Id.].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶6. 

7. Included with the notice, was a “Statement of Charges,” in which it was

alleged that Martinez had engaged in the following:

 Violation of Administrative Regulation 6.7.1 — ‘Willful and

Intentional violation of any state or federal law, applicable

ordinance, MCCCD Governing Board policy, or MCCCD

administrative regulation that affects the employee’s ability 

to perform his or her job,’ specifically:

o Violation of MCCCD’s cash handling rules as 

covered by MCCCD Administrative Regulations 1.17.

 Violation of Residential Faculty Policy Manual 3.2.4 — ‘A 

Faculty member shall not have any financial interest in or 

receive compensation from the sale of any unpublished 

instructional materials required or suggested for a class that 

the Faculty member teaches.’

 Violation of U.S. Copyright Law and fair use guidelines, and 

MCCCD Administrative Regulations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 

regarding copyright regulations:

o 3.2.4 Employees are prohibited from copying 

materials not specifically allowed by the (1) copyright 

Law, (2) fair use guidelines, (3) Licenses or 

contractual agreements, or (4) other permission.

o 3.2.5 The Governing Board disapproves of 

unauthorized duplication in any form. Employees who 

willfully disregard this Board policy and/or the 

aforementioned copyright guidelines do so at their 

own risk and assume all liability for their actions.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 3 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

4

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

 Violation of Administrative Regulation 6.7.3 — ‘Willful and 

intentional failure to perform job duties that have first been 

communicated to an employee and are within the employee’s 

scope of employment,’ specifically, repeated failure to 

follow instructions regarding printing/copying of 

unauthorized materials, failure to use only approved course 

materials, unauthorized copying and sale of course materials, 

failure to reimburse students for the materials your 

wrongfully charged them for, and failure to meet the 

deadline to provide copies of any reimbursement checks to 

students.

Brief Timeline:

 January 2010 — College Vice Presidents Ronnie Elliott, Paul 

DeRose and Cassandra Kakar; along with Maggie 

McConnell; Assistant General Counsel, reviewed the 

requirements of AR 3.2 with you at length.

 April 2, 2010 — Anna Solley, Phoenix College President, 

notified you that your copying privileges at the Phoenix 

College IKON Copy Center were suspended.

 Spring 2010 — An Administrative Evaluation was initiated 

based on Mr. Joe Sueyoshi’s complaint. By agreement, the 

Evaluation Team did not undertake its task until the fall 

semester. The findings and recommendations were submitted 

to Dr. Solley on November 17, 2010. The overall findings 

included:

o Copyright and plagiarism: Dr. Martinez was notified 

in writing and in meetings of MCCCD’s and Phoenix 

College’s concerns regarding her course materials 

violating copyright, fair use, and plagiarism laws.

o Insubordination: Dr. Martinez failed to follow Dr. 

Solley’s and MCCCD’s Legal Counsel’s directives -

specifically, she repeatedly requested copies, copied 

and printed unauthorized materials.

 December 9, 2010 — Dr. Solley administered an Initial 

Corrective Action to you for insubordination and failure to 

follow instructions regarding printing or copying of 

unauthorized materials. 

 August 21-23, 2012 — You told your MAT 091 and MAT 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 4 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

5

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

151 students not to buy the approved text that you listed on 

the syllabus. Instead, you made copies of a colleague’s 

materials and sold them to your students for $11 each.

 October 18, 2012 — A Second Corrective Action for 

insubordination and unauthorized copying and sale of course 

materials was administered to you by Dr. Solley. Included in 

the corrective action was the following directive: “Because 

you imposed charges on your students without authority to 

do so, you have the responsibility to reimburse the students 

from your own funds. You are hereby directed to do so by 

personal check, beginning immediately and continuing until 

all students who paid you are reimbursed.”

 January 11, 2013 — Upon discovering that the students who 

bought your unauthorized course materials had yet to be 

reimbursed, Casandra Kakar directed you, via email, to 

provide her by January 18, 2013, with front and back copies 

of all cashed personal reimbursement checks to your 

students. 

 January 18, 2013 — You failed to provide Dr. Kakar with 

copies of any reimbursement checks and neglected to contact 

her regarding the money you still owe the students.

 February 21, 2013 — A student turned in the MAT091 

materials which you left in room B210. Timothy Bryan, 

Mathematics Faculty, has previously told you that you do not 

have permission to use his materials again.

[Id.].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶7. 

 

8. The allegations in the August 9, 2013 Statement of Charges are taken 

verbatim from a March 20, 2013 Pre-Disciplinary Conference, which included copies of 

the specific policies Martinez is alleged to have violated. [Martinez Depo. Vol. I at 47:2-

17, Martinez Depo. Vol. I Exhibit 4 (March 20, 2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary 

Conference with attachments) at MCCCD/Martinez02114- MCCCD/ Martinez 02120, 

and a more legible copy of the March 20, 2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference 

with attachments, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1].

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 5 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

6

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Defendants do not dispute that the allegations contained in the March 20, 

2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference were the same as the allegations 

contained in the August 9, 2013 Statement of Charges issued to Plaintiff.

9. At the time Glasper sent Martinez the notice of intent to dismiss, 

Martinez’s employment relationship with MCCCD was governed by the 2012-2013 

Residential Faculty Policies (the “RFP”), which indicates the rights of faculty members 

with respect to various employment matters. [Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:15, 13:15-14:3, 

Glasper Depo. Errata Sheet at 14:3 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP) 

attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Deposition of Judy Castellanos (“Castellanos Depo.”) at 

14:8-11, attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 9.

10. The RFP was “ratified” by, among others, Glasper and the MCCCD 

Governing Board. [Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:11 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 

RFP) at -52-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute that the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 RFP Manuals 

that Plaintiff attached to her Separate Statement of Material Facts were ratified by 

Glasper and the MCCCD Governing Board. Defendants object to the remainder of 

allegations contained in PSOF ¶ 10 to the extent it incorporates RFP Manuals for 

additional years as they are irrelevant and inadmissible because they do not “make 

the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action 

more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” FRE 401, 

402; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).

11. Both the 2012-2013 RFP and the 2013-2014 Residential Faculty Policies 

(the “2013-2014 RFP”) are relevant in this case. [Glasper Depo. 13:24-14:3, Glasper 

Depo. Errata Sheet at 14:3, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 6 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

7

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 11.

12. The 2013-2014 Residential Faculty Policies (the “2013-2014 RFP”) were 

approved by the Governing Board on September 24, 2013. [Glasper Depo. at 9:9-10:7 

and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 2 (2013-2014 RFP) at MCCCD/Martinez00252, 

MCCCD/Martinez00310 and MCCCD/Martinez00339, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 12.

13. Pursuant to RFP §§ 1.2. and 3.18.3.4., “Appointive” status refers to the 

employment status of a faculty member attained at the beginning of his/her sixth 

consecutive year. [Glasper Depo. at 7:20-8:2, 16:4-7 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-

2013 RFP) at -4- and -26-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 13.

14. Appointive faculty members have continuous rights to employment. 

[Glasper Depo. at 16:11-15, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 14.

15. At the time she received the notice of intent to dismiss, and at the time of 

her suspension, Martinez had appointive status. [Glasper Depo. at 51:6-12, attached 

hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 15.

16. Pursuant to RFP § 3.11.2.: “No faculty member shall be disciplined, 

reprimanded, suspended, or reduced in assignment or compensation without just cause.”

[Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:15, 17:21-18:1, 21:18-21 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-

2013 RFP) at -19-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 7 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

8

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

for 2012-2013 (Effective July 1, 2012) Policy 3.11.2 states “No faculty member shall 

be disciplined, reprimanded, suspended, or reduced in assignment or compensation 

without just cause.” [DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

17. RFP § 3.11.2. was renumbered in 2013-2014 RFP as §6.3.2. [Glasper 

Depo. at 9:7-14, 43:10-18 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 2 (2013-2014 RFP) at 

MCCCD/Martinez00304, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute that 2012-2013 RFP § 3.11.2 was renumbered in 

2013-2014 as §6.3.2.

18. The term “disciplined” in this context includes terminations and 

suspensions. [Glasper Depo. at 17:21-18:8, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

For purposes of summary judgment only, Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 

18.

19. Regarding suspensions of faculty members, RFP § 3.13.1. states, in 

pertinent part: “Upon a written statement of charges formulated by the Chancellor, 

charging a Faculty member of the MCCCD, the Chancellor, or his/her designee, may 

immediately suspend the Faculty member and give notice of the suspension...” [Glasper 

Depo. at 7:18-8:15 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP) at -20-, attached 

hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 19 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policy Manual. RFP § 3.13 is titled 

Suspension of a Faculty Member and the subsections of RFP § 3.13 need to be read 

in conjunction one another. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants do not 

dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual for 2012-2013 (Effective 

July 1, 2012) Policy 3.13 states as follows:

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 8 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

9

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

3.13. Suspension of a Faculty Member

3.13.1.

Upon a written statement of charges formulated by the 

Chancellor, charging a Faulty member of the MCCCD, the 

Chancellor, or his/her designee, may immediately suspend the 

Faculty member and give notice of suspension. At the option of 

the Faculty member, the MCCCD Faculty Association 

President will be notified of this action.

3.13.2.

The notice of suspension shall be in writing and be served upon 

the Faculty member, personally or by U.S. (registered or 

certified) mail, addressed to the Faculty member at his/her 

place of residence as recorded in the MCCCD records.

3.13.3.

Any Faculty member who has been suspended pursuant to this 

Section will normally be paid hi/s her regular salary during the 

period of suspension. A suspension without pay will occur only 

upon advice of General Counsel. If payment is to be withheld, 

the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources will first consult with 

and advise the member and, at the option of the Faculty 

member, the Faculty Association President regarding the 

rationale for that action.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

20. Pursuant to RFP §3.13.3.:

Any Faculty member who has been suspended pursuant to this Section will 

normally be paid his/her regular salary during the period of suspension. A 

suspension without pay will occur only upon the advice of General 

Counsel. If payment is to be withheld, the Vice Chancellor of Human 

Resources will first consult and advise the member...

[Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:15 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP) at -20- thru -

21-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 19 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policy Manual. RFP § 3.13 is titled 

Suspension of a Faculty Member and the subsections of RFP § 3.13 need to be read 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 9 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

10

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

in conjunction one another. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants do not 

dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual for 2012-2013 (Effective 

July 1, 2012) Policy 3.13 states as follows:

3.13. Suspension of a Faculty Member

3.13.1.

Upon a written statement of charges formulated by the 

Chancellor, charging a Faulty member of the MCCCD, the 

Chancellor, or his/her designee, may immediately suspend the 

Faculty member and give notice of suspension. At the option of 

the Faculty member, the MCCCD Faculty Association 

President will be notified of this action.

3.13.2.

The notice of suspension shall be in writing and be served upon 

the Faculty member, personally or by U.S. (registered or 

certified) mail, addressed to the Faculty member at his/her 

place of residence as recorded in the MCCCD records.

3.13.3.

Any Faculty member who has been suspended pursuant to this 

Section will normally be paid hi/s her regular salary during the 

period of suspension. A suspension without pay will occur only 

upon advice of General Counsel. If payment is to be withheld, 

the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources will first consult with 

and advise the member and, at the option of the Faculty 

member, the Faculty Association President regarding the 

rationale for that action.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

21. Section 3.13. was renumbered in the 2013-2014 RFP as §3.11. [Glasper

Depo. at 7:18-8:15, 9:9-14, 24:8-10, Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP) at -20-

thru -21- and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 2 (2013-2014 RFP) at MCCCD/Martinez00273, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 21.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 10 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

11

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

22. Notably, this section does not allow the Vice-Chancellor of Human 

Resources to overturn the Chancellor’s decision, and a suspended employee has no right 

to have the suspension reviewed by the Governing Board. [Glasper Depo. at 23:23-24:7, 

26:2-27:1, 66:11-14, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 27:3-16, 31:9-

32:5, attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD’s Vice Chancellor does not have the 

unilateral authority to overturn the Chancellor’s decision to suspend a faculty 

member. Defendants further do not dispute that a suspended employee does not 

have an entitlement to have their suspension reviewed by the Governing Board. 

Nevertheless, as Chancellor Glasper testified under oath, if a faculty member “did 

not agree with a suspension, then they could request that it go to the Vice 

Chancellor and then to me and then to the Governing Board. But that doesn’t 

mean that a suspended employee has the right to a hearing before the Governing 

Board. Rather, it is up to the Governing Board whether the Governing Board 

wants to hear more about a suspension.” Doc. 72-2, p. 35 (Glasper deposition 

correction page at PSOF Exh. 2). In accordance with this practice, Plaintiff was 

allowed to submit a nine page legal brief to the Governing Board through her 

attorney arguing that her “fourteen-month suspension is the economic equivalent of 

a dismissal.” [DSOF ¶ 29]. Plaintiff also sent at least four letters to the Governing 

Board asking “the board to intervene in [her] case to rescind the Chancellor’s 

suspension.” [DSOF ¶ 30]. On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff and her counsel each 

separately spoke before the Governing Board in open session and advanced the 

argument that her suspension was improper and that “the chancellor’s fourteen 

month suspension of [Plaintiff] is the functional equivalent of termination from the 

district.” [DSOF ¶30]. Plaintiff also appeared before the Governing Board in 

open session a second time on October 28, 2014 and argued against her suspension. 

[DSOF ¶35]. Finally, Plaintiff had two other individuals separately appear before 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 11 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

12

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

the Governing Board on her behalf and object to her suspension. [DSOF ¶35].

23. Regarding faculty member dismissal, RFP § 3.15. provides a detailed 

procedure that includes, in pertinent part, the right of a faculty member to receive a 

“written statement of charges” which sets forth “the statutes, policies, rules, or written 

objectives of the College that the Faculty member is alleged to have violated” with “such 

specificity that the Faculty member will be able to prepare a defense based on the 

statement” (RFP §§ 3.15.1. and 3.15.2.); the right to request a hearing “which shall 

suspend the dismissal procedure, pending the completion of the hearing.” (RFP § 

3.15.3.); the right to have a Hearing Committee constituted to conduct a hearing 

regarding the allegations against the faculty member (RFP § 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 or other representative (RFP § 3.15.6.). 

[Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:2 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP) at -21- thru -

23-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 17:11-18:22, attached hereto as 

Exhibit 3].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 23 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policy Manual. RFP § 3.15 is titled Faculty 

Member Dismissal – Probationary and Appointive and the subsections of RFP §

3.15 need to be read in conjunction one another. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual for 

2012-2013 (Effective July 1, 2012) Policy 3.15 states as follows:

3.15. Faculty Member Dismissal-Probationary and Appointive

A Faculty member who is recommended, by the College President, 

through the Chancellor, to the Governing Board, for dismissal shall 

have access to the following due-process procedures.

3.15.1.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 12 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

13

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

A written statement of charges, formulated by the College 

President, shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Human 

Resources. After review of the charges, the Vice Chancellor, in 

consultation with the MCCCD Legal Office, may recommend, 

to the Chancellor, that there exists prima facie cause for the 

dismissal of a Faculty member. The Chancellor shall inform the 

Governing Board in writing, with a copy of the 

recommendation being sent (U.S. certified or registered mail) to 

the Faculty member at his/her place of residence as recorded in 

the MCCCD records. The Vice Chancellor’s recommendation 

will give notice to the Chancellor, Governing Board, and the 

Faculty member of the intention to formally recommend 

dismissal, which shall not be sooner than thirty (30) days from 

the date of the letter, nor later than the end of the current 

academic year.

3.15.2.

A written statement of charges shall be provided to the 

Chancellor, Governing Board, and the Faculty member as an 

attachment to the notification outlined in the preceding 

paragraph. The statement of charges shall state, if applicable, 

the statutes, policies, rules, or written objectives of the College 

that the Faculty member is alleged to have violated. The 

statement of charges shall be of such specificity that the Faculty 

member will be able to prepare a defense based on the 

statement. 

3.15.3.

The Faculty member shall have the right to a hearing by filing a 

written request with the Vice-Chancellor within five (5) 

business days after being served with a notice of intent to 

dismiss. The filing of a timely request shall suspend the 

dismissal procedure, pending the completion of the hearing.

3.15.4.

Upon request, a Hearing Committee shall be constituted within 

five (5) business days and shall be composed of three (3) Faculty 

members: one (1) appointed by the Chancellor, one (1) selected 

by the President of the Faculty Association, and one (1) selected 

by the member. All three (3) shall be Appointive Faculty. The 

committed member selected by the Chancellor and the 

President of the Faculty Association will be from colleges other 

than the college where the Faculty member recommended for 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 13 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

14

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

dismissal is assigned. The committee shall be considered 

constituted when the hearing committee and the Faculty 

member have been informed by the Faculty Association 

President of the committee’s formation.

3.15.5.

The Hearing Committee shall select a Chair. Unless the parties 

stipulate to extend the time beyond that which is set forth 

below, the Chair shall conduct a meeting with the attorney 

representing the MCCCD and the Faculty member and/or 

his/her attorney/representative no later than twenty (20) 

business days after the formation of the committee for the 

purpose of exchanging exhibits, witness lists, and summaries of 

witness testimony. The Chair may choose to deny admission of 

an exhibit(s) or witness testimony for failure to comply with this 

Section.

3.15.6.

Unless the parties otherwise agree, the Hearing Committee shall 

conduct the hearing no later than ten (10) business days after 

the exchange of information detailed in Section 3.15.5. Prior to 

the hearing, the Faculty member must declare, in writing, 

whether he/she wishes the hearing to be public or in executive 

session. The member may attend the hearing; present any 

testimony, evidence, or statements, oral or written, in his/her 

behalf; and be represented by legal counsel or other 

representative. It is expressly understood that the act of 

testifying will not be subject to reprisal by the MCCCD.

3.15.7.

Within five (5) business days after completion of the hearing, 

the Hearing Committee shall provide the Chancellor, and the 

Faculty member with a summary of the evidence that was 

presented during the hearing. In addition, 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. The 

above deadline may be extended up to fifteen (15) business days 

after completion of the hearing, if the Hearing Committee 

requests briefs and/or recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law from the parties.

3.15.8.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 14 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

15

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

After receiving the Hearing Committee’s summary of evidence, 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation 

in regard to dismissal, the Chancellor, may meet with the 

Hearing Committee to clarify any questions he/she may have.

The Chancellor shall have ten (10) business days in which to 

review the recommendation regarding dismissal. The 

Chancellor may adopt the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendation regarding dismissal or make his/her own 

recommendation and forward the recommendation along with 

the summary of the evidence, a copy of the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and final recommendations of the Hearing 

Committee to the Governing Board.

3.15.9.

The Governing Board will meet with the Faculty member 

and/or his/her representative and a representative of the 

administration to hear arguments regarding the Chancellor’s 

and the Hearing Committee’s recommendation regarding 

dismissal. This meeting will be an executive session unless the 

Faculty member chooses to have this meeting in public. The 

parties shall have no less than one-half hour to present their 

respective cases. The length of the meeting shall not exceed one 

(1) hour.

3.15.10.

The Governing Board, at a public meeting, shall render a final 

decision for retention or dismissal of the Faculty member. A 

copy of the final decision shall be sent (U.S. certified or 

registered mail) to the Faculty member at his/her place of 

residence as recorded in MCCCD records. It is expressly 

understood that the Governing Board decision does not 

diminish the Faculty member’s right to seek other legal 

remedies under local, state and federal law.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

24. After completion of the hearing, the Hearing Committee provides the 

Chancellor and the faculty member with a summary of the evidence that was presented 

during the hearing, renders “binding written findings of fact and conclusions of law” and 

forwards them along with its recommendation regarding dismissal to the Chancellor. 

(RFP § 3.15.7.). [Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:2, 28:6-12, 29:7-11, Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 15 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

16

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

at -21- thru -23-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 17:11-18:22, 22:8-

18, attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 24 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policy Manual. RFP § 3.15 is titled Faculty 

Member Dismissal – Probationary and Appointive and the subsections of RFP § 

3.15 need to be read in conjunction one another. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual for 

2012-2013 (Effective July 1, 2012) Policy 3.15 states as follows:

3.15. Faculty Member Dismissal-Probationary and Appointive

A Faculty member who is recommended, by the College President, 

through the Chancellor, to the Governing Board, for dismissal shall 

have access to the following due-process procedures.

3.15.1.

A written statement of charges, formulated by the College 

President, shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Human 

Resources. After review of the charges, the Vice Chancellor, in 

consultation with the MCCCD Legal Office, may recommend, 

to the Chancellor, that there exists prima facie cause for the 

dismissal of a Faculty member. The Chancellor shall inform the 

Governing Board in writing, with a copy of the 

recommendation being sent (U.S. certified or registered mail) to 

the Faculty member at his/her place of residence as recorded in 

the MCCCD records. The Vice Chancellor’s recommendation 

will give notice to the Chancellor, Governing Board, and the 

Faculty member of the intention to formally recommend 

dismissal, which shall not be sooner than thirty (30) days from 

the date of the letter, nor later than the end of the current 

academic year.

3.15.2.

A written statement of charges shall be provided to the 

Chancellor, Governing Board, and the Faculty member as an 

attachment to the notification outlined in the preceding 

paragraph. The statement of charges shall state, if applicable, 

the statutes, policies, rules, or written objectives of the College 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 16 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

17

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

that the Faculty member is alleged to have violated. The 

statement of charges shall be of such specificity that the Faculty 

member will be able to prepare a defense based on the 

statement. 

3.15.3.

The Faculty member shall have the right to a hearing by filing a 

written request with the Vice-Chancellor within five (5) 

business days after being served with a notice of intent to 

dismiss. The filing of a timely request shall suspend the 

dismissal procedure, pending the completion of the hearing.

3.15.4.

Upon request, a Hearing Committee shall be constituted within 

five (5) business days and shall be composed of three (3) Faculty 

members: one (1) appointed by the Chancellor, one (1) selected 

by the President of the Faculty Association, and one (1) selected 

by the member. All three (3) shall be Appointive Faculty. The 

committed member selected by the Chancellor and the 

President of the Faculty Association will be from colleges other 

than the college where the Faculty member recommended for 

dismissal is assigned. The committee shall be considered 

constituted when the hearing committee and the Faculty 

member have been informed by the Faculty Association 

President of the committee’s formation.

3.15.5.

The Hearing Committee shall select a Chair. Unless the parties 

stipulate to extend the time beyond that which is set forth 

below, the Chair shall conduct a meeting with the attorney 

representing the MCCCD and the Faculty member and/or 

his/her attorney/representative no later than twenty (20) 

business days after the formation of the committee for the 

purpose of exchanging exhibits, witness lists, and summaries of 

witness testimony. The Chair may choose to deny admission of 

an exhibit(s) or witness testimony for failure to comply with this 

Section.

3.15.6.

Unless the parties otherwise agree, the Hearing Committee shall 

conduct the hearing no later than ten (10) business days after 

the exchange of information detailed in Section 3.15.5. Prior to 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 17 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

18

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

the hearing, the Faculty member must declare, in writing, 

whether he/she wishes the hearing to be public or in executive 

session. The member may attend the hearing; present any 

testimony, evidence, or statements, oral or written, in his/her 

behalf; and be represented by legal counsel or other 

representative. It is expressly understood that the act of 

testifying will not be subject to reprisal by the MCCCD.

3.15.7.

Within five (5) business days after completion of the hearing, 

the Hearing Committee shall provide the Chancellor, and the 

Faculty member with a summary of the evidence that was 

presented during the hearing. In addition, 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. The 

above deadline may be extended up to fifteen (15) business days 

after completion of the hearing, if the Hearing Committee 

requests briefs and/or recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law from the parties.

3.15.8.

After receiving the Hearing Committee’s summary of evidence, 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation 

in regard to dismissal, the Chancellor, may meet with the 

Hearing Committee to clarify any questions he/she may have.

The Chancellor shall have ten (10) business days in which to 

review the recommendation regarding dismissal. The 

Chancellor may adopt the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendation regarding dismissal or make his/her own 

recommendation and forward the recommendation along with 

the summary of the evidence, a copy of the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and final recommendations of the Hearing 

Committee to the Governing Board.

3.15.9.

The Governing Board will meet with the Faculty member 

and/or his/her representative and a representative of the 

administration to hear arguments regarding the Chancellor’s 

and the Hearing Committee’s recommendation regarding 

dismissal. This meeting will be an executive session unless the 

Faculty member chooses to have this meeting in public. The 

parties shall have no less than one-half hour to present their 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 18 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

19

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

respective cases. The length of the meeting shall not exceed one 

(1) hour.

3.15.10.

The Governing Board, at a public meeting, shall render a final 

decision for retention or dismissal of the Faculty member. A 

copy of the final decision shall be sent (U.S. certified or 

registered mail) to the Faculty member at his/her place of 

residence as recorded in MCCCD records. It is expressly 

understood that the Governing Board decision does not 

diminish the Faculty member’s right to seek other legal 

remedies under local, state and federal law.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

25. The Chancellor may meet with the Hearing Committee to clarify any 

questions he/she may have; and may then adopt the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendation regarding dismissal or make his/her own recommendation and forward 

the recommendation along with the summary of the evidence, a copy of the findings of

fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation of the Hearing Committee to the 

Governing Board. [Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:2, 33:18-34:9 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 

(2012-2013 RFP) at -21- thru -23-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 

17:11-18:22, attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 23 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policy Manual. RFP § 3.15 is titled Faculty 

Member Dismissal – Probationary and Appointive and the subsections of RFP § 

3.15 need to be read in conjunction one another. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual for 

2012-2013 (Effective July 1, 2012) Policy 3.15 states as follows:

3.15. Faculty Member Dismissal-Probationary and Appointive

A Faculty member who is recommended, by the College President, 

through the Chancellor, to the Governing Board, for dismissal shall 

have access to the following due-process procedures.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 19 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

20

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

3.15.1.

A written statement of charges, formulated by the College 

President, shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Human 

Resources. After review of the charges, the Vice Chancellor, in 

consultation with the MCCCD Legal Office, may recommend, 

to the Chancellor, that there exists prima facie cause for the 

dismissal of a Faculty member. The Chancellor shall inform the 

Governing Board in writing, with a copy of the 

recommendation being sent (U.S. certified or registered mail) to 

the Faculty member at his/her place of residence as recorded in 

the MCCCD records. The Vice Chancellor’s recommendation 

will give notice to the Chancellor, Governing Board, and the 

Faculty member of the intention to formally recommend 

dismissal, which shall not be sooner than thirty (30) days from 

the date of the letter, nor later than the end of the current 

academic year.

3.15.2.

A written statement of charges shall be provided to the 

Chancellor, Governing Board, and the Faculty member as an 

attachment to the notification outlined in the preceding 

paragraph. The statement of charges shall state, if applicable, 

the statutes, policies, rules, or written objectives of the College 

that the Faculty member is alleged to have violated. The 

statement of charges shall be of such specificity that the Faculty 

member will be able to prepare a defense based on the 

statement. 

3.15.3.

The Faculty member shall have the right to a hearing by filing a 

written request with the Vice-Chancellor within five (5) 

business days after being served with a notice of intent to 

dismiss. The filing of a timely request shall suspend the 

dismissal procedure, pending the completion of the hearing.

3.15.4.

Upon request, a Hearing Committee shall be constituted within 

five (5) business days and shall be composed of three (3) Faculty

members: one (1) appointed by the Chancellor, one (1) selected 

by the President of the Faculty Association, and one (1) selected 

by the member. All three (3) shall be Appointive Faculty. The 

committed member selected by the Chancellor and the 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 20 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

21

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

President of the Faculty Association will be from colleges other 

than the college where the Faculty member recommended for 

dismissal is assigned. The committee shall be considered 

constituted when the hearing committee and the Faculty 

member have been informed by the Faculty Association 

President of the committee’s formation.

3.15.5.

The Hearing Committee shall select a Chair. Unless the parties 

stipulate to extend the time beyond that which is set forth 

below, the Chair shall conduct a meeting with the attorney 

representing the MCCCD and the Faculty member and/or 

his/her attorney/representative no later than twenty (20) 

business days after the formation of the committee for the 

purpose of exchanging exhibits, witness lists, and summaries of 

witness testimony. The Chair may choose to deny admission of 

an exhibit(s) or witness testimony for failure to comply with this 

Section.

3.15.6.

Unless the parties otherwise agree, the Hearing Committee shall 

conduct the hearing no later than ten (10) business days after 

the exchange of information detailed in Section 3.15.5. Prior to 

the hearing, the Faculty member must declare, in writing, 

whether he/she wishes the hearing to be public or in executive 

session. The member may attend the hearing; present any 

testimony, evidence, or statements, oral or written, in his/her 

behalf; and be represented by legal counsel or other 

representative. It is expressly understood that the act of 

testifying will not be subject to reprisal by the MCCCD.

3.15.7.

Within five (5) business days after completion of the hearing, 

the Hearing Committee shall provide the Chancellor, and the 

Faculty member with a summary of the evidence that was 

presented during the hearing. In addition, 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. The 

above deadline may be extended up to fifteen (15) business days 

after completion of the hearing, if the Hearing Committee 

requests briefs and/or recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law from the parties.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 21 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

22

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

3.15.8.

After receiving the Hearing Committee’s summary of evidence, 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation 

in regard to dismissal, the Chancellor, may meet with the 

Hearing Committee to clarify any questions he/she may have.

The Chancellor shall have ten (10) business days in which to 

review the recommendation regarding dismissal. The 

Chancellor may adopt the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendation regarding dismissal or make his/her own 

recommendation and forward the recommendation along with 

the summary of the evidence, a copy of the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and final recommendations of the Hearing 

Committee to the Governing Board.

3.15.9.

The Governing Board will meet with the Faculty member 

and/or his/her representative and a representative of the 

administration to hear arguments regarding the Chancellor’s 

and the Hearing Committee’s recommendation regarding 

dismissal. This meeting will be an executive session unless the 

Faculty member chooses to have this meeting in public. The 

parties shall have no less than one-half hour to present their 

respective cases. The length of the meeting shall not exceed one 

(1) hour.

3.15.10.

The Governing Board, at a public meeting, shall render a final 

decision for retention or dismissal of the Faculty member. A 

copy of the final decision shall be sent (U.S. certified or 

registered mail) to the Faculty member at his/her place of 

residence as recorded in MCCCD records. It is expressly 

understood that the Governing Board decision does not 

diminish the Faculty member’s right to seek other legal 

remedies under local, state and federal law.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

26. The Governing Board will meet with the Faculty member and/or his/her 

representative and a representative of the administration to hear arguments regarding the 

Chancellor’s and the Hearing Committee’s recommendation regarding dismissal. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 22 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

23

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

[Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:2, 33:18-34:9 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP) at 

-21- thru -23-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 17:11-18:22, attached 

hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 23 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policy Manual. RFP § 3.15 is titled Faculty 

Member Dismissal – Probationary and Appointive and the subsections of RFP § 

3.15 need to be read in conjunction one another. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual for 

2012-2013 (Effective July 1, 2012) Policy 3.15 states as follows:

3.15. Faculty Member Dismissal-Probationary and Appointive

A Faculty member who is recommended, by the College President, 

through the Chancellor, to the Governing Board, for dismissal shall 

have access to the following due-process procedures.

3.15.1.

A written statement of charges, formulated by the College 

President, shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Human 

Resources. After review of the charges, the Vice Chancellor, in

consultation with the MCCCD Legal Office, may recommend, 

to the Chancellor, that there exists prima facie cause for the 

dismissal of a Faculty member. The Chancellor shall inform the 

Governing Board in writing, with a copy of the 

recommendation being sent (U.S. certified or registered mail) to 

the Faculty member at his/her place of residence as recorded in 

the MCCCD records. The Vice Chancellor’s recommendation 

will give notice to the Chancellor, Governing Board, and the 

Faculty member of the intention to formally recommend 

dismissal, which shall not be sooner than thirty (30) days from 

the date of the letter, nor later than the end of the current 

academic year.

3.15.2.

A written statement of charges shall be provided to the 

Chancellor, Governing Board, and the Faculty member as an 

attachment to the notification outlined in the preceding 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 23 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

24

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

paragraph. The statement of charges shall state, if applicable, 

the statutes, policies, rules, or written objectives of the College 

that the Faculty member is alleged to have violated. The 

statement of charges shall be of such specificity that the Faculty 

member will be able to prepare a defense based on the 

statement. 

3.15.3.

The Faculty member shall have the right to a hearing by filing a 

written request with the Vice-Chancellor within five (5) 

business days after being served with a notice of intent to 

dismiss. The filing of a timely request shall suspend the 

dismissal procedure, pending the completion of the hearing.

3.15.4.

Upon request, a Hearing Committee shall be constituted within 

five (5) business days and shall be composed of three (3) Faculty 

members: one (1) appointed by the Chancellor, one (1) selected 

by the President of the Faculty Association, and one (1) selected 

by the member. All three (3) shall be Appointive Faculty. The 

committed member selected by the Chancellor and the 

President of the Faculty Association will be from colleges other 

than the college where the Faculty member recommended for 

dismissal is assigned. The committee shall be considered

constituted when the hearing committee and the Faculty 

member have been informed by the Faculty Association 

President of the committee’s formation.

3.15.5.

The Hearing Committee shall select a Chair. Unless the parties 

stipulate to extend the time beyond that which is set forth 

below, the Chair shall conduct a meeting with the attorney 

representing the MCCCD and the Faculty member and/or 

his/her attorney/representative no later than twenty (20) 

business days after the formation of the committee for the 

purpose of exchanging exhibits, witness lists, and summaries of 

witness testimony. The Chair may choose to deny admission of 

an exhibit(s) or witness testimony for failure to comply with this 

Section.

3.15.6.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 24 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

25

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Unless the parties otherwise agree, the Hearing Committee shall 

conduct the hearing no later than ten (10) business days after 

the exchange of information detailed in Section 3.15.5. Prior to 

the hearing, the Faculty member must declare, in writing, 

whether he/she wishes the hearing to be public or in executive 

session. The member may attend the hearing; present any 

testimony, evidence, or statements, oral or written, in his/her 

behalf; and be represented by legal counsel or other 

representative. It is expressly understood that the act of 

testifying will not be subject to reprisal by the MCCCD.

3.15.7.

Within five (5) business days after completion of the hearing, 

the Hearing Committee shall provide the Chancellor, and the 

Faculty member with a summary of the evidence that was 

presented during the hearing. In addition, 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. The 

above deadline may be extended up to fifteen (15) business days 

after completion of the hearing, if the Hearing Committee 

requests briefs and/or recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law from the parties.

3.15.8.

After receiving the Hearing Committee’s summary of evidence, 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation 

in regard to dismissal, the Chancellor, may meet with the 

Hearing Committee to clarify any questions he/she may have.

The Chancellor shall have ten (10) business days in which to 

review the recommendation regarding dismissal. The 

Chancellor may adopt the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendation regarding dismissal or make his/her own 

recommendation and forward the recommendation along with 

the summary of the evidence, a copy of the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and final recommendations of the Hearing 

Committee to the Governing Board.

3.15.9.

The Governing Board will meet with the Faculty member 

and/or his/her representative and a representative of the 

administration to hear arguments regarding the Chancellor’s 

and the Hearing Committee’s recommendation regarding 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 25 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

26

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

dismissal. This meeting will be an executive session unless the 

Faculty member chooses to have this meeting in public. The 

parties shall have no less than one-half hour to present their 

respective cases. The length of the meeting shall not exceed one 

(1) hour.

3.15.10.

The Governing Board, at a public meeting, shall render a final 

decision for retention or dismissal of the Faculty member. A 

copy of the final decision shall be sent (U.S. certified or 

registered mail) to the Faculty member at his/her place of 

residence as recorded in MCCCD records. It is expressly 

understood that the Governing Board decision does not 

diminish the Faculty member’s right to seek other legal 

remedies under local, state and federal law.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

27. The parties are to have no less than one-half hour to present their 

respective cases. (RFP § 3.15.9.). [Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:2 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 

1 (2012-2013 RFP) at -23-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 23 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policy Manual. RFP § 3.15 is titled Faculty 

Member Dismissal – Probationary and Appointive and the subsections of RFP § 

3.15 need to be read in conjunction one another. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD Residential Faculty Policy Manual for 

2012-2013 (Effective July 1, 2012) Policy 3.152 states as follows:

3.15. Faculty Member Dismissal-Probationary and Appointive

A Faculty member who is recommended, by the College President, 

through the Chancellor, to the Governing Board, for dismissal shall 

have access to the following due-process procedures.

3.15.1.

A written statement of charges, formulated by the College 

President, shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Human 

Resources. After review of the charges, the Vice Chancellor, in 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 26 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

27

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

consultation with the MCCCD Legal Office, may recommend, 

to the Chancellor, that there exists prima facie cause for the 

dismissal of a Faculty member. The Chancellor shall inform the 

Governing Board in writing, with a copy of the 

recommendation being sent (U.S. certified or registered mail) to 

the Faculty member at his/her place of residence as recorded in 

the MCCCD records. The Vice Chancellor’s recommendation 

will give notice to the Chancellor, Governing Board, and the 

Faculty member of the intention to formally recommend 

dismissal, which shall not be sooner than thirty (30) days from 

the date of the letter, nor later than the end of the current 

academic year.

3.15.2.

A written statement of charges shall be provided to the 

Chancellor, Governing Board, and the Faculty member as an 

attachment to the notification outlined in the preceding 

paragraph. The statement of charges shall state, if applicable, 

the statutes, policies, rules, or written objectives of the College 

that the Faculty member is alleged to have violated. The 

statement of charges shall be of such specificity that the Faculty 

member will be able to prepare a defense based on the 

statement. 

3.15.3.

The Faculty member shall have the right to a hearing by filing a 

written request with the Vice-Chancellor within five (5) 

business days after being served with a notice of intent to 

dismiss. The filing of a timely request shall suspend the 

dismissal procedure, pending the completion of the hearing.

3.15.4.

Upon request, a Hearing Committee shall be constituted within 

five (5) business days and shall be composed of three (3) Faculty 

members: one (1) appointed by the Chancellor, one (1) selected 

by the President of the Faculty Association, and one (1) selected 

by the member. All three (3) shall be Appointive Faculty. The 

committed member selected by the Chancellor and the 

President of the Faculty Association will be from colleges other 

than the college where the Faculty member recommended for 

dismissal is assigned. The committee shall be considered 

constituted when the hearing committee and the Faculty 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 27 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

28

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

member have been informed by the Faculty Association 

President of the committee’s formation.

3.15.5.

The Hearing Committee shall select a Chair. Unless the parties 

stipulate to extend the time beyond that which is set forth 

below, the Chair shall conduct a meeting with the attorney 

representing the MCCCD and the Faculty member and/or 

his/her attorney/representative no later than twenty (20) 

business days after the formation of the committee for the 

purpose of exchanging exhibits, witness lists, and summaries of 

witness testimony. The Chair may choose to deny admission of 

an exhibit(s) or witness testimony for failure to comply with this 

Section.

3.15.6.

Unless the parties otherwise agree, the Hearing Committee shall 

conduct the hearing no later than ten (10) business days after 

the exchange of information detailed in Section 3.15.5. Prior to 

the hearing, the Faculty member must declare, in writing, 

whether he/she wishes the hearing to be public or in executive 

session. The member may attend the hearing; present any 

testimony, evidence, or statements, oral or written, in his/her 

behalf; and be represented by legal counsel or other 

representative. It is expressly understood that the act of 

testifying will not be subject to reprisal by the MCCCD.

3.15.7.

Within five (5) business days after completion of the hearing, 

the Hearing Committee shall provide the Chancellor, and the 

Faculty member with a summary of the evidence that was 

presented during the hearing. In addition, 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. The 

above deadline may be extended up to fifteen (15) business days 

after completion of the hearing, if the Hearing Committee 

requests briefs and/or recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law from the parties.

3.15.8.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 28 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

29

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

After receiving the Hearing Committee’s summary of evidence, 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation 

in regard to dismissal, the Chancellor, may meet with the 

Hearing Committee to clarify any questions he/she may have.

The Chancellor shall have ten (10) business days in which to 

review the recommendation regarding dismissal. The 

Chancellor may adopt the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendation regarding dismissal or make his/her own 

recommendation and forward the recommendation along with 

the summary of the evidence, a copy of the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and final recommendations of the Hearing 

Committee to the Governing Board.

3.15.9.

The Governing Board will meet with the Faculty member 

and/or his/her representative and a representative of the 

administration to hear arguments regarding the Chancellor’s 

and the Hearing Committee’s recommendation regarding 

dismissal. This meeting will be an executive session unless the 

Faculty member chooses to have this meeting in public. The 

parties shall have no less than one-half hour to present their 

respective cases. The length of the meeting shall not exceed one 

(1) hour.

3.15.10.

The Governing Board, at a public meeting, shall render a final 

decision for retention or dismissal of the Faculty member. A 

copy of the final decision shall be sent (U.S. certified or 

registered mail) to the Faculty member at his/her place of 

residence as recorded in MCCCD records. It is expressly 

understood that the Governing Board decision does not 

diminish the Faculty member’s right to seek other legal 

remedies under local, state and federal law.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

28. The Governing Board, at a public meeting, shall render a final decision for 

the retention or dismissal of the Faculty member. [Glasper Depo. at 7:18-8:2 and Glasper 

Depo. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP) at -23-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Castellanos 

Depo. at 17:11-18:22, attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 29 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

30

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

3.15. Faculty Member Dismissal-Probationary and Appointive

A Faculty member who is recommended, by the College President, 

through the Chancellor, to the Governing Board, for dismissal shall 

have access to the following due-process procedures.

3.15.1.

A written statement of charges, formulated by the College 

President, shall be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor of Human 

Resources. After review of the charges, the Vice Chancellor, in 

consultation with the MCCCD Legal Office, may recommend, 

to the Chancellor, that there exists prima facie cause for the 

dismissal of a Faculty member. The Chancellor shall inform the 

Governing Board in writing, with a copy of the 

recommendation being sent (U.S. certified or registered mail) to 

the Faculty member at his/her place of residence as recorded in 

the MCCCD records. The Vice Chancellor’s recommendation 

will give notice to the Chancellor, Governing Board, and the 

Faculty member of the intention to formally recommend 

dismissal, which shall not be sooner than thirty (30) days from 

the date of the letter, nor later than the end of the current 

academic year.

3.15.2.

A written statement of charges shall be provided to the 

Chancellor, Governing Board, and the Faculty member as an 

attachment to the notification outlined in the preceding 

paragraph. The statement of charges shall state, if applicable, 

the statutes, policies, rules, or written objectives of the College 

that the Faculty member is alleged to have violated. The 

statement of charges shall be of such specificity that the Faculty 

member will be able to prepare a defense based on the 

statement. 

3.15.3.

The Faculty member shall have the right to a hearing by filing a 

written request with the Vice-Chancellor within five (5) 

business days after being served with a notice of intent to 

dismiss. The filing of a timely request shall suspend the 

dismissal procedure, pending the completion of the hearing.

3.15.4.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 30 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

31

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Upon request, a Hearing Committee shall be constituted within 

five (5) business days and shall be composed of three (3) Faculty 

members: one (1) appointed by the Chancellor, one (1) selected 

by the President of the Faculty Association, and one (1) selected 

by the member. All three (3) shall be Appointive Faculty. The 

committed member selected by the Chancellor and the 

President of the Faculty Association will be from colleges other 

than the college where the Faculty member recommended for 

dismissal is assigned. The committee shall be considered 

constituted when the hearing committee and the Faculty 

member have been informed by the Faculty Association 

President of the committee’s formation.

3.15.5.

The Hearing Committee shall select a Chair. Unless the parties 

stipulate to extend the time beyond that which is set forth 

below, the Chair shall conduct a meeting with the attorney 

representing the MCCCD and the Faculty member and/or 

his/her attorney/representative no later than twenty (20) 

business days after the formation of the committee for the 

purpose of exchanging exhibits, witness lists, and summaries of 

witness testimony. The Chair may choose to deny admission of 

an exhibit(s) or witness testimony for failure to comply with this 

Section.

3.15.6.

Unless the parties otherwise agree, the Hearing Committee shall 

conduct the hearing no later than ten (10) business days after 

the exchange of information detailed in Section 3.15.5. Prior to 

the hearing, the Faculty member must declare, in writing, 

whether he/she wishes the hearing to be public or in executive 

session. The member may attend the hearing; present any 

testimony, evidence, or statements, oral or written, in his/her 

behalf; and be represented by legal counsel or other 

representative. It is expressly understood that the act of 

testifying will not be subject to reprisal by the MCCCD.

3.15.7.

Within five (5) business days after completion of the hearing, 

the Hearing Committee shall provide the Chancellor, and the 

Faculty member with a summary of the evidence that was 

presented during the hearing. In addition, the Hearing 

Committee shall render binding written findings of fact and 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 31 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

32

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

conclusions of law and forward these along with its 

recommendation regarding dismissal to the Chancellor. The 

above deadline may be extended up to fifteen (15) business days 

after completion of the hearing, if the Hearing Committee 

requests briefs and/or recommended findings of fact and 

conclusions of law from the parties.

3.15.8.

After receiving the Hearing Committee’s summary of evidence, 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation 

in regard to dismissal, the Chancellor, may meet with the 

Hearing Committee to clarify any questions he/she may have.

The Chancellor shall have ten (10) business days in which to 

review the recommendation regarding dismissal. The 

Chancellor may adopt the Hearing Committee’s 

recommendation regarding dismissal or make his/her own 

recommendation and forward the recommendation along with 

the summary of the evidence, a copy of the findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and final recommendations of the Hearing 

Committee to the Governing Board.

3.15.9.

The Governing Board will meet with the Faculty member 

and/or his/her representative and a representative of the 

administration to hear arguments regarding the Chancellor’s 

and the Hearing Committee’s recommendation regarding 

dismissal. This meeting will be an executive session unless the 

Faculty member chooses to have this meeting in public. The 

parties shall have no less than one-half hour to present their 

respective cases. The length of the meeting shall not exceed one 

(1) hour.

3.15.10.

The Governing Board, at a public meeting, shall render a final

decision for retention or dismissal of the Faculty member. A 

copy of the final decision shall be sent (U.S. certified or 

registered mail) to the Faculty member at his/her place of 

residence as recorded in MCCCD records. It is expressly 

understood that the Governing Board decision does not 

diminish the Faculty member’s right to seek other legal 

remedies under local, state and federal law.

[DSOF ¶¶1-2 (DSOF Exh. 1)].

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 32 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

33

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

29. Martinez exercised her right to an evidentiary hearing regarding the 

allegations in the August 9, 2013 Statement of Charges, which was held on November 

18, 2013. [Glasper Depo. at 27:1-7, 33:18-34:9, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Martinez 

Depo. Vol. I at 53:4-16, attached hereto as Exhibit 1].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶ 29.

30. On December 9, 2013, after considering the pleadings and evidence 

presented at the hearing, including expert testimony, the Hearing Committee issued its 

written Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, in which it made 

the following binding findings: 

[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 MCCCD Administrative 

Regulations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 related to copyright regulations.

[Glasper Depo. at 35:11-24 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 5 (Hearing Committee Findings 

of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation) at -7-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; 

A more legible copy of the Hearing Committee Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 

and Recommendation is also at Bates Numbers MCCCD/Martinez03845-03852, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 4].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 30 because it mischaracterizes and selectively 

cites to the MCCCD Hearing Committee’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 

and Recommendation – which total eight pages in length. The Hearing 

Committee’s conclusions of law are as follow: 

CONCLUSIONS

63. PC 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 33 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

34

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Administrative Regulations 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 related to copyright 

regulations.

64. Notwithstanding their education, their experience and their 

good faith Mr. Bellamy and Mr. Garrison disagreed as to whether or 

not Dr. Martinez violated copyright law. Therefore, it is inconclusive 

as to whether or not Dr. Martinez violated copyright law. Therefore, 

it is inconclusive as to whether or not Dr. Martinez intentionally 

and/or inadvertently violated federal copyright law. 

65. It is inconclusive as to whether or not Dr. Martinez violated the 

“cash handling” policies of MCCCD.

66. Dr. Martinez 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.

67. Dr. Martinez conceded that she never complied with President 

Solley’s clear directive to issue refunds to her students. Although Cr. 

Martinez now regrets her decision not to comply with President 

Solley’s directive, she has never claimed that she did not understand 

the instructions or that the instructions were beyond the scope of 

management’s authority. Viewed in light of these facts, Martinez’s 

claim that she “made a mistake” is an admission of willful 

insubordination.

68. By failing to comply with President Solley’s directive to issue 

refunds to her students, Dr. Martinez 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.”

69. By failing to comply with President Solley’s directive to issue 

refunds to students, Dr. Martinez violated MCCCD Administrative 

Regulation 6.7.3 which prohibits the “[w]illful and intentional failure 

to preform job duties that have first been communicated to an 

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

[DSOF ¶24 (DSOF Exh. 24, p. 7)].

31. The Committee further found, however, that Martinez “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 in violation of MCCCD 

Administrative Regulations 6.7.1. and 6.7.3. [Id.].

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 34 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

35

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Defendants do not dispute that the Hearing Committee found Plaintiff to 

have engaged in willful insubordination. However, Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 31 

because it misquotes and mischaracterizes the MCCCD Hearing Committee’s 

conclusions of law regarding Plaintiff’s willful insubordination. The Hearing 

Committee’s conclusions of law regarding Plaintiff’s willful insubordination are as 

follow: 

66. Dr. Martinez 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.

67. Dr. Martinez conceded that she never complied with President 

Solley’s clear directive to issue refunds to her students. Although Cr. 

Martinez now regrets her decision not to comply with President Solley’s 

directive, she has never claimed that she did not understand the instructions 

or that the instructions were beyond the scope of management’s authority. 

Viewed in light of these facts, Martinez’s claim that she “made a mistake” is 

an admission of willful insubordination.

68. By failing to comply with President Solley’s directive to issue

refunds to her studnets, Dr. Martinez 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.”

69. By failing to comply with President Solley’s directive to issue 

refunds to students, Dr. Martinez violated MCCCD Administrative 

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

preform job duties that have first been communicated to an employee and 

are within the employee’s scope of employment.” 

[DSOF ¶24 (DSOF Exh. 24, p. 7)].

32. The Committee further recommended that the Governing Board deny the 

termination request and allow Martinez to continue her MCCCD employment [Glasper 

Depo. at 35:11-24 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 5 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation) at -8-, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; A more 

legible copy of the Hearing Committee Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and 

Recommendation is also at Bates Numbers MCCCD/Martinez03845-03852, attached 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 35 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

36

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

hereto as Exhibit 4].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 32 because it selectively cites to the MCCCD 

Hearing Committee’s recommendations. The Hearing Committee’s 

recommendations state as follows: 

70. We hereby recommend that the Governing Board deny 

President Solley’s termination request and allow Dr. Martinez to continue 

her MCCCD employment. 

71. Per MCCCD Administrative Regulation 6.7 indicating that 

violation of any Employment Standards “constituted grounds for 

disciplinary action, up to [emphasis added] and including termination,” we 

hereby recommend that the Governing Board retain Dr. Martinez.” 

[DSOF ¶24 (DSOF Exh. 24, p. 8)].

33. The Hearing Committee then delivered to Glasper, its summary of 

evidence, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final recommendation. [Glasper 

Depo. at 34:23-35:10 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 4 (December 9, 2013 Letter from 

Hearing Committee Counsel to Glasper), attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute that the Hearing Committee delivered its Findings 

of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation dated December 9, 2013 to 

Chancellor Glasper.

34. On February 10, 2014, pursuant RFP § 3.15.8., Glasper sent a letter to the 

President of the Governing Board indicating that he had accepted the recommendation of 

the Hearing Committee that Martinez not be dismissed. [Glasper Depo. at 35:25-36:14, 

37:23-38:12 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 6 (February 10, 2014 Letter from Glasper to 

Governing Board with attachments) at 1-2, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants admit that on February 10, 2014, Chancellor Glasper sent a 

letter to the President of MCCCD’s Governing Board forwarding his 

recommendation regarding dismissal and informing the Governing Board:

Based on all the information referred to above and attached hereto, I accept 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 36 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

37

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

the written recommendation of the committee that Dr. Martinez NOT be 

dismissed. After consulting with the committee, I have determined that a 

lesser sanction authorized by the RFP and within my sole discretion as 

Chancellor is appropriate and warranted. 

Exhibit A.

Plaintiff’s counsel Steven Montoya was copied on this email. Exhibit A. 

Included with Chancellor Glasper’s February 10, 2014 letter to the Governing 

Board and Plaintiff’s counsel was the February 10, 2014 Notice of Suspension 

without Pay, Statement of Charges, and the Hearing Committee’s Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation, and relevant RFP sections. Exhibit A.

35. Glasper could have recommended to the Governing Board that they give 

Martinez some discipline less than a termination, such as a suspension. [Glasper Depo. at 

34:4-9, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute that the Governing Board holds ultimate 

authority over personnel actions. But as the Chancellor of MCCCD, Glasper “had 

the right pursuant to the Residential Faculty Policies to unilaterally lower discipline 

from termination to suspension.” Doc. 72-2, p. 35 (Glasper deposition correction 

page at PSOF Exh. 2). Chancellor Glasper exercised this authority when he 

prepared the February 10, 2014 Notice of Suspension without Pay and Statement of 

Charges, which he forwarded to the Governing Board under a February 10, 2014 

cover letter with a copy to Plaintiff’s counsel. Exhibit A. Nevertheless, if a faculty 

member “did not agree with a suspension, then they could request that it go to the 

Vice Chancellor and then to [the Chancellor] and then to the Governing Board. 

But that doesn’t mean that a suspended employee has the right to a hearing before 

the Governing Board. Rather, it is up to the Governing Board whether the 

Governing Board wants to hear more about a suspension.” Doc. 72-2, p. 35 

(Glasper deposition correction page at PSOF Exh. 2). In accordance with this 

practice, Plaintiff was allowed to submit a nine page legal brief to the Governing 

Board through her attorney arguing that her “fourteen-month suspension is the 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 37 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

38

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

economic equivalent of a dismissal.” [DSOF ¶ 29]. Plaintiff also sent at least four 

letters to the Governing Board asking “the board to intervene in [her] case to 

rescind the Chancellor’s suspension.” [DSOF ¶ 30]. On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff 

and her counsel each separately spoke before the Governing Board in open session 

and advanced the argument that her suspension was improper and that “the 

chancellor’s fourteen month suspension of [Plaintiff] is the functional equivalent of 

termination from the district.” [DSOF ¶30]. Plaintiff also appeared before the 

Governing Board in open session a second time on October 28, 2014 and argued 

against her suspension. [DSOF ¶35]. Finally, Plaintiff had two other individuals 

separately appear before the Governing Board on her behalf and object to her 

suspension. [DSOF ¶35].

36. Dr. Glasper did not do so. [Glasper Depo. at 37:23-38:2, attached hereto as 

Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute that Chancellor Glasper did not seek Governing 

Board approval of Plaintiff’ suspension. But as the Chancellor of MCCCD, 

Glasper “had the right pursuant to the Residential Faculty Policies to unilaterally 

lower discipline from termination to suspension.” Doc. 72-2, p. 35 (Glasper 

deposition correction page at PSOF Exh. 2). Chancellor Glasper exercised this 

authority when he prepared the February 10, 2014 Notice of Suspension without 

Pay and Statement of Charges, which he forwarded to the Governing Board under 

a February 10, 2014 cover letter with a copy to Plaintiff’s counsel. Exhibit A.

Nevertheless, if a faculty member “did not agree with a suspension, then they could 

request that it go to the Vice Chancellor and then to [the Chancellor] and then to 

the Governing Board. But that doesn’t mean that a suspended employee has the 

right to a hearing before the Governing Board. Rather, it is up to the Governing 

Board whether the Governing Board wants to hear more about a suspension.” Doc. 

72-2, p. 35 (Glasper deposition correction page at PSOF Exh. 2). In accordance 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 38 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

39

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

with this practice, Plaintiff was allowed to submit a nine page legal brief to the 

Governing Board through her attorney arguing that her “fourteen-month 

suspension is the economic equivalent of a dismissal.” [DSOF ¶ 29]. Plaintiff also 

sent at least four letters to the Governing Board asking “the board to intervene in 

[her] case to rescind the Chancellor’s suspension.” [DSOF ¶ 30]. On March 25, 

2014, Plaintiff and her counsel each separately spoke before the Governing Board 

in open session and advanced the argument that her suspension was improper and 

that “the chancellor’s fourteen month suspension of [Plaintiff] is the functional 

equivalent of termination from the district.” [DSOF ¶30]. Plaintiff also appeared 

before the Governing Board in open session a second time on October 28, 2014 and 

argued against her suspension. [DSOF ¶35]. Finally, Plaintiff had two other 

individuals separately appear before the Governing Board on her behalf and object 

to her suspension. [DSOF ¶35].

37. Instead, the same day, Glasper sent a letter to Martinez stating that:

Based upon the [attached] written statement of charges, I have decided to 

suspend your employment under my sole authority as Chancellor pursuant 

to section 3.11 of the Residential Faculty Policies. The purpose of this 

letter [is] to notify you that your suspension from your position as 

Mathematics faculty at Phoenix College will begin on March 1, 2014 and 

end on May 15, 2015. Your teaching responsibilities and pay will resume 

Fall semester, 2015 unless you choose to retire (see below). 

Having sought the advice of the General Counsel as required by Section 

3.11.3 of the RFP, I am satisfied that your procedural rights concerning the 

grounds for suspension have been met. The basis for this action is the 

unanimous finding of an independent hearing committee that you willfully 

violated the district policies set forth in the statement of charges and that I 

have the authority to suspend your employment without pay.

Also under the terms of subsection 3.11.3, the interim Vice Chancellor for 

Human Resources will offer to consult with you...concerning the rationale 

for this decision. If you accept his invitation, he will deliver this notice and 

attachment after the meeting. If you decline your opportunity to consult 

with him, he will have the decision delivered to you in accordance with the 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 39 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

40

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

policy.

You may voluntarily retire from your position in lieu of this suspension 

without pay....

[Glasper Depo. at 35:25-36:14, 38:3-12 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 6 (February 10, 2014 

Letter from Glasper to Governing Board with attachments) at page 3, attached hereto as 

Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 26:12-24 and Castellanos Depo. Exhibit 6 (February 10, 

2014 Notice of Suspension without Pay and Statement of Charges) at page 1 of 11, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 37 because it mis-cites Glasper’s letter to 

Plaintiff by adding emphasis without noting the emphasis was not contained in the 

original. PSOF ¶ 37 is further objectionable because the cited language is not the 

entire letter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants do not dispute that 

Plaintiff and her counsel were provided with Plaintiff’s notice of suspension on 

February 10, 2014 that outlined the dates of her suspension from March 1, 2014 

through May 15, 2015. Exhibit A. Plaintiff’s suspension dates were later modified 

to April 15, 2014 through May 15, 2015. [DSOF ¶27]

38. RFP § 3.11. was renumbered under the 2013-2014 RFP. Under the 

previous RFP, for 2012-2013, it was numbered as § 3.13. [Glasper Depo. at 36:16-37:1, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants do not dispute RFP ¶ 38.

39. The suspension was later pushed back to April 14, 2014 due to scheduling 

conflicts for a meeting between Glasper, the Vice-chancellor of HR and Martinez. 

[Deposition of Dr. Cleopatria Martinez on October 11, 2016 (“Martinez Depo. Vol. II”) 

at 287:11-288:14, attached hereto as Exhibit 5].

Defendants dispute PSOF ¶ 39. The Statement of Charges was originally 

dated February 10, 2014, with an effective suspension date of March 1, 2014. [DSOF 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 40 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

41

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

¶27]. MCCCD originally scheduled a meeting between Plaintiff and Vice Chancellor of 

Human Resources Bowers to discuss the Statement of Charges on February 25, 2014 –

four days before the effective date of the suspension. [DSOF ¶27]. The day before the

meeting was scheduled to take place, Plaintiff unilaterally canceled the meeting citing a

“sudden medical issue.” [DSOF ¶27] She informed MCCCD that the earliest she could 

meet consistent with her attorney’s schedule was Friday, March 7, 2014. [DSOF ¶27] 

MCCCD accommodated Plaintiff’s request to move her meeting to March 7, 2014, and 

postponed Plaintiff’s suspension by one month to ensure that she received a meeting 

with the Vice Chancellor prior to the suspension taking effect. [DSOF ¶27] Plaintiff 

was issued a an Update to Notice of Suspension Without Pay dated April 14, 2014 

which stated that her revised dates of suspension were April 15, 2014 through May 15, 

2015. [DSOF ¶27] 

40. This was the first time in Glasper’s nearly thirteen years as Chancellor that 

Glasper suspended a faculty member under 2013-2014 RFP § 3.11. or an equivalent 

section from previous RFPs. [Glasper Depo. at 43:19-21, Glasper Depo. Errata Sheet at 

43:21, attached hereto as Exhibit 2].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 40 because the allegations are irrelevant and 

inadmissible because they do not “make the existence of any fact that is of 

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than 

it would be without the evidence.” FRE 401, 402; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Dr. Glasper only recalls suspending two faculty 

members under 2013-2014 RFP § 3.11. or an equivalent section from previous 

RFPs. Those two individuals were Plaintiff in April of 2014 and one other faculty 

member in February of 2016. Doc. 72-2, p. 35 (Glasper deposition correction page 

at PSOF Exh. 2); DSOF ¶26-28; DSOF Exh. 36.

41. The only other unpaid suspension Glasper issued under this policy, 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 41 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

42

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

pursuant to with faculty members are “normally paid”, occurred in February, 2016, the

last month of Glasper’s employment with MCCCD, and after this lawsuit was filed. 

[Glasper Depo. at 43:19-21, Glasper Depo. Errata Sheet at 43:21; Castellanos Depo. at 

63:3-14 and Castellanos Depo. Exhibit 12 (Personnel Action Request) at page 1-2, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 41 because the allegations are irrelevant and 

inadmissible because they do not “make the existence of any fact that is of 

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than

it would be without the evidence.” FRE 401, 402; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants Dr. Glasper only recalls suspending two 

faculty members under 2013-2014 RFP § 3.11 or an equivalent section from 

previous RFPs. Those two individuals were Plaintiff in April of 2014 and one other 

faculty member in February of 2016. Doc. 72-2, p. 35 (Glasper deposition 

correction page at PSOF Exh. 2); DSOF ¶26-28; DSOF Exh. 36.

42. It was a three-day suspension that involved no loss of benefits. [Id.].

Defendants object to PSOF ¶ 42 because the allegations are irrelevant and 

inadmissible because they do not “make the existence of any fact that is of 

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than 

it would be without the evidence.” FRE 401, 402; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the faculty member suspension that occurred in 

February 2016 was without pay, but did not result in a loss of benefits. 

43. Along with the Notice of Suspension without Pay, Glasper provided

Martinez with a Statement of Charges, also signed by Glasper, in which the allegations

in the August 9, 2013 Statement of Charges are essentially repeated, but in which it is

also written, in pertinent part, as follows:

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 42 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

43

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Based upon the findings of the hearing committee which are attached to

this statement, and the record of their proceeding, I have determined as

follows:

******

An additional concern arose after a student brought the copying to PC’s 

attention, complaining you did not provide receipts for the material 

charges. MCCCD Administrative Regulation 1.12 states as follows:

`1.12.2 Authorization

Prior to participating in the sale of products or services, Revenue 

and Expenditure categories must be included in a program’s budget, 

and approved by the Governing Board during the annual budget 

adoption process, or as legally changed the first year 

1.12.3. Fees

Fees exchanged for products or services produced through an 

educational, training or service activity shall be pre-approved by the 

Governing Board.’

Phoenix College determined that your course materials charge was not 

included in the adopted budget or pre-approved by the Governing Board.

[Glasper Depo. at 35:25-38:12 and Glasper Depo. Exhibit 6 (February 10, 2014 Letter 

from Glasper to Governing Board with attachments) at pages 4-5, attached hereto as 

Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 26:12-24 and Castellanos Depo. Exhibit 6 (February 10, 

2014 Notice of Suspension without Pay and Statement of Charges) at Page 2-3 of 11, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants do not dispute that sections 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 of MCCCD’S 

administrative regulations are referenced in the February 10, 2014 written notice of 

suspension which was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on that same date. The February 

10, 2014 written notice of suspension shows that Plaintiff’s prior counsel, Stephen 

Montoya, is a copied recipient of the notice of suspension. Exhibit A. Regulation 

1.12.2 and 1.12.3 inter alia prohibit the unauthorized sale of course materials to 

students which is the exact issue on which the hearing committee ruled the Plaintiff 

was willfully insubordinate. Exhibit A; DSOF Exhs. 24 & 36. After receiving the 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 43 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

44

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

notice of suspension, which includes references to sections 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 of the 

administrative regulations on February 10, 2014, Plaintiff received a subsequent 

due process meeting with MCCCD’s Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Jim 

Bowers, on March 7, 2014. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. At the March 7, 2014 meeting, 

Plaintiff was represented by her counsel, Stephen Montoya, who had been in 

receipt of the notice of suspension for nearly a month. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. 

Plaintiff, through her counsel had not only been on notice of section 1.12.2 and 

1.12.3 of the administrative regulations for nearly a month but had a full and 

complete opportunity to make any arguments that she desired at her due process 

meeting before Chancellor Bowers on March 7, 2014. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. 

44. Neither this allegation nor the cited regulations were mentioned in the

original Statement of Charges dated August 9, 2013. [Glasper Depo. at 10:10-11:9, 

35:25-38:12, 47:23-48:23, Glasper’s Errata Sheet at 43:21, and Compare Glasper Depo. 

Exhibit 3 (August 9, 2013 Notice of Dismissal and Statement of Charges) with Glasper 

Depo. Exhibit 6 (February 10, 2014 Letter from Glasper to Governing Board with 

attachments) at page 4-5, attached hereto as Exhibit 2; Castellanos Depo. at 41:7-10 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3].

Defendants do not dispute that sections 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 of MCCCD’S 

administrative regulations are referenced in the February 10, 2014 written notice of 

suspension which was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on that same date. The February 

10, 2014 written notice of suspension shows that Plaintiff’s prior counsel, Stephen 

Montoya, is a copied recipient of the notice of suspension. Exhibit A. Regulation 

1.12.2 and 1.12.3 inter alia prohibit the unauthorized sale of course materials to 

students which is the exact issue on which the hearing committee ruled the Plaintiff 

was willfully insubordinate. Exhibit A; DSOF Exhs. 24 & 36. After receiving the 

notice of suspension, which includes references to sections 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 of the 

administrative regulations on February 10, 2014, Plaintiff received a subsequent 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 44 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

45

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

due process meeting with MCCCD’s Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Jim 

Bowers, on March 7, 2014. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. At the March 7, 2014 meeting, 

Plaintiff was represented by her counsel, Stephen Montoya, who had been in 

receipt of the notice of suspension for nearly a month. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. 

Plaintiff, through her counsel had not only been on notice of section 1.12.2 and 

1.12.3 of the administrative regulations for nearly a month but had a full and 

complete opportunity to make any arguments that she desired at her due process 

meeting before Chancellor Bowers on March 7, 2014. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. 

45. Instead, they appeared for the first time in the February 10, 2014 Statement 

of Charges. [Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Complaint, ¶39; Defendants’ Answer to 

Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Complaint at ¶39].

Defendants object to the allegations contained in PSOF ¶ 44 because the 

Defendants do not dispute that sections 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 of MCCCD’S 

administrative regulations are referenced in the February 10, 2014 written notice of 

suspension which was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on that same date. The February 

10, 2014 written notice of suspension shows that Plaintiff’s prior counsel, Stephen 

Montoya, is a copied recipient of the notice of suspension. Exhibit A. Regulation 

1.12.2 and 1.12.3 inter alia prohibit the unauthorized sale of course materials to 

students which is the exact issue on which the hearing committee ruled the Plaintiff 

was willfully insubordinate. Exhibit A; DSOF Exhs. 24 & 36. After receiving the 

notice of suspension, which includes references to sections 1.12.2 and 1.12.3 of the 

administrative regulations on February 10, 2014, Plaintiff received a subsequent 

due process meeting with MCCCD’s Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Jim 

Bowers, on March 7, 2014. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. At the March 7, 2014 meeting, 

Plaintiff was represented by her counsel, Stephen Montoya, who had been in 

receipt of the notice of suspension for nearly a month. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. 

Plaintiff, through her counsel had not only been on notice of section 1.12.2 and 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 45 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

46

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

1.12.3 of the administrative regulations for nearly a month but had a full and 

complete opportunity to make any arguments that she desired at her due process 

meeting before Chancellor Bowers on March 7, 2014. Exhibit A; DSOF ¶28. 

46. As a result of her suspension, Martinez did not receive any salary or 

benefits for sixteen months from April 15, 2014, to the beginning of the Fall semester in 

August 2015. [Martinez Depo. Vol. II at 289:16-290:4, attached hereto as Exhibit 5]. 

Defendants dispute PSOF ¶ 46. Plaintiff was suspended without pay from 

April 15, 2014 through May 15, 2015 - a period of 13 months. [DSOF ¶¶26-27]

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff did not receive benefits during this time 

period. 

47. The benefits lost to Martinez during that period included, among other 

things, medical insurance, dental insurance, paid sick leave, personal leave, basic life 

insurance, accidental death & personal loss insurance, mid-term disability insurance and 

access to the employee assistance program. [Martinez Depo. Vol. II at 289:16-290:4, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 5].

Defendants do not dispute PSOF ¶47. 

48. She also suffered emotional distress related to the lack of due process and 

long-term suspension. [Martinez Depo. Vol. II at 164:8-19, attached hereto as Exhibit 5].

Defendants dispute PSOF ¶ 48. Plaintiff has waived her claims that she was 

purportedly depressed, suicidal or required medical treatment or medication for 

her alleged emotional distress that she attributes to MCCCD. Exhibit B (WILSON 

00001-00006). Moreover, as MCCCD’s expert witness Brady Wilson, M.D. opined,

Plaintiff’s emotional distress claim is “not credible” based on her medical record. 

As Dr. Wilson summarized in his expert report:

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 46 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

47

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

Cleopatria Martinez does not present in her medical record as a reliable and 

accurate historian. She frequently contradicts herself in different venues of 

examination. She appears to “feign ineptitude” when required to answer a 

question where there is a possibility that an answer might negatively reflect 

upon her lawsuit. All data supports a pervasive pattern where Cleopatria 

Martinez is “mismanaging information” in such a way as to support her 

narrative of being harmed while in the employment of the District. There is 

significant evidence of malingering; a pattern of exaggeration and the 

mismanagement of information in attempts to present herself as 

considerably more distributed than in this case. This pattern of 

dissimulation, contradiction, disinclination to candor, lack of reliability and 

misrepresentation support my opinion that, based upon forensic record 

review, Cleopatria Martinez is mismanaging information that relates to her 

lawsuit. 

Exhibit B (WILSON 00006). Dr. Wilson further elaborated that Plaintiff’s “claims 

that any emotional distress she suffered is solely attributable to the District ... is not 

credible” and noted her “well documented history of depression and anxiety” based 

on the “multiple competitive causal stresses in her life” including “a history of 

divorce, problems with her children, previous episodes of depression unknown 

characterological issues, and a complex medical history of an unknown origin.” 

Exhibit B (WILSON 00004). Dr. Wilson also noted that “Cleopatria Martinez is 

extreme in her fabrication or attribution of symptoms to the point that the 

presentation is fantastic or preposterous.” Exhibit B (WILSON 00004).

49. Glasper’s dismissal recommendation had been followed by a vigorous 

prosecution of the case Martinez before the Hearing Committee by MCCCD employees 

and counsel who fought to support Glasper’s dismissal recommendation. [November 18, 

2013 Hearing Transcript at 12:3-25:9, 158:5-163:15, attached hereto as Exhibit 6].

Defendants do not dispute that MCCCD initiated termination proceedings 

against Martinez and that she received a full day administrative hearing before a 

Hearing Committee comprised of her peers. Defendant objects to the remainder of 

the allegations in PSOF ¶49 because they are argumentative, irrelevant and 

inadmissible because they do not “make the existence of any fact that is of 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 47 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

48

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than 

it would be without the evidence.” FRE 401, 402; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of April 2017.

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

By s/ Shayna H. Balch

Pavneet Singh Uppal

Shayna H. Balch

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 48 of 49
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

49

FPDOCS 32703503.1

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of April 2017 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):

Edmundo P. Robaina

Thomas T. Griffin

Ashley A. Marton

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC

5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 s/ Michelle C. Colwell

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 78 Filed 04/17/17 Page 49 of 49