EXHIBIT 2 

TO

PLAINTIFF’S CONTROVERTING STATEMENT OF FACTS 

IN RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 17
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 Cleopatria Martinez, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. ) No. CV 15-01759-PHX-NVW

 )

 Maricopa County Community )

 College District; et al., )

 )

 Defendants. )

 _______________________________)

 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

 CLEOPATRIA MARTINEZ, Ph.D.

 VOLUME I (Pages 1 through 158)

 Phoenix, Arizona

 August 16, 2016

 10:07 a.m.

 Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

 7330 North 16th Street

 Suite A100

 Phoenix, Arizona 85020-5275

 Prepared by:

 602.266.6535 Janet Hauck, RPR

 www.glennie-reporting.com Arizona CR No. 50522

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 2 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

2

 I N D E X

 Witness Page

 CLEOPATRIA MARTINEZ, Ph.D.

 Examination by Ms. Balch: 5

 INDEX TO EXHIBITS

 Description Page

 Exhibit 1 Residential Faculty Policies

 MartinezDST003735-826

 Exhibit 2 Verified Amended Complaint 21

 Exhibit 3 Notice

 MCCCD/Martinez02248-251

 Exhibit 4 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary 47

 Conference, with attachments

 MCCCD/Martinez02114-120

 Exhibit 5 Preliminary Scheduling Order 54

 Exhibit 6 Cleopatria Martinez's Position 55

 Statement

 Exhibit 7 Cleopatria Martinez's Supplemental 56

 Position Statement

 Exhibit 8 Cleopatria Martinez's Citation of 57

 Supplemental Authority

 Exhibit 9 Letter to Members of the Governing 83

 Board, 3/12/14

 Exhibit 10 Governing Board Meeting - 03/25/14 87

 Exhibit 11 Governing Board Minutes - 03/25/14 91

 Exhibit 12 Governing Board Meeting - 05/27/14 96

 Exhibit 13 Governing Board Meeting - 10/28/14 102

 Exhibit 14 Governing Board Minutes - 10/28/14 104

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 3 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

3

 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

 CLEOPATRIA MARTINEZ, Ph.D., VOLUME I, was taken on

 August 16, 2016, commencing at 10:07 a.m., at FISHER &

 PHILLIPS LLP, 201 East Washington, Suite 1450, Phoenix,

 Arizona, before JANET HAUCK, RPR, a Certified Reporter,

 Certificate No. 50522, for the State of Arizona.

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff:

 ROBAINA & KRESIN, PLLC

 Ashley A. Marton, Esq.

 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 200

 Phoenix, Arizona 85016

 For Defendants:

 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

 Shayna H. Balch, Esq.

 201 East Washington, Suite 1450

 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2330

 Also present:

 Holly Rye, Certified Legal Video Specialist

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 4 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

4

 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. My name is

 2 Holly Rye, certified legal video specialist with K-Video

 3 Productions.

 4 Our court reporter is Janet Hauck

 5 representing Glennie Reporting Services. Their address is

 6 7330 North 16th Street, Suite A100, Phoenix, Arizona,

 7 85020.

 8 We are at Fisher & Phillips located at 201

 9 East Washington Street, Suite 1450, Phoenix, Arizona,

10 85004, to take the deposition of Cleopatria Martinez on

11 behalf of the plaintiff [sic] in the United States District

12 Court of Arizona. Case is Martinez versus Maricopa County

13 Community College District, et al. The case number is

14 CV-15-01759-PHX-NVW. Today's date is August 16th, 2016.

15 The time is 10:07 a.m.

16 The attorneys will now introduce themselves,

17 plaintiff's first, please.

18 MS. MARTON: Ashley Marton for the plaintiff,

19 Cleopatria Martinez, of Robaina & Kresin.

20 MS. BALCH: Shayna Balch with Fisher &

21 Phillips for the defendants.

22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you.

23 And will the court reporter please swear in

24 the witness.

25 (Next page, please.)

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 5 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

110

 1 Q. Do you recognize this document?

 2 A. Yes.

 3 Q. Is it a letter dated February 21st, 2015, from

 4 you to the governing board?

 5 A. Yes.

 6 Q. Did you author this document?

 7 A. Yes.

 8 Q. Are your statements contained in the document

 9 correct?

10 A. To the best of my ability, I think so.

11 Q. What is the purpose of this February 21st, 2015

12 letter to the board?

13 A. The purpose of this letter is to request MCCD

14 [sic] follow the grievance policy process and to inquire as

15 to why the grievance that I filed on May 3rd, 2010,

16 pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Residential Faculty Policies

17 against Mathematics Chair, Joe Sueyoshi, which I

18 hand-delivered, was not given to the governing board.

19 Q. Is this February 21st, 2015 letter in relation

20 to your suspension?

21 A. It has -- it references the grievances. It

22 doesn't mention the -- I don't know. I just know it's

23 referencing the grievances, employee -- regarding employee

24 grievances.

25 Q. Do you see in the third paragraph up from the

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 6 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

111

 1 bottom it mentions the suspension for 15 months without

 2 pay?

 3 A. I see that mentioned.

 4 Q. So is this February 21st, 2015 letter to the

 5 board regarding your suspension and the procedures

 6 surrounding your suspension?

 7 MS. MARTON: Objection.

 8 Go ahead and answer.

 9 THE WITNESS: The purpose of this letter is

10 to request MCCD -- I read that. That's the purpose of the

11 letter. Grievances, grievance policy process.

12 Q. BY MS. BALCH: All right. So we have discussed

13 several letters. There was a March 25th, 2014 letter that

14 you submitted to the governing board. There was a

15 August 13th letter to the governing board, an October 28th

16 letter to the governing board, a January 27, 2015 letter to

17 the governing board and a February 21, 2015 letter to the

18 governing board. That's a total of five letters that you

19 submitted to the governing board between March 25th, 2014,

20 and February 21st, 2015; is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Are there any other letters that you're aware of

23 that you submitted to the governing board?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And you attended the governing board meetings

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 7 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

112

 1 for the purposes of the citizens interim on March 25th,

 2 2014, and October 28th, 2014; is that correct?

 3 MS. MARTON: Objection; asked and answered.

 4 We've gone over all this.

 5 THE WITNESS: So yeah. That's what we've

 6 been saying, yes.

 7 Q. BY MS. BALCH: Are there any other governing

 8 board meetings that you attended for purposes of speaking

 9 to the board about your suspension?

10 MS. MARTON: Object to the form.

11 Go ahead and answer.

12 THE WITNESS: What was the question?

13 Q. BY MS. BALCH: We've established that you went

14 to board meetings for the purpose of attending the citizens

15 interim. What I'm asking you is: Were there any other

16 board meetings that you attended -- whether it's for a

17 citizens interim, whether it's for some other purpose --

18 where you spoke with the board about your suspension?

19 A. No. That's the best of my recollection.

20 Q. During your time doing citizens interim during

21 the governing board meetings were you ever cut off?

22 A. I don't remember.

23 Q. Were you able to say everything that you wanted

24 to say?

25 A. No.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 8 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

113

 1 Q. Were you able to argue that your suspension was

 2 the equivalent of a termination?

 3 A. No.

 4 Q. You weren't able to argue that your suspension

 5 was the equivalent of a termination?

 6 A. No.

 7 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 10 to your deposition.

 8 A. Where is it?

 9 Q. Exhibit 10. It's somewhere in the stack there.

10 A. I've got it right here. Okay.

11 Q. I just asked you if you had the opportunity to

12 argue that your suspension was the equivalent of a

13 termination when you appeared before the board in a

14 citizens interim. You said that you did not have that

15 opportunity. I want to give you an opportunity to confirm

16 that. Did you have the opportunity to state to the board

17 that your suspension was the equivalent of a termination

18 when you appeared before the board on March 25th, 2014?

19 A. Did I have the opportunity to present a

20 statement or to make an argument? What are you asking?

21 Q. Were you able to state to the governing board

22 that your suspension was the equivalent of a termination?

23 A. That statement -- yeah, that statement was able

24 to come out in a three-minute presentation, but it was not

25 an argument by a long shot.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 9 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

114

 1 Q. Why are you taking issue with the word

 2 "argument"?

 3 A. Because it's not a presentation. It's a

 4 three-minute, one-sided statement. So it's certainly not

 5 an argument. It's not equivalent to anything but what it

 6 states. It's a three-minute, one-sided statement.

 7 Q. So you're taking issue with the word "argument"?

 8 A. No. I'm assuming -- I'm making an assumption --

 9 that you're asking if I had a fair opportunity to present

10 information, and that's not -- three minutes is not.

11 Q. I didn't ask that question. I asked you whether

12 or not you argued that your suspension was the equivalent

13 of a termination --

14 A. Yeah, and I didn't argue.

15 Q. -- and you stated that you did not. So you're

16 stating that you take objection with the term "argued" and

17 that you stated that your suspension was the equivalent of

18 a termination, correct?

19 MS. MARTON: Objection. We're just repeating

20 testimony at this point.

21 MS. BALCH: I just want to make sure I

22 understand your client's testimony correctly.

23 MS. MARTON: I understand, but you are

24 repeating testimony over and over again.

25 MS. BALCH: Counsel, if you have an objection

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 10 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

115

 1 you can state it for the record.

 2 MS. MARTON: I understand. She can answer.

 3 I'm stating for the record that you're asking the same

 4 question over and over again.

 5 MS. BALCH: Okay. Well, you can state "form"

 6 or "foundation," limited to that.

 7 MS. MARTON: Which I have.

 8 Go ahead.

 9 THE WITNESS: Okay. So you'll have to ask

10 again.

11 Q. BY MS. BALCH: That's fine. I was asking you

12 whether or not you were able to argue to the board that

13 your suspension was the equivalent of a termination. You

14 initially told me no. But it appears that you're taking

15 issue with the word "argue." I want to make sure I

16 understand your testimony correctly. This is my only

17 opportunity to question you. And you changed your

18 testimony that you stated to the governing board that your

19 suspension was the equivalent of a termination; is that

20 correct?

21 A. Yes. A statement was made to that effect, a

22 single statement.

23 MS. BALCH: All right. Let's take a quick

24 break. I'm going to go grab a soda real quick, about a

25 five-minute break.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 11 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

126

 1 Q. And what facts do you have -- strike that.

 2 Is it your contention that it is improper

 3 for MCCCD to continue to have the December 9th, 2010

 4 directive in place?

 5 A. Yes.

 6 Q. What facts do you have in support of that

 7 position?

 8 A. To answer that I'd have to talk to my counsel to

 9 see which facts support the removal of this.

10 Q. Again, you're the plaintiff. You've brought

11 these claims against my client. This is my opportunity to

12 question you.

13 You don't have any facts in support of your

14 allegation that it's improper to keep the December 9th,

15 2010 directive in place?

16 MS. MARTON: Objection. That's not what she

17 said. She said she didn't know.

18 THE WITNESS: What was the question?

19 Q. BY MS. BALCH: I'm asking you for any facts that

20 you have in support of your allegation that it's improper

21 for the District to keep the December 9th, 2010 directive

22 in place.

23 MS. MARTON: Objection; asked and answered.

24 You can answer again if you want.

25 THE WITNESS: That's something that I would

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 12 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

133

 1 A. Yes.

 2 Q. And this is an e-mail chain between you and

 3 interim president Chris Haines, correct?

 4 A. Yes.

 5 Q. And the top e-mail entry is dated October 27,

 6 2015, correct?

 7 A. Yes.

 8 Q. And it appears that you initiated this e-mail

 9 chain on October 12th, 2015, at the bottom of the first

10 page; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you were writing to interim president

13 Chris Haines to remove the 2010 directive; is that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Why were you asking interim president Haines to

16 remove the directive?

17 A. It was a presidential directive and she's the

18 president.

19 Q. Let me ask it differently. Why do you want the

20 2010 directive removed?

21 A. I stated in the e-mail.

22 Q. Well, I'm asking you, why did you want the 2010

23 directive removed?

24 A. The basis for it no longer exists and the

25 directive obstructs my teaching capacity in many ways.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 13 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

134

 1 Q. Where are you reading from?

 2 A. My letter, my original on October 12.

 3 Q. The first sentence here?

 4 A. Mm-hmm, yes.

 5 Q. What facts do you have in support of your

 6 assertion that the directive obstructs your teaching

 7 capacity in many ways?

 8 A. I listed those.

 9 Q. Are those all of the facts that you have in

10 support?

11 A. No, those are some.

12 Q. What other facts do you have in support of your

13 assertion that the directive obstructs your teaching

14 capacity?

15 A. I would want to meet with my lawyer and make up

16 a list if that's what you want. I gave examples here.

17 Q. Again, you're the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

18 A. Mm-hmm.

19 Q. You are alleging that the December -- sorry --

20 that the 2010 directive should no longer be continued, and

21 this is my opportunity to question you about that

22 allegation. And I've asked you for all facts that you have

23 in support of your assertion -- these are your words --

24 that the directive obstructs your teaching capacity in many

25 ways. You've listed three.

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 14 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

135

 1 Are there any other facts that you have in

 2 support of your assertion that the 2010 directive obstructs

 3 your teaching capacity in many ways?

 4 A. I am not allowed to write test questions of my

 5 own. I am not allowed to write anything of my own. I am

 6 not allowed to use different variables as a mathematician.

 7 In my daily lectures I am not allowed to use examples that

 8 I construct. I'm not allowed to use anything of my own. I

 9 am not allowed to use anything I develop, and those are

10 pretty broad. So that's very obstructional.

11 Q. Are there any other facts other than the ones

12 that you've listed?

13 A. I just named a few. I just named some that are

14 broad.

15 Q. In addition to those that you just listed and

16 that are on this e-mail, are there any other facts that you

17 have in support of your assertion that the 2010 directive

18 obstructs your teaching capacity in many ways?

19 A. Other than I'm not allowed to use anything of my

20 own, I can't use any of my own knowledge or my own writing,

21 that's pretty extensive.

22 Q. How does that obstruct your teaching capacity?

23 A. Well, that's my job to teach. I can't write

24 anything of my own. That's very obstructional. I cannot

25 write anything of my own to present to my students. And I

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 15 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

136

 1 have over 40 years of training in this, but my students are

 2 not able to get any information that is my own.

 3 Q. Let's go back to the October 18th, 2012

 4 corrective action. And I believe we introduced that as an

 5 exhibit, Exhibit 3 to your deposition.

 6 A. Exhibit 3 of the deposition?

 7 MS. MARTON: Looks like this.

 8 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

 9 Q. BY MS. BALCH: So on October 18th, 2012, you

10 were told to issue refunds to students via personal check,

11 correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you were specifically advised that failure

14 to do so would result in discipline up to and including

15 termination of employment, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. But as of March 20th, 2014, the date of the

18 notice of pre-disciplinary conference, you still had not

19 issued refunds to students; is that correct?

20 A. As of when?

21 Q. As of March 20th, 2014, the date of the notice

22 of pre-disciplinary conference, you still had not issued

23 refunds to students?

24 A. That's right.

25 Q. As of the November 18th, 2014 hearing you still

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 80-2 Filed 04/17/17 Page 16 of 17
Glennie Reporting Services, LLC

602.266.6535 www.glennie-reporting.com

Cleopatria Martinez, Ph.D., Vol. I - videotaped - 08/16/2016

137

 1 had not issued refunds to students; is that correct?

 2 A. What was that date again?

 3 Q. The November 18th, 2014 hearing.

 4 A. Yes.

 5 Q. And the Hearing Committee found that you did not

 6 comply with the October 18th, 2012 and the January 9th,

 7 2013 directives, correct?

 8 A. The January what?

 9 Q. 9th, 2013 directives.

10 A. What's the January 9th, 2013 directive?

11 Q. Read from the Hearing Committee findings.

12 Paragraph 60 of the Hearing Committee findings states, "At

13 the November 18th hearing Dr. Martinez did not provide any

14 explanation for her refusal to comply with the

15 October 18th, 2012 and January 9, 2013 directives to issue

16 refunds to her students."

17 A. Is that a question? I didn't get the question.

18 Q. I was asking if that was a finding found by the

19 Hearing Committee?

20 A. That was a finding.

21 Q. And the Hearing Committee found that you were

22 insubordinate, correct?

23 A. Where is that?

24 Q. Paragraph 66 states, "Dr. Martinez willfully and

25 intentionally failed to follow instructions that were

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