Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01101995 - 1.30 Martinez APPLICATION TO':-VILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 10, 1995 BOARD ACTION Application to File hate Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT Against the' County, flouting ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4. Please note the wiARNING" below. Claimant: Naomi Martinez Attorney: Jeff Park Address: 111 N. M tket St., Ste. 900 San Jose, CA 95113 Amount: $175,000.00 By delivery to Clerk on December 8_ 1994 Date Received: December8, 1994 By mail, postmarked on Hand Delivered. I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the-above noted Application to File Late Claim. DATED: December 9, 1994 PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By ��r� . ,, � Deputy II. .FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). ( V11*" The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). _ DATED: 12 4 Mg VICTOR WESTMAN, County Counsel, By C p Deputy III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application is granted (Section 911:6). (./) This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that .this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: /- /0 - 916- PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By � Deputy WARNING (Gov. Code §911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months frau the date your application for leave to present, a late claim was denied. You may seek the advise of any attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, u should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board T0: 1 County Counsel 2 County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notifed the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has ben filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703• DATED: 1- !- 9.5' PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy V. FROM: C17-County Counsel 2 County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel, By County Administrator, By . APPLICATION M FILE LATE CLAIM RECEIVED 44 1 JEFF PARK 0151747) ` 4'09� RICHARD D. SCHRAMM 0151696) CLEC - 8 1994 2 EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ATTORNEYS 14?-11y 111 North Market St. , Suite 900 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 3 San Jose, CA 95113 CONTRA COSTA CO. (408) 971-9993 4 Attorneys for Naomi Martinez, 5 Claimant 6 7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 8 9 10 In the matter of the application ) of NAOMI MARTINEZ, ) 11 ) DECLARATION OF NAOMI Claimant, ) MARTINEZ SUPPORTING 12 ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO VS. ) PRESENT LATE CLAIM BY NAOMI 13 ) MARTINEZ, CLAIMANT, PURSUANT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ) TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 911.4 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 I, Naomi Martinez, hereby declare the following: 17 1. The first incident of discriminatory conduct which caused my 18 emotional distress was on April 26, 1993, when my testimony 19. concerning one of my subordinate' s misconduct was discounted and 20 the testimony of my subordinate was believed. 21 2. I have never filed a tort claim with any county until I filed 22 my first tort claim with Contra Costa County on November 16, 1994, 23 which is the instant claim. 24 3 . I met with my union representative on many occasions during 25 1993 and was never informed that I may have a tort claim against 26 Contra. Costa County. 27 4. I told Stefanie Guynn, my Manager, on August 12, 1993 and 28 again on December 20, 1993 that I was experiencing emotional distress. Naomi Martinez Declaration for Late claim Application Page 1 1 5. I told Robert Hofmann, the Assistant Director of the Social 2 Services Department, that I was experiencing emotional distress on 3 April 11, 1994. 4 6 . I filed a claim by mail with the Merit Board of Contra Costa 5 County on February 1, 1994. A true and accurate copy of that claim 6 is attached as Exhibit B. That claim indicates I was under 7 emotional distress. 8 7. I filed an amended Merit Board claim on September 1, 1994. A 9 true and accurate copy of that amended claim is attached as Exhibit 10 C. That amended claim specifies that I was experiencing emotional 11 distress resulting from the conduct of certain employees where I 12 work. 13 8. I met with my union representative and an attorney for the 14 union on April 26, 1994 and July 15, 1994. During these meetings 15 we discussed my employment related injuries. During these meetings 16 it was never mentioned by the attorney that I may have a tort claim 17 against Contra Costa County. Instead, I believed that I was being 18 fully protected since an attorney and union were helping me with my 19 case. The only courses of action discussed were filing a grievance 20 or a claim through the county Merit Board. I elected to file a 21 claim through the Merit Board. 22 9. I first learned that I could do more than just file a 23 grievance or claim with the Merit Board and that I may have a tort 24 claim against my employer when I met with Jeff Park of Employment 25 Rights Attorneys on August 19, 1994. we briefly discussed statute 26 of limitations during that meeting. 27 10. I received a letter from Jeff Park a few days later, which 28 explained the statute of limitations for tort claims against a Naomi Martinez Declaration for late CLaim Application Page 2 1 � 1 county. 2 11. I have been under severe emotional distress for several months 3 to the point that it has adversely affected my health. I have been 4 involved with amending my Merit Board claim and preparing for and 5 attending a hearing related to that claim. I have been overloaded 6 with work at the Social Services Department. Once I learned about 7 filing a tort claim with Contra Costa County and I was able to 8 attend to it, I filed my claim. 9 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 10 of California that the foregoing is true and correct of my own 11 knowledge and if called to testify regarding the above subject, I 12 could testify competently as set forth herein. I further declare 13 that the foregoing was executed on December 6, 1994 at Martinez, 14 Contra Costa County, California. 15 16 Dated: December 6, 1994 e NAOMI MART EZ 17 18 nmdeclar.1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Naomi Martinez Declaration for Late Claim Application Page 3 1 JEFF PARK (#151747) RICHARD D. SCHRAMM 0151696) 2 . EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ATTORNEYS 111 North Market St. , Suite 900 3 San Jose, CA 95113 (4:08) 971-9993 4 Attorneys for Naomi Martinez, 5 Claimant 6 7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 8 9 10 In the matter of the application ) of NAOMI MARTINEZ, ) 11 ) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO Claimant, ) PRESENT LATE CLAIM BY NAOMI 12 ) MARTINEZ, CLAIMANT, PURSUANT Vs. ) TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 911.4 13 ) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ) 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 To the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County: 17 1. Application is hereby made, pursuant to Government Code §911.4 18 for leave to present a late claim on causes of action for 19 intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress related 20 to discriminatory conduct by Contra Costa County (hereinafter 21 "County" ) and its employees. The constructive discharge cause of 22 action has not yet accrued, as Ms. Martinez is still employed. It 23 was mentioned in this claim as it is anticipated that such claim 24 ' will accrue shortly and it will be based on many of the same facts 25 as the emotional distress claim. 26 2. Ms. Martinez ' claim was not presented within the six-month 27 period through mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect. All 28 incidents causing the emotional distress should be included in the Application for Leave to present Late claim Page 1 1 1 claim despite that some of these incidents extend beyond one year 2 before November 16, 1994, the date Ms. Martinez filed her tort 3 claim with the County. Ms. Martinez acted at all times as "a 4 reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances" (Torbitt v. 5 Fearn ( 1984) 161 Cal.App. 3d 860, 8676 ) would have. Also, the 6 County was put on notice of Ms. Martinez ' emotional distress as l 7 early as August 1993, therefore no prejudice will result against 8 the County if all incidents are included in the claim. 9 3. Ms. Martinez had no prior experience with filing any tort 10 claim with any county. 11 4. The numerous incidents of discriminatory conduct causing 12 emotional distress began as early as April 26, 1993 . (Please see 13 chronology of events included in initial tort claim filing and 14 attached to this application as Exhibit A. ) 15 5 . Ms. Martinez met with her union representative about her 16 mistreatment many times in 1993 and no mention of a tort claim was 17 made to Ms. Martinez. 18 6 . Ms. Martinez met with her union representative and an attorney 19 for the union on April 26, 1994 and July 15, 1994 to discuss her 20 alternative courses of action concerning her employment related 21 injuries. During these meetings she was never advised that she had 22 any tort claims. She reasonably believed that her interests were 23 being protected. She understood that her only recourse was to use 24 the grievance procedure or the Merit Board procedure for redress of 25 her injuries. , 26 7. Ms. Martinez first learned about any tort claims she may 27 potentially have at an initial consultation with Employment Rights 28 Attorneys on August 19, 1994. She received a letter from Application for leave to present late claim Page 2 I Employment Rights Attorneys a few days later explaining the 2 potential tort claims she may have against the County and the 3 related statute of limitations. 4 8 . Since Ms. Martinez first learned about her potential tort 5 claims she was under tremendous emotional distress, dealing with 6 hearings involving her Merit Board claim, amending her Merit Board 7 claim, and trying to keep up with an overload at work. She filed 8 her tout claim as soon as she could after learning a tort claim 9 existed. 10 9. The County was notified of Ms. Martinez ' emotional distress as 11 early as August 1993. Ms. Martinez informed Stefanie Guynn, her 12 Manager, of her emotional distress on August 12, 1993 and again on 13 December 20, 1993. Ms. Martinez informed Robert Hofmann, Director 14 of Social Services, of her emotional distress on April 11, 1994. 15 Ms. Martinez filed a claim with the Merit Board (Exhibit B) about 16 February 1, 1994 which contained language indicating emotional 17 distress. Ms. Martinez filed an amended claim (Exhibit C) with the 18 Merit Board on September 1, 1994, which contained emotional 19 distress. The County has been apprised of a potential tort claim 20 for more than a year. The County was aware of a claim by the 21 beginning of February 1994. Thus, all incidents at least as far 22 back as July 1, 1993 should be included in the claim. 23 10. The County will not be prejudiced by granting leave to present 24 the late claim to include all discriminatory incidents causing 25 emotional distress because the County has known of Ms. Martinez ! 26 emotional distress for over a year and the County has known of her 27 emotional distress claim since her Merit Board filing on February 28 1, 1994. Moreover, the County has equal, if not better, access to Application for leave to present late claim Page 3 1 1 1 records and evidence than Ms. Martinez. 2 11. The attached declarations of myself and Ms. Martinez will 3 confirm the facts given above. 4 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this application 5 be granted and that the attached proposed claim be received and 6 acted on by the Board of Supervisors. 7 8 Dated: /2- 3ett Park, Employment Rights 9 Attorneys, attorneys for claimant 10 lateclm.2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Application for leave to present late claim Page 4 1 JEFF PARK (#151747) RICHARD D. SCHRAMM (11151696) 2 EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ATTORNEYS 111 North Market St. , Suite 900 3 San Jose, CA 95113 (408) 971-9993 4 Attorneys for Naomi Martinez, 5 Claimant 6 7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 8 9 10 In the matter of the application ) of NA014I MARTINEZ, ) 11 ) DECLARATION OF JEFF PARK Claimant, ) SUPPORTING APPLICATION FOR 12 ) LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM vs. ) BY NAOMI MARTINEZ, CLAIMANT, 13 ) PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, ) § 911.4 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 I, Jeff Park, hereby declare the following: 17 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of 18 California. 19 2. I am an attorney with the law firm of EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS 20 ATTORNEYS, the attorneys for NAOMI MARTINEZ in this matter. 21 3 . Naomi Martinez first discussed her case with our office on 22 August 19, 1994. During that initial consultation, we briefly 23 discussed the potential of any tort claims she may have against her 24 employer. 25 4. On .August 22, 1994, I wrote a letter to Ms. Martinez explaining 26 that she may have a tort claim against Contra Costa County. 27 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 28 of California that the foregoing is true and correct of my own Jeff Park Declaration for Late Claim Application Page 1 1 knowledge and if called to testify regarding the above subject, I 2 could testify competently as set forth herein. I further declare 3 that the foregoing was executed on December 6, 1994 at San Jose, 4 Santa Clara County, California. 5 6 Dated: December 6, 1994 / JEFF PARK 7 8 jpdeclar.1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jeff Park Declaration for Late Claim Application Page 2 EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ATTORNEYS 111 NORTH MARKET STREET,SUITE 900 I SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95113 Tel: (408) 971-9993 Fax: (408) 295-5008 RICHARD D.SCHRAMM LISA E.AGUTAR DIANE RITCHIE November 15 , 1994 JEFF PARK Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez,, CA 94553 Re: Naomi Martinez ' tort claim Dear Clerk: Ms. Naomi Martinez brought a tort claim for filing with the County a few days ago. It was a faxed copy. She is sending the enclosed tort claim, which is identical to the one she recently filed, so that the County can work with a non-faxed version. Please insure that the enclosed documents are marked with the same case number that was assigned to the tort claim Ms. Martinez filed a few days ago. Thank you. Sincerely, It 1 Jeff Park Ctyclerk.L1 Claim, 'to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT , A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 31, 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue on or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553. C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. if tcie claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code See. 72 at the end of this form. RE: Claim By ) Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp NAOMI MARTINEZ ) Against the County of Contra Costa ) or ) District) Fill in name ) The undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ 175.000.00 and in support of this claim represents as follows: 1.' When did the damage or injury occur? (Give exact date and hour) Please see attached. 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) Please see attached. 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) Please see attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Please see response to question 3. (over) ' t 5. What are the names of .aunty or district officers, serv'ants or employees causing • the damage or injury? Stefanie Guynn and Robert Hofmann. Perhaps others who are unknown at this time. 6. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give full extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. Please see attached. 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include the estimated amount of any . .prospective injury or damage.) The amount of damages are based primarily on an estimate of emotional distess damages of $122,900 along with approx.$50,000 for one year's salary and benefits and approx. $2,100 for doctor bills and medication. (Please see attached list of medical expenses.) 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals. Please see attached. 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: ~ DATE ITEM AMOUNT Please see attached. Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be signed by the claimant SEND NOTICES TO: (Attorney) or by some person on his behalf." Name and Address of Attorney Jeff Park Employment Rights Attorneys Claimant's Signature 111 N* Market St. , Suite 900 7 Rodgers St. Vallejo CA 94590 San Jose, CA 95113 Address Telephone No. 408-971-9993 I Telephone No. 707-643-9226 NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal!Code provides: "Every person who, Iwith intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. r TORT CLAIM WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - NAOMI MARTINEZ 11-14-94 1 . When did the injury or damage occur? The injury consists of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to racial discrimination and constructive discharge of employment. These injuries have resulted from a series of events which constitute outrageous conduct and a pattern of continuous behavior over several months. I am a Black Supervisor in the Social Services Department. My department has been understaffed and under budgeted for the last couple of years. The caseload for myself and my subordinates has been excessive. This situation has caused pressure on myself and everyone in my department to process enough cases and still maintain quality in our work. Specific incidents have caused the above-mentioned torts. They occurred from January 1993 through October 1994. 2 . Where did the damage or injury occur? Most of the incidents occurred in El Sobrante, California at the office of the County Social Services Department. Some of the incidents involved phone calls to me at home in Vallejo by my Manager, Stefanie Guynn. An incident also occurred in Martinez, California. All of the incidents occurred in Contra Costa County. 3 . How did the damage or injury occur? The injuries have occurred on several occasions over several months as described below. Some of the events listed below are included to explain discriminatory or tortious conduct. Also, the cumulative effect of some of these events did not reach a level of emotional distress until much later after the events. 1/15/93 Conference with Stefanie Guynn ( "Guynn" ) about Darrie Bennett ' s ( "Bennett" ) job performance and up-coming evaluation. I later disciplined Mr. Bennett, which became a cause of discrimination toward me by Guynn. 2/22/93 Discussed Bennett ' s initial performance evaluation with him. 2/25/93 Guynn wrote a WIDSI (Write It Don' t Say It memo) to me ( "Martinez" ) amending my proposed evaluation addendum concerning Bennett. 3/19/93 I gave two WIDSIs to Bennett about his performance and Page 1 corrective actions needed on 2 cases. 3/29/93 I gave three WIDSIs to Bennett about his performance and corrective action needed on 3 cases. 4/7/93 I gave two WIDSIs to Bennett about his performance and corrective action needed on cases. 4/8/93 Conference between myself and Bennett re: his performance where he stated he would. not meet the expectations I had for his performance. 4/12 - 4/21/93 Conferences w/ Guynn and Bennett, confirming memo, conference w/ Guynn about Bennett circulating a book called "Windows of Love" around the work office. 4/23/93 Clymela Stewart, a subordinate of mine, verbally attacked me about her work load. She was one of my subordinates who held a meeting on 7/29/93 with Fran Treas, another Supervisor like myself, but without me present, where she and other subordinates criticized me. This later led to discriminatory conduct by Guynn who was fully informed about what was said at the meeting, and I never was informed. 4/26/93 Guynn edited out parts of confirming memo I wrote to Clymela Stewart concerning Ms. Stewart' s misconduct on 4/23/93 . Guynn showed favoritism toward Ms. Stewart over my testimony about what happened. Discrimination. 5/4/93 Guynn edited memo confirming conference w/ Bennett on 4/14/93 . 5/14/93 I issued three WIDSIs to Bennett regarding corrective action needed on cases. 5/19/93 I issued two WIDSIs to Bennett regarding corrective action needed on cases. Bennett went on a leave of absence and never returned to the unit. 6/7/93 I issued another WIDSI to Bennett regarding corrective action needed on cases, for. he was expected to return from leave. The extent of the problem cases had to be determined. 6/9/93 I issued another WIDSI to Bennett regarding corrective action needed on cases. Page 2 7/1 - 7/30/93 Bennett was on leave of absence. His cases were given to other workers in my. unit. Guynn and I were told by Pat Avalos that Trish Rose had said that the E3CO unit (my unit) was to' be made a test unit to test the Medi-Cal caseload standard. 7/26/93 Carolle Simmers, a subordinate, was exposed to a sulfuric acid cloud which passed by the office. She was upset over her exposure. 7/28/93 I completed a form concerning Ms. Simmers ' exposure to the toxic fumes. I recommended, pursuant to the form, that the remedy would have been to close the building. Guynn criticized me for suggesting such a remedy, when I was concerned about the welfare of the employees. The County has an obligation to provide a safe work environment. This constituted racial discrimination against me. I was upset because I was expected to do my job of protecting my workers, but I was criticized when I attempted to perform my job. 7/29- 7/30/93 Meeting held by 5 members of my unit ( 10 total subordinates in my unit) which I supervised, and Fran Treas, my equal . My subordinates apparently complained about the workload, my management style and I was personally attacked. This was told to Guynn. When I confronted Guynn and Treas I was not told what was said. I was not told what my deficiencies were. Therefore, I could not respond to the allegations. ,This meeting was against proper procedure. Guynn prevented me from providing a written response to the allegations I had heard from others in my unit. Guynn' s conduct constituted racial discrimination against me as 1) other non-Black supervisors are not denied an explanation of allegations made against them, 2) they are not denied the chance to defend against those allegations, and 3 ) they are not continually reminded of the allegations in comments by Guynn months later when discussing other matters. ( I spoke with Fran Treas on 7/29 and with Guynn on 7/30 ) Reasons for some of my subordinates to be upset and retaliate existed, but their claims should not have been directed at me. Four workers had job performance problems. One worker could not perform 100% due to a stress problem. Some workers were upset about the discipline given Bennett as he was well liked and his mother had passed away. In the following weeks, some of the complaining workers Page 3 were reassigned to other locations. I was not disciplined because I had not done anything wrong. 8/4/93 I sent Guynn a WIDSI requesting the allegations against me from ' the 7/29 meeting. I had asked for her notes about the meeting before, but was denied them. I never . got the allegations against me from Guynn. This is another incident of racial discrimination which was very bothersome. I was denied the opportunity to defend myself and my career was being adversely affected by the 7/29 meeting allegations. 8/12/93 A Koffee Klatsh, at which Guynn addressed safety issues, was held this day in Room A/B. These meetings typically went for hours and often ran past noon. As I had scheduled a unit meeting in Room A at 10 :35 a.m. and it was close to 10: 30 a.m. , I was approached by a couple people in my unit about whether the meeting would be in Room A, since the Koffee Klatsh was still in session. I knew there was no other meeting place, so I entered Room A/B and asked Guynn, when acknowledged, how much longer her meeting would last. Later that day Guynn criticized me for interrupting her meeting. Other non-Black supervisors are not criticized for this type of conduct. Guynn falsely accused me of undercutting everything she said and for projecting anger against her. This event was very disturbing to me. I later apologized to Guynn even though I did not believe I had done anything to harm her. I was so upset over the criticism and discrimination over the past several days, that I cried in front of Guynn. 8/13/93 The next morning I was still upset over the recent events at work that I cried again. I went home early from work that day. Either this day or the following Monday, I arranged to see a psychiatrist at Kaiser. 8/16 or . 8/17 I had an appointment with the psychiatrist at Kaiser. 8/17/93 On his last day of work, Michael Forman, a subordinate of mine, gave me a WIDSI in which he complimented me for professionalism, sensitivity toward employee needs, and management skills. 9/17/93 Hugo Martin, a Spanish interpreter who worked in a different group, delivered a message to Dorothy Mussey from one of her Spanish-speaking client who had dropped by. She yelled at Mr. Martin stating, "You people just drop by anytime without calling. I 'm serious, Hugo! " Page 4 Ms. Mussey had no reason to yell at Mr. Martin. I spoke with Ms. Mussey afterward explaining that it would be better to apprise me of any problems in the future and not to publicly embarrass anyone. Guynn learned of this incident and specifically requested that I not provide Ms. Mussey with a written warning. I was later criticized by Guynn when I suggested that no written warning be given to two other employees when they repeated racial remarks, as such discipline would be inconsistent with the way in which Ms. Mussey was disciplined. 10/1/93 The Black History Committee began planning for holiday bake sales and auctions. 10/11/93 During this week, Guynn announced that the name of the "Christmas" holiday would be changed to "Holiday Celebration" . This had a deleterious effect on the Black History Committee ' s plans. Someone on the Black History Committee reportedly remarked that the name was being. changed because Guynn was Jewish. There was talk among the Black History Committee members that management was trying to eliminate the Black History Committee. Management ' s efforts to eliminate only the Black History Committee, constitutes racial discrimination. This was another disturbing incident. 11/3 or 11/4/93 Yvette McCollumn and Pat Moore (both Blacks) were accused of making anti-Semitic remarks. Guynn assigned me to write a confirming memo to each of them. I reminded her that Ms. Mussey was not given a confirming memo. Guynn pressed me further to draft the memos. Finally she said she would reconsider it after telling me that I was rigid and inflexible, as my subordinate accusers stated at the July 29, 1993 meeting. Ultimately, other supervisors convinced Guynn not to write the confirming memos to Ms. McCollumn and Ms. Moore. This was further mistreatment which upset me. It was another act of subtle discrimination. Other non-Black supervisors were not treated this way. 12/2/93 At a conference with Guynn, she asked me to speak with Ms. Moore and Ms. McCollumn again about their anti- Semitic remarks. This was the conclusion of Guynn and Robert Hofmann according to Guynn. I explained that I had already spoken with them twice before about it and that it had been several weeks since the alleged remarks were made. Guynn became upset because I did not agree with her. After further discussion I agreed to talk with Ms. Moore and Ms. McCollumn even though I disagreed with her. Guynn said that she would speak with them, but she Page 5 never did. Guynn was simply harassing me based on my race and wanted to issue excessive discipline to two other Blacks. 12/13/93 A meeting was held between Guynn, Fran Treas and myself about registering GA applications on active Food Stamp cases. Guynn asked me for feedback from my unit on various related proposals. During the next few days I met with my unit about the proposals. My unit was concerned about adding another duty to their excessive work load. I explained this concern to Guynn, but she would not give their concern any credence. Guynn wanted more concrete reasons for opposing the proposal. I assured her that my unit would comply with any new duty, even if it meant more work. The discussion I had with Guynn was confrontational because Guynn made it that way. I was upset again due to the harshness with which Guynn treated me, which was different than how non-Black supervisors were treated. 12/16/93 Guynn criticized me about the way I discussed issues at the supervisors meeting held on 12/15. She was abusive and reminded me again of the unsubstantiated and uninvestigated accusations made by my subordinates at the meeting on July 29, 1993 . This criticism constituted discrimination, as no other non-Black supervisors are ever treated this way. Guynn also criticized me for not providing any concrete problems with the GA application registration proposal. There were concrete reasons for my units concern about the work load. The proposal would seriously impact my unit ' s ability to process its daily work on fully-funded Medi-Cal cases. Guynn told me I needed to revise my thinking. She said I need not agree with her, but that I must think differently in general, not just with the proposal issue. No other non-Black supervisor was asked to ever change his or her thinking. This was very disturbing to me, as she gave me something impossible to do. Guynn would allow me to disagree with her, but warned that I better come to the same conclusion on various issues that she would. ` 12/20/9:3 I wrote and delivered a memo to Guynn explaining how the events perpetrated by her of the past six months had harmed me and how I wanted to put those events behind us and work toward a better future with a better relationship. 12/22/93 Guynn announced that the system analysts had decided that the proposed food stamp procedure for registering GA Page 6 applications required too many passes of the document and would create system problems. Therefore, the procedure would not be implemented. 1/3/94 Guynn twice spoke with Millie Ray about contracts which had not been fully processed before Mr. Charles Couch took his vacation. I should have been informed by Guynn about these problems first, not Millie Ray. Guynn broke the chain of command and ignored me as a supervisor. Other non-Black supervisors are not circumvented. This was another upsetting event. 1/7/94 Guynn gave me a memo in response to my 12/20 memo to her. In her memo, she gives the false impression that she is genuinely concerned about me. She also raises reasons for her conduct which were never before expressed to me and misconstrues my memo and misstates the facts of what happened. 1/13/94 A 59 year old Black male client was discriminated against by Guynn. He said that one of the workers he had dealt with had discriminated against him and that he would not tolerate it again. Guynn arranged for 2 deputy sheriffs to escort him. Additionally, Guynn stood next to him and told him that he was not being discriminated against. The whole incident caused excessive commotion in the office, disrupting everyone. Guynn' s approach was extreme for a situation which should have been handled without humiliating the older Black client. Guynn disallowed the proper person, the Black female public safety officer, to issue a report on the incident. Instead, she substituted her report of the event. The public safety officer believed that Guynn' s report was discriminatory. That public safety officer was ultimately reassigned to another location. This was another set of examples of racial discrimination by Guynn. To witness the discrimination was very upsetting to me. 1/14/94 I experienced a frightening breathing problem while visiting my credit union due to the stress I was feeling from the discrimination inflicted on me. 1/24/94 Guynn attempted to talk with me about my 12/20 memo and her 12/28 memo. She asked me how I wanted to approach the discussion, but she became very impatient with me when I did not immediately answer her with a process for discussing the issues in the memo. Guynn raised her voice at me for taking a moment to think about her question. She was tormenting me with her approach to our discussion. We never discussed the memos. Other non- Black supervisors are not treated this way. Page 7 1/27/94 I had an appointment at Kaiser because I had been experiencing insomnia and breathing irregularity due to the stress from discrimination. 2/94 Management attempted to take control of the Black History committee by appointing Line Supervisor Fran Treas to oversee their activities. The committee members decided to disband instead. Mr. Hicks of the local union, convinced some members not to dissolve. 2/7/94 I had another doctor visit and an inhaler was prescribed. 2/28/94 I had a conference with Guynn and Robert Hofmann ( "Hofmann" ) about various incidents including my performance evaluation of Dorothy Mussey and the fact that she called me a "bitch" . I wrote a memo about this meeting which constituted another example of discrimination against me for the way in which I was treated. Guynn and Hofmann unjustifiably jumped to conclusions without any investigation about my conduct and were extremely critical of me. other non-Black supervisors are not treated this way. Guynn and Hofmann also wrote a memo about this meeting addressed to me. Hofmann was beginning to discriminate against me like Guynn. 4/11/94 Hofmann called me and falsely accused me of announcing that Hosea Jones was staying in my unit. I never made such a statement or even implied it. Hofmann wrote me a - memo on 4/15 falsely accusing me again for the same thing. This was discrimination and another upsetting event. No other non-Black supervisors were being falsely accused of misconduct. 4/13/94 I was examined by Dr. Young at Kaiser for swelling in my neck which occurred on 3/15/94. Another discrimination caused stress problem. Throughout the next several months I had many doctor visits concerning my stress, including visits with Dr. Jenkins-Monroe, a clinical psychologist. I was also given various prescriptions. 7/11/94 I sent a WIDSI to Guynn asking her about attending a seminar about coping with difficult people and related matters, which would have been helpful with my relationship with Guynn. Guynn disallowed my attendance stating that I had other obligations at the time of the seminar. I could have easily made arrangements to cover those obligations. This denial was very frustrating. Other non-Black supervisors would have not been denied the opportunity for such training if it would help Page 8 ' 1 l improve the work environment like this course would have . 7/14/94 Guynn and Hofmann issued a memo to me about supervision, guidelines for WIDSIs, expectations for sharing information, limits of a supervisor' s authority and cooperation with other supervisors. This memo was prompted by false allegations about my conduct made by Guynn and Hofmann. They made incorrect assumptions about my behavior. The claims they made reflected their mistakes in not providing procedures for me to follow in certain instances. This was another incident of harassment and discrimination. No other non-Black supervisors were teamed up against by Guynn and Hofmann and no other non-Black supervisors were falsely accused of wrongs. Both Guynn and Hofmann' s continual pressure for doing nothing wrong caused me severe emotional distress. 7/25/94 I was examined by Dr. Gyler who was hired by the County to discredit my claim of emotional distress mentioned in my complaint filed with the Merit Board. This doctor' s misdiagnosis, in contrast with my doctor' s diagnosis, was used to deny my worker' s compensation claim on 8/3/94. 7/28/94 I filed retaliation charges against Guynn and Hofmann with the EEOC as I had earlier filed an EEOC charge and was experiencing continued discrimination. 9/94 Guynn and Hofmann scrutinized my performance evaluation of Yvette McCollumn to the point of perseveration. Various memos were written by them. No other non-Black supervisor was scrutinized so much and often over a single evaluation. This was discriminatory and very bothersome. 9/30/94 Guynn and Hofmann exaggerated a coverage problem with my unit. She claimed that my unit had returned late from lunch one day and caused serious service problems. In fact, part of my unit was` 10 minutes late and the other part was 20 minutes late. Three of the four clients were drop ins and one existing client waited for 5 minutes only. This was the second time my unit had returned late from lunch in two years. Other units headed by non-Black supervisors had been late on other occasions without the warnings I received from Guynn and Hofmann. 10/11/94 Guynn called me about my memo dated 10/10 about the coverage problem on 9/30/94. Guynn intentionally berated me to the extent I could hardly sleep at all that night. This was further discrimination against me. In another incident, Guynn arranged five days in advance, Page 9 for me to prepare questions for interviewing and have them ready for her review on Wednesday, 10/12/94. On Tuesday, she contacted me in the morning for the questions. I had an extremely busy day and could not get the questions prepared until about 4:40 p.m. When I delivered them. to Guynn she complained to me about being late with the ' questions that day when they were originally not due until Wednesday. Guynn was being completely unreasonable, as she knew my busy schedule and she had moved the due date up one day and not notified me until the day the questions were due. No other non-Black supervisor is asked to do nearly impossible tasks based on changing schedules at the last minute and then criticized for doing thebest possible under the circumstances. This was another disturbing incident. 10/14/94 Guynn, myself, and Niki Petersen met to discuss candidates Ms. Petersen and I had interviewed for a position in my unit. Guynn was irascible toward me and criticized me for wanting someone who could best help my unit. This was a very stressful encounter with Guynn. It was also discriminatory. Hofmann began attending nearly every meeting I had with Guynn beginning around February 1994. No other non-Black supervisor was subjected to this kind of humiliation. Guynn and Hofmann may claim it was to protect me against any further potential discrimination. In reality, it was merely an arrangement to inflict additional discrimination and emotional distress upon me. 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district: officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? Please see response to question 3. 5 . What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing the injury or damage? Stefanie Guynn and Robert Hofmann. Perhaps others who are unknown at this time. 6 . What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? Severe emotional distress which has caused me to obtain therapy and medication from a psychiatrist for several months. This emotional distress was a result of the discriminatory conduct of Guynn, Hofmann, and maybe others. The mistreatment has been so outrageous, that it has become intolerable to the degree that it constitutes constructive discharge of my employment. As such, it amounts to a tortious wrongful termination. The dollar amount of my claim is $175 , 000 for anticipated lost wages and benefits for a Page 10 year, doctor bills and medication, and emotional distress damages. 7 . How was the amount claimed above computed? The amount of damages are based primarily on an estimate of emotional distress damages of $122, 900 along with approximately $50 , 000 prospectively for one year' s salary and benefits and approximately $2, 100 for doctor bills and medication. (Please see the attached itemized list of medical expenses. ) 8 . Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors, and hospitals. The following are witnesses in addition to those persons mentioned in my answer to question 3 : Lillie Cuff, Terri Salter, Mary Lou Barrow, Jo Westhoff, Darlene Davidson, Delores Ford, Carol Calvert, Pamela Morgan, Azenith Toliver, Beronica Hedrick, Gloria Pedroza,, Janette Holman, Thaddeus Duncan, Amir Kaify, and Joyce Carlisle. All these people are employees of the County. Names and addresses of doctors and hospitals: ,American Medical Response Paramedics Martinez, CA 510-779-1212 Kaiser Permanente Hospital 975 Sereno Drive Vallejo, CA Kaiser Permanente Hospital Psychiatry Department 1761 Broadway Vallejo, CA James Edwards, M.D. (Psychiatrist) c/o Kaiser Permanente Hospital Psychiatry Department 1761 Broadway Vallejo, CA 707-645-2700 Valata Jenkins-Monroe 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206-A Oakland, CA 94611 510-547-7792 9 . Please see attached list of medical expenses. ctytort4.cLm Page 11 PAGE ' Ii 000 NCV- 12-S4 20 : 02 FROM: NKOS VALLEJO TO : Jeff Park , Attorney-at-Law DATE: 11 -13-?4 FROM: Naomi Martinez SUBJ : List of Expenditures Made on Account of my Injury (Question #o . of Claim to: Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County) DATE ITEM AMGli; 08- 17-93 Kaiser Hospital ( Psychiatry) , 1761 Broadway, Vallejo S 3 . (Doctor ' s Visit) Mileage: El Sobrante/Vallejo/E1 Sobrante (.15.3x2=30.6x.29) 8 . 01 -27-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo 3 . (Doctor' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospita?./Home ( 1 .3x2=2.6x. 29 ) Prescription: 3 02-07-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo ? . ( Doctor' s visit ) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 . 3x2=2.6x.29 ) Prescription: 3 , 03- 15-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo 3 . Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 .3x2=2..6x.29 ) 04- 13-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo 3 . ( Doctor' s Visit) Mileage: E1 Sobrante/Valle jo/El Sobrante ( 15.3x2=30.6x.29) 8 . 04-27-94 Dr , Jenkins-Monroe , 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 . Oakland (Therapy) Mileage : ( 28 . 9x2=57 . 8x. 29 ) 15 . Parking: , 04-28-94 Kaiser Hospital ( Psychiatry) , 1761 Broadway, Vallejo 3 . ( Doctor ' s visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 . 4x2=2.8x. 29 ) Prescription: 3 , 05- 11 -94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo 3 . ( Doctor ' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 . 3x2=2. 6x. 29 ) 05- 12-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo .(.X-Rays) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 . 3x2=2.6x. 29 ) , 05- 19-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 . (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/vallejo (28.9x2=57,8x.29) t5 , Parking: , 05-23-94 Kaiser Hospital ( Psychiatry) , 1761 Broadway, Vallejo 3 . (Doctor ' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 . 4x2=2.8x. 29 ) 05-25-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo Prescription: Mileage: 05-26-94 Dr . Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A , 90 Oakland (Therapy) Mileage : Vaile;o/Oakland/Vallejo (2S.9sr�=r,' PAC. INOV-13-S4 20:02 FRom.- "INKOS VALLEJO f: 000 SUBJ : List of Expenditures ' Made on Account of my Injury ' . Pac. 06-02-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo (Treadmill test) Mileage: ( 1 . 3x2=2 . 6x . 29 ) 06-09-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe , 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 9C Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) 1 Parking: 06-16-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Val le jo/Oak-land/Valle jo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) I Parking: 06-24-94 Kaiser Hospital , 1761 Broadway, Vallejo (Psychiatry) (Doctor' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Rome ( 1 . 4x2=2.8x.29) 06-30-94 Dr . Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Valle jo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) 15 Parking: 07-07-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroet 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/OakLand/vallejo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) 15 Parking: 07- 14-014 Dr . Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Valle jo/Oakland/Vallejo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) Parking: 07-28 -94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) 15 . Parking: 08-04-94 Dr . Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 . Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) 15 . Parking: 08-11 -94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe , 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 . Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Valle jo (28.9x2=57.8x.29) 15 . Parking: 08-18-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 20611, 90 . Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo . (28:.U2=577.8x.29) 15 . Parking: 09-15-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 . Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo ( 28 .9x2=57 .8x .29) is . Parking; I 09- 19-94 Kaiser Hospital , 1761 Broadway, Vallejo (Psychiatry) 3 . (Doctor' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home. ( 1 .4x2-2.8x . 29 ) 09-22-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 . Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland//Vallejo ( 28 . 9x2=57 . 8x. 29 ) 15 . Parking: PAGE 000 NOV- 13-64 20 : 03 FROM: NKOS VALLSJO I� ` SJBJ: List of Expenditures Made on Account of my Injury Fag 09-29-94 Dr . Jenkins-,Monroe , 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: E1 Sobrante/Oakland/E1 Sobrante (13.6x2=27.2x.29) 7 . Parking: 10-06-94 Dr. Jenkins-Monroe , 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 , Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo (28.9x2=57 .8x. 29 ) 15 Parking: 10- 11-q4 Dr . ,IPnkinQ-MonrriP� 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 , Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo (28.9x2=57 .8x.29 ) 15 , Parking: , 10-20-94 Dr. . Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 , Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Valleio/Oakland/Vallejo ( 28. 9x2=57 . 8x. 29 ) 15 , Parking: 10-26-94 Kaiser Hospital , 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo 3 . (Doctor' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 .3x2=2.6x.29 ) Prescription: 3 . 11 -02-94 Kaiser Hospital, 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo 3 . ( Doctor' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 . 3x2=2.6x.29 ) Prescriptions ( 2) : 6 . 11 -03-94 Dr . Jenkins-Monroe, 4171 Piedmont Ave. , Suite 206A, 90 . Oakland (Therapy) Mileage: Vallejo/Oakland/Vallejo (28.9x2=57 . 8x. 29 ) 15 . Parking: 11 -07-94 Kaiser Hospital, 975 Sereno Dr. , Vallejo 3 . : ( Doctor' s Visit) Mileage: Home/Hospital/Home ( 1 . 3x2=2,6x.29 ) Prescription: 3 .- Estimated Expenditures $ 2 , 101 . NOTE: Y will have to request my hospital records in order to give a me accurate figure. Please bear in mind that I have not included t value of my time spent in travelling to and from facilities and and from therapy sessions with Dr. Jenkins-Monroe. TO: ConLra Costa County Merit Board DATE: 2-1-94 FROM: Naomi Martinez, EWS I cc Perfecto Villareal, Director Jim Hicks of Local 512 Emma Quevor, Affirmative Action Ofr. SUBJ: Grievance Stefanie Guynn, SSDM I herein file a formal grievance against SSDM Stefanie Guynn for (1 ) viola- tion of Section 3 - No Discrimination of the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BEIWEEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 512, AFSCME, AFI-CIO, (2) for violation of my rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, (3) for violation of my freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and (4) for the active use of coercive, unethical labor prac- tices. Knowing the gravity of these charges, I do not make them frivolously. I postponed addressing these issue until I could distance myself from the anguish, the disappointment, the resentment, and the anger I was experiencing. It was a matter of having to wait for inner peace, that quiet composure which unrav- els one's thoughts and emotions. Having had what I believed to be a very good relationship with Stefanie Guynn, and having held her in high esteem, I endeavored to resolve the ussues with her. My 12-20-93 memo to Stefanie Guynn was such an endeavor to express in written form what I apparently could not convey verbally (i.e., thoughts, feelings, goals, and n—_e3s). But after reading Stefanie Guynn's 12-28-93 memo, given to me on 1-7-94, I realized the futility of my endeavors. I take serious exception to the 12-28-93 memo. I was taken aback bacause it cxxitains misquotations that cast aspersions upon my character, statements taken out of context, embellished statements, references to discussions that did not take place on the dates assigned to them, erroneous sequences of events, and omsLissions (i.e. , relevant statements made by Stefanie Guynn) . It also unfairly lend_ credence to harsh allegations voiced against me in the past. This is intolerable! *fy first =te.-t is against this 12-28-93 memo, and there are several other protest=: o I orotest the fact that the Department and my immediate supervisor efused to fully disclose all allegations and accusations lodged against me by mem- bers of my unit on 7-29-93. c I protest: the fact that the Department and my immediate supervisor =x{ it upon themselves to assume that I could not bear to hear the allegatians and accusations and decided that it was in my best interests to withhold the in- formation, if, indeed, that was their motive. o I protest the fact that the Department and my immediate supervisor denied me the opportunity to face my accusers and to respond to their allegations and accusations. o I protest the fact that my current job performance in the area of interper- sonal relations is being linked to the harsh allegations and accusations of 7-29-93, especially since the European Americans who defamed my character have not been called to task for having done so and since they are rot, to -2- the best of my knowledge, being subjected to the demoralizing ordeal of hav- ing their interpersonal relations skills linked to their hostile actions of 7-29-93. (Note that I use the term "hostile" advisedly, using Professor of Psychiatry Cornelis B. Bakker's definition of the word in his book, entitled No Trespassing! , in which he states that hostility "can be defined as be- havior which seeks to destroy or injure an individual or his territory.") - The first thing I will do is address Stefanie Guynn's 12-28-93 memo, noting and commenting on the erroneous and embellished statements; -and:providing contexts frau which the reported incidents were drawn. I am not interested .is-,.anor do I con- done or engage in character assassination, for I agree with the late Johann Paul Richter: "A man [person] never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes another's." I will, however, be valiant for the truth. On or about 12-13-93 Stefanie Guynn asked me to join her and SSS I Fran Treas in her (Stefanie Guynn's) office to discuss the 24-hour registering of Food Stamp applications. She had asked me to discuss the issue with ii-n unit, and I had done so. Unit members had opposed the proposal, citing reasons for their opposition (i.e., registering applications was an intake function; their caseloads were already ex- tremely high; there would be an increase in paperwork, telephone calls, on-line post- ings, document reviews and correction, and filing; there would be additional pres- sure and stress, trying to meet the 24-hour deadline.) Their concerns were and are valid ones, in my opinion. Stefanie Guynn interrupted my report, saying that the SSDMs considered the Field workers' view a "mindset," that there would be no great impact on workload. I told her that I did not understand, that I thought she had in- structed me to discuss the proposal with my unit and to report back to her. She acknowledged having done so and gave me space to continue my report. E3CO unit members suggested that the applications be registered in either the Intake Supervisors' PCNs or in Intake Workers' PCNs. They suggested "banking" the cases. One other suggestion was that applications be registered by interim or ES workers. I shared these ideas with Stefanie Guynn and Fran Treas. She said that I should take a more "global" view of the issue. Be that as it may be, the three of us continued the discussion. The idea of registering Food Stamp applications=:on separate documents with a "dummy" PCN emerged. I favored that idea and the idea of interim workers or ES workers maintaining the cases as I understood was done in oth- er districts. At the 12.-15-93 Division meeting [AKA: Supervisors Meeting] Stefanie Guynn distributed copies of a draft systems bulletin, plus an alternate proposal for the rec-istration of cash applications on open Food Stamp cases. She then invited the supervisors to report on their units' reactions to the new procedure. Intake units wkar e not adversely affected. According to the AFDC Field supervisors, their workers did not have much to say about it. When my turn came to report, I began to relay to the group my unit's concerns. Stefanie Guynn interrupted me with a toss of her hand, saying that we had already discussed that (apparently referring to her conference with Fran Treas and me). My reply was that it was she who had asked for the feedback and that I would like to be given the opportunity to finish my report. (I did not lose my composure. I did not raise my voice. I did not frown. ) Stefanie Guynn folded her arms across her chest and cut her eyes, but she permitted me to continue identifying my unit's concerns. (Had she said that she was aware of my unit's con- ce�--ns and that there was no need for me to reiterate them, or something along those Lines, I would have accepted that. ) -3- T f ,then I corpleted. the list, Stefanie Guynn said that I -still had not offered any concrete reasons to support my contention that the new procedure would increase the work of my unit. And she reiterated the SSDMs' opinion that the workers had a "mindset" and said that a decision had been made to implement the new procedure. I assured Stefanie Guynn that my unit and I would comply with the policy decision and implement the new procedure, but that my perspective was just different than hers. She then said that she could not just go back to BAT and say: "Naomi thinks it will cause more work for her unit, so we can't do it." I felt ridiculed. That remark was uncalled for. Now, some may interpret Stefanie Guynn's remark as an attempt at humor. I did not and do not. I do not object to humorous rejoinders because they have a de- escalating effect.. They have no "victim," per se. I do object to ridicule, how- ever, because it does have a victim. It polarizes. It deprives or seeks to deprive one of his/her right to be taken seriously. This is why ridicule is so disruptive of rewarding interpersonal relations. Returning to the 12-15-93 Supervisors Meeting. Stefanie Guynn said that If I had any concrete reasons for thinking that my unit's work would increase, she would take them to BAT. I told her that I could add nothing more. But the fact is that I did, indeed, stage reasons. Stefanie Guynn obviously did not consider them concrete, but. to say ". . . you did not provide this" [Page 1, Paragraph 4, Sentence 11 is un- fair. To say ". you had provided me with no basis on which to argue for their rejection" [Page 2, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1] is inaccurate. But I ask you. Were my unit's concerns invalid? Should they have been discounted? When GA grants were discontinued and aid types transferred to Nonassistance Food Stamps (NAFS) , a decision was made some months ago to have those cases remain in GA units. E1 Sobrante was the exception. GA units in West County continued'to transfer these cases to the E300 and E3GD units. So, since the workers in these units were to have been assigned the duty of registering cash applications on their open NAFS cases, their workloads undoubtedly would have increased. They knew it. I knew it. Their concerns could not reasonably be defined as a "mindset," in my opin- ion--an opinion that I still hold and that I have a right to hold. Why should I be expected to revise my thinking on this issue or any other issue, for that matter? I do not disagree with anyone just for the sake of disagreeing. I have performed eligibility work for 22.25+ years; my modus operandi is to consider all of the facts before drawing conclusions. And in these 22.25+ years with the Department, I have conscientiously followed all its policies, rules, procedures, and regulations, and I continue to do so. I am a first line supervisor. I work with other first line supervisors in a collegial fashion. When problems arise, we strive to seek synergistic solutions to them, or we find some reasonable compromise. Is the issue the registering of cash applications on NAFS cases? Not really. It is communication. It is a question of tolerating different perspectives. Differences in experience, information, and role often set people at odds with each other. Some line workers expect their immediate supervisors' perspective to always coincide with their own and vice versus. Some line supervisors' expect their immediate supervisors' perspective to always coincide with their own and vice versus. Such expectations are exorbitant and unreasonable, in my opinion. -4- Stefanie Guynn has been an SSDM for many years. I have been a first ine supervisor for many years. Decidedly, there are differences in our experiences, in the information we receive and use, and in the roles we perform. Certainly there are similarities, but my point is that we are not on a collegial level. Other SSDIAs are capable of working with her on a collegial level. They share the same power and authority, the same viewpoints, the same or similar responsibilities. I, on the other hand, work with my immediate supervisor on a collaborative level. And except for the few times my perspective has not been in alignment with Stefanie Guynn's, we have worked colla.boratively together. There are times, however, when I cannot acqui- esce in the opinions and decisions of others--regardless of their positions. Is this fact sufficient for Stefanie Guynn to use as an indication of "ongoing patterns that need further attention?" [Page 3, Paragraph 1 , Last Sentence] She and I were not sitting in the 12-15-93 Supervisors Meeting by ourselves. There was a roomful of people, people who heard what was said and witnessed the behaviors we exhibited. Stefanie Guynn said [Page 1 , Paragraph 3, Last Sentence]: "You stated you were trying to get your opinions across and you 'would not always agree with every- one else. '" What. I said was: "I may not agree with everyone else." _ I did not use the word "would." Semantics. There is a difference between "may" and "would." She also wrote [Page 1 , Paragraph 4, Sentences 1 & 2] : "I several times attempted to clarify for you that I did not require of you that you agree with me but that you handle your. disagreements in a productive and collegial fashion. I specified that by this I meant listening carefully to other viewpoints and responding to them with revisions in your thinking or reasoned arguments for your position." [Emphasis add- ed.] I perceive a contradiction here. On the one hand, Stefanie Guynn said she did not require me to agree with her, and in the same breath expects me to revise my thinking. No one has the right to expect me to revise my thinking on his/her say-so! The expectation is absurd. Stefanie Guynn has a right as my immediate supervisor to expect me to follow rules, regulations; policies and procedures. She has a right to expect me to maintain good interpersonal relations. She does not have a right, how- ever owever to abridge my God-given, First Amendment right to freedom of expression. I have a problem with this. I protest being. labeled "rigid" or "inflexible" for exercising my freedom of expression. Thomas I. Emerson, Lines Professor of Law at the Yale School of Law, wrote the following in his book, entitled Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment. "THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM of expression is justified first of all as the right of an individual purely in his capacity as an individual. It. derives from the widely accepted premise of Western thought that the proper end of man is the realization of his character and potentiali- ties as a human being. Man is distinguished from other aniTrals prin- cipally by the qualities of his mind. He has powers to reason and to feel in ways that are unique in degree if not in kind. He has the capacity to think in abstract terms, to use language, to communicate his thoughts and emotions, to build a culture. He has powers of imag- ination, insight and feeling. It is through development of these pow- ers that man finds his meaning and his place in the world. The achievement of self-realization commences with development of the mind. But the process of conscious thought by its very nature can have no limits. An individual can neither tell where it may lead nor anticipate its end. . Moreover, it -is an individual process. . . From this it follow that every man--in the development of his own personality--has the right to form his own- beliefs and opinions. And it also follow that he has. the right to express these beliefs and and opinions. . . . Hence suppression of belief, opinion and expression is an af- front. to the dignity of man, a negation of man's essential nature." Stefanie Guynn shares with me and every other U.S. citizen the right to freedom of expression, but neither she nor anyone else has a right to abridge my right in the process of exercising their own. . Stefanie Guynn states [Page 1 , 4th Paragraph, Sentence 3]: "T-Mjected to your stating to me 'This is for your edification, ' in what I took to be a sarcastic tone of voice, and said that I preferred you not speak to me that way." Background information is needed here. One of my unit members noticed that clients thumbed through their Medi-Cal packets, searching for forms during the viewing of the video. He suggested that we include samples of 2 forms (the Status Report and the Record of Health Care Costs) in the packets. Wanting him to have credit for his suggestion, I asked him to give me a "Write-It-Don't-Say-It" (WIDSI) , and I told him that I would present it to Stefanie Guynn at Supervisors Meeting. (The Medi-Cal video was on the agenda for that meeting. ) During the discussion I passed the WIDSI to Stefanie Guynn and said: "For your edification." She said: "I'm edified." I replied: "Good." Again, there was a roomful of people who heard what was said. Later, during our conference, Stefanie Guynn said that she would appreciate my not saying "for your edification" because others would think that she needed to be edified. She suggested that I say "for your information" in the future. Frankly, I was annoyed at this. I pointed out, that neither one of us were present in the video room and that I was edified and thought she would be, too. Stefanie Guynn then said that it was not the word so much, but the sarcasm in my tone of voice. (This was a.- presumption,. nothing more. ....It was.not as if wewere engagedim an. argument.) I told Stefanie Guynn that I was not being sarcastic. She chose not to believe me.' This places me in quite! a bind, for it gives her license to take exception to anything I say. And if I say nothing, she then could conceivably say I was exhibiting nonas- sertive behavior. Were I to do this with a member of my staff, it may well be de- fined as intimidation, as coercion, as unethical , as hostile, as manipulative. It seems to me that Stefanie Guynn could have inquired about my state of mind or asked me whether something was bothering me if she truly felt.I was speaking sar- castically. I am candid. I would have told her. Having my choice of words and my tone of voice misinterpreted disturbs me greatly, as do the misquotations in the 12-28-93 memo. Citing still another misquotation, I call your attention to Stefanie Gsyrn's statement on Page 1 , Paragraph 2, Sentence 3.. She wrote: "You stated, 'I made a good attempt with my tone . . . ." What I actually said was: "I am paying closer attention to my tone." In thesame sentence she said: "You stated . . . that only you could be the judge of what you expressed and conveyed verbally and with body language." I resent this embellishment. What I actually said was: "I am the best judge of my feelings." Stefanie Guynn misinterpreted my body language and made sup- positions about my feelings. Yes! I rejected her descriptions of my body language. Kinesics is not an exact science. Body language varies even within the same culture, within the same family. Sometimes the interpretations is correct; sometimes it is not. When one relies solely on this form of communication, he/she is apt to blunder. -6- As for rejecting any my immediate supervisor's right to express her -concerns, I have never done that. I have a problem with her methods. Clinical Psychologists Dr. Linda A. MacNeilage and Dr. Kathleen A. Adams, co- _ authored a book, entitled Assertiveness at Work. In it they state: "It's easy to see how supervisors and administrators can get caught up in dirty fighting, perhaps without even realizing it. Confrontation situations are easily converted into power plays in any number of ways. Nitpicking--making trivial confrontations to exer- cise authority--is one way of constantly reminding .a supervisee that the supervisor has power. Nitpicking is dirty fighting because, other than by being extremely assertive and confronting right back, the su- pervisee has fewer options than the supervisor. He or she can fight back, but :if the confrontation is over a trivial issue, then the risks might not be worth it. Supervisors also hit below the belt by playing on supervisees' guilt. Bemuse most supervisees naturally want to do their best, super- visors can fairly easily spur them on to even more heroic efforts by im- plying that they 'just aren't quite up to standard these days. ' Some supervisors do this by deliberately bringing up sore issues every now and then. just to make a point, others simply signal their supervisees by a hurt look or a sigh that says, 'How can you let me down like this? I was counting on you. ' Both tactics are unfair and can only work so many times before supervisees either become resentful or get wise to the game-to My "sore issue". is Stefanie Guynn's refusal to give me full, specific accounts of the number and nature of the complaints, allegations, and statements she herself considred "inflamatory and exaggerated." [Page 3, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2] . Rather, she has said repeatedly, in words similar to the ones she employed in her 12-28-93 msro .jJ1fb "your workers sense that you can be rigid and inflexible in your responses, allowed them little input, and that they experienced you to be angry, hostile and confrontative." [Page 3, Paragraph 3, '-Sentence 11 out of what contexts have these allegations been drawn? Are the complaints and allegations simply considered valid because they were voiced? Stefanie Guynn did not reveal or discuss specific com- plaints with me on August 2, 3, 6, and 12, 1993. And I resent this statement_ Since 7/93 she has confined her descriptions to just the aforementioned generalizations, and she knows it. After all, "the workers' allegations were so. harsh we feared shar- ing them with you would have the very consequences you cite ." [Page 3, Para- graph 2, Sentence 5] In essence, Stefar_-e Guynn asserts that she and the Department are withholding this information from me nor my own good. I do not believe this. She and the Department are protected. Imo- accusers are protected. But I am not pro- tected. I am harassed, and I am abused, and I am insulted, and I am demeaned, and I am bullied under the guise of "I do it for your own good." "First," say Cornelis B. Bakker ar_d Marrianne K. Bakker-Rabdau, "one must realized that the person who engages in action under the cover of 'I am doing this for your own good,' assumes the position that he is the ultimate judge of what is good for the other. He acknowledges that a person might object to what he does, but tells him that he shouldn't because 'I know best. ' . . There is probably consid=_rable merit in mestraining a tendency -7- to take over for someone else 'for his own good'--IF one seeks. to _ respect the other's integrity." [Emphasis added. ] The conditional phrase "if one seeks to respect the ,other's integrity' is quite significant:. I do not believe that Stefanie Guynn has sought to respect my in- tegrity. She seems to have assumed the role of my "ultimate judge" her..words and behavior toward me are indicative of this. Stefanie Guynn's 12-28-93 memo speaks for itself with its sweeping generaliza- tions so void of context. The statements she made to me during ou=24-94 confer- ence were similar. She insisted that I had been angry, hostile and confrontative with her at the 12-15-93 Supervisors Meeting and that my behavior was an example of the complaints my unit had made back in 7/93. (I'have no way of knowing whether my be- havior at the 12-15-93 meeting was an example of the complaints. I was not invited to attend that 7-29-93 meeting. I do not know who said what or why or how or in what context. ). Stefanie Guynn went on to say that she needed, to be able to cite examples . of complaints she: received about me on 7-2.9-93 because a terrible thing had happened back then, and she did not want to see it happen again. The implication is clear. With a toss of her hand, Stefanie Guynn sought to summarily dismiss my unit's concerns after she herself had asked for a recountal. If she had described the inter- action in detail, I believe that the reader's impression of .my behavior would be quite different. I considered the toss of her hand an affront, but I did not' respond in kind. True; I -did face the situation in. a very-assertive-manner. Some would say that I confronted Stef:ani e.Guynn, bbt -,#iey-could--not: honestly say that I did so :antago- nistically. : It-i.s- also .true that Stefanie Guynn asked me• to,modify.,what she referred to as "an example-Of this kind of behavior in your interactions, [Page 3, Paragraph 3, Last Sentence] but she did not at any time specify how I was to modify it. She simply asked me to modify it. I am interested in refining my communication skills, and I would like to know how I could have responded to Stefanie Guynn in this given situation--other than to kowtow to her. And I would also like to know how Stefanie Guynn might have handled the situation differently from the outset. During our con- ference of 17-24-94 I reminded Stefanie Guynn that there was a roomful of people at the 12-15-93 Supervisors Meeting. She said that not all of them would agree with me. My response was that not all of.them would agree with her either. But it is not im- portant who agrees with whom. What is important is the truth. Stefanie Guynn did toss her hand. She did fold her arms across her chest. And she did cut her eyes. Yes! Several times I have raised the issue of my not having been given full and timely information on the unit's 7-29-93 complaints and allegations because at no time has Stefanie Guynn shared the information with me. If she had done so, I would not keep raising the issue. She resurrects these cutting generalizations at times when we are at variance on issues. Yet, she writes: "Although this had been a request of yours, on the few occasions I have attempted to do this and in a support- ive fashion, you have responded in the same way: denying the validity of my observa- tions and objecting to my presenting them as examples of the types of complaints brought to me by your staff." [Page 3, Paragraph 1 , Sentence 3] . I did not request piecemeal feedback. If I had done so, I would not deny the validity of her observa- tions or 'object to her presenting then as examples. I requested full disclosure. I have never asked anyone to harass me. Since the reassignment of three workers to other units, the E3CO unit has been fairly quiet. I have not been at variance with anyone in my unit or with anyone -8- else, for that matter--with the exception of Stefanie Guynn:- Stefanie Guynri writes: "The fact that it is 'linked to harsh allegations of the past' is because I am iden- tifying ongoing :patterns that need further attention." [Page 3, Paragraph 1, Last Sentence] A "pattern" is a regular, mainly unvarying way of acting or doing. I as- sert that there are no "ongoing Ratterns," that Stefanie Guynn's perception is biased and inaccurate, and that she hasiprovided and cannot provide reasonable support for this allegation. Are her methods supportive? Sensitive? Caring? Instructive? Speaking of instruction, prior to the seminar I attended awe Concord Hilton ("How to Manage Anger, Conflict and Confrontations") , Stefanie Guynn specifically said that she was not requiring me to attend; she made a point of saying she was recommending that I attend one of two seminars that were being offered at that time. However, in her memo she wrote: . as a result of the outside training I had recently sent you to . . . ." It is my understanding that the Department pays up front for mandatory training. It was I who paid up front for that seminar--$99.00, which I could ill afford at the time. Same sentence. "You also told me that . . . you were "working on myself and changing, in ways everyone may not like. "' It is remarkable how a phrase, placed in just the right position in a sentence can take on such an ominous gone. That is not what I said. I said: "I am trying to improve my com=ication ski.11s, .trying to change. Everyone may not like the changes." My ex- perience has been. that when one changes ,his/her style of communicating and learns fresh, effective techniques, others adjust their style of c6mTunication, as well. And sometimes they do not want to adjust a style that has been so rewarding for them in the past, .but toxic to others, such as the "hooked response." Linda A. MacNeil- age and Kathleen A. Adams say: "Avoidance behavior ( 'I'd better not bring that up again' ) or criti- cism (.'Quit being so defensive about nothing' ) is only likely to change the potential conflict into an actual one. . When you hook another person deliberately, this deliberate- nes; generally reflects underlying, unresolved resentment or anger. Whether you realize it or not, the more you get to know someone the more familiar you become with his or her Achilles' heel. So don't be surprised if you find yourself hitting below the belt once in a while. Do, however, learn to recognize this behavior as a signal that something is going on between the two of you that der-rands inme- diate attention. When anger goes underground, it can quickly stran- gle the sense of trust and mutuality that is an integral part of any functional relationship. Many people, fearing visible conflict, try to hide th negative feelings. Yet indirect anger and aggression are destruct-:e simply because they are so intangible. How can you deal direct_-_: pith some- thing that is so subtle and disguised?" I have used this excerpt from Assertiveness at Work to describe the term "hooked response" coined by these clinical psychologists, to support my belief that careless, deliberate criticism elicits and sustains conflict, and to encourage the reader to consider causal factors. Vivid examples of "hooked responses" emerged dur- ing my conference with Stefanie Guynn on 1-24-94. At the point in our 1-24-94 confer- ence when I began to focus on the behavior .Stefanie Guynn exhibited during the 12-15- 93 Supervisors Meeting, she interrupted me and asked me how I waited to continue--did I want to go page by page, or talk about issues. She said she was talking about "pro- cess." I had not given the rrattP.r fare xxxt t, so I said: :'VbH, let rre think." rbt giving rre a mD- -9- ment, Stefanie Guynn said: "I'm asking you about process. I replied: "Just a minute." Harrying me, she immediately quipped; "Naomi, I'm asking you about pro- cess. I've asked you for the third time." (It was exasperating! ) ' "Yes, Stefanie," I rejoined, "I know that you asked .me for the third time!" Those wards were auto- matically punctuated by a sideward shift of my head, a direct look, a quick nod of _ my head, and raised brows--a signal of. downright irritation. Stefanie Guynn stared at me for a moment, lowered her head, held it in. place for a moment or two, then slowly raised it. Knitting her brows, she looked directly at me and exclaimed: "You sneered., at me!" I asserted (and I assert again) that I hadnct- "Yes you did!" she insisted, .."I saw your lips curl!" The next example requires relevant background. Please bear with,me. When the final. decision had been made to change the name of the December celebration from "Christmas to "Holiday Celebration," Stefanie Guynn directed us supervisors to speak with our units. and to bring her their feedback. Despite misgivings_, I du- tifully complied. Members of my unit (European and African Americans, alike) voiced their objections to the name change, and they were not the only.'people in the Department who did so. One-woman, who had attended the Black Cultural Commit- tee meeting, reported that "they" said the name was changed because Stefanie Guynn is Jewish, and "they" said that Stefanie Guynn was trying to eliminate the Commit- tee because she does not like. the president. My response was immediate and vigor- ous. I told the unit that whoever.made those statements was mistaken and that the allegations were absurd and damaging. , I pointed out that several other religions were represented in the office and that the decision to change the name of the De- cember celebration was probably grounded in affirmative action endeavors. I also told them that :it was not a matter of eliminating the Committee, but that a pro- posal was being considered to consolidate the the two office committees. And I did not hesitate to tell them that I concurred with both decisions. A second African American woman was adamant in;her disapproval.of-the name change, and she wondered why all the.changes were taking place. .Other members of the unit chimed in, -as. v: ll. Only two unit members-_said iittle..or.nothing about .the. issues. I cautioned unit members against making unsubstantiated statements. I gave Stefanie Guynn the feedback she had requested, and she was taken a- back by it. She said that the remarks of the two African American women in my unit and remarks made by a third African American woman. in Fran Treas' unit were anti- Semitic. She said that all three women should be given confirmi.na memos. I told Stefanie Guynn -that I would do as she wished, but that I disagreed with her. I said that I disagreed because she had just weeks before made a decision not to is- sue a confirming memo to a European American woman in my unit wic had made discrim- inatory remarks directly to the Spanish interpreter. The two African American uKx - en had made_ no_direct discriminatory remarks. Stefanie Guynn s-d `hat perhaps she would have to reconsider her decision about not issuing a_-confirming memo to the European American woman. A few supervisors succeeded in persuading Stefanie Guynn not to issue memos to the three African American women. Weeks passed, three or four weeks. The Black Cultural Committee was having an office sale, and it just so happened that the same two African Anerican women mentioned above were reportedly sitting and talking in the staff room. 4pfanie. Guynn told me that they were speaking loudly and that she had walked into the staff room to ask them to lower their voices. . She said that both of tin glared at her. Then, around mid-November, shorly after the 11-10-93 seminar at the Concord Hilton, Stefanie Guynn told me during a conference that she had spoken with Bob Hofmann and that they had decided it was time for me to speak with both wome-i .about the anti- , i .Semitic remarks they had made. I was perplexed. Ibt once, but twice I had broached the subject with them. Again, I told Stefanie Guynn that I would do as she wished, but that I did not agree that it should be done. She seemed surprised, and said she did not understand why I had changed my mind. I said I had already discussed the matter with them twice. Stefanie Guynn said that my discussions had apparently not been very effective because they had not changed. (My thoughts returned to the training I had :received on 11-10-93. "People change when they want to--not when You want them to." This statement appears in the training booklet I received at that Skill Path seminar.) I told Stefanie Guynn that I thought toa=ch time had elapsed, and that I had been taught over the years that feedback should be timely, and that I had already given them feedback. Stefanie Guynn said that I could say that I had waited until they had received their training, and that I was just fol- lowing through on my previous discussions. I told her that I thought doing so would be excessive, but if that was what she wanted, I would do it. She asked me whether I. thought it was alright for them to have made anti-Semitic remarks. I told her:that of course, I didn't, but that I just thought broaching the subject a third time was excessive. Stefanie Guynn reminded me that my unit had said I could be inflex- ible. I repeated that I would do as she instructed, but that I did not understand why it made any difference whether I agreed with her. Stefanie Guynn stated she had a problem with that. I replied that I did not understand why she had a problem with it. She said that she would speak with both women herself. And I commented that doing so would probably be more effective. Focusing now on the events of 7/93, Early on the morning of 7-29-93, a member of my unit informed me that some other members had met with EW I Fran Treas and her lead worker on 7-28-93 in the late afternoon after I left for the day. She said that they had complained about me to Fran Treas and that she allegedly had promised to ask Stefanie Guynn to have me transferred or to make me take a leave of absence. The informant told me that the unit was suppose to meet privately with the SSDM that day, and that some of the others had planned to attack me personally. She said she was going to the. meeting, but that she wanted me to know that she was going to talk about workload and not take part in any personal attacks. I left an OCTEL, message for Stefanie Guynn, telling her what I had been told. Later that morning, I saw Fran Treas in the main ailse. We went into a near- by booth to talk:. Fran Treas said that she would not blame me if I was mad at her, but that she had to tell Stefanie Guynn what my unit members had said. She told me that they had planned to "embarrass this Department." Fran Treas assured me that she had not breathed a word to anyone. . Whether the same assurance could have been given by her lead worker, if, indeed, her lead worker was present during the airing of the complaints, allegations, and defamatory remarks. The chain of command had been broken--first by members of my unit who could have left an OMIEL, message for Stefanie Guynn themselves, and secondly, by Fran Treas, who could have advised them to do so. Fran Treas may have thought it best to listen to the complaints in order to diffuse the situation. I do not know, but . I do not blame her for the decision she made-. On the morning of 7-30-93, the informant told me that some of the unit mem- bers claimed that they were afraid of me, frightened that I would bring a gun to work and try to shoot them, or that I would try to bomb the office. She told me "they" had even claimed to be afraid of my son_ "It was just crazy," she said, "I can't remember everything they said because we were in there for hours." In the afternoon of 7-30-93, Stefanie Guynn summoned me to her office. She said that I should know that Dolores DeBaca was present. Stefanie Guynn voiced some platitudes about my unit being concerned about me and about how much pain they were experiencing and about how healing was needed. She stated that she and Dolores De- Baca had discussed the problems and that they had come up with the idea of bringing in an outside consultant. -She asked me-whether I had some other idea, and she posi- tioned herself to write. (I remember feeling the anger welling up inside of me. By what arbitrary method and authority-had they decided upon a solution to alleged pro- blems without disclosing the nature of the complaints and allegations and without giving me an opportunity to respond to them!) , I told Stefanie GuyY-iat I had noth- ing to say, that I had not been told what was said during her meeting with members of my unit. She snapped: "The whole unit complained!" (That was not the truth. Two members were not present. ) She went on to say that she did not want to hear any- thing from me and that she did not want me rebutting anything in writing. My re- sponse was that an informant had revealed some of the things that had been said. Stefanie Guynn's reply was that I had already been told, then. I rejoined: "I have no idea whether the informant was telling the truth or what her motives are!" Still, Stefanie Guynn refused to divulge the complaints and allegations. I could not contain my anger. - I blurted out that my name had been defamed, and I was not going to stand for it! I reminded Stefanie Guynn and Dolores DeBaca that I was dealing at that time with four workers who had job performance problems: one whose job performance was below standard in all but one area, another whose job performance was below standard in several crucial areas, another who had a backlog of nearly 100 overdue reinvestigations (RVs) and who had allegedly instigated the personal attack against me and who just happened to be one of Local 535's representa- tives, and another who hz3 a backlog of around 65 overdue RVs. I reminded them that still another worker had recently returned to work on a part-time basis from a nonwork-related stress leave and was not fully recovered. I reminded them that just a couple of weeks before the 7-29-93 meeting a shop steward of Local 535 had told one of my colleagues that "they" were going to make my unit a "test unit" for the purpose of addressing the workload issue. (Theretofore, the EW Specialists' case- loads had toppled over 4CJ.) Stefanie Guynn acknowledged the personnel problems, but said that .the shop steward had told her that Local 535 had decided not to make my unit the "test unit" me=ter all and that the shop steward had denied any involve- ment by Local 535 in t'-*e 7-29-93 incident. (Incidentally, the shop steward is a European American ovmar_. Stefanie Gs%-nn -:i Dolores DeBaca returned to their initial proposal of en- listing the help of an o:-side consultant. I told them that the man they had in mind could not heir .me, a-d I told them.the reason--namely, that he had cancelled an appointment cit^. -te al-=ut an hour before the scheduled time because a supervis- or in East Counts- ne-ede =i.i1. I told them that I had been devastated by the death of my mother back in Pan Sylvania and by the fact that I had not had the money at the time to either be a her bedside or to attend her funeral. The memories re- kindled the pain and sa--_w, and I wept. Stefanie Guynn and Dolores DeBaca perhaps a member of his staff oc::_d provide the service. I asked Stefanie Gunn what good I would be to her as a s•L:p`-visor if a consultant were hired. And I told her that I would not be able to mrnare my unit under those circumstances. I was so disheart- ened at the time that I eve requesting a transfer to another office serious con- sideration. I was tha_m it the 30th was Friday. I was thankful I could leave the office. -12- At home that afternoon (7-30-93) my mind retraced the day's events. I was mulling them over in my mind when the telephone rang. The caller was Stefanie Guynn. She said: she had spoken with my lead worker, who had given her a more bal- anced view of the situation in the unit. Stefanie Guynn told me that after further discussion 'Ey red thought of one other possible solution. She said that she could not promise anything, but that it might be possible to reassign some of the workers to other units. She said that some of the workers had requested reassignment, and that it would be! better if they were reassigned than if I were transferred. I was near tears when she told me because I thought she was reaffirming her confidence in me. oma_ Within a few weeks three workers were reassigned to other units: one of them was reassigned to the Richmond office, one was reassigned to the Muir Road of- fice, and one was reassigned to the E3G0 unit at the E1 Sobrante office. In ex- change, another temporary worker was assigned to the E3C0 unit and a worker from the E3G0 unit was reassigned to the E3C0 unit--my unit. From time to time Stefanie Guynn has reminded me of the efforts she made in order to accomplish these changes. Recently she exclaimed that she had "moved heaven-and earth" to do it. I.wonder what her reasons are for reminding me,:of the great efforts she made allegedly in my behalf. The late '.Dr. Erich Fromm, noted psychoanalyst, social philosopher, and author, wrote in The Sara Society: "Ethics, at least in the meaning of the Greco-Judaeo-Christian tradi- tion, is inseparable from reason. Ethical behavior is based on the faculty of making value judgments on the basis of reason; it means deciding between good and evil, and to act upon the decision. Use of reason presupposes the presence of self; so does ethical judgment and action. Furthermore, ethics is based on the principle that no institution and no thing is higher than any human individual; that the aim of life is to unfold man's love and reason and that every oth- er human activity has to be subordinated to this aim. How then can ethics be a significant part of a life in which the individual be- comes an automator), in which he-serves the big It? Furthermore, how can conscience develop when the principle of life is conformity? Conscience by its very nature is nonconforming; it must be able to. say no, when everybody else says yes; in order to say this 'no' it must be certain in the rightness of the judgment on which the no is based. To the degree to w:nich a person conforms he cannot hear-the voice of his conscience, r-fach less act upon it. Conscience exists only when man exn,=—riences '--mself as man, not as a thing, as a commodity. This principle -of fairness, no doubt, makes for a certain type of ethical behavior. You do not lie, cheat or use force ." Webster defines the word "ethical" as "having to do with ethics or morality; of or conforming to moral standards; conforming to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group." As previously mentioned,' I have performed eligibility work for 22.25+ years, and I have conformed to the standards of my profession. I also conform to the moral standards of my religion, and one of these standards requires me to be valiant for the truth. Moreover, part of my personal ethical code is not to lie because lying is wrong in whatever fora it takes (e.g. , deceit, manipulation,' exaggeration, etc. ) . -13- Stefanie Guynr Wiotc: "You stated the issue on December 15 was that-your viewpoint was different from mine and that 'to expect me to suspend my judgment in deference to you is not a reasonable expectation." (Page 1 , Paragraph 3, Sentence 11 She neglected to say that we were discussing the so-called "mindset" of field workers at that time. And she did not quote me verbatim, but it was close enough. My understanding is that I am required to follow rules, regulations, policies, pro- cedures, and supervisory instructions,which do not impinge upon my rights and which are not unlawful. It is also my understanding that my job specifications do not require me to acquiesce in the opinions of others,-:regardless of their positions. Stefanie Guynn's treatment of me has been discriminatory and unethical, in my opinion. Moreover, Stefanie Guynn has treated me, an outspoken. African American woman, differently than she treats outspoken European American women. Her decision to refrain from giving a European American woman in my unit a confirming memo for making discriminatory remarks directly to the Spanish interpreter is one indication of this disparage treatment. Accepting the European American female shop steward's denial of any involvement in the 7-29-93 incident and rejecting my word about vari- ous issues repeatedly is another indication of disparate treatment. Accepting the statements of European American females who defamed my name and telling me she did not want to hear what I had to say is still another indication of disparate treat- ment. Ridiculing me publicly during supervisors meetings is yet another indication of disparate treatment. Harassing me by regurgitating harsh allegations is yet an- other indication of disparate treatment. Seeking to abridge my freedom of expres- sion is yet another. Undermining the chain of command by frequently holding confer- ences with select European American women in my unit and providing them with infor- mation before relaying the information to me is yet another. (Note that Stefanie Guynn and these women acknowledged having conferred frequently.) And Stefanie Guynn's 12-28-93 memo is yet another indication of disparate treatment--possibly the most vivid, tangible one. I feel victimized, and I will not tolerate being treated in this discrimina- tory fashion, and it must stop immediately--every bit of it! My expectation is that no further stereotypic interpretations. of my feelings and attitudes be based solely on.my body language. My expectation is that my freedom of expression and my freedom of speech will be acknowledged-and that upward communication and healthy dissent will not be squelched. My expectation is that all use of coercive, unethi- cal practices will be arrested. Finally; my*expectation is--that I will be treated in a civil manner and that I will be afforded the same consideration and the same job opportur_it_es afforded my peers. My redress is as follows: 10 That all derogatory material related to this complaint be removed from my personnel file; o That any and all people,-Q-o received copies of the 12-28-93 memo and-any and all other material related to this complaint, receive statements res- cinding said copies; o That, given the level- of discrimination, appropriate action be- taken a gair_st SSDM Stefanie Guynn; o That SSDM Stefanie Guynn be reassigned, releasing me from her direct supervision. ATTACHMENTS: 12--20-93 Nemo to Stefanie Guynn, SSDM 12--28-93 Memo from Stefanie Guynn, -SSDM District Council. 7 Y r Martinez Office z t\ `.MUNICIPAL/ 1000 Ccua street tdartinezz, CaJfcr-!a 9. AFLr l / /� Tel: (510) 228---400 -CIO Fax: (510) 223-•:-72 September 1, 1994 1 FAX & MAILED Ms. Eileen Bitten Personnel Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 3rd floor Martinez, CA 94553 Merit Board Members Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, 1 st floor Martinez. CA 94553 RE: Naomi Martinez Dear Ms. Bittern and Merit Board Members: AFSCME Locai 512 on behalf of our member Naomi Martinez hereby file this amended complaint. Ms,. Martinez states that Stefanie Guynn has ueated her differently and less favorable than other Eligibility Worker Supervisors since July 29, 1993. Ms. Guynn's unit consists of five European Americans, one Hispanic American and one African American-Ms. Martinez. Ms. Guynn during conferences has chastised Ms. Martinez for expressing perspectives antithetical to her own, while not chastising the five European Americans and the Hispanic American for expressing their different perspectives. Ms. Guynn artempted to harass and intimidated Ms. Martinez with hostile verbalizations and/or memoranda during and following each of the conferences. (Dates: 8-2-93, 8-3-93,8-6-93, 11-3-93, 12-16-93, 1-24-94,2-28-94, 3-3-94, 7-14-9,4.) Ms. Guynn undermined Ms. Martinez'authority and ability to supervise by breaching the chain of command within Ms.Martinez`unit. This not only affected Ms. Martinez' morale but also adversely affected the morale of the members of her unit. Ms. Guynn would allow and encourage European Americans supervised by Ms. Martinez to go directly to her with unit problems. (Dazes: 8=26=93,X22=93; 1=3-94,1=13=94:) Ms:-Guynn.did-uot allow-this with the- other EW Supervisors,the five European Americans and one Hispanic American. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employea EF F_11 ''D4 l0:0-1 F. Ms. Bitten & Merit Board 9/1/94 Page 2 Ms. Guynn was responsible for stirring up racial conflicts,thereby disrupting the work in the unit and creating an overall hostile work environment. She accepted allegations at face value from non African Americans against Ms. Martinez without thoroughly investigating the allegations and without discussing the allegations. Ms. Guynn allowed Ms. Martinez' name to be used in a "below standard" evaluation dated 8-5-94, of another African American based on hearsay of an European American clerk without discussing or confirming the allegations with Ms. Martinez. Ms. Guynn held Ms. Martinez to a different standard and expectations than she did the non African American supervisors by informing Ms.Martinez verbally and in writing to revise her thinking,a directive not given to her peers and a directive-which violates Ms. Martinez' First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The following information is verbatim from Ms. Martinet "By refusing to investigate allegations thoroughly, but accepting as true allegations lodged against me by one of my peers and several line workers without discussing the allegations with me(Dates: 7=29-93, 7-30-93,2-23-94, 3-3-94, 4-11-94, 4-15-94, 7-14-94) thereby invalidating me By permitting my name to be used in a below-standard evaluation of an African American clerk, based on hearsay of a European American clerk without discussing and confirming the allegations made by the European American clerk (date: 8-5-94); By informing me verbally and in writing of her expectations that 1 revise my thinking and by not having the sante expectation of my peers and without subjecting them to the indignity of such an unlawful expectation (Date: 12-28-93); By casting aspersions upon my character'via embellished statements, misquotations, and half-truths (Dates: 12-28-93, 3-3-94, 7-14-94); By nourishing and lending credence to rumors and accusations, thereby eliminating any hope 1 ever had for promotion and other job opportunities (Dates: 8-26-93, 9-22-93, 1-3-94, 1-13-94, 2-23-94); By employing;hostile communication ploys(e.g.,double binds, mind rapes, and guilt trips) which caused me severe stress and anxiety and with resulted in my having to seek the services of a clinical psychologist and the services of a psychiatrist for therapy and medicinal treatment for rnajor depression (dates: 8-12-93, 11-3-93712-16-93, 1-24-94, -)-3-9414-11-94, 4-15-94, 7-14-94); PMS. Bitten & Merit Board 9/l/94 Page 3 By stereotypically interpreting my body language(dates: 8-12-93, 12-16-93, 12-28-93, 1-4-94); By putting me in a position of being the first F-WS (to the best of my knowledge) in recent history of Contra Costa County Social Service Department to be supervised jointly by an SSDM, and an Assistant Director bag use Y filed a grievance against her(date: 7-14-94) By recently withholding feedback on my performance, thereby preventing me from performing my duties and responsibilities in an accurate,timely manner, thus jeopardizing my livelihood subjecting the to censure (Date: 7-14-94)." Our list of witnesses thus far are: Lillie Cuff,Terri Salter, Mary Lou Barrow,Jo Westhoff, Darlene Davidson, Delores Ford, Carol Calvert,Pamela Morgan,Azenith Toliver,Patricia Moore, Yvette: McCollumn,Veronica Hedrick, Gloria Pedroza, Janette Holman, Thaddeus Duncan, Dr. Jenkins-Monroe,Amir Kaify and Joyce Carlisle. Sincerely, J11V HICKS, Business Agent AFSCME Local 512 opeiu3 afl-ci o(25:i)j ep cc: Naomi Martinez wp:Naomi.sam CLAIM ��.36 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 10, 1995 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION ' the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $2,000,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". CLAIMANT: Tony A. Archuleta ATTORNEY: Stan Casper Date received ADDRESS: California Plaza, Ste. 500 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON December 6, 1994 2121 North California Blvd. Walnut Creek, cq 94596 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. DATED: December 7, 1994 ggIL Deputy OR, Clerk 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (,/f This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to, comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.6). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: 01_ 7 _9 { BY. Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). 1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( VThis Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: 1 certify that this is a -true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. e Dated: 0 - <7_5', PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by �\,L . (1.4 A.A -1,— )Deputy ,Clerk i CC: County Counsel County Administrator r' STAN CASPER 1 CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ A Professional Corporation 2 California Plaza, Suite 500 RECEIVED 2121 North California Boulevard 3 Walnut Creek, California 94596 4 Telephone: (510) 947-1147 JEL� - 61994 Attorneys for Claimant CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5 TONY ARCHULETA CONTRA COSTA CO. 6 7 8 CLAIM AGAINST MERRITHEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 9 TO: Clerk to the Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa 10 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553 11 12 CLAIMANT'S NAME TONY A. ARCHULETA CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS Route 1, Box 187 13 1 Oakley, California 94561-9610 14 CLAIMANT'S TELEPHONE (510) 625-1744 15 AMOU14T OF CLAIM $2,000,000 . 00 16 ADDR13SS TO WHICH 17 NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: STAN CASPER CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ 18 A Professional Corporation 2121 No. California Blvd. , Suite 500 19 Walnut Creek, California 94596 20 DATE OF OCCURRENCE June 9, 1994 PLACE OF OCCURRENCE Merrithew Memorial Hospital 21 2500 Alhambra Avenue 22 Martinez, California 94553 23 HOW DID CLAIM ARISE This claim is based upon the medical 24 negligence of staff members of Merrithew Memorial Hospital in 25 failing to properly treat and diagnose claimant's complaints on 26 June 9, 1994, and thereafter including, but not limited to, the 27 negligent performance of a tracheostomy. 28 The injuries sustained by claimant as far as known as of CASPER,MEADOWS &SCHWARTZ A Professional Corporation 2121 North California Boulevard Suite 1020 Walnut (Creek California 94596 FAX(510) 947-1131 I the date of the presentation of this claim consists of lost 2 earnings, the costs of additional surgeries, and 3 hospitalization, anxiety, severe emotional distress, and fear. 4 Jurisdiction over the claim would rest in the superior court. 5 6 ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM Loss of earning capacity and past 7 lost earnings $1,000,000 . 00. Incursion of medical bills and 8 surgeries, including future surgeries, $500,000 .00 . General 9 damages including emotional distress, trauma, humilation, pain 10 and suffering $1,000,000 .00. 11 12 DATED: December 5, 1994 13 CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ A Profession Corporation 14 15 By 16 S CASPER ttorneys for laimant 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASPER,MEADOWS &SCHWARTZ A Professional Corporation 2121 North California Boulevard — 2 Suite 1020 Walnut (Creek California 94596 FAX(6 10)947-1131 RE: CLAIM OF TONY A. ARCHULETA AGAINST MERRITHEW MEMORIAL 1 HOSPITAL, MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 2 3 PROOF OF SERVICE BY HAND DELIVERY I declare that: 4 5 I am employed in the County of Contra Costa, State of 6 California. I am over the age of eighteen ( 18) years and not a party to the within entitled cause. My business address is 7 8 1924 Grant Street, Concord, California 94520. On Decmeber 6, 1994, I served the CLAIM AGAINST MERRITHEW 10 MEMORIAL HOSPITAL on the parties in said cause by hand 11 delivering a true copy thereof to the following: 12 Clerk to the Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street 13 Martinez, California 94553 14 15 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the 16 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and 17 that this declaration was executed on December 6, 1994, at 18 Walnut Creek, California. 19 20 VEY S I NS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASPER,MEADOWS &SCHWARTZ A Professional Corporation 2121 North California Boulevard Suite 1020 Walnut(Creek,California 94596 FAX(5)10)947-1131 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (•� January 10, 1995 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Mount: $50,000.00 + Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all -Warnings". r -9 CLAIMANT: John David Archibald ® !y ATTORNEY: Richard W. Meier ®EL U Date received COUNT,,,Z-CUMSM ADDRESS: BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON December-�%AL1,994 11 Embarcadero West, Ste. 133 Oakland, CA 94607 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered via: Risk MMppit. 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. ppHHII BATCHELOR,OR, Clerk DATED: December 8, 1994 Blf: Deputy 11. FROM:: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( V . This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: BY: AADeputy County Counsel I11. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) i ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). JV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present v) ) This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a -true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 7 declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: / - //— 9S BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by �, �nQ.� Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator r • RECEIVED DEC - g 1994 Claim of John David Archibald, CLE RK BOARD DPtRVISORS CONTf,'A COSTA CO. Claimant ) FOR DAMAGES Government Code §910 V. ) County of Contra Costa ) TO THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, Risk Management Liability Unit, 651 Pine Street, 6th Floor, Martinez, California 94553 : YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that John David Archibald, whose address is 4725 Bayside Way, Oakley, California 94561, claims damages from the County of Contra Costa in an amount which is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California. This claim is based on personal injuries and property damage sustained by claimant on September 16, 1994 in the vicinity of Cypress Street and Empire Road, Oakley, California under the following circumstances: Claimant was following another vehicle while driving his motorcycle southbound on Cypress Street. The vehicle in front of him made a sudden turn, and Mr. Archibald saw reflective road cones in front of him and was simultaneously blinded by headlights in front of him. Mr. Archibald went to the right of the cones and put the motorcycle down on the ground causing injury to himself. The cones were in the middle of the street, however, they should have been placed on the shoulder of the :roadway. The headlights belonged to a service vehicle owned by Granite Construction, the contractor who was doing the roadwork in the area. The 'name of Granite's employee who was servicing heavy equipment parked at this location is unknown at this time. 1 The injuries sustained by claimant, as far as known, as `of the date of presentation of this claim consist of: a broken left foot and a torn medial lateral ligament in the left knee, in addition to numerous facial and body road abrasions . The property damage to claimant's personal property exceeds $2,200 .00; in addition to wage losses for the past two and- one- half months. Property damage and wage losses exceed $16,000. 00 to date. The amount claimed, as of the date of presentation of this claim, exceeds $50,000. 00 . All notices or other communications with regard to this claim should be sent to claimant's attorney at: The Law Offices of Richard W. Meier, 11 Embarcadero West, Suite 133, Oakland, California 94607 . DATED: December 1994 4��Richard W. Meier, Attorney for Claimant r 2 PROOF? OF SERVICE BY MAIL - CCP SECS. 1013A, 2015.5 I, PATRICIA ECKMAN, hereby declare that I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen ( 18) years and riot a party to the within action. My business address is 11 Embarcadero West, Suite 133, Oakland, California, 94607 . .On December fa, 1994, I served a true copy of the attached NOTICE OF CLAIM by placing same in a sealed, fully prepaid envelope, and deposited said envelope in the U.S. Mail, addressed as follows: County of Contra Costa, Risk Management Liability Unit, 651 Pine Street, 6th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the,, State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 1994 in Oakland, California. PATRICIA ECKMAN 3 CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • Janijary 10, 1995 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $5000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "W rings".,•-,�� Ji CLAIMANT: Pacific Bell c/o M.R. Gylock � �Z' ATTORNEY: Date received COUNTY COUNSEL MARTINEZ CALIF. ADDRESS: 401 Lennon Lane, Room 208 M BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON December 2, 1994 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: December 1, 1994 I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 'TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. December 6 1994 PPHHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk DATED: Blr: Deputy a ( . Il p 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of .Supervisors (,-I'This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: t Dated: l2' 4 `{ BY: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARDORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ✓)` This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a -true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: S_ PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By, (iA e l p-L A Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1 declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal. Service in Martinez. California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: I //—q S� BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by 4 ,.O Q..,.)Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator � g A � � O � m r — O ` Z cko cn co w P � A n . o �a SAht t`� b C'1 T' to y RECEIVED nFC — 2 1994 CLERK 81 - ?rRVISQRS Claim Against the County of Contra CostaCON t," COSTA CO-. -®- Pacific Bell presents a claim for damages against theCounty of Contra Costa as provided in Government Code Section 900 et seq. Claimant's Address Pacific Bell Claims Attention M. R. Gylock 401 Lennon Lane, Room 208M Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Date of Occurrence: 10/14/94 Location: PALM AVE/MARTINEZ AVE, MARTINEZ Circumstances Causing Claim: A contractor, V&M Construction, working for the countyt damaged a cable while placing a storm drain for the district. Description of Damage: One 600 pair communications cable and conduit Amount of Claim: 5000.00 Note: This is an estimated amount. When the final bill is complete it will be forwarded to your Office. Date of Claim: November 29, 1994 Pacific Bell Case No.: N468081 ichael Gylock Area Claims Manager Claims _ . , 401 Lennon Lane,Room 208M PAC.PFICe"ABELL. Walnut Creek,California 94598 AM (510)977-2171 A Pacific Telesis Company November 29„ 1994 ;ht RECEIVE® Case No.: N468081 DEC 21991 County of Contra Costa, Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OFA, 651 Pine Street CONTRA Oos r, Martinez, CA 94553 Ladies/Gentlemen: We are sending you the attached claim notice pursuant to Section 910 of the California Government Code. In order to be assured that you have received this claim, I would like you to sign and return an enclosed acknowledgment of receipt form. Please fill out the form and return it in the stamped addressed envelope. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me on (510)977-2171. Very truly yours, Michae Gylc Area Claims Manager attachments CLAIM f 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA -January 10, .1995 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to.you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $500,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". CLAIMANT: Dwight Session ATTORNEY: ®EC 0 6 ICA Date received COUNTY COUNSEL "�Fi'FIIUEZ CRLtF. ADDRESS: West County Detention Facility BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON December 2, 1 94 5535 Giant Highway Richmond, CA 94806 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: December 1. 1994 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. DATED: December 6, 1994 gaIl Bep�tyLOR, Clerk A p pAea—) II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (vThis claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( k,)"0_ther: J`Hks sk6ftt-,P l co) A'S c o ALtr INODWT5 6C-C-0 Miy(. w1 rtfA/ &X M_-P t F3, P2C&h►Ni,- attma42 01, lqq-(. U11-tt- MNuQW7 s AusF 8e- )oL)(L,,�vec ay W w CATcor4 l a4 htiiW`: iD PkgtIV7 A i.AZt ct w-f Dated: ��—le Cl `'� BY: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a -true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, B)� OVA AJ , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See-Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. if you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 16; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: ) - 11 -9s BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by ��� , . P4-A QV. a > Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator � NIlk ' h vv�► Ott-' N :o .wrw O V � r J U �{ 2 .wr tA n 04 CONFIDENTIAL COUNTY COUNSEL' S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Date: October 7, 1994 TO: Jeanne Maglio, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attention: Shirley Casillas, Deputy Clerk FROM: Victor J. Westman, . County Counsel By: Brandon Baum, Deputy County Counsel <E RE: Claim of William Session Some of the incidents referred to in the claim form occurred beyond six months of the date of filing. Some occurred within six months . I believe the attached notice of late filing should be sufficient to notify Mr. Session of the problem. For the remainder of the claim, i .e. , the incidents occurring within the six month period, the Board should consider and act on the claim. Plese let me know if this is confusing or will not fit within your claims procedures . TO: Dwight Session West County Detention Facility 5535 Giant Highway Richmond, CA 94806 NOTICE TO CLAIMANT (Of Late-Filed Claim) (Government Code Section 911 . 3) The claim you presented to the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California, as governing body of the County of Contra Costa on December 2 , 1994 has been reviewed by County Counsel and is being partially returned to you herewith because: Some of the alleged tortious incidents referred to in your claim occurred prior to six months from the date of the filing of your claim. If you wish to have the incidents considered with your claim, and if you wish to pursue further legal action should your claim be rejected, you must apply for leave to present a late claim as to these incidents . Because that portion of your claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, no action was taken on that portion of your claim. - 'Your only recourse at this time as to those incidents occurring prior to six months of the filing of your claim is to apply without delay for leave to present a late claim. (See Government Code sections 911.4 to 912 .2 and 946 .6) Under some circumstances leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Government Code section 911 .6) You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Clerk Dated: DEC '" 71994 Enclosure Affidavit of Mailing I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18, and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid, a copy of the above Notice to Claimant (of Late Submitted Claim) , addressed to the claimant as shown. above. Date: DEC ` 7 1994 By Phil Batchelor by ate'/7A�J Deputy Clerk 1 Mr. Dwight Session RECEIVE® 2 5535 Giant Highway 3 Richmond,Ca. 94806 DEC 21994 4 5 �. { CLERK BOORS ARD OF StJ"E'tfr� CONTRA COSTA CO. 7 8 9 Dwight Session ) 10 Plaintiff ) 11 ) 12 V. ) 13 ) 14 County of Contra Costa, ) COMPLAINT 15 Contra Costa County ) 16 Public Defenders Office ) 17 and ) 18 ) 19 Evangeline Brown ) 20 Defendant(s) ) 21 ) 22 23 24 15 The undersigned claimant makes claim against- the County of Contra 26 Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $500,000 .00 and 27 in support of this claim represents as follows : 28 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- 30 1 . When did damage or injury occur? (Give exact Bate and hour) 31 32 August 16, 1994 and thereafter 33 34 2. There did damage or injury Occur? (Include city and county) 35 36 Martinez, California. Contra Costa County. 37 38 3 . How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details ; use 39 extra paper if required) . 40 41 Mal-intent, Malpractice, Malfeasance by breach of 42 duties by Public Defender. 43 44 45 4. What particular ,pct or omission on the part of county or . 46 district officers , servants or employees caused the injury or 47 damage? 48 A. Failure to consolidate cases as she represented she 49 had. 50 B. Disclosure of information prejudicial to client by 51 Public Defender. 52 It is my belief that I currently have grounds for and intend 1 1 to pursue an action for legal malpractice against Evangeline 2 Brown and the Contra Costa County Public Defenders Office. 3 The action is grounded on the following facts and events; 4 1. In late January or early February of 1994 Ms. Brown was 5 the subject of a Marsden Motion which I brought before 6 the Municipal Court, Delta Branch, the Honorable Judge 7 Jerry Bellachi presiding. Judge Bellachi refused to 8 appoint other counsel but did consent to allowing me to 9 proceed in Pro Per. 10 11 In that status I was able to arrive at the agreement 12 represented by the plea bargain discussed in the 13 opening pages of this letter. The occurrence of this 14 Mardsen Motion set up an apparent conflict of interest 15 between Ms. Brown and myself. When I was rearrested 16 Ms. Brown was once again appointed as my public 17 Defender. I have to assume that this appointment 18 occurred by virtue of automatic assignment due to our 19 previous albeit unsuccessful attorney-client 20 relationship. 21. 22 Since her appointment Ms. Brown has failed to chronicle 23 -the history of these proceedings in a way that would 24 provide the court with a clarification of the points of 25 confusion that arose as a result of her failure to 26 consolidate the misdemeanor petty theft with the felony 27 petty thefts. This failure resulted in my detention 28 for two ( 2 ) days beyond Judge Fliers order releasing me 29 from custody in March of 1994. At a point in time in 30 February she had represented to me that such a 31 consolidation had been accomplished. 32 33 Further, her failure to accomplish this consolidation 34 she represented had been done directly contributed to 35 the misdemeanor charge of petty theft being dismissed 36 and refiled as a felony. At best, the refiling has 37 thoroughly confused the status of that case (in terms 38 of being within or without the scope of the plea 39 bargain) . At worst, the refiling of that case could 40 lead to the need to file a writ of Error Corim Nobis 41 due to the fact that the scope of the original plea 42 would be much more .circumscribed than I reasonably 43 understood it to be. This of course would greatly 44 delay all of the proceedings and give rise to many 45 months of unnecessary incarceration for me. 46 47 Then, after her reappointment as my Public Defender in 48 June, Ms. Brown did not take the necessary steps to 49 excuse herself based on my prior Marsden Motion. 50 Rather, shockingly, in August 16, 1994, in Department 51 15 she stood up in open court and stated she wanted to 52 "make a record that I was hard headed and 2 1 unreasonable. " She took this outrageous tact without 2 any prior notice to me out of anger because I attempted 3 to explain to her that I had already been sentenced on 4 the "new petty theft case. " Then, unbelievably, she 5 stood up in open court and stated that I had been the 6 subject of a warrant on charges that I had been in 7 possession of cocaine. Ms. Brown volunteered Sua 8 Sponte. No request for such information was made by 9 anyone. The District Attorney indicated that Ms. Brown 10 was misinformed. Incredibly, she insisted that such a 11 warrant had been issued. 12 13 First, she was wrong. In fact no such warrant was 14 extant. Second, this was an outrageous violation of 15 her ethical duties to me, her "client. " Two ( 2) days 16 after Ms. Brown' s statements injurious to my interests, 17 I was charged with possession of cocaine. Based on 18 these factors I am prosecuting a claim for legal 19 malpractice against Ms. Brown, the Contra Costa County 20 Public Defenders Office and the County of Contra Costa. 21 Thus, an irreconcilable conflict of interest exists 22 between Ms. Brown and I. 23 5. What are the Marries of coi3nty or district officers, servants or 24 employees causing the damage or injury? 25 26 Evangeline Brawn 27 28 6 . What damage or injury do you claim resulted? (Give Full extent 29 of injuries or damage claimed. Attach two estimates for auto 30 damage. 31 32 Loss of Freedom, Loss of rights, Violation of all 33 due process . Delay in release from custody. 34 35 7 . Haw was the amount claimed above computed? ( Include the 36 estimated amount of & prospective injury or damage. ) 37 38 $500,000.00 General Damages, Stress Aggravation, 39 Mental Stress. 40 41 42 8 . Names and addresses of witnesses , doctors and hospitals . 43 44 Not currently Ascertained 45 46 9 . List the expenditures you made on account of this injury: 47 Date Item Amount 48 49 Not Currently Ascertained 50 51 52 3 1 Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: 2 "The claim must be signed by 3 the claimant or by some other 4 person on his behalf. 5 6 7 8 9 10 NAME AND ADDRESS OF CLAIMANT 11 MR. Dwight Session 12 West County Detention Facility (C imant Signature) 13 5535 Giant Highway 14 Richmond, Ca. 94806 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 2 3 4 5 NOTICE 6 7 Section 72 of the Penal .'.ode provides: 8 9 "Every person who, with the intent to defraud, presents for 10 allowance or for payment to ant state board or officer, or to any 11 county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or 12 pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill , 13 account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by 14 imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more then one 15 ( 1 ) year, by fine of not exceeding one ( 1) thousand ($1 ,000 ) , or 16 by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the 17 state prison, by fine of not exceeding ten(10) thousand dollars 18 ($10,000, or by both imprisonment and fine. � f 5 CLAIM 1 • � BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 10, 1995 -Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of . _California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $500,000.00 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". CLAIMANT: Deanna Lynn Powell i ATTORNEY:- D E C 0 6 1994 Date received POUNTYCOUNSEL ADDRESS: 1053 Second St. #6 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON December 2, 199+4M RTINEZCALIF. Lafayette, CA 94549 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: Hand Delivered I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. ppHH gg DATED: December 6. 1994 BML DeputyLOR, Clerk / Q � II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( L,f This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: Z `z `{ BY: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( v� This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a -true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: 1-10 —q S PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By. �^AA 0 0,0,4 , Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. lYou may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today i deposited in the United States-Postal Service in Martinez, ialifornia, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to ,he claimant as shown above. ated: It —96 BY: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk 1 County Counsel County Administrator Claim *to: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ' INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury ._a person or to per- sonal property or growing crops and which accrue on or before December 319 1987, must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops and which accrue an or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code §911.2.) B. Claims must be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District should be filled in. D. If the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be filed against each public entity. E. Fraud. See penalty for fraudulent claims, Penal Code Sec. 72 at the end of this '3 orm. * # * * * * * * * * aaaaa000 * * * a * * a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a * RE: Claim By Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp RECEIVE® Against the County of Contra Costa ) DEC - 2 1994 or ) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS District) CONTRA COSTA CqZZf Fill in name Y The :undersigned claimant hereby makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $ r d`8_6TV and in support of this claim represents as follows: ' 1. ''When did the damage or in,Jury occur? (Give exact date and hour) 22. q4I © m 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Includ cit and ty) I 22 �nQ r r e C4`- C�o r\Ax--r,- � n7 IZ � or�e�- ai� i ten„ - L - 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Giv full details; use extra paper if required) 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused the injury or damage? V (over) Y, I 5. What are the names of county or district officers, servants or employees causing' the damage or injury? Y\r-Nz 4 S. What damage or injuries do you claim resulted? (Give Hill extent of injuries or damages claimed. Attach two estimates for auto damage. 7. How was the amount claimed above computed? (Include. the estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage.) .rte s re 8. Names and addresses of witnesses, doctors and hospitals.4 'L- kle'll Man 2L 9. List the expenditures you made on account of this accident or injury: DATE ITEM AMOUNT r * • 9" f * 00 0 # f f • e a t f • 9,,l 9 * 0 9 f • # • • f • * #' * a 9 �a `� a Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides: "The claim must be si d by the claimant SEND NOTICES T0: (Attorney) ,or some erson hi behalf." Name and Address of Attorney Ner� Cla is Signature --Z, 2C=4 <4 dress Telephone No. Telephone No. seeas • e fs • • ffe * i'7' aaaa 9 a a Vi • ee NOTICE Section 72 of the Penal Code provides: "Every person who, with intent to defraud, presents for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city or district board or officer, authorized to allow or pay the same if genuine, any false or fraudulent claim, bill, account, voucher, or writing, is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than one year, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($109000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. I _ i I - - ham,��.�,r^� - -- r-��p��p►_�_ � t,:`:n�c�s���i-c� -r-- cfe _ c1-to_r_�D cess Loses ex _Stl t�c -�C V � vCO" C_coney-r_i_r.�_`� e. J �IL [e7—r-Is—e� ��`►1��� c_,�.�-e. Go�r_v�r��e��,_��ea.k�c..r��-u_�.�, C—�.s �� . —A,—ta /Lst4.0 t. — r_t >n►1 ov r_c� m C 1 -no s�- Y_n�=� Gni-�,-(.� h2-�_�..., �•�-- m P,_ ay- - hit- -- M ,rj. CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 10, 1 9.5 Claim Against the County, or District governed by) BOARD ACTION the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your notice of California Government Codes. ) the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph IV below), given pursuant to Government Code Amount: $349..97 .or $33.7.:9.2 Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all -Warnings". CLAIMANT: Keisha M. Br(oos ATTORNEY Date received ADDRESS: 121 Daisy Ct. BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON December 9, 1994 Hercules, CA 94547 BY MAIL POSTMARKED: December 8, 1994 1. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. IV IL December 9, 1994 Ball �epuiyLOR, Clerk 11. FROM: County Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( 4-'This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: /�� —`Y `� BY: 9J'�`— Deputy County Counsel 111. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). 1V. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present ( ") This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: 1 certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, By �. Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the-date this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 7 declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today 1 deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. l Dated: l- !1 8Y: PHIL BATCHELOR by Deputy Clerk ICC: County Counsel County Administrator I ,I LL yah 0 � C.1 -Claim to; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF COMM COSTA COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CZ.AIMANT A. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person"or to per- sonal property or growing crops and .which accrue on or before December 31, 19879 must be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to causes of action for death or for injury to person or to'personal property or growing erops 'and Which accrue on. or after January 1, 1988, must be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. Claims relating to any other cause of action must be presented not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action. (Govt. Code 5911.2.) B. Claims must 'be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at its office in Room 106, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA 94553• C. If claim is against a district governed by the Board- of Supervisors, rather than the County, the name of the District .should be filled in. D. If.the claim is against more than one public entity, separate claims must be 'filed against each public entity. B. Fraud. Sea pert; for fra„dilIcn* elalars-, Peral Cmde.Sno-, 72 at the end of this Tor-. �t a c e * * � e e a e e e f s a e a f a * • • a r� a � * s a s e a e' * e e s s f � � e RE.: Claim By ) ..' Reserved for Clerk's filing stamp RECEIVED Against the County of Contra Costa ) or ) DEC -.9 IM u// S District) CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS —- in name ) CONTRA COSTA . The undersigned claimant hereby makes cl im against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named District in the sum of $1 q,97 6r$.,,�] ,q& and in support of this claim represents as` follows:. 1. When did the damage or injury occur? _(Give exact .date and hour) 2. Where did the damage or injury occur? (Include city and county) 3. How did the damage or injury occur? (Give full details; use extra paper if required) (SOUS cS t CI Ajct - a l �m,y�a%t�. 4. What particular act or omission on the part of county or district officers, servants or employees caused'the injury or damage?:f Ial c �,m,•�c (over) HILLTOP FORD ESTIMATE OF REPAIRS • ' 3280 Auto Plaza h Phone 222-4444 R.O. NO. RICHMOND, CALIF. 94806 Complete Service All Makes of Cars NAME ADDRESS DATE / MAKEOFVEHICLE // YEAR TYPE //� - ,�,- LICENSE NO. MILEAGE /' SERIAL NO.(/VIN NO.)j p INSURED BY ADJUSTER i , INSPECTOR PHONE HOME BUSINESS Labor / SYM. '• Labor Labor Hours PARTS SYM. Hours PARTS SYM, Hours PARTS Bumper Fender Fender Bumper Rail Fender Ornament Fender Ornament Bumper Brkt. Fender Shield Fender Shield Fender Mldg. Fender Mldg. Bumper Gd. Headlamp Headlamp Frt. System Headlamp Door Headlamp Door Frame Sealed Beam Sealed Beam Cross Member Cowl Cowl Door, Front Door, Front Wheel Door Lock Door Lock Hub Cap Door Hinge Door Hinge Hub&Drum Door Glass Door Glass Knuckle Vent Glass Vent Glass Knuckle Sup. Door Mldg. Door Mldg. Lr. Cont.Arm-Shaft Door Handle Door Handle License Frame-Brkt. Center Post Center Post Up. Cont.Arm-Shaft Door, Rear Door, Rear Shock Door Glass Door Glass Windshield Door Mldg. Door Mldg. Rocker Panel Rocker Panel Tie Rod Rocker Midg. Rocker Mldg. Steering Gear Sill Plate Sill Plate Steering Wheel Floor Floor Horn Ring Frame Frame Gravel Shield _ Dog Leg Dog Leg Park. Light < Quar. Panel>, Quar. Panel Grille Quar. Mldg. Quar. Mldg. Quar. Glass Quar. Glass Fender, Rear Fender, Rear Fender Mldg. Fender Mldg. Fender Pad Fender Pad Mirror Inst. Panel Horn Bumper Front Seat Baffle, Side Bumper Rail Front Seat Adj. Baffle, Lower Bumper Brkt. Trim Baffle, Upper Bumper Gd. Headlining Lock Plate, Lr. Gravel Shield Top Lock Plate, Up. Lower Panel Tire Hood Top Floor Tube Hood Hinge Trunk Lid Battery Hood Mldg. Trunk Lock ,Paint Hood Letters Trunk Handle ' 4ftercoat��r Ornament Tail Light Polish-r-,,:-/- fC vt>,' _ S-- Rad. Rad. Sup. Tail Pipe Misc. Materials a S(/ r/_; Rad. Core Gas Tank AUTHORIZATION FOR REPAIRS Radio Antenna Frame You are hereby authorized to make the above specified repairs. Rad. Hoses I Wheel FHub&Drum Fan Blade Signed >N Labor_ T Hrs.�i Fan Belt Back Up Lite Parts Water Pump Wheel Shield Wrecker Service $ �' Motor License Frame-Brkt. Tax $ '7,/ Z Sublet $ �+ A—Align N—New OH—Overhaul S—Straighten or Repair EX—Exchange RC—Rechrome U—Used f -f �� This estimate is based on lowest possible cost consistent with quality work, and as such, is TOTAL$ guaranteed. Items not covered by this estimate or hidden will be additional. - GPD-111041(ER-1002-C)REYNOLDS/NORICK M & T AUTOBODY & PAINT, INC. sikke (510) 685-2294 CAR REFINISHES !-CEI SHA SRC>1=1KS DEG 79 1994 121 DAISY CT 1994 MITSUBISHI C HERCULES MIRAGE WHITE I N U CA. 94547 V LICENSE: 3BSU230 s (510) 799-0698 E VIN No. : JA3EA11A2RU041444� . T (415) 453-7288 EXT: H PR.DATE: 10/93 R POLICY No. O ( ) - EXT: I PT.CODE: A CLAIM No. M REFERRED BY: MAZDA L TM.CODE N INSIDE ADJ. E ESTIMATOR : COLIN KENDALL BD STYL: 2DR C OUTSIDE ADJ. : R INDEPENDENT : MILEAGE: 13647 E DEDUCTIBLE : INS. CONTACT: P.O. No: DATE OF LOSS: ADJUSTER UNIT No: PHONE No. - CLAIM No. EXT. PHONE t ) - EXT: m & T Au_rO BODY & PA I NY I N.0 m ( S 1 o > G tis—e:=`9 4 1 REPAIR LT QTR PANEL 1.0 2.7 2 R & I LT TAILLIGHT 0.4 3 MATCH PAINT 0.5 4 PAINT MATERIALS 73.60 5 REFINISH CLEAR COAT 0.5 TOTALS ♦ .00 73.60 .00 1 1.4 1 3.7 1 0.0 Fed. ID#68-0133657 Unibody&Frame Paint&Body ESTIMATE Specialists Work PARTS ,„o E .00 PAINT/MISC 73.60 SUBLET M&T AUTOBODY&PAINT INC. BODY LABOR •20 � 74.�..0 @$53.00 FRAME LABOR .00 @$+53.00 AMERICAN&FOREIGN CAR REPAIR PAINT LABOR 196. 10 @853.00 --Insurance Work Accepted-- MECH LABOR .00 @$53.00 TOW .00 (510) 685-2294 STORAGE DETAIL .00 FAX(510) 685-7295 TAX 6.07 �k TOTAL EST.♦ 349.97 2291 Via deMercados Mark Cusack DEDUCTIBLE Concord, CA 94520 Owner-Operator INS.PAYS CUST PAYS ALL CRAFTSMANSHIP 100%GUARANTEED BAR#AM 136519 EPA#CAD 981640238