Local 1000's Dispute What Sherles' Factual Assertions in The Case

ORIGINAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Attorneys for Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Maria Patterson Felix De La Torre, Senior Staff Counsel (SBN 204282) Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 1 808 14* Street Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 554-1279-Telephone (916) 554-1272 - Facsimile Attorneys for Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Maria Patterson Charles L. Post, State Bar No. 160443 Meagan D. Christiansen, State Bar No. 240679 weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin
lAW CORPORATION
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 5 5 8 - 6 0 0 0 - M a i n (916) 446-1611 - Facsimile
10
T3 O i_ O)
11 12 13 14 15
o
c re E _ a > o o re
TS 0) JZ
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
!Q
u c
2=
16
MECHELLE SHERLES; and ROBYN SHERLES,
=1
.E 8 5 J2
17
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 34-2011-00114745 DEFENDANTS SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000, RICH BOYD AND MARIA PATTERSON'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Reservation No. 1 840877] Date: Time: Judge: November 1, 201 3 2:00 p.m. Hon. David I. Brown
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
vs. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; RICH BOYD, an individual; MARIA PATTERSON, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive. Defendants.
Dept.: 53
Complaint Filed: November 29, 2011 Trial Date: N/A
{1692423.DOC;}
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ISO MSJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
T3 O i_ O)
Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure section 437(c) and rule 3.1350(d) of the California Rules of Court, Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1000 ("Local 1000"), Rich Boyd ("Boyd") and Maria Patterson ("Patterson") (collectively
"Defendants") hereby submit the following reply separate statement of undisputed material facts, together with references to supporting evidence, in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication.'
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1. Service International Employees Union ("Local 1000") is California's largest state employee union. It represents approximately 95,000 workers in nine bargaining units. Declaration of Yvonne Walker in Support of Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Maria Patterson's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues (Walker Deck") at 112, attached as Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Charles L. Post in Support of Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Maria Patterson's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
c re E o u
T3
u c
=1
. 8 5
' Defendants submit this reply separate statement in support of their summary judgment motion in order to illustrate for the Court that there are no material disputes of fact. To file a corresponding reply separate statement in support of Defendants' summary adjudication motion would exceed 800 pages and would not provide the Court with any information not found within the instant document. Accordingly, as to not overburden the Court with an excessively large file, Local 1000 has not filed a reply separate statement in support of Local 1 OOO's summary adjudication motion.
{1692423.DOC,}
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Adjudication of Issues (serving as the Compendium of Evidence) ("Compendium"). 2. Local 1000 is member governed. It is a California mutual benefit non-profit corporation. Members govern Local 1 0 0 0 pursuant to its charter, bylaws, and policy file. Walker Decl. at 113, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. 3. Local 1 OOO's policy file ("Policy File") is the rules and regulations for union and member affairs adopted by Local 1 OOO's governing body, the Local 1000 Council. Walker Decl. at 113 [and Ex. A thereto], attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium.
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
5. 4.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Disputed. Defendant characterizes this fact too narrowly, where there are additional policies that govern Local 1000, including the agreement signed between FTB, Mechelle Sherles, and Yvonne Walker. Declaration of Mechelle Sherles at H 3. Undisputed.
No dispute.
The general membership of Local 1000 elects state-wide officials. Local 1000 is also served by other elected representatives for various functions, such as bargaining. Walker Decl. at 114, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. Those representatives are, for the most part, elected by members of the union in various districts, regions and bargaining units. Members also elect delegates and other officials for local bargaining unit positions.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Materiel Facts ISO MSJ
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Walker Decl. at 114, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
6 .
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8a. 7.
The election of these representatives and their powers are described in Divisions 4 , 7 and 12 of the Policy File, as it is amended from time to time. Walker Decl. at 114, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Volume III of Deposition of Mechelle Sherles ("Sherles Depo., VI. Ill") at pp. 3 8 9 : 2 13, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. O n e of the primary functions of Local 1000 is to negotiate the terms of Memorandums of Understanding ("MOU") with the State of California on behalf of its members. Walker Decl. at 116, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Volume I of Deposition of Mechelle Sherles ("Sherles Depo., VI. I") at pp. 2 1 1 : 8 - 1 3 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. Each of the nine bargaining units negotiates a separate M O U with the State. Walker Decl. at 116, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. Local 1000 members who are involved in the collective bargaining process take a leave of absence from work, otherwise known as "union leave," while engaged in the collective bargaining process.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
2 3
Walker Decl. at 117, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. I") at pp. 2 1 7 : 1 - 2 1 8 : 8 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. 8b. While on union leave. Local 1000 members remain an employee of the State. Walker Decl. at 117, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. 8c. In fact, the State is reimbursed by Local 1000 for the periods of time the members are absent from work engaging in union activities. Walker Decl. at 117, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. 9. This collective bargaining occurs periodically with the State of California. At each bargaining session, representatives of each bargaining unit, and staff and officials of Local 1000 negotiate the terms of future agreements. O n e of these negotiating sessions took place in June 2 0 1 0 through in or about August 2 0 1 0 ("2010 Negotiation Session"). Walker Decl. at 116, 8, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. As relevant to the facts in this case, the 2 0 1 0 Negotiation Session took place at the Holiday Inn, in Sacramento, California. Local 100 neither owns, nor controls the
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
8 9
10
XJ
Disputed. Local 1000 pays more than salary, but they pay benefits as well. See Sherles Declaration at H 3. Undisputed.
o
at
11 12 13 14 15 16
c o u re TJ > .c u c
re E fl)
No dispute. Plaintiff does not dispute that Local 1000 reimburses the stote for wages and benefits. (See also Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, II 3.) Undisputed.
2=
o
5
= 1 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
10.
5 J S
Disputed. SEIU rented the space/rooms for the bargaining. They maintained control of the
No actual dispute. To be sure. Local 1000 can be said to control hotel rooms it rented for group activities. That is not true of rooms occupied by its
{1692423.DOC;}
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE premises, of the Holiday Inn. Walker Decl. at 118, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. 11. Mechelle Sherles ("Mechelle Sherles") has been an employee of the State of California since in or about October 1 9 9 1 , most recently with the Franchise Tax Board. Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 9 6 : 3 9 8 : 1 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 8 5 : 2 3 - 3 8 6 : 4 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. She is employed as an executive assistant, in the role of a filing officer and the department's liaison to the Fair Political Practices Commission and ethics compliance coordinator. Sherles Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 3 8 6 : 9 - 2 3 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 13. Mechelle Sherles became a member of Local 1000 (Unit 4) in or about September 2009. Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 7 1 : 2 5 7 2 : 5 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 8 6 : 2 4 - 3 8 7 : 3 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Mechelle Sherles is a member of Local 1000 today. She holds various elected and appointed roles within the
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE room and the rooms they rented. Block Declaration H 5. Undisputed.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
members and employees, or common areas. (See Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, 1 1 5.) Undisputed.
8 9 10
XI
o c re E a o u re
X3 0) O)
11 12
12.
13 14 15
o
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
.c o c !Q
2=
.E 8 s 5J S
Sl
=1
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
14.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
XI
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE union, including as a District Bargaining Union Representative ("DBUR"), a delegate to the general council and an international SEIU delegate. Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 7 7 : 1 3 7 8 : 1 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. 15. Mechelle Sherles is not and never has been an employee of Local 1000.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Disputed.
o c re E _ a ) o u re
T3
11 12 13 14 15
16.
.c u .o
Misstates Sherles Testimony. Nowhere in Walker Decl. at 119, attached the cited transcripts does as Ex. 1 to Compendium; she say she is not an Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 2 1 8 : 9 - employee and has never 1 1, attached as Ex. 2 to been an employee. Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 395:3-12, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Mechelle Sherles received no wages from Local 1 0 0 0 . Walker Decl. at 119, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 4 3 0 : 5 - 9 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 17. Mechelle Sherles received no W-2 or other wage reporting document from Local 1000. Walker Decl. at 119, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. 18. Although she received reimbursement for expenses incurred in her capacity as a BUNC officer (such as hotel room charges and mileage), that reimbursement was reflected in a 1099. Undisputed Undisputed. Undisputed.
No actual dispute. Plaintiff offers no evidence. Plaintiff further contradicts her own sworn testimony that she has never been a staff employee of the SEIU. (See Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 2 1 8 : 9 - 1 1 , Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 395:3-12.) Undisputed.
2=
o
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
c ^1
5 J S
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Walker Decl. at 119, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., Vl. 1 at 136:24-137:16, 156:24159:1 1, attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium.
19.
8 9
10
D
O
L.
Mechelle Sherles received no Local 1000 health insurance or fringe benefits. Walker Decl. at 119, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium.
Disputed. As part of participation in leadership for SEIU, Plaintiff was given documents to sign stating the following: "....I understand that if I am injured while on this paid leave of absence in performance of my SEIU Local 1000 duties or any other activities that I will not qualify or be eligible for workers' compensation or industrial disability leave benefits from the State of California. And, further I am not, in fact, on the job nor in the course or scope of my employment with the State of California when I am out on this union paid leave of absence. I further understand that while on this paid leave of absence, performing duties for SEIU Local 1000, any compensation I receive is being paid by the SEIU Local 1000 and
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
c re E a > o u
.IC
O)
re a o
JC
This is a quibble, not a factual dispute. Is workers comp a "fringe benefit" or a statutory mandate? For this motion. Defendants concede Sherles received workers' compensation insurance from Local 1000. Plaintiffs' cannot and have not disputed that Local 1000 provided no health insurance or other benefits to Sherles. The State of California did provide those benefits.
=1
to S a >5 5J S
{1692423.DOC;}
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
T3 O
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that SEIU Local 1000 will be my employer during this period. I have also been advised that in the event I do file a workers' compensation claim against the State of California, or any agency thereof, for an injury or injuries sustained while on this paid leave of absence, that the SEIU Local 1000 will be required to indemnify and hold harmless the State of California, or agency thereof, from both workers' compensation liability and any costs of legal defense incurred as a result of the filing of my claim." note Yvonne Walker, President, and declarant in support of Defendant's motion, signed this document as well. Based on Plaintiff's receipt of these documents, it was her understanding she was to be treated as an employee for SEIU when engaging in her Vice Chair duties. Declaration of Sherles at H 3 Mechelle Please
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
11 12 13 14 15
c re E o u n
T5 O JZ
fl)
2 =
o
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.E 8 s SJ S
=1
Sherles received hotel accomodations and a per diem from Local
{1692423.DOC;}
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
c o c re E o u
0)
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1000. Sherles Declaration at H 5
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
19a.
11 12 13 14 15
o
.c u c !5
XI 0)
re
Elected or appointed officials are not subject to executive or managerial control by any Local 1000 employee or officer. Elected officials may only be disciplined or removed by the discipline and removal process provided by Divisions 9 and 12 of the Policy File. Division 12 of the Policy File requires the support of the eligible union voters prior to the removal of any elected official. Walker Decl. at 110, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 9 2 : 2 4 - 3 9 4 : 3 [and Ex. 19 thereto], and 431:8-18, 432:19-25 [and Ex. 20 thereto], attached as Exs. 4 , 14, and 15 to Compendium (authenticated in Walker Decl. at 113 [and Ex. A thereto]).
Disputed. Boyd managed and directed Sherles duties. Sherles Declaration at II 4.
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff's evidence is non-responsive. (See Defendant Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6,114.) Nothing in 1 1 4 of the Sherles Declaration even faciolly disputes this fact.
2 = 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. 20.
=1
. 8
5 5J S
In April, 2010, Mechelle Sherles was appointed to the Bargaining Unit Negotiating Council ("BUNC") for Bargaining Unit No. 4 ("Unit 4") which represents California state clerical workers. Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 71:1 22 0 , 7 3 : 4 - 2 3 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. Shortly after that appointment.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
10
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Mechelle Sherles was elected as Vice Chairman of BUNC for Unit 4. Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 7 1 : 2 2 7 2 : 8 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. 22.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
7 8 9
10
T3 O
O)
The duties and responsibilities of the BUNC and its chairperson and vice chair are delineated in Division 7 of the Policy File. Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 197:32 0 1 : 1 3 , 2 0 2 : 5 - 2 0 3 : 1 7 [and Ex. 13 thereto], attached as Exs. 2 and 10 to Compendium (authenticated in Walker Decl. at 113 [and Ex. A thereto]); Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 9 7 : 2 1 - 4 0 0 : 1 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Disputed. Misstates Sherles Testimony, and is attempting to assert a legal conclusion which the witness has no capacity to render.
No disputed fact. Plaintiff doesn't like the evidence Defendants proffered but they have failed to offer anything to dispute it.
\
c re
11 12 13 14 15
23.
o u
E o
re
T3 fl)
u .n
2 c
o
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
BUNC's negotiate on behalf of their members. Walker Decl. at 116, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. As Vice Chairman of the BUNC for Bargaining Unit 4 , Mechelle Sherles participated in the 2010 Negotiation Session. Walker Decl. at 119, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium. While participating in the 2010 Negotiation Session, Mechelle Sherles was on union leave. Deposition of Mechelle Sherles ("Sherles Depo., VI. IV") at pp. 8 1 3 : 5 - 2 5 [and Ex. 35 thereto],
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
=1
2i
. S : o S S J S
24.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
24a.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
24 25 26 27 28
{1692423.DOC,}
11
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE attached as Exs. 5 and 19 to Compendium. 25. Mechelle Sherles alleges that, in her capacity as a Local 1000 official, she is protected against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), 117, 9 [sic, 3 : 1 3 - 2 5 ] , attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27.
26.
Local 1000 employs members of the United Auto Workers ("UAW"), Local 2350 to administer the business activities of the local subject to the direction and control of the union selected officials. Walker Decl. at 115, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. l o t 172:202 5 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 9 4 : 2 4 - 3 9 5 : 2 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Disputed. Objection. Sherles Misstates Testimony, and IS attempting to assert a legal conclusion which the witness has no capacity to render. Lacks foundation.
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact. (See Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, II 4.)
Sheles was carrying out business activities for the Union also on behalf of those Union officials above her as well as employees of the Union that those officials put in place to manage her. Delaration of Sherles at 1 1 4 Mechelle
These employees are directed in their work, and under the control of. Local 1000 officials. Walker Decl. at 115, attached
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
12
1 2 3 4
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE as Ex. 1 to Compendium. 28. All Local 1000 employees are members of UAW Local 2 3 5 0 with the exception of staff managers and supervisors. Walker Decl. at 115, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
7 8 9
10
XJ
29.
Mechelle Sherles is not a member of UAW Local 2 3 5 0 . Sherles Depo., 5, attached Compendium; VI. Ill, at pp. attached as Compendium. VI. 1 at 1 7 3 : 1 as Ex. 2 to Sherles Depo., 394:14-395:2, Ex. 4 to
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
o
O) o o
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
32.
o
c re E u
JC
30.
re XJ o
U
In m i d - 2 0 1 0 . Local 1000 hired Richard Boyd ("Boyd"), as the contracts director. Walker Decl. at 1110, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
c ' . a
2= 2I
c 5 5J 2
31.
=1
Boyd is not member.
Local
1000
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Walker Decl. at 1110, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 4 3 4 : 4 - 8 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Boyd did not hire Mechelle Sherles. She was appointed and then elected. Walker Decl. at 1110, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at 7 0 : 2 5 7 6 : 2 5 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 400:2-8, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Undisputed. Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
13
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 33.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
8 9
10
Boyd had no authority to fire Undisputed. Mechelle Sherles. Indeed, no employee of Local 1000 had the ability to sever Mechelle Sherles' relationship with it. A member and elected official of the union can only be disciplined in accordance with Division 9 of the Policy File or recalled/removed in accordance with Division 1 2 of the Policy File. Walker Decl. at 1110, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 9 2 : 2 4 - 3 9 4 : 3 [and Ex. 19 thereto], and 431:8-18, 432:19-25 [and Ex. 20 thereto], attached as Exs. 4 , 14, and 15 to Compendium (authenticated in Walker Decl. at 113 [and Ex. A thereto]).
Undisputed.
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
35. 34.
Neither Boyd nor any other Local 1000 employee evaluated Mechelle Sherles performance as a member of the Unit 4 BUNC. Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 9 4 : 4 - 1 3 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. No Local 1000 employee has the means and method of controlling a BUNC negotiating officer or member's discharge of duties. Walker Decl. at UIO, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Disputed. Boyd directed duties. Sherles
Sherles declaration at H 4
No actual dispute. II 4 of the Sherles Declaration doesn't controvert or dispute the evidence offered by Defendants. If all the evidence can be accepted as true, no factual dispute exists. (See Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, II 4.)
{1692423.DOC;}
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Disputed. Objection. Misstates Sherles Testimony, and is attempting to assert a legal conclusion which the witness has no capacity to render. Lacks Foundation. The Questions posed are far narrower in scope. Disputed. Objection. Misstates Sherles Testimony, and is nonsensical with regard to the question posed. Lacks Foundation.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
36.
Mechelle Sherles admits she has not seen any Local 1000 employee give directions to a Local 1000 elected officer or member on the terms of a MOU. Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 4 1 1 : 2 5 - 4 1 2 : 8 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
No disputed fact. Objections without evidence cannot give rise to a factual dispute.
37.
10
TJ O k. O)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
39. 38. o
Only BUNC officials may approve and ratify agreements with the State. Walker Decl. at 116, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. I at 2 0 6 : 1 7, attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium.
c n E
o o o
JC
re
o
JC
u c ! 5
2=
=1
5 J S
2i
Division 1 1 of the Policy File Disputed. Objection. describes the reimbursement of Local 1000 officials incurred in Misstates Sherles the discharge of their duties. Testimony, and is attempting to assert a Sherles Depo., VI. I at 197:3- legal conclusion which 201:13, 2 0 2 : 5 - 2 0 2 : 2 3 , the witness has no 2 1 5 : 1 8 - 2 1 6 : 2 3 [and Ex. 13 capacity to render. Lacks thereto], attached as Exs. 2 Foundation. and 10 to Compendium (authenticated in Walker Decl. at 113 [and Ex. A thereto]). In the course of her duties as Vice Chair of BUNC for Unit 4 , Mechelle Sherles completed approximately twenty-six (26) member reimbursement expense forms for the purpose of seeking reimbursement for mileage and other costs Undisputed.
Undisputed.
24 25 26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
15
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE incurred in the discharge of her duties of a Local 1000 officer. Mechelle Sherles does not recall submitting any additional expense reports during her time as a BUNC Unit 4 Vice-Chair, other than the 26 submitted expense reports. Sherles Depo., VI. I at 130:42 5 , 1 3 2 : 2 2 - 1 3 3 4 [and Ex. 11 thereto], attached as Exs. 2 and 9 to Compendium. 40. Mechelle Sherles alleges that Boyd's supervisory power over her is demonstrated by the fact that he could approve or reject her expense reimbursement applications to Local 1000. SAC, 117, 9 [sic, 3 : 1 3 - 2 5 ] , attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium. 41 In fact, the vast majority of the expense reports were approved by Fran Pass ("Pass"), Chairperson of BUNC Unit 4. Fran Pass is not a Local 1000 employee, she was elected to her to her chairpersonship. Sherles Depo., VI. I at 1 3 1 : 2 2 0 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Volume II of Deposition of Mechelle Sherles ("Sherles Depo., VI. 11") at pp. 3 4 1 : 1 - 3 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 4 0 0 : 9 - 4 0 4 : 1 1 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
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' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Disputed. Objection. First, Page 1 3 1 : 2 - 2 0 and 341:1 -3 were not provided. Based on the citation at 400:9-404:11: This misstates the witnesses testimony, and the witness would not have the ability nor did she comment on any expense reports that were not shown to her.
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Pages 4 0 0 : 9 - 4 0 4 : 1 1 of the cited testimony clearly establish that Plaintiff reviewed the entire stack of expense reports for the purpose of passing them on to an elected official.
{1692423.DOC;}
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ O
im
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 42. Where the expense reports were approved someone other than Pass, the approval came from another Local 1000 officer. Sherles Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 4 2 : 2 - 7 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 4 0 2 : 1 4 - 4 0 4 : 1 0 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Disputed. Disputed. Objection Plaintiff can't understand what this fact is saying. This misstates the witnesses testimony, and the witness would not have the ability nor did she comment on any expense reports that were not shown to her. The fact draws improper inference. Disputed. Objection. This misstates the witnesses testimony, and the witness would not have the ability nor did she comment on any expense reports that were not shown to her. The fact draws improper inference about expense all expense reports. Disputed. Boyd reviewed Expense reports. Sherles
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff testified that she believes Kathleen Collins, an elected statewide officer, was the only person other than Fran Pass to sign her expense reports.
11 12 43. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44. Mechelle Sherles has no admissible evidence to establish Boyd ever reviewed the expense reports she submitted. Sherles Depo., VI. I at 1 4 1 : 1 6 146:19, 147:16-161:13, attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 4 1 4 : 1 2 - 2 4 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Sherles Depo., VI. I at 141:192 5 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 404:4-10, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. No Local including Mechelle forms. 1000 employee, Boyd, signed Sherles expense
at c re E a; o u
JC
re .c u c !a 2 c o
T3 0)
Sl
.E 8
=1
S J S
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer odmissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff clearly testified in the cited evidence that Richard Boyd had signed no expense report a n d , that, the expense reports were signed by Fran Pass and Kathleen Collins. No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff did not include page 78 of Boyd's deposition. Even if they had, it does not raise a factual dispute where Boyd also testified he merely reviewed the reports to pass them on to SEIU leadership to
Boyd Deposition at 78:918
26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
17
1 2 3 4 5
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
approve. See Boyd Depo. 7 8 : 9 - 8 0 : 1 5 , attached as Exhibit A to Christiansen Decl. 45. Approximately ten (10) of the expense forms Mechelle Sherles completed were preprinted with the word "employee expense report." Someone at Local 1000 crossed out the word "employee" interlineated term "member." Sherles Depo., VI. I at 1 6 0 : 2 1 1 6 3 : 4 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a tnable issue of fact. The fact merely states that in approximately 10 of the expense reports, the word "employee" was crossed out and replaced with "member." The undisputed fact does not attempt to identify who changed the wording of the document. No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a tnable issue of fact that Plaintiff ever received any payment or compensation (other than expense reimbursements) from Local 1000. Plaintiff's evidence is nonresponsive. (See Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, II 3.)
6 7 8 9 10
T3 O
Disputed. Objection.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47.
c re E o o u
JC
This misstates the witnesses testimony, and the witness would not have the ability to know who changed the document. The fact draws improper inference. Calls for speculation.
re
TJ fl)
.c o c !o 2 c o
Sl
5J S
=1
Other than reimbursement for expenses pursuant to Local 1 OOO's Policy File, Mechelle Sherles never received any other payment or compensation from Local 1000. Sherles Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 4 3 0 : 5 - 9 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Disputed. As part of participation in leadership for SEIU, Plaintiff was given documents to sign stating the following: "....I understand that if I am injured while on this paid leave of absence in performance of my SEIU Local 1000 duties or any other activities that I will not qualify or be eligible for workers' compensation or industrial disability leave benefits from the State of California. And, further I am not, in fact, on the job nor in the course or scope of my
26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
18
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
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE employment with the State of California when I am out on this union paid leave of absence. I further understand that while on this paid leave of absence, performing duties for SEIU Local 1 000, any compensation I receive is being paid by the SEIU Local 1000 and that SEIU Local 1000 will be my employer during this penod. I have also been advised that in the event I do file a workers' compensation claim against the State of California, or any agency thereof, for an injury or injuries sustained while on this paid leave of absence, that the SEIU Local lOOO will be required to indemnify and hold harmless the State of California, or agency thereof, from both workers' compensation liability and any costs of legal defense incurred as a result of the filing of my claim." Please note Yvonne Walker, President, and declarant in support of Defendant's motion, signed this document as well. Based on Plaintiff's receipt of these documents, it was
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
{1692423.DOC;}
19
1 2 3
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE her understanding she was to be treated as an employee for SEIU when engaging in her Vice Chair duties. Declaration of Mechelle Sherles at H 3
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
8 9 10
XI
48.
o
c re E
0)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dunng the 2 0 1 0 Negotiation Session, BUNC Unit 4's offers to the State were all signed and executed by members of the BUNC. No Local 1000 employee signed or executed the offers.
Disputed. As part of participation in leadership for SEIU, Plaintiff was given documents to sign stating the following:
o u
JC
'B
.c u c !a 2 c
0)
re
.E 8 s
5J S
Sl
=1
"....I understand Walker Decl. at 116, attached that if I am injured while as Ex. 1 to Compendium; on this paid leave of Sherles Depo., VI. I at 2 0 6 : 1 - absence in performance 213:1 [and Ex. 14 thereto], of my SEIU Local 1000 attached as Exs. 2 and 1 1 to duties or any other Compendium. activities that I will not qualify or be eligible for workers' compensation or industrial disability leave benefits from the State of California. And, further I am not, in fact, on the job nor in the course or scope of my employment with the State of California when I am out on this union paid leave of absence. I further understand that while on this paid leave of absence, performing duties for SEIU Local 1 0 0 0 , any compensation I receive is being paid by the SEIU Local 1000 and
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact that offers to the State were signed or executed by members of Local 1000. Plaintiff's evidence is non-responsive. (See Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, II 3.)
{1692423.DOC;}
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
XJ
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that SEIU Local lOOOwill be my employer during this period. I have also been advised that in the event I do file a workers' compensation claim against the State of California, or any agency thereof, for an injury or injuries sustained while on this paid leave of absence, that the SEIU Local 1000 will be required to indemnify and hold harmless the State of California, or agency thereof, from both workers' compensation liability and any costs of legal defense incurred as a result of the filing of my claim." note Yvonne Walker, President, and declarant in support of Defendant's motion, signed this document as well. Based on Plaintiff's receipt of these documents, it was her understanding she was to be treated as an employee for SEIU when engaging in her Vice Chair duties. Declaration of Sheries at II 3 Mechelle Please
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
o
Im
11 12 13 14 15 16
c re E _ a > o u JC re 'B o .c u c ! 5
O)
=1
S J S
. E 8 17 a > S
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
49. The same is true of the tentative agreements which
Disputed.
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible
{1692423.DOC;}
21
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 2 3 were signed Chairpersons. by BUNC
Walker Decl. at 116, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. I at 2 1 3 : 9 2 1 5 : 8 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE As part of participation in leadership for SEIU, Plaintiff was given documents to sign stating the following: "....I understand that if I am injured while on this paid leave of absence in performance of my SEIU Local 1000 duties or any other activities that I will not qualify or be eligible for workers' compensation or industrial disability leave benefits from the State of California. And, further I am not, in fact, on the job nor in the course or scope of my employment with the State of California when I am out on this union paid leave of absence. I further understand that while on this paid leave of absence, performing duties for SEIU Local 1 0 0 0 , any compensation I receive is being paid by the SEIU Local 1000 and that SEIU Local 1000 will be my employer during this period. I have also been advised that in the event I do file a workers' compensation claim against the State of California, or any agency thereof, for an injury or injuries sustained while
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact that the tentative agreements were signed by Local 1000 members. Plaintiff's evidence is nonresponsive. (See Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, II 3.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
{1692423.DOC,}
22
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
50. Local 1000 employees do not have the authority or power to discipline or terminate an elected officer, representative or member of the union. Walker Decl. at UIO, attached as Ex. 1 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 9 2 : 2 4 - 3 9 4 : 3 [and Ex. 19 thereto], and 431:8-18, 432:19-25 [and Ex. 20 thereto], attached as Exs. 4 ,
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE on this paid leave of absence, that the SEIU Local 1000 will be required to indemnify and hold harmless the State of California, or agency thereof, from both workers' compensation liability and any costs of legal defense incurred as a result of the filing of my claim." note Yvonne Walker, President, and declarant in support of Defendant's motion, signed this document as well. Based on Plaintiff's receipt of these documents, it was her understanding she was to be treated as an employee for SEIU when engaging in her Vice Chair duties. Declaration of Sheries at H 3 Undisputed. Mechelle Please
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
23
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 14, and 15 to Compendium (authenticated in Walker Decl. at 113 [and Ex. A thereto]). 51 The only means by which Local 1000 can discipline or terminate an elected officer, representative, or member of Local 1000 is by the " H R - l " charge hearing and removal process outlined in Division 9 of the Policy File. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 431:8-18, 432:19-25 [and Ex. 2 0 thereto], attached as Exs. 4 and 15 to Compendium (authenticated in Walker Decl. at 113 [and Ex. A thereto]). 52. This HR-l process is the only process by which members may take action against other members of the union and seek to have the union discipline or take action against another member. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 4 3 3 : 1 2 - 2 1 , attached as Exs. 4 to Compendium. 53. It is also the only process by which members may complain against other members of the union and seek to have the union discipline or take action against another member. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 433:12-21, 430:10-18, attached as Exs. 4 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
8 9
10
TJ O C
11 12 13 14 15
o
o u
JC
re E o
re
XJ
to .c u .a
Disputed. Objection. Calls for a conclusion that the witness is not in a position to render.
2 =
16
.E 8 s S J S
= 1 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Disputed. Objection. Calls for a conclusion that the witness is not in a position to render.
{1692423.DOC;}
24
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 55. In fact, she has not seen any Local 1 0 0 0 prepare a performance evaluation of a Local 1000 elected officer or member with respect to their performance during the negotiation sessions. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 3 9 4 : 4 - 1 3 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 56. Mechelle Sheries met Robyn Sheries in or about February, 2010. Sheries Depo., VI. 1 at pp. 1 6 3 : 8 - 1 2 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. 57, They became involved in a romantic relationship shortly thereafter. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 4 2 : 1 7 - 5 4 3 : 7 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 58. On January 7, Mechelle Sherles registered domestic with Robyn Sheries. 201 1, became partners
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
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed to the extent "she" refers to Mechelle Sheries.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Sheries Depo., VI. 1 at pp. 1 2 6 : 1 1 - 1 2 8 : 4 [and Ex. 10 thereto], attached as Exs. 2 and 8 to Compendium. 59. Mechelle and Robyn Sherles application to register as domestic partners is a public document that plainly states Mechelle Sheries' address. Undisputed. Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
25
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
62.
Robyn Sheries is an employee of the California Department of Corrections and a member of Local 1000. She has held several elected positions including as a BUNC Chair for Bargaining Unit 15 and general council member. She was also selected to be an international delegate. SAC, 1125, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium; Sheries Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 543:11-13 and 546:24547:16, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 61 Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 126:11-130:1 [and Ex. 10 thereto], attached as Exs. 2 and 8 to Compendium. The address shown on Mechelle and Robyn Sheries registered domestic partnership form is the address the Sheries' claim was improperiy made public by Maria Patterson ("Patterson"). Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 126:11-130:1 [and Ex. 10 thereto] and 443:16-444:17, attached as Exs. 2 and 8 to Compendium. While Robyn Sheries' main residence is in Southern California, she often stays with Mechelle Sheries at her home in Sacramento, California.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
60.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
26
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 2 3 Depo., VI. I at pp. 1 6 3 : 1 3 - 2 5 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. 62a. Mechelle Sheries alleges she was sexually harassed by Boyd for the period of no more than eleven days, from June 3 0 , 2 0 1 0 through July 10, 2 0 1 0 . Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto], 3 6 3 : 2 2 - 2 5 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 62b. Mechelle Sheries complains of two days of sexually explicit conduct: (1) an alleged kiss in the eariy morning of July 2 , 2 0 1 0 and (2) three sexually explicit text messages, allegedly sent in the eariy morning of July 3, 201 0. Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 2 2 [and Ex.18 thereto], 3 0 6 : 0 8 - 3 2 5 : 6 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. HI, at pp. 5 7 7 : 1 3 5 8 3 : 2 2 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
8 9
10
TJ O
k_
at
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
63.
c re E
fl)
o u
JC
re
Disputed. This is a very scoped fact. narrowly
fl) U
No dispute. commentary argument.
is
Plaintiffs' merely
=1
.E 8 5J S
Plaintiff complains of those incidents as well as incidents during an interview with Paul Harris and Brian Schroader, having her address information disclosed, Boyd stalking her, and being body slammed in retaliation for complaining about Boyd's conduct. Sherles Declaration at 1 1 1 1 4-11
Boyd and Mechelle Sheries first met on or about June 3 0 , 2 0 1 0 at a dinner meeting held during the 2 0 1 0 Negotiation
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
27
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Session. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 270:15-271:14, 273:11-18 and 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto], attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
8 9
10
64,
At that dinner, Boyd and Sheries sat next to each other at the same table. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 272:5-17 and 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto], attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
65.
Mechelle Sheries alleges Boyd rubbed against her leg during the meeting, though she "did not think much of it" at that time because he was "bigger" and she thought he might not have enough room at the table. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 295:16-296:19 and 307:412 [and Ex.18 thereto], attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ O t_
66.
At dinner the next day, Boyd again sat next to Mechelle Sheries and showed her and other Local 1000 members seated at the table pictures of his collection of old cars. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 297:2-22 and 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto], attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed,
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
at
c re E
fl)
67,
o u
JC TJ 0) JC
re u c
Mechelle Sheries alleges that website had a "sexual" name but does not recall the exact title. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 297:2-298:18 and 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto], attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed,
JD
=1
.E 8 s
^ JS
68,
Mechelle Sheries testified that, later that night, she received a phone call from Boyd inviting her to his room. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 307:4-14 [and Ex.18 thereto], attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
29
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 69, Mechelle Sheries testified that she went up to his hotel room at approximately midnight that night. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 3 0 8 : 1 7 - 2 3 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 - 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 70. Among other things, after entering the room, Boyd and Mechelle Sheries sat on a couch. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto] a n d - 3 0 8 : 1 4 - 3 1 9 : 1 3 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 - 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 71, As they conversed on the couch, Boyd scooted towards Mechelle Sheries. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 3 2 5 : 9 - 3 2 6 : 2 5 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 - 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 72. Mechelle Richard Sheries claims Boyd kissed that her
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
8 9
10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Disputed.
No dispute.
{1692423.DOC;}
30
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
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE "quickly" by placing his lips on Misstates the witnesses testimony with regard to hers. Boyd attempting a Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. "quick" kiss. The contact 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto] was quick because she and 327:1-328:10, attached jumped and ran towards as Exs. 3 and 12 to the door. Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Mechelle Sheries stood up immediately ending the kiss. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 328:4-10, attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Undisputed.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
73.
Undisputed.
74.
Boyd did not hold her head, shoulders or arms or otherwise touch her, Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 327:4-328:12, 343:21344:11, attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 575:22-576:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
75,
Mechelle Sheries left the room without interference from Boyd.
No dispute. Plaintiffs offer no evidence. Sheries This misstates the testimony says what it Sherles Depo., VI. II at pp. witnesses testimony. She says: 330:10-1 1, 331:8307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto] cleariy states that Boyd 23. and 322:17-335:20, attached stood in front of the door
Disputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
31
1 2 3 4 5
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 - 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and prevented her from leaving.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
76.
6 7 8 9 10
TJ O
Im
She does not believe that Boyd followed her. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 3 3 5 : 1 6 - 3 3 6 : 8 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 - 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
11 12 77. 13 14 15
at
c re E o o u
JC
re
TJ fl)
Between June 30th and July 10th, Mechelle Sheries alleges Boyd sent her approximately thirty text messages. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 3 5 3 : 1 - 3 5 4 : 1 3 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 - 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
2 c
o
^1
._ o
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78.
5 JS
26 27 28
Mechelle Sherles has provided a list of the text messages she attributes to Boyd, which was attached to her deposition as Exhibit 18. She testified that each text message she received from Boyd is shown on the list and accurately transcribed. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto]
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
32
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TJ O
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
and 3 5 3 : 1 - 3 5 4 : 1 3 , attached as Exs, 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 5 7 5 : 2 2 - 5 7 6 : 6 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. See also Excerpts of Texts, attached as Ex. 1 3 Compendium. 79, Sheries claims all the texts Boyd allegedly sent were from: (1) Boyd's Local 1000-issued blackberry; or (2) Boyd's personal phone. Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 1 1 3 : 8 - 1 1 4 : 1 2 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 3 5 3 : 1 - 3 5 4 : 1 3 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium. 80, She claims that Boyd used his personal cellular telephone to send her sexually explicit text messages. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 3 5 3 : 1 - 3 5 4 : 1 3 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 578:7-11, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 81 Of the 1 5 text messages that Undisputed. allegedly came from the number Mechelle Sheries identifies as Boyd's cellular telephone, three of them, were Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed.
11 12 13 14 15
o
c re
E
JC
o u
re
s: u c !o
TJ fl)
2 =
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
=1
.E 8
5J S
{1692423,DOC;}
33
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE sexually explicit. Sherles Depo., VI. II at pp. 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 353:1-354:13, attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 577:13-583:22, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 81a, The three sexually explicit text messages were all sent on July 3, between 1:23 a.m. and 2:41 a.m. were transcribed by Mechelle Sheries as follows: (1) "I am wanting you;" (2) "My dick is hard and wanting you;" and (3) "Thinking about you as I lay her stroking my
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
dick."
Sheries Depo,, VI. II at pp. 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 353:1-354:13, attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 578:1-20, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 82. The other 12 messages contained no sexual language. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto] and 353:1-354:13, attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 577:13-583:22, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Undisputed. Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC,}
34
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 2 3 83. Mechelle Sheries alleges she was "stalked" by Boyd, Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 5 5 : 1 8 - 2 1 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium. 84, The "stalking" claim is based on the following: (1) Boyd sent her a text on July 10, 2 0 1 0 telling her he had seen Mechelle Sheries and her daughters get into Robyn Sheries car; (2) on one occasion, she saw Boyd in the area near the laundry room at the hotel in which contract negations were ongoing, around the same time she was doing her laundry; (3) Boyd sent her texts messages inquiring into her presence in the hotel during negotiations; and (4) after texting her to ask for her hotel room number (to which she cannot recall whether she answered), she heard a "slam" at her door. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 3 0 7 : 4 - 1 2 [and Ex.18 thereto], 355:18-361:25, 364:123 6 6 : 4 , attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI, III, at pp. 5 8 3 : 2 3 5 8 7 : 1 9 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 85, She additionally alleges Boyd inquired into her accommodations related to her diabetes and questioned why she was given hotel
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
8 9
10
TJ O k-
11 12 13 14 15
o
at c re E fl) o u
JC
re
TJ fl)
u c !a
2 =
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
=1
9! s
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
35
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE accommodations in Sacramento, despite the fact she lived in Sacramento.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 346:17-348:7, attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill, at pp. 585:16587:19, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV, at pp. 747:10-751:15, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 85a. The "stalking" Mechelle Sheries complains of allegedly took place from July 2, 2010 through July 10, 2010. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 360:25-363:25, attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium. Undisputed. Undisputed.
86.
After receiving Boyd's text on July 10, 2010, Mechelle Sheries testified that the only other time she saw Boyd was at a training session on August 10, 2010. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 238:3-242:16 and 307:4-12 [and Ex.18 thereto], attached as Exs. 3 and 12 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
87.
All members of the bargaining Undisputed team were present at the training session on August 1 0, 2010. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp.
Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
T3 O

2 3 9 : 1 - 8 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
88.
Mechelle Sheries testified that she does not recall how long she and Boyd were in the same room, and Boyd did not speak with her, gesture at her, or look at her in a threatening manner. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 2 4 0 : 2 3 - 2 4 1 : 1 3 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium.
Undisputed, as long as it is clear this is not the hotel room incident of
Undisputed.
7.2.10.
11 12 13 14 15
o
c re
89.
E
0)
Mechelle Sheries testified that she had no other interaction
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
o u
with Boyd.
Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 2 4 1 : 2 2 - 2 4 2 : 1 6 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium. 90. Sheries claims that Boyd had a history of sexual harassment and that Local 1000 knew or should have known of that history prior to Boyd's hiring. Nonetheless, she admits she has no evidence that Boyd ever harassed any person prior to the claims at issue in this matter, or that Local 1000 had any knowledge of such prior incidents. SAC, 111191-94, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 3 7 : 2 0 - 7 3 8 : 1 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. Disputed. Boyd was previously accused of Sexual Harassment by Amy Feldman while he was employed by the California Teachers Association Deposition 25:3-13 of Boyd at No dispute. Plaintiff offers no evidence as to what Local 1000 knew or should have known.
JC
re
fl) JZ
u c !a
2 c
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2 s 5J S
=1
2I
26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
37
1 2 3
91.
O n August 6, 2 0 1 0 , Mechelle Sheries told Local 1000 employee Stacey Giacchino ("Giacchino") about Boyd's conduct. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 102:3-103:23, 109:16113:4, 118:7-121:17, attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
8 9
10
TJ O at
92.
11 12 13 14 15 16
Upon hearing Mechelle Sheries allegations, Giacchino informed Local 1000. Sheries Depo,, VI, II at pp, 102:3-103:23, 121:181 2 2 : 1 7 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
c re E
fl)
o u
JC
re
TJ fl) .Q O
93.
2 * 5J S
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Brian Schroeder ("Schroeder"), who worked for the human resources department for Local 1000, then contacted Mechelle Sheries to discuss the allegations. Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 1 8 6 : 2 1 - 1 8 7 : 1 3 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 2 3 4 : 1 6 2 3 5 : 1 4 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Declaration of Paul Harris in Support of Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1 0 0 0 , Rich Boyd and Maria Patterson's Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues ("Harris Decl.") at 113, attached as Ex.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
38
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 7 to Compendium. 94. Following Schroeder's receipt of this information. Local 1000 commissioned an investigation into Mechelle Sheries claims. Shortly thereafter, Boyd was placed on administrative leave. Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 1 7 1 : 1 5 - 1 8 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Harris Decl. at 113-4, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. 95.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ O
L_
11 12 13 14 15
at
c re
E o u
JC
TJ 0)
re
2 =
=1
.E 8 2 * S J S
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96.
Local 1 OOO's investigation was Undisputed. headed by its then Chief Counsel, Paul Harris ("Harris") and Schroeder. During the course of the investigation, Harris and Schroeder interviewed witnesses, reviewed text messages and call records for the cellular telephones in question, and conducted at least two interviews with Mechelle Sheries. The investigation is documented in a written report of the investigation. Harris Decl. at 113-4 [and Ex. C thereto], attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. The investigation approximately 3 0 days. lasted Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
26 27 28
97.
Harris Decl. at 114, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. Among other 1 OOO's things. Local Undisputed. investigation Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE concluded that Mechelle Sheries claims of sexual harassment against Boyd could not be corroborated. Further, the Report concluded that Mechelle Sheries had fabricated some of her claims. Harris Decl. at 114 [and Ex. C thereto], attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. 98. Mechelle Sheries claims that the investigation, itself, was a form of harassment and retaliation, Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 779:16-22 and 786:8-16, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 99. Mechelle Sheries' testimony is unclear as to whether there were two to three meetings with Schroeder and Harris, to discuss the alleged harassment. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 2 4 8 : 1 9 - 2 5 6 : 3 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 5 9 2 : 2 3 5 9 3 : 5 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 2 6 : 1 - 8 , 6 3 0 : 9 2 5 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 99a. She believes each of these meetings took place in August 2010.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ O
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Sheries Dep., VI. Ill at pp. 573:17-22, attached as Exh. 4 to Compendium. 100. It is clear, however, that in the last of the two meetings with Harris and Schroeder, she claims she was "tortured" and prevented from leaving the Local 1000 office. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 596:7-597:9, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 626:1-8, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 101 After either the first or second meeting, Schroeder asked Mechelle Sheries to attend another meeting at the Local 1 000 offices. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 616:9-13, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 102.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed
Undisputed.
at c re E
fl)
Im
11 12 13 14 15 16
o
JC
Undisputed
re
TJ
U
Q)
Undisputed.
2 5 5J S
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28
Schroeder and Harris asked Disputed No dispute. Plaintiff for the additional meeting restated, but does not because their review of phone Thereafter her own Plaintiff dispute, records and interviews with attended a subsequent testimony. other witnesses had identified interview. Present was discrepancies in the facts as Mr. Schroader and Paul Mechelle Sheries related them. Harris, then Chief Counsel for SEIU, now Harris Decl. at 115, attached as Chief of Staff for SEIU. Ex. 7 to Compendium. Plaintiff was told to not bring any legal representation to her interview. This interv^iew lasted over two hours. Plaintiff felt interrogated
{1692423,DOC;}
41
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Separate Stotement of Undisputed Materiol Facts ISO MSJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ O
im
11 12 13 14 15
o
at c re E
fl)
o u
TJ fl) U
c !o
2=
5I
= 1 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.E 8 2 * 5J S
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE by Mr. Harris. Harris accused Plaintiff of fabricating the story. He accused Plaintiff of stealing Boyd's phone and sending those texts to herself. Harris claimed that if Plaintiff were to bring legal action against the Union that it would lead to Plaintiff being sued and that the Union would protect Boyd and not Plaintiff. During this meeting Plaintiff began to have a diabetic crash. Prior to the interview Plaintiff told Mr. Schroder that she was a diabetic and would need to eat soon. He stated that the inten/iew would not take longer than 20 minutes. Plaintiff told Mr. Harris that I was suffering from a sugar crash and needed to eat. Plaintiff also requested the opportunity to go to the bathroom. He said that he was not done with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff needed to keep answering questions. He was between Plaintiff and the door, and Plaintiff did not feel she could leave. Mr. Harris and Mr. Schroader argued for five minutes before allowing Plaintiff to leave the area to attend the bathroom. After repeated requests to leave to get food and to
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
{1692423,DOC;}
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE relieve myself Mr. Schroader finally told Mr. Harris that they needed to let Plaintiff leave. Plaintiff was in tears. Sheries Declaration at H 8
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
103.
o c re E a o o
JC
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
XJ fl)
re
n 2 c
o
1 c
2*
5J S
26 27 28
The purpose of the second or Disputed third meeting was to give Mechelle Sheries and Thereafter Plaintiff opportunity to respond to these attended a subsequent discrepancies. interview. Present was Mr. Schroader and Paul Harris Decl. at 115, attached as Harris, then Chief Ex. 7 to Compendium. Counsel for SEIU, now Chief of Staff for SEIU. Plaintiff was told to not bring any legal representation to her interview. This interview lasted over two hours. Plaintiff felt interrogated by Mr. Harris. Harris accused Plaintiff of fabricating the story. He accused Plaintiff of stealing Boyd's phone and sending those texts to herself. Harris claimed that if Plaintiff were to bring legal action against the Union that it would lead to Plaintiff being sued and that the Union would protect Boyd and not Plaintiff. During this meeting Plaintiff began to have a diabetic crash. Prior to the interview Plaintiff told Mr. Schroder that she
No dispute. Plaintiff merely restates, but does not dispute, her own testimony.
{1692423.DOC;}
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
TJ O i_
at
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE was a diabetic and would need to eat soon. He stated that the interview would not take longer than 2 0 minutes. Plaintiff told Mr. Harris that I was suffering from a sugar crash and needed to eat. Plaintiff also requested the opportunity to go to the bathroom. He said that he was not done with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff needed to keep answering questions. He was between Plaintiff and the door, and Plaintiff did not feel she could leave. Mr. Harris and Mr. Schroader argued for five minutes before allowing Plaintiff to leave the area to attend the bathroom. After repeated requests to leave to get food and to relieve myself Mr. Schroader finally told Mr. Harris that they needed to let Plaintiff leave. Plaintiff was in tears, Sheries Declaration at II 8
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
104. She attended that meeting after receiving several text messages from Schroeder asking her to meet with him and Harris to discuss the alleged harassment. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 2 4 9 : 2 - 2 5 2 : 1 7 , attached as
c re E o u
JC
re TJ 0) U
n 2 c
o
23
=1
2 R
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
44
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 616:19620:13, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 105. Mechelle Sheries had initially stated that she did not believe additional meetings were necessary, but eventually agreed after Schroeder explained that they were looking to close the investigation and they needed to be "fair to both parties." Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 249:25-252:5, attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 593:16594:5, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 616:9-25, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 105a During a subsequent telephone conversation with Schroeder, Mechelle Sheries alleges she asked if she needed counsel present, to which Schroeder said that outside counsel would be expensive, "make things ugly" and that they wanted to handle the situation internally. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 249:25-252:5, attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 616:9617:14, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
45
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Separate Siatement of Undisputed Material Facts ISO MSJ
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
D
O
im
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 106. Because she had been informed the meeting would be short, Mechelle Sheries (a diabetic) did not eat before the meeting. Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 2 5 1 : 1 0 - 2 5 2 : 2 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium. 107. When Mechelle Sheries arrived at Local 1000 headquarters, she identified herself to the main receptionist, who notified Schroeder of Mechelle Sheries' arrival. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp, 6 2 2 : 1 - 6 2 3 : 7 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 108. Exhibit 26 to Mechelle Sheries deposition ("Exhibit 26") is an accurate depiction of the general layout of the Local 1000 offices and Schroeder's office on the day that the alleged "torture" occurred. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 1 6 : 5 - 8 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 109, Schroeder greeted Mechelle Sheries, and walked her back to his office where she was asked to sit at a circular table, in the chair closest to the door and across from Schroeder. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 2 3 : 4 - 6 2 8 : 2 5 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed
Undisputed.
11 12 13 14 15
o
at c re
E
0)
o
JC
0) U
B
c
re
!5
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
2=
fl)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
=1
Undisputed
Undisputed.
26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
T3 O
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 110. On Exhibit 26, Mechelle Sheries identified herself as sitting in position X-1 and Schroeder sitting in position X2. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 2 6 : 1 2 - 6 2 7 : 8 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 111 Mechelle Sheries does not recall seeing any individuals sitting in the secretarial cubicles in the hallway outside of Schroeder's office or in the conference room next door, but cannot state definitely whether anyone was actually there. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 624:6-625:14, 662:136 6 4 : 2 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 112. In fact, on that day and at that time, the Local 1000 office, including the secretarial cubicles and conference room, were populated with their usual occupants. Harris Decl. at 115, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. 113. Within 15 minutes of Mechelle Sheries arrival at Local 1000 headquarters, Harris entered the room carrying a large stack of papers, which he dropped onto the table as he sat down.
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
c re
E o
o u
JC
re
0) U
c ! 5 2 c
o
=1
c o 2 5 5 J S
2I
Objection. Lack of foundation, and is selfserving. There are no declarations from anyone that was allegedly there on that day.
Undisputed
Undisputed.
24 25 26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
47
1 2 3 4 5
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 626:1-630:4, 648:3-11, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 114, On Exhibit 26, Mechelle Sherles alleges Harris dropped the papers at position X-3, before sitting at position X-4. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 632:2-10, 633:19-634:3, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium, 115. The door to remained open. the office
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed
Undisputed.
6 7 8 9 10
TJ O
im
11 12 13 14 15
o 'S
at c re E _ a > o u
JC
Undisputed
Undisputed.
re
fl)
Sheries Depo., Vl, IV at pp. 630:6-8, 633:2-7, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 116. Mechelle Sherles states that Undisputed Harris then informed her that he had looked at Local 1 OOO's insurance policy and did not believe Mechelle Sheries would be covered if Boyd decided to sue her, before sitting down at the chair directly across from Mechelle Sheries. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 631:17-632:1, 633:8-634:3, 653:3-654:17, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 117. Mechelle Sheries believes that, by making the statement, Harris was threatening her and discouraging her from "going forward" with the complaint. Undisputed Undisputed. Undisputed.
2 c
n
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
=g 2 I .E 8 2 JS * 5
26 27 28
{1692423,DOC;}
48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE she admits that she had already made the complaint and Local 1000 had already begun its investigation. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 652:11-653:2, 656:116 5 8 : 4 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 118. Harris' skepticism about the factual basis of her complaint "impliedly" demanded that she drop the complaint against Boyd. Sheries Depo., Vl. IV at pp. 6 5 8 : 8 - 6 5 9 : 1 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 119. She admits Harris did not ask her to drop the complaint. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 5 9 : 2 - 1 5 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed
Undisputed.
Disputed. Mistates the testimony of Witness, the testimony reflects Harris telling her that she would not be believed, and that the text messages would not "hold up in court". Undisputed.
No dispute. Nothing in Plaintiff's response create a triable issue of fact that Harris did not ask her to drop the complaint. Plaintiff's evidence is nonresponsive.
120,
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Although she had never spoken to him before, Mechelle Sheries says she was terrified of Harris' "presence" due to his and Schroeder's reputation of "attacking people who filed complaints" and their alleged dislike of gay people. Sherles Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 3 9 : 2 0 - 6 4 4 : 8 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
49
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 121 Mechelle Sheries admits, however, she did not recall who told her that Harris disliked gay people, what specifically they told her, and that she had shrugged the comments off as mere rumors. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 4 2 : 1 0 - 6 4 3 : 2 2 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 122. Mechelle Sheries further admits that she did not recall the specifics of her conversation with Beth Schaeffer regarding Schroeder and Harris' dislike for people who file complaints. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 4 1 : 7 - 6 4 2 : 1 8 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 123. After Harris sat down, Schroeder, Harris and Mechelle Sheries examined her cellular telephone, including her call logs, contact list, text messaging system, and how her text messages were recorded when a text message was received while the phone was turned off. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 4 4 : 9 - 6 4 5 : 2 5 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 124, About twenty minutes into the discussion regarding the operations of her telephone, the parties tested her phone by
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE having Mechelle Sheries send a test email to either Schroeder or Harris' own cellular telephone. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 645:20-649:5, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 125. Mechelle Sheries alleges that Harris then challenged the actual origin of the text messages attributed to Boyd and that he questioned her allegation that Boyd had sent them. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 647:4-651:11, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 126. Additionally, Mechelle Sheries alleges that Harris told her that her phone call and text log "would not stand up in court." Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 649:6-651:11, 658:5-659:1, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 127. Mechelle Sheries, however, was not bothered by Harris calling her a "liar" and admits that she was given an opportunity to respond to each of Harris' questions. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 649:6-13, 651:12-14, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
10
TJ O
im
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
at c re o u
JC
E fl)
re
TJ fl) U
c !5 2 c o
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Sl
=1
.E 8 2 * 5J S
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
51
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 128,

She alleges she began to cry approximately twenty minutes into the meeting and that she was scared of Harris and his demeanor because he: (1) dropped a stack of papers on the table at the beginning of the meeting; (2) placed his hands on the table two to three times, (3) questioned Mechelle Sheries aggressively with a raised voice, that was short of shouting, and challenged her to "give me something; and (4) refused to allow her to leave, Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 672:7-676:24, 696:11-19, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 129. Mechelle Sheries alleges that Harris was "aggressive" in his questioning and that at several points he "reached across the table," meaning he emphatically put his hands palm downward on the edge of the table so that it made a noise. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 658:5-661:6, 664:3-13, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.

Disputed. The fact misstates her testimony as the witness states at 6 7 4 : 8-19 that Harris became more and more aggressive with his questions, and pushed her to say more and more information. Sheries Decl. 6 7 4 : 8-19.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
No dispute fact. Nothing in Plaintiff's response create a triable issue of fact.
Disputed.
The fact misstates her testimony as the witness states at 6 7 4 : 8-19 that Harris became more and more aggressive with his questions, and pushed her to say more and more information. Sherles Decl. 6 7 4 : 8-19.
No dispute fact. Nothing in Plaintiff's response create a triable issue of fact.
130.
Mechelle Sheries bases her allegations that Harris and Schroeder would not let her leave from her indicating several times, approximately halfway through the meeting
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ O
im
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE and twenty minutes before it ended, that she would like to leave because her blood sugars were low and because she needed to use the bathroom. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 667:5-668:24, 677:2-23, 682:5-19, 682:20-683:4, 6 9 6 : 2 0 - 6 9 7 : 7 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium 131 For the next twenty minutes, Harris and Schroeder continued to ask Mechelle Sheries questions regarding her allegations and whereabouts during the time period in question, as well as general background information, including information regarding her family, her drinking/smoking habits. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 6 9 : 6 - 6 7 2 : 6 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 132. During this time, Mechelle Sheries did not make any movements to leave, but stated several times that she had to leave so that she could use the bathroom. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 668:25-669:5, 677:14-16, 682:5-19, 683:19-684:1, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
11 12 13 14 15
o
at c re E
o u re B
JC fl)
fl)
2 c 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
=1
2 I c 25
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
26 27 28
{1692423,DOC;}
53
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 133, At some point during these twenty minutes, Harris asked if she could wait twenty minutes, and Mechelle Sheries said that she could not. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 682:5-19, 687:21-688:13, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 134. Mechelle Sheries claims Harris and Schroeder then stood up approximately four to five feet by the open door. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 684:17-686:17, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 135, She states that as they were standing, Harris and Schroeder had an approximately five minute conversation, in which Harris communicated to Schroeder that he needed twenty more minutes to finish his questioning, to which Schroeder indicated Mechelle Sherles needed to leave. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 689:6-25, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 136. Schroeder then walked Mechelle Sheries to the bathroom and gave her an access code to enter. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 678:1-679:3, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
PbMNTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
24 25 26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
TJ O at c re fl) o u
JC
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 137, Upon entering the bathroom, but before reaching the toilet, Mechelle Sheries alleges she soiled herself. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 9 1 : 1 8 - 6 9 3 : 6 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 138, Mechelle Sheries spent approximately five minutes in the restroom cleaning herself up before meeting Schroeder by the restroom door. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 9 3 : 7 - 1 5 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 139. Mechelle Sheries has no reason to believe Schroeder had any knowledge of her soiling herself. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 6 9 2 : 9 - 2 0 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 140. At no point after Mechelle Sheries told Harris and Schroeder that she needed to leave, did she attempt to leave. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 686:1 8 : - 6 8 7 : 1 0 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 141. Mechelle Sherles claim that she was prevented from leaving the office is based on Harris' comments "1 need you to give me more" or "1 need
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
11 12 13 14 15
o
re X3 fl) U c
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
!Q
2=
.E 8 2 s S J S
Sl
=1
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
55
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE twenty more minutes" "nothing else." and
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Sherles Depo., VI. IV at pp. 691:1-9, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 142. That is Mechelle Sherles complete testimony and description of everything Harris said that prevented her from just standing up and leaving the room. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 691:10-13, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 143, Schroeder said nothing preventing her from standing up and leaving the room. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 691:14-1 7, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 144. Mechelle Sheries testified she Disputed. Objection. No disputed fact. gave a complete description of Objections without the events at the meeting, and Misstates the witnesses evidence cannot give rise does not describe ever being testimony and is vague to a factual dispute. touched, that she attempted to and ambiguous as to the "attempt to leave, or that any attempt to phrase leave was blocked or frustrated leave . by Defendants. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 686:18:-687:10, 688:17689:5, 691:1-9, 691:10-17, 696:11-697:18, 712:17713:3, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. Undisputed. Undisputed. Disputed. Objection. "That" in this fact is incomprehendable, and makes this fact unreadable and nonsensical. No disputed fact. Nothing in Plaintiff's response creates a triable issue of material fact.
{1692423,DOC;}
56
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 145. Mechelle Sheries alleges that she was retaliated against by Local 1000 for making complaints regarding Boyd's alleged sexual assault and sexual harassment because of the following reasons: (1) she was interrogated during Local 1 OOO's investigation into her complaints; (2) she was harassed by Maria Patterson; (3) her HR-l Complaint against Patterson was "dropped"; (4) Perkins and Patterson discussed her sexuality with other individuals; and (5) she was body slammed by Sophia Perkins. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 774:9-23, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 146.
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' REPLY
Undisputed.
Maria Patterson is a member Undisputed. of Local 1000, and served as a BUNC member for Bargaining Unit 1 5 during the 2010 Negotiation Session. Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 147:24-148:3, attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
147.
After she complained of the alleged sexual harassment, Patterson began to retaliate against her for making the complaint. SAC, 1127, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
57
1 2 3
148.
10
XI
o c re E a; o o
JC
11 12 13 14 15
o
She claims Patterson retaliated against her in the following ways: (1) telling people that Mechelle Sheries had sued the SEIU; (2) disrespectfully demanding a conversation with her; (3) making comments regarding her sexual orientation; (4) distributing her confidential home address; (5) causing Robyn Sheries phone bill to be placed faced up on Robyn Sheries desk; and (6) being critical of Robyn Sheries performance as Chairperson of BUNC No. 15. SAC, 1127-30, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 181:24-183:9, attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 435:24437:20, 437:1-441:6, 443:13-444:18, 445:15448:3, 466:15-467:25, 475:1 1-24 [and Ex. 21 476:23-478:11, thereto], 480:7-481:14, attached as and 16 to Exs. 4 Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 752:2-753:16, 774:9-23, 786:21-787:2, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
re XJ fl) U
2=
Sl
=1
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.E 8 2 * S J S
149.
Mechelle Sheries says that that after her lawsuit against local 1000 was filed, Patterson discussed Mechelle Sheries complaints against Boyd publicly.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
58
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 2 3 Sheries Depo,, VI, III at pp. 4 6 6 : 1 5 - 4 6 7 : 2 5 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 150. Mechelle Sheries further alleges that while campaigning for a Local 1000 officer, Patterson told other members that Mechelle Sheries was suing the SEIU. Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 1 8 1 : 2 4 - 1 8 3 : 9 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. 151. Mechelle Sheries also alleges that outside a meeting at the Holiday Inn, Patterson approached her and pointed at her, and tried to speak to her but that Mechelle Sheries told Patterson that she didn't have anything to say to her. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 4 5 6 : 1 6 - 4 5 8 : 1 0 , ' attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 152. Shortly thereafter, Perkins allegedly came out of the Holiday Inn and walked over to Patterson saying "what's up... I got you giri" which caused Mechelle Sheries to become frightened. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 4 5 8 : 1 1 - 4 6 0 : 2 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 153. Mechelle Sheries has no information to suggest Patterson directed Perkins
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
8 9
10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
27 28
{1692423,DOC;}
59
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE behavior, other than the two events happened within seconds of each other. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 459:20-460:2, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 54.
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
156, 155.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Local 1000 supports a diverse Undisputed. state workforce and union membership. As part of that support. Local 1 000 distributes PRIDE sign-up or registration form to allow Local 1000 members to support LGBT activities. Walker Decl. at 1113, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. Mechelle Sheries claims that Robyn Sheries had filled out a PRIDE form and that another Local 1000 member had mistakenly gave that form to Patterson. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 440:6-441:1, 445:17-25, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. She claims that Patterson then took a picture of the PRIDE form (which contained her home address) and texted it to Robyn Sheries. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 437:1-441:6, 445:15-448:3, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Undisputed. Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
60
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 157. In the text with the attached PRIDE form, Patterson, Patterson questioned Robyn Sheries use of Mechelle Sherles Sacramento address and accused Robyn Sheries of improperiy using per diem. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 4 4 3 : 1 3 - 4 4 4 : 1 8 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 158. Mechelle Sheries has no information that Patterson distributed the confidential address to any person other than Robyn Sheries. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 4 4 7 : 1 6 - 4 4 8 : 3 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 159. Mechelle Sherles also believes that Patterson placed a copy of Robyn Sheries own phone bill (which contained Mechelle Sheries address) faced up, on Robyn Sheries own desk at Local 1000. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 4 7 6 : 2 3 - 4 7 8 : 1 1, 480:74 8 1 : 1 4 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 160. Mechelle Sherles also alleges Patterson said that Robyn Sheries is "not a good chair" [of BUNC No. 15] and that Robyn Sheries "doesn't represent the custodians," Sheries Depo., VI, III at pp.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
24 25 26 27 28
{1692423.DOC;}
61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
TJ O
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 4 6 4 : 1 9 - 4 6 6 : 1 2 , attached Ex. 4 to Compendium. 161 as
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Mechelle Sheries has no information that any of Patterson's actions were at the direction of Local 1000. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 445:10-14, 468:8-469:2, 4 6 2 : 1 - 7 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
162.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
163.
c re o u
JC
E fl)
re XJ
In or about September 2 0 1 1 , Mechelle Sheries brought an HR-l complaint against Patterson. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 4 3 3 : 1 - 9 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. That HR-l complaint alleged Patterson: (1) willfully and intentionally distributed confidential information; (2) used such confidential information to intimidate Mechelle and Robyn Sheries; (3) directly and indirectly harassed and intimidated the Sheries; and (4) used untrue statements as campaign propaganda during a Local 1000 election. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 435:24-437:6, 475:114 7 6 : 2 2 [and Ex. 21 thereto], 4 8 3 : 2 - 4 8 4 : 2 0 , attached as Exs. 4 and 16 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
fl) U
Undisputed.
=1
nj S ._ o
Undisputed.
2 S 5 J S
{1692423.DOC;}
62
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 164. An HRl process undertaken by the union. was
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Walker Decl. at HI 1, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. 165. Mechelle Sherles' HR-l complaint against Patterson was assigned to Hearing Officer John Thor. Walker Decl. at HI 1, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 550:22-551:6, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 166. Thor determined the charges should be rejected for insufficient evidence. Instead, he determined the evidence substantiated a personal conflict between interested parties. Walker Decl. at 1 1 1 1 [and Ex. B thereto], attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 552:16-556:16 [and Ex. 22 thereto], attached as Exs. 4 and 17 to Compendium. 167, Thor reached his decision without requiring a hearing, finding that no disputes in the material facts needed to render a decision were present and that no disciplinary action was warranted. Walker Decl, at 1 1 1 1 [and Ex, B thereto], attached as Ex. 7 to Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
63
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Compendium. 168. In doing so, Thor fully adjudicated Mechelle Sheries' allegations per Division 9 of the Policy File. Walker Decl. at HI 1, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium. 169. The Policy File also provides a mechanism by which that adjudication could be appealed. Walker Decl. at 1112, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 5 5 2 : 1 6 - 5 5 6 : 1 6 [and Ex. 22 thereto], attached as Exs. 4 and 1 7 to Compendium. 170. Mechelle Sheries never appealed Trior's decision. Walker Decl. at 1112, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium; Sheries Depo,, VI, III at pp. 5 6 4 : 3 - 1 1 , attached as Exs. 4 to Compendium. 171, Sophia Perkins is a member of Local 1000. Sherles Depo., VI. 1 at pp. 1 9 1 : 1 8 - 1 9 2 : 2 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium. 172, Perkins is not an employee of Local 1000. Walker Decl. at 115, attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
4 5 6 7 8
Undisputed
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Disputed. As part of participation in leadership for SEIU, Plaintiff was given
No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible or relevant evidence to create a triable issue of fact that Perkins is not an
{1692423.DOC;}
64
Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material. Facts ISO MSJ
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
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE documents to sign stating the following: "....I understand that if I am injured while on this paid leave of absence in performance of my SEIU Local 1000 duties or any other activities that I will not qualify or be eligible for workers' compensation or industrial disability leave benefits from the State of California. A n d , further I am not, in fact, on the job nor in the course or scope of my employment with the State of California when I am out on this union paid leave of absence. I further understand that while on this paid leave of absence, performing duties for SEIU Local 1 0 0 0 , any compensation I receive is being paid by the SEIU Local 1000 and that SEIU Local 1000 will be my employer during this period. I have also been advised that in the event I do file a workers' compensation claim against the State of California, or any agency thereof, for an injury or injuries sustained while on this paid leave of absence, that the SEIU Local 1000 will be
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
employee of Local 1000. Plaintiff's evidence is nonresponsive. (See Local 1 OOO's Evidentiary Objections at 6, II 3.)
{1692423.DOC;}
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE required to indemnify and hold harmless the State of California, or agency thereof, from both workers' compensation liability and any costs of legal defense incurred as a result of the filing of my claim," Please note Yvonne Walker, President, and declarant in support of Defendant's motion, signed this document as well. Based on Plaintiff's receipt of these documents, it was her understanding she was to be treated as an employee for SEIU when engaging in her Vice Chair duties. Sheries Declaration H 3
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
173.
Since 2011 or 2 0 1 2 , Perkins has served as the Chair of BUNC 4. She was elected to that office. Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 1 9 1 : 1 8 - 1 9 2 : 2 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
174,
24 25 26 27 28
In the last several years, Robyn Sheries and Mechelle Sheries on the one hand, and Perkins and Patterson on the other hand, have been political opponents within Local 1000,
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
66
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 174:10-178:21, 192:6-9, attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 483:2-485:14, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 175,
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
177. 176.
Mechelle Sheries alleges that Undisputed. Sophia Perkins shoulder bumped or body slammed Mechelle Sheries in a parking lot of a Manhattan Beach, California hotel where a Local 1 000 activity was taking place in or about June, 201 2. SAC, 1133, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 485:19486:15, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. Mechelle Sheries alleges during a lunch break, while walking from the parking lot to the street, she was "hit out of nowhere" on the left side of her body. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 486:16- 489:16, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. She further testified that her head was down at impact and while she did not originally know who hit her, she turned around and saw Perkins standing nearby. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 489:17- 491:8, attached as Undisputed. Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
67
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Ex. 4 to Compendium. 178. After the impact, Perkins allegedly appeared mad, and exclaimed "what the hell." Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 489:17- 490:1, 491:1-22, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 179. Mechelle Sheries did not seek medical care for any condition related to her shoulder for more than two months. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 5 0 8 : 1 4 - 2 4 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 180. While Mechelle Sheries reported the incident to the police, who completed a report, no charges were filed as a result of the incident. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 492:3-494:6, 501:235 0 2 : 1 3 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 181. Mechelle Sheries alleges that Perkins' collision with her was an act of retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment against Boyd which she made two years prior. SAC, 1133, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
68
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 182. Mechelle Sheries acknowledges she has no information showing Local 1000 directed or authorized Perkins to "body slam" her on the street in front of the Manhattan Beach Marriott Hotel in June 2012. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 510:24-511:23, 518:24519:24; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 714:7-715:6, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 183. Mechelle Sheries only basis for believing Local 1000 directed Perkins actions with regard to the alleged "body slam" is that she held an elected office within Local 1000 and was on union leave at the time of the incident. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 510:24-511:23, 518:24519:24, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 184. Mechelle Sheries did not a file a HR-l Complaint against Perkins. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 504:114; 505:13-20, attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 184a Mechelle has testified that that event had no harmful effect on her marriage.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
69
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 2 2 : 1 8 - 2 5 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 185. O n or about September 2, 2012, Mechelle Sherles attended a Local 1000 delegates and general council meeting at the Los Angeles Bonaventure hotel in her capacity as an elected delegate. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 0 2 : 2 5 - 7 0 3 : 2 2 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 186. Mechelle Sheries believes over 5 0 0 Local 1000 members attended the several day-long meeting, as well as Local 1000 employees, including Harris. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 0 4 : 7 - 705:1 1, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 187. While attending the meeting, Mechelle Sheries and Robyn Sheries entered an elevator occupied by Harris. Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 0 5 : 1 2 - 7 0 6 : 1 3 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 188. During the elevator ride which lasted no more than three minutes, and during which time Harris may have been carrying a box, neither Harris nor Mechelle Sheries spoke to
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' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423.DOC;}
70
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 2 3 Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 0 5 : 1 2 - 7 1 0 : 7 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 189, Upon reaching their designated floor, Mechelle Sheries and Robyn Sheries exited the elevator, without otherwise interacting with Harris, Sheries Depo,, VI. IV at pp. 7 1 0 : 8 - 1 9 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 190, During the elevator ride with Harris, Mechelle Sheries claims she suffered a panic attack, resulting in her having "flashes" of him during the August, 2010 investigation meeting, Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 71 1:4-l 7, attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 191 Mechelle Sheries claim of sexual orientation harassment/discrimination claim against Local 1000 is based on the fact that individuals within the union either doubted or discussed her sexual orientation, and that Harris and Schroeder asked her about her relationship with Robyn Sheries during their investigation into her complaint against Boyd. each other.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed,
8 9
10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed,
{1692423,DOC;}
71
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 5 3 5 : 1 5 - 5 4 2 : 1 5 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 9 0 : 2 3 7 9 1 : 1 9 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 192. She also claims that Robyn Sheries suffered retaliation from Local 1000 once it learned of Mechelle Sheries relationship with her. Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 5 3 8 : 2 5 - 5 4 1 : 2 5 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium. 193. Robyn Sheries does not make a claim of sexual orientation harassment, discrimination or retaliation. SAC, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium. 194. Mechelle Sheries further alleges that Patterson made comments to other individuals questioning her sexuality. SAC, 1127, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. I at pp. 180:201 8 1 : 1 0 , attached as Ex. 2 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 475:1 1-24 [and Ex. 21 thereto], 537:145 3 8 : 1 3 , attached as Exs. 4 and 16 to Compendium. 195. Mechelle Sherles claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from
2 3 4 5 6
PbMNTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed,
Undisputed,
27
. 28
{1692423,DOC;}
72
1 2 3
DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE the following forms of conduct: (1) Boyd's conduct; (2) her claim that she was "tortured" by Harris during Local 1 OOO's investigation into her complaint (the "2010 Emotional Distress"); (3) Maria Patterson's "publication" of a non-public address (by sending it to the owner of that address) (the "Patterson Claim"); (4) Sophia Perkins collision with her in a parking lot outside a union event in Manhattan Beach, California in 2 0 1 2 ; and (5) being present in an elevator with Paul Harris who then served as Local 1 OOO's Chief Counsel (the " 2 0 1 2 Emotional Distress"). SAC, 1133-34, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. II at pp. 366:25-371:19, 372:173 7 3 : 6 , attached as Ex. 3 to Compendium; Sherles Depo., VI. Ill at pp. 5 8 8 : 1 3 - 2 2 , 5 8 9 : 1 6 - 5 9 0 : 1 5 , attached as Ex. 4 to Compendium; Sheries Depo., VI. IV at pp. 7 1 1 : 4 - 1 6 , 723:1 - 1 2 , attached as Ex. 5 to Compendium. 195a Robyn Sheries claims for loss of consortium are all derived from the emotional distress damages allegedly suffered by Mechelle. SAC, 11124-126, attached as Exhibit 6 to Compendium.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
{1692423,DOC;}
73
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' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 196.

Local 1000 has policies that prohibit harassment by its employees of any persons in the Local 1000 workplace or environment. All Local 1000 employees are subject to this policy. Local 1000 has a robust program to ensure that its work environment is free of harassment and discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation or any other protected class status. This program includes policies prohibiting such harassment by employees, employee training, anti-retaliation policies and complaint and investigation program. Harris Decl. at 117 [and Ex. D thereto], attached as Ex. 7 to Compendium.

Disputed. Objection. Each of these statements is a legal conclusion.
DEFENDANTS' REPLY
No disputed fact. Nothing in Plaintiff's response creates a triable issue of material fact.
Dated:
October 2 5 , 2 0 1 3
weintraub tobin chediak coleman grodin

LAW CORPORATION
By:
Charies Meagan U. Christiansen Defendants Service Employees International Union Local 1000, Rich Boyd and Maria Patterson
{1692423.DOC;}
74

Local 1000's Dispute What Sherles' Factual Assertions in The Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Local 1000's Dispute What Sherles' Factual Assertions in The Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Local 1000's Dispute What Sherles' Factual Assertions in The Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Sherles received hotel accomodations and a per diem from Local

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1000. Sherles Declaration at H 5

Disputed. Boyd managed and directed Sherles duties. Sherles Declaration at II 4.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed.

Boyd is not member.

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 33.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Disputed. Boyd directed duties. Sherles

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Boyd Deposition at 78:918

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

No disputed fact. Plaintiff does not offer admissible

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Disputed. This is a very scoped fact. narrowly

No dispute. commentary argument.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed.

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Mechelle Sheries left the room without interference from Boyd.

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed.

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Undisputed, as long as it is clear this is not the hotel room incident of

Mechelle Sheries testified that she had no other interaction

DEFENDANTS' UNDISPUTED FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Undisputed

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE