l 

C\\ 

I 

Oa 

To: Vice Chancellor for Human Resources lacoya Shelton-Johnson 

Chancellor Rufus Glasper 

Governing Board Member Doyle Burke 

Governing Board Member Alfredo Gutierrez 

Governing Board Member Randolph Elias lumm 

Governing Board Member Debra Pearson 

Governing Board Member Dana F. Saar 

From: Cleopatria Martinez 

Date: August 13, 2014 

Subject: Grievance 

This email will serve as my formal grievance for a misapplication, misinterpretation, or violation of a specific 

provision(s) of the Residential Faculty Policies that adversely affects me. RFP sections 3.11 (Suspension of a 

Faculty Member), 3.2.4 (financial interest from a sale) or (sale of unpublished instructional material), 3.13 

(Faculty Member Dismissal), 6.1 (Grievance Procedure: 6.1.1.11nformallevel; 6.1.2.5 level 5 Governing 

Board), have been misapplied, misinterpreted, or violated as well as MCCCD AR 1.12 (Sale of Products or 

Services), AR 1.12.2 (Authorization) AR 1.12.3 (Fees), and AR 1.17 (cash handling), AR 3.2.5 (copyright 

infringement). I seek review of this matter. 

Timeline 

I was hired as a mathematics instructor at MCCCD in 1985, 29 years ago. In August 2013 Chancellor Glasper 

sent me a letter of intent to dismiss me from my employment. I appealed and prevailed on December 9, 2013, 

when the Termination Hearing Committee recommended I not be terminated. MCCCD changed direction and 

then sent me a letter explaining I was going to be suspended without pay. I was put on suspension without 

pay on March 1, 2014, but was notified on March 7. This was later changed to April14, 2014. On May 1, 2014, 

I filed for unemployment benefits with DES. I was initially denied. I appealed and got a favorable result as 

explained below. In July 20141 tried to file an internal grievance by establishing an appointment with my 

supervisor, VPAA Kakar, to provide the oral delivery of the grievance as per the grievance procedure (RFP 

6.1.1.1) but VPAA Kakar's secretary told me I could not to talk with VPAA Kakar, instead she referred me to 

District Human Resources Senior Manager, Judy Castellanos. Ms. Castellanos said I could not file the grievance 

until next year after my suspension ended in August 2015. 

Information and Belief 

After the Termination Hearing Committee submitted their recommendation to the Chancellor, the Chancellor 

failed to follow proc~dure outlined in RFP 3.13.8 " .. .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." The Governing Board did NOT receive this information. The Chancellor 

instead of terminating me employed RFP 3.11 (Suspension of a Faculty Member) which action does not involve 

the Governing Board nor are there any guidelines for implementation. On March 7, 2014, I was notified that I 

was suspended without pay as of March 1, 2014. This was later changed to April14, 2014. I am still on 

suspension without pay or benefits. I filed for unemployment benefits and was initially denied. I appealed the 

denial and the DES Administrative law Judge found in my favor. 

Applicable Board Policy 

6.1 Grievance Procedure 6.1.1 " ... the grievant shall present the grievance orally to his/her immediate 

supervisor, citing the specific section of the RFP which has allegedly been misapplied, misinterpreted, or 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 1-9 Filed 09/02/15 Page 1 of 2
violated. The purpose of bringing the matter to the attention of the immediate supervisor is to resolve the 

matter at the lowest level..." 

3.13 Faculty Member Dismissal 3.13.8 

3.11 Suspension of a Faculty Member There was no sale. (See page 2 of the Decision of Appeal Tribunal.) 

Argument 

The Chancellor had no option but to forward the Hearing Committee's /(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." 

The Governing Board should have reviewed the termination documents but they did not receive this 

information. 

I have spent a lot of money hiring an attorney to assist me with my termination defense. 

When the Chancellor could not terminate me, he suspended me without pay for such a long time that it is 

tantamount to termination. 

The Chancellor's grounds for suspension are not supported by facts as stated on pages 2 and 6 of the Decision 

of Appeal Tribunal. 

The DES Administrative Law Judge found pursuant to their regulations that Ita suspension beyond 16 or more 

of the employer's workdays is a suspension for an unreasonable period of time. The suspension amounted to 

a constructive discharge. The Administrative Law Judge concluded the following: 

"The claimant photocopied documents for her students and asked that the students compensate her for 

the copies. The students had the opportunity to copy the documents on their own but asked the claimant to do 

the copying for them. The claimant did not sell the documents or otherwise make a profit. 11 

11The claimant was suspended for insubordination. The claimant was ordered to return money for 

photocopies to her students and did not do so. The basis for insubordination is whether or not the instruction 

to return the money was reasonable. The employer's own fact-finding did not find evidence to show that the 

claimant violated the cash-handling policy. The claimant would also bear the burden of the cost of the 

photocopies. Because the employer did not find a violation of the cash-handling policies, the order/instruction 

to return the money to the students was not reasonable. The claimant was not insubordinate for refusing. 

Therefore, I conclude that the claimant was discharged, but not for wilful or negligent misconduct 

connected with the employment. 11 

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is consistent with the decision of the Termination Hearing 

Committee. The Committee "recommended that the Governing Board deny Phoenix College President Anna 

Solley's request to terminate Dr. Martinez from her MCCCD employment. 11 They further recommended that 

~~chancellor Glasper place the Hearing Committee's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and 

Recommendation, the entire record, exhibits and hearing transcript in a secure room for the Governing Board's 

and his review." 

I am submitting this grievance because it is my right to grieve 11an alleged misapplication, misinterpretation, or 

violation of a specific provision(s) of the Residential Faculty Policies that adversely affects" me. 

Respectfully, 

Cleopatria Martinez, PhD 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 1-9 Filed 09/02/15 Page 2 of 2