FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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’ SEPARATE 

STATEMENT OF FACTS IN 

SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

and Debra Glasper, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submits their

Separate Statement of Facts in Support of their Motion For Summary Judgment as 

follows:

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Exhibit 1: MCCCD Residential Faculty Policies (2012-

2013)

Glasper Depo., Exh. 1

Exhibit 2: MCCCD Residential Faculty Policies (2013-

2014)

MartinezDST003735-

3826

Exhibit 3: Employee Profile, 1984 MCCCCD/Martinez

00060

Exhibit 4: Employee Profile, 1995 MCCCCD/Martinez

00026

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 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

2

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

Exhibit 5: Declaration of Ronnie Elliot MCCCD/Martinez 

01242-1328

Exhibit 6: 2013 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts MCCCD/Martinez 

01202-1240

Exhibit 7: Comparisons Between Lecture Notes and 

Textbooks

MCCCD/Martinez 

01330-1334

Exhibit 8: Plaintiff’s MAT 082 Lecture Notes Identified 

During 2013 Deposition

12-CV-00702-DGC, 

Doc. 68, Exh. 11

Exhibit 9: Plaintiff’s MAT 182 Fall 2009 Lecture Notes 

Identified During 2013 Deposition

12-CV-00702-DGC, 

Doc. 68, Exh. 12

Exhibit 10: Plaintiff’s MAT 182 Spring 2010 Lecture Notes 

Identified During 2013 Deposition

12-CV-00702-DGC, 

Doc. 68, Exh. 13

Exhibit 11: Declaration of Joe Sueyoshi MCCCD/Martinez 

01399-1411

Exhibit 12: January 26, 2010 Email Between R. Elliot and C. 

Martinez 

MCCCD/Martinez 

01350-1351

Exhibit 13: January 28, 2010 Email Between M. McConnell 

and C. Martinez

MCCCD/Martinez 

01353

Exhibit 14: February 12, 2010 Email Summarizing February 

5, 2010 Meeting

MCCCD/Martinez 

01355

Exhibit 15: Declaration of Anna Solley MCCCD/Martinez 

01357-1394

Exhibit 16: Copyright Training PowerPoint MCCCD/Martinez 

01413-1438

Exhibit 17: April 2, 2010 Directive MCCCD/Martinez 

01396-1397

Exhibit 18: Solley October 12, 2010 Letter to Plaintiff 

Summarizing Chronology of Events

12-CV-00702-DGC, 

Doc. 68, Ex. 32

Exhibit 19: October 28, 2010 Garrison Memorandum MCCCD/Martinez 

01336-1343

Exhibit 20: December 9, 2010 Directive MCCCD/Martinez 

01440-1441

Exhibit 21: October 18, 2012 Notice MCCCD/Martinez 

01453-1456

Exhibit 22: Various Emails Regarding Student Refunds MCCCD/Martinez 

01473-1490

Exhibit 23: November 18, 2010 Hearing Transcript MCCCD/Martinez 

03451-3791

Exhibit 24: Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law

MCCCD/Martinez 

03993-4000

Exhibit 25: 2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts N/A

Exhibit 26: March 20, 2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary 

Conference

MCCCD/Martinez 

01458-1464

Exhibit 27: August 9, 2013 Statement of Charges Glasper Depo. Exh. 3

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

3

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

Exhibit 28: Martinez August 16, 2013 Request for Hearing MCCCD/Martinez 

04005-4007

Exhibit 29: Hearing Committee Preliminary Scheduling 

Order

MCCCD/Martinez 

01184-1185

Exhibit 30: Cleopatria Martinez’s List of Witnesses and 

Exhibits

MCCCD/Martinez 

03008-3197

Exhibit 31: Cleopatria Martinez’s Position Statement MCCCD/Martinez 

03198-3205

Exhibit 32: Cleopatria Martinez’s Supplemental Position 

Statement

MCCCD/Martinez 

03207-3265

Exhibit 33: Cleopatria Martinez’s Citation of Supplemental 

Authority 

MCCCD/Martinez 

03417-3450

Exhibit 34: Cleopatria Martinez’s Proposed Findings of Fact, 

Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations 

MCCCD/Martinez 

03827-3842

Exhibit 35: Declaration of Rufus Glasper N/A

Exhibit 36: February 10, 2014 Memorandum, Notice of 

Suspension without Pay, and Statement of 

Charges 

Glasper Depo. Exh. 6

Exhibit 37: February 10, 2014 Email Chain Between L. 

Combs and S. Montoya

MCCCD/Martinez 

01165-1167

Exhibit 38: February 24, 2014 Email Chain Between D. 

Newman and S. Montoya

MCCCD/Martinez 

01168-1171

Exhibit 39: March 3, 2014 Email Chain Between D. 

Newman and P. Uppal

MCCCD/Martinez 

01172-1180

Exhibit 40: April 14, 2014 Update to Notice of Suspension 

Without Pay

Glasper Depo. Exh. 7

Exhibit 41: March 12, 2014 Letter From Stephen Montoya to 

the Governing Board

Martinez Depo. Exh. 7

Exhibit 42: April 19, 2013 Sean D. Garrison Report 

(voluminous Exhibits omitted)

GARRISON 00001-

00022

Exhibit 43: February 21, 2015 Letter to Governing Board Doc. 14, 14-5

Exhibit 44: March 25, 2014 Letter to Governing Board Martinez Depo., Exh. 

11

Exhibit 45: March 25, 2014 Governing Board Minutes Martinez Depo., Exh. 

11

Exhibit 46: March 25, 2014 Governing Board Transcript MCCCD/Martinez 

00730-00732

Exhibit 47: August 13, 2014 Letter to Governing Board Doc. 14, 14-8

Exhibit 48: October 28, 2014 Letter to Governing Board Doc. 14, 14-7

Exhibit 49: January 27, 2015 Letter to Governing Board Doc. 14, 14-8

Exhibit 50: October 28, 2014 Governing Board Transcript MCCCD/Martinez 

01160-01164

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

4

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

Exhibit 51: October 28, 2014 Governing Board Minutes Martinez Depo., Exh. 

14

Exhibit 52: May 27, 2014 Governing Board Transcript MCCCD/Martinez 

00947-00949

Exhibit 53: August 25, 2015 Letter from Haines to Martinez Doc. 14, 14-11

Exhibit 54: Plaintiff’s Answers To Defendants’ First

Requests For Admission To Plaintiff

N/A

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. MCCCD’s Residential Faculty Policies.

1. For the 2012-2013 school year, the Maricopa County Community College 

District (“MCCCD”) 2012-2013 Residential Faculty Policies were in effect and applied 

to residential faculty. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP Policy Manual). These policies have 

an effective date of September 1, 2013. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP Policy Manual).

2. The 2012-2013 MCCCD RFP Manual has separate provisions relating to 

Suspension of a Faculty Member (RFP No. 3.13) and Faculty Member Dismissal –

Probationary and Appointive (RFP No. 3.15). Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP Policy 

Manual, pp. 20-23).

3. For the 2013-2014 school year, the Maricopa County Community College 

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

to residential faculty. Exhibit 2 (2013-2014 RFP Policy Manual). These policies have 

an effective date of July 1, 2012. Exhibit 1 (2012-2013 RFP Policy Manual).

4. The 2013-2014 MCCCD RFP Manual has separate provisions relating to 

Suspension of a Faculty Member (RFP No. 3.11) and Faculty Member Dismissal –

Probationary and Appointive (RFP No. 3.13). Exhibit 2 (2013-2014 RFP Policy 

Manual, pp. 20-23).

II. Plaintiff Subjected MCCCD to an Unreasonable Risk of a Copyright Lawsuit 

and In Response, MCCCD Imposed the December 9, 2010 Directive.

5. Plaintiff began working for MCCCD as a math instructor at Scottsdale 

Community College in or around 1984. Exhibit 3 (Employee Profile, 1984). In 1995, 

she transferred to Phoenix College and continued working as a math instructor. Exhibit

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

5

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

4, (Employee Profile, 1995).

6. In early 2010, Phoenix College (one of ten community colleges within 

MCCCD) discovered that Plaintiff had exposed MCCCD to a substantial risk of liability 

for copyright infringement. Exhibit 5 (Declaration of Ronnie Elliot, ¶¶ 8,9). 

7. Instead of requiring her math students to purchase copyrighted textbooks, 

Plaintiff prepared her own course materials which she distributed to her students free of 

charge. Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts, p. 77:17-78:15, 121:25-

140:13, 132:16-137:25). Plaintiff called these course materials her “Lecture Notes.” 

Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts., p. 77:17-78:15, 121:25-140:13, 

132:16-137:25); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law ¶ 8).

8. In preparing her “Lecture Notes,” Plaintiff directly copied math problems 

from copyright protected textbooks and inserted them into her course materials. Exhibit

6 (2013 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts, p. 106:16-108:16); Exhibit 7

(Comparisons Between Lecture Notes and Textbooks). Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶¶ 11-13). Plaintiff did so without providing 

attribution to the textbook publishers and/or authors. Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez Depo. 

Transcript Excerpts, p. 134:20-25); Exhibit 8 (Plaintiff’s MAT 082 Lecture Notes 

Identified During Deposition); Exhibit 9 (Plaintiff’s MAT 182 Fall 2009 Lecture Notes 

Identified During Deposition); Exhibit 10 (Plaintiff’s MAT 182 Spring 2010 Lecture 

Notes Identified During Deposition); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law ¶¶ 12-13). 

9. The fact that Plaintiff copied math problems directly from copyright 

protected textbooks and inserted them into her course materials is not in dispute. 

Plaintiff testified under oath that problems from the copyright protected materials were 

inserted into her course materials. Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts, 

p. 107:14-23). Plaintiff’s sole excuse for engaging in this behavior is that she “didn’t 

know” that her conduct violated federal copyright laws and/or that she didn’t see 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

6

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

anything wrong with what she was doing. Exhibit 11 (Sueyoshi Decl. ¶ 8).

10. Once MCCCD discovered Plaintiff’s conduct, administration officials 

repeatedly explained their copyright concerns to Plaintiff. Exhibit 24 (Hearing 

Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶¶ 16-20). On January 12, 2010, 

MCCCD Vice President of Academic Services Ronnie Elliot sent Plaintiff an email 

notifying her that there were copyright related problems with the materials she had 

printed for the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters. Exhibit 55 (January 12, 2010 

Email); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 16). 

On January 26, 2010, Vice President of Administrative Services Ronnie Elliot sent 

Plaintiff an email outlining MCCCD’s concerns regarding Plaintiff’s potential copyright 

infringement. Exhibit 12 (January 26, 2010 Email); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 19). On January 28, 2010, MCCCD InHouse-Counsel Maggie McConnell discussed copyright issues with Plaintiff 

telephonically. Exhibit 13 (January 28, 2010 email); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 20). On February 5, 2010, Vice President of 

Academic Affairs Casandara Kakar, Interim Vice President of Administrative Services 

Paul DeRose, and Plaintiff met to discuss copyright concerns. Exhibit 14 (February 12, 

2010 email summarizing Feb. 5 meeting); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of 

Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 23). Phoenix College Librarian Ann Roselle even 

conducted a personalized one-on-one copyright training session with Plaintiff on April 

15, 2010. Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 11); Exhibit 16 (Copyright Training PowerPoint); 

Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 25). 

Unfortunately, despite repeated counseling attempts by MCCCD administration, Plaintiff 

continued to ignore federal copyright laws. Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 6-15). 

11. As a result of Plaintiff’s continuing misconduct and the unacceptable legal 

risk that her actions presented, MCCCD imposed restrictions on Plaintiff’s photocopying 

privileges. Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 12). Specifically on April 2, 2010, Dr. Solley 

issued a directive requiring Plaintiff to submit her copy requests to the Math Department 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

7

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

Chair so that he could review the materials for possible copyright violations prior to 

copying and distribution to students. Exhibit 17 (April 2, 2010 Directive); Exhibit 24

(Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 27). 

12. MCCCD was hopeful that the suspension of Plaintiff’s copy privileges 

would serve to illustrate the seriousness of this matter to Plaintiff, but instead of 

complying with the newly imposed copy restrictions, Plaintiff continued to disregard 

copyright laws and actually circumvented the copy restrictions that were put in place. 

Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 13). For example, on or around April 19, 2010, Plaintiff 

attempted to bypass the copy restrictions by having an adjunct math professor, Johnny 

Santellan, make 24 sets of copies of her “Lecture Notes” for distribution to her math 

students. Exhibit 11 (Sueyoshi Decl., ¶ 9); Exhibit 6 (Martinez Depo., p. 223:11-

224:21); Exhibit 18 (Solley October 12, 2010 Letter to Plaintiff Summarizing 

Chronology of Events); Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 13). At deposition, Plaintiff openly 

admitted that she asked Santellan to make these copies without first obtaining approval 

from the Math Department Chair. Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts, 

p. 223:11-224:21). There were also repeated instances where Plaintiff bypassed the 

approval process by printing multiple copies of her “Lecture Notes” directly to the math 

department laser printer. Exhibit 11 (Sueyoshi Decl., ¶ 10); Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez 

Depo. Transcript Excerpts, p. 247:2-248:7); Exhibit 18 (Solley October 12, 2010 Letter 

to Plaintiff Summarizing Chronology of Events). Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 13).

13. MCCCD then sought a legal opinion from an outside copyright expert, 

attorney Sean Garrison. Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 14). Mr. Garrison, who specializes 

in copyright law, advised MCCCD that “significant portions of [Plaintiff’s] Course 

Materials have been copied from other [copyrighted] sources.” Exhibit 19 (October 28, 

2010 Garrison Memorandum). He further advised MCCCD to cease further distribution 

or use of Plaintiff’s course materials because they presented a “significant risk of 

[copyright] infringement.” Exhibit 19 (October 28, 2010 Garrison Memorandum). Mr. 

Garrison estimated that MCCCD’s potential exposure to damages for Plaintiff’s 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

8

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

copyright infringement could be as high as $150,000 per violation. Exhibit 42 (2013 

Garrison Expert Report). Mr. Garrison further opined that because Plaintiff copied 

problems from at least three textbooks, MCCCD could face damages of $450,000 plus 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Exhibit 42 (2013 Garrison Expert Report).

14. In reliance upon Mr. Garrison’s recommendations, Phoenix College 

President Anna Solley issued a directive on December 9, 2010 that imposed further 

restrictions on Plaintiff’s copying privileges. Exhibit 15 (Solley Decl., ¶ 15); Exhibit 20

(December 9, 2010 Directive); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law ¶ 40). Specifically, the December 9, 2010 Directive prohibited 

Plaintiff from utilizing any course materials of her own creation. Exhibit 20 (December 

9, 2010 Directive). Instead, Plaintiff was required to only use course materials that are 

“approved by the math department” or that are “available in the bookstore for sale to 

students and that are authored by persons other than [Plaintiff].” Exhibit 20 (December 

9, 2010 Directive); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law ¶ 41). The Directive further required Plaintiff to submit her photocopy requests to 

the Math Department Chair for his approval. Exhibit 20 (December 9, 2010 Directive); 

Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 42).

15. Despite MCCCD’s frequent discussions with Plaintiff regarding the 

importance of complying with copyright laws and the imposition of the December 9, 

2010 Directive, Plaintiff continually and repeatedly ignored the Directive. Exhibit 24

(Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 43). For example, in 

August of 2012, Plaintiff violated the December 9, 2010 Directive by having her 

materials photocopied off campus at a local Staples store. Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez 

Depo. Transcript Excerpts, pp. 232:19-233:21); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 47). Specifically, Plaintiff informed her 

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

provide them with course materials in lieu of a textbook. Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez 

Depo. Transcript Excerpts, pp. 232:19-233:21). Plaintiff then made copies of her course 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

9

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

materials at an off-campus Staples store and required students to purchase them from her 

for $11. Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 47-

48); Exhibit 6 (2013 Martinez Depo. Transcript Excerpts, pp. 232:19-233:21). MCCCD 

administration concluded that Plaintiff’s actions violated MCCCD’s cash handling

policies which prohibit unauthorized faculty members from receiving compensation 

from the sale of instructional materials. Exhibit 21 (October 18, 2012 Notice); Exhibit

24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶¶ 49-50). 

16. Specifically, MCCCD’s 2012-2013 policies prohibit instructors from 

having “any financial interest in or receiv[ing] compensation from the sale of any 

unpublished instructional materials required or suggested for a class that the instructor 

teaches.” Exhibit 1 (Residential Faculty Policies, 3.2.4); Exhibit 24 (Hearing 

Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 51). This prohibition makes 

perfect sense when one considers the position of authority that faculty members hold 

over their students. Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2010 Hearing Transcript, pp. 138:17-

140:7). Students may feel compelled to purchase materials which are required, 

recommended, or offered by their instructors. Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2010 Hearing 

Transcript, pp. 138:17-140:7). Similarly, students may feel that their grades could be 

affected if they decline to purchase materials from a faculty member. Exhibit 23 

(November 18, 2010 Hearing Transcript, pp. 138:17-140:7). 

17. On or around October 18, 2012, after it was established that Plaintiff had 

sold the materials directly to students, Plaintiff was instructed to immediately issue 

refunds to her students by personal check. Exhibit 22 (various emails regarding student 

refunds). Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 

56); Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2010 Hearing Transcript, pp. 235:25-236:8). Several 

months later on or around January 9, 2013, MCCCD Vice President of Academic Affairs 

Cassandra Kakar learned that students had not yet received refunds from Plaintiff. 

Exhibit 22 (various emails regarding student refunds). Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 57). As a result, Dr. Kakar instructed 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

10

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

Plaintiff to provide copies of the front and back of all cashed refund checks by January

18, 2013. Exhibit 22 (various emails regarding student refunds). Exhibit 24 (Hearing 

Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 57). However, Plaintiff 

insubordinately failed to provide the requested canceled checks. Exhibit 23 (November 

18, 2013 Hearing Transcript, pp. 235:25-239:25); Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ¶¶58-61; 66-69). As of the November 18, 

2013 evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff had not issued any refunds to her students. Exhibit

23 (November 18, 2013 Hearing Transcript, pp. 232:6-25); Exhibit 25 (Martinez Depo. 

Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 136:25-137:4). 

III. MCCCD’s Notice to Plaintiff of the Charges Against Her and Plaintiff’s 

Multiple Opportunities to Be Heard. 

18. On March 20, 2013, Plaintiff was notified that a Pre-Disciplinary 

Conference had been scheduled regarding her conduct including her insubordination. 

Exhibit 26 (March 20, 2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference); Exhibit 25 (2016 

Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 47:2-49:11). Plaintiff conceded at deposition that 

as of March 20, 2013 she was on notice of her alleged insubordination for willfully 

failing to follow a directive from the Phoenix College President in refusing to issue 

refunds. Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 47:2-49:11).

19. The Pre-Disciplinary Conference was later held between Plaintiff and

President Solley and Vice President Kakar on or around April 3, 2013. Exhibit 26

(March 20, 2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference). Judy Castellanos and Sheri 

Klein from the MCCCD District Office HR Solutions Center were also present. Exhibit

26 (March 20, 2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference). During the meeting, 

Plaintiff was informed of the charges against her and given an opportunity to respond. 

Exhibit 26 (March 20, 2013 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary Conference).

20. Following April 3, 2013 meeting, President Solley and Vice President 

Kakar sought to terminate Plaintiff’s employment due to her unacceptable misconduct 

and Plaintiff was provided with an August 9, 2013 Statement of Charges regarding her 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 10 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

11

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

proposed dismissal. Exhibit 27 (August 9, 2013 Statement of Charges). Plaintiff met 

with Vice Chancellor of Human Resources Jim Bowers and received a Statement of 

Charges regarding her proposed dismissal of employment (which included a charge of 

insubordination for failing to follow the December 9, 2010 Directive from President 

Anna Solley). Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript)

21. Upon receipt of the Statement of Charges regarding her proposed 

dismissal, Plaintiff requested an evidentiary hearing, which MCCCD granted. Exhibit

28 (Martinez August 16, 2013 Request for Hearing); Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. 

Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 52:19-53:16). 

22. Plaintiff received her full day evidentiary hearing before a Hearing 

Committee comprised of her peers on November 18, 2013. Exhibit 23 (November 18, 

2013 Hearing Transcript); Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, pp. 53:14-

54:17). The Hearing Committee issued a Preliminary Scheduling Order (Exhibit 29). 

The parties also submitted pre and post hearing briefing. Specifically, Plaintiff 

submitted a List of Witnesses and Exhibits (Exhibit 30), Position Statement and 

Exhibits (Exhibit 31), Supplemental Position Statement and Exhibits (Exhibit 32), 

Citation of Supplemental Authority (Exhibit 33), and Proposed Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law (Exhibit 34). 

23. During the hearing Plaintiff was represented by experienced employment 

counsel, Stephen Montoya, and was able to call witnesses, cross examine MCCCD’s 

witnesses, enter evidence, and offer expert testimony. Exhibit 23 (November 18, 2013 

Hearing Transcript); Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 54:8-

57:25).

24. Following the hearing, the Hearing Committee issued binding Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law. Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law). The Hearing Committee found that Plaintiff engaged in “willful 

insubordination” and that she “willfully and intentionally failed to follow instructions 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 11 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

12

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

by President Solley.” Exhibit 24 (Hearing Committee Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law). 

25. Upon receipt of the Hearing Committee’s findings, Chancellor Glasper 

met with the Hearing Committee to inquire about the basis of their conclusions. Exhibit

35 (Glasper Decl. ¶ 7). The Hearing Committee members explained to Chancellor 

Glasper that because Plaintiff had been with the District for nearly 30 years, they were 

reluctant to recommend her permanent separation from employment, but believed a 

disciplinary action such as an unpaid suspension was appropriate. Exhibit 35 (Glasper 

Decl. ¶ 7).

26. In light of the Hearing Committee’s recommendations, Chancellor 

Glasper prepared a revised February 10, 2014 Statement of Charges proposing that 

Plaintiff be suspended from employment for 14 months. Exhibit 36 (February 10, 2014 

Statement of Charges). Chancellor Glasper notified Plaintiff, though her counsel, that he 

had decided to suspend Plaintiff. Exhibit 37 (February 10, 2014 Email Chain between L. 

Combs and S. Montoya). Chancellor Glasper also offered Plaintiff the opportunity to 

schedule a meeting with the Vice Chancellor of Human Resources to discuss the 

rationale for the decision. Exhibit 37 (February 10, 2014 Email Chain between L. 

Combs and S. Montoya). Plaintiff accepted the invitation and MCCCD scheduled a 

meeting between Plaintiff and the Vice Chancellor Bowers. Exhibit 37 (February 10, 

2014 Email Chain between L. Combs and S. Montoya).

27. The Statement of Charges was originally dated February 10, 2014, with 

an effective suspension date of March 1, 2014. Exhibit 36 (February 10, 2014 Statement 

of Charges). 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. Exhibit 37

(February 10, 2014 Email Chain between L. Combs and S. Montoya). The day before the 

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

“sudden medical issue.” Exhibit 38 (February 24, 2014 Email Chain between D. 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 12 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

13

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

Newman and S. Montoya). She informed MCCCD that the earliest she could meet 

consistent with her attorney’s schedule was Friday, March 7, 2014. Exhibit 38

(February 24, 2014 Email Chain between D. Newman and S. Montoya). 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. Exhibit 39 (March 3, 2014 Email 

Chain between D. Newman and P. Uppal). 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. Exhibit 40 (April 14, 2014 

Update to Notice of Suspension without Pay). 

28. Plaintiff met with Vice Chancellor Bowers on March 7, 2014 to discuss 

the Statement of Charges and her suspension. Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. 

Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 77:3-79:25); Exhibit 40 (April 14, 2014 Update to Notice of 

Suspension without Pay). During the meeting, Plaintiff was represented by experienced 

employment counsel, was provided with a copy of the Statement of Charges, and was 

afforded an opportunity to respond and voice her concerns. Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez 

Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 77:33-79:25). 

29. Just days after her meeting with Vice Chancellor Bowers, on March 12, 

2014, Plaintiff submitted a nine page legal brief though her attorney which set forth her 

objections to the suspension and argued that “a fourteen-month suspension is the 

economic equivalent of a dismissal.” Exhibit 41 (March 12, 2014 Letter From Stephen 

Montoya to the Governing Board). Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, 

pp. 83:18-87:22). The legal brief contained more than 30 pages of Exhibits – including 

the Hearing Committee’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - and was sent to 

MCCCD’s Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, all members of the Governing Board, 

and MCCCD’s in house counsel. Exhibit 41 (March 12, 2014 Letter From Stephen 

Montoya to the Governing Board). 

30. Shortly thereafter, and in anticipation of the Governing Board’s March 25, 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 13 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

14

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

2014 regularly scheduled board meeting, Plaintiff submitted a one-and-one-half page 

letter to the Governing Board objecting to her suspension and asking “the board to 

intervene in [her] case to rescind the Chancellor’s suspension.” Exhibit 44 (March 25, 

2014 Letter to Governing Board). Plaintiff and her counsel each separately spoke before 

the Governing Board in open session. Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. 

I, pp. 87:24-96:7). Exhibit 45 (March 25, 2014 Governing Board Minutes); Exhibit 46

(March 25, 2014 Governing Board Transcript). While addressing the Governing Board, 

Plaintiff and her counsel each 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.” Exhibit 45 (March 25, 2014 Governing 

Board Minutes); Exhibit 46 (March 25, 2014 Governing Board Transcript); Exhibit 25

(2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 87:24-96:7). 

31. Following the March 25, 2014 Governing Board meeting, Plaintiff 

submitted at least four letters to the Governing Board outlining her objections to her 

suspension and her contention that a 14-month-suspension was tantamount to a 

termination of employment. Exhibit 47 (August 13, 2014 Letter to Governing Board);

Exhibit 48 (October 28, 2014 Letter to Governing Board); Exhibit 49 (January 27, 2015 

Letter to Governing Board); Exhibit 43 (February 21, 2015 Letter to Governing Board).

32. On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a two page letter to the 

Governing Board. Exhibit 47 (August 13, 2014 Letter to Governing Board). In the 

letter, Plaintiff argued that “When the Chancellor could not terminate me, he suspended 

me without pay for such a long time that it is tantamount to a termination.” Exhibit 47

(August 13, 2014 Letter to Governing Board); Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. 

Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 99:10-105:10). 

33. On October 28, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a one and one half page letter to 

the MCCCD Governing Board again arguing that her suspension was improper and 

asking the Governing Board to reinstate her to her former position. Exhibit 48 (October 

28, 2014 letter to the Governing Board); Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 14 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

15

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

Vol. I, pp. 101:12-102:13). 

34. On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a six page letter to the 

Governing Board and complained that her “suspension for 15 months without pay and 

benefits is tantamount to a discharge because of its unreasonable length and terms.”

Exhibit 49 (January 27, 2015 letter to Governing Board; Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez 

Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 106:21-109:15). 

35. Plaintiff also appeared before the Governing Board a second time on 

October 28, 2014 and argued against her suspension. Exhibit 50 (October 28, 2014 

Governing Board Transcript); Exhibit 51 (October 28, 2014 Governing Board Minutes).

Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 102:14-105:10). But if that 

were not enough, Plaintiff also had two other individuals separately appear before the 

Governing Board on her behalf and object to her suspension. Exhibit 50 (October 28, 

2014 Governing Board Transcript); Exhibit 51 (October 28, 2014 Governing Board 

Minutes). Mr. Townzel appeared at the May 27, 2014 and October 28, 2014 Governing 

Board Meetings to object to Plaintiff’s suspension. Exhibit 52 (May 27, 2014 

Governing Board Transcript); Exhibit 50 (October 28, 2014 Governing Board 

Transcript); Exhibit 51 (October 28, 2014 Governing Board Minutes); Exhibit 25 (2016 

Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 105:11-106:20). Santos Vega also appeared at the 

October 28, 2014 Governing Board Meeting to object to Plaintiff’s suspension. Exhibit

51 (October 28, 2014 Governing Board Minutes); Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. 

Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 105:11-106:20).

36. In the fall of 2015, following the completion of her 14-month-suspension 

from MCCCD, Plaintiff returned to work as a math instructor at Phoenix College. 

Exhibit 35 (Glasper Decl. ¶ 11). 

37. On August 25, 2015, following Plaintiff’s return to work, MCCCD again 

reminded Plaintiff of the requirement to issue refunds to students. Exhibit 53 (August 

25, 2015 Letter from Haines to Martinez). However, Plaintiff failed to do so. Exhibit

25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 136:9-137:4, 146:2-149:17). To this day 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 15 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

16

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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

has continued in her willful insubordination and has refused to issue refunds to students. 

Exhibit 25 (2016 Martinez Depo. Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 136:9-137:4, 146:2-149:17). 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3

rd day of March 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 Defendant

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 16 of 17
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 805

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2425

(602) 281-3400

17

FPDOCS 32679417.1

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 3rd day of March 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 Colwell 

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW Document 73 Filed 03/03/17 Page 17 of 17