Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 56

TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Cout1 ot Ai)peRJ Cate Nuf'r.tior:


COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION
(079254
AHORNEY O's PA�lY WITHOUT" ATT:'.>RNEV (Name, S!a:e B11r nurnber. aM ad'i,ess). S11pF.lf1or Court case Numbor:

-JAROSLA \V WASZCZUK- IN PRO PER 34-2013-80001699-CU-WM-GDS


2216 Katzakian Way , Lodi CA 95242 FOR COVRT USE ONLY

TELEP110NE NO 209-663-2977 F AJ\ NO /ODl'Ol,a!):


F':-t.11AJL A�:::�;ss,0),r.or.Ai) _i_i w l 980(Zy.live.com
ATTORNEY FCR /Name}: Jaros law \\,-' aSZCZUk
APPELLANT/PETITIONER: Jaroslaw Waszczuk
CALUNEMPL.INS.APPEAL BOA RD /EDD
RESPONDENT/REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: The Regents of the Univ.of California

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS


(Check one): [ZJ INITIAL CERTIFICATE 0 SUPPLEMENTAL CERTll=ICATE
Notice: Please read rules 8.208 and 8.488 before completing this form. You may use this form for the initial
certificate in an appeal when you file your brief or a prebriefing motion, application, or opposition to such a
motion or application in the Court of Appeal, and when you file a petition for an extraordinary writ. You may
also use this form as a supplemental certificate when you learn of changed or additional information 1hat must
be disclosed.
JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
1. This form is being submitted on behalf of the following party (name): ______________________

2. a. n There are no in!erested entities or persons that must be listed in this certificate under rule 8.208.

b. D
X lnleresled entities or persons required to be listed under rule 8.208 are as follows:

Full name of Interested Nature of interest


entity or person (Explain):

( 1) CUIAB RESPONDENT
(2) EDD RESPONDENT
(3)

(4)

(5)

D Continued on atiachment 2.

The undersigned certifies that the above-listed persons or entities (corporations. partnersliips, firms, or any other
association, but not including government entities or their agencies) have either (1) an ownership interest of 10 percent or
more in the party if it is an entity; or (2) a financial or other interest in the outcome of the proceeding that the justices
should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves, as defined in rule 8.208(e)(2).

Date: 10/15/2016

Jaroslaw Waszczuk
:lYP: OR PRltH NAME)

Pago 1 of 1
�,:,,,.., �ppr: ,,e� 10, 00110na1 u,;e CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS ca1. Rt�tlfi o! cour1. l'\Jle& a.zo,. t.�a�
Jud,�·a Courd ot CIJl;Jorn,a WWNI.C.Ourl,•lfO.G<!,9:ll/
APP·OOS (�e,. J,;nua,y 1, 1009) 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

I. INTRODUCTION …………………..……....... ...................................………7


A. The record on appeal from the interconnected case C079524 Waszczuk v.
Regents et, al (SLAPP motion appeal, fully briefed) ……………..….……..…8
1. Example of the RPii’s double standard in application of the UC Davis
Policy PPSM 23, and PPSM 62
Dereck Cole’s Complaint- UC Davis Resolution Policy PPSM 70
Case No. 03-PPS-003-12/13 ……………………………………………..….12

II. THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST INTRODUCTION …………………….......17


III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND-RPii’s BRIEF……..18
A. Appellant’s Employment at UC Davis ………………………………..…….18
B. February 2009 Settlement Agreement with UC Regents ……………..…..…19
C. April 13, 2012, Letter Intent to Suspend ………………………………….….23
D. May 7, 2012, Skelly Reviewer Decision……………………...….………… ..24
E. May 11, 2012 Letter of Suspension …………………………………...……..25
F. September 25, 2012, Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct…...28
G. December 5, 2012, Letter of Termination……………………………….……33
IV. ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………........................…...35

A. Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays’s decision dated February 14, 2013, is
unlawful, baseless, and discriminatory…………………………………….….35
1.The Decision (AR 00447-00450) …………………………………..……….35

2. Two E-mails Exploited by ALJ Tays ………………………………..……37

3.The UC Davis Corrective Action Guide (Discipline), based on UC Davis


Policy PPSM 62 ………………………………………………………….39

-3-
4. The Real Party in Interest’s gross misconduct………………………….….42
B. The May 31, 2013, CUIAB Members’ Decision and Hon. Shelleyanne
Chang’s March 12, 2015, Decision…………………………………….……..44
1. Waszczuk’s Complaint against EDD and CUIAB………………………....45
2. Decisions………………………………………………….……………….46

3. Petition for Writ of Mandate …………………………………………..….47

4. Case Reassignment…………………………………………………...……50

V. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….…53

VI. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ………………………….....……55

VII. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL ……………..………..56

-4-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Kim v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 10
(Cal.App. Dist.1 03/27/2000),………………………………….…………….....… 9,48

In Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudennill (1985; 470 U.S. 532, 545-546………….….25

Hondo Company v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 67 Cal.App.4th 176, 78


Cal.Rptr.2d 855 (Cal.App. Dist.2 10/09/1998)………………………………...…….47

In re A.M., 225 Cal.App.4th 1075, __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ (Cal.App. Dist.4


04/24/2014)…………………………………………………………………………..48

People v. Verduzco, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 1414.)………………….…………48

Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc, 17 Cal.4th 93, 948 P.2d 412, 69
Cal.Rptr.2d 900 (Cal. 01/05/1998) Supra S057098………...………………………….49
Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. (1981) 116 Cal. App. 3d 311, 330, 171 Cal………..…..49

Paratransit, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 561……………………………......………47

Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal. 4th 454, 467, 904 P.2d 834 …....49

Loyola Marymount University (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 661, 670, 267 Cal. Rptr. 230

………………………………………………………………………………….……49

STATUTES
Code of Civil Procedure CCP § 425.16...............................................................….8,38
California Unemployment Insurance Code §1256…………………………….…….53
Code of Civil Procedure CCP § 170.6………………………………………………50

-5-
OTHER AUTHORITIES
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 Section 501(C)(3)…………………………… 10
California Rules of Court Court, Rule 8.100(e)(1)……….........………....… . ……8
UC Davis Policy PPSM 23…….10,11,12;14;15;17;18;23;24;25;32;43;
.UC Davis Policy PPSM 62…….10,11,12;14;15;17;18;23;24;25;32;39;40;4;43;53
The UC Davis Corrective Action Guide (Discipline), based on PPSM 62………..…39

UC Davis Policy PPSM 64………………………………..………………….26;32;42


UC Davis Policy PPSM 70………………………...…………13;19;22;26;34;38;43;44
UC Davis Policy PPSM 63…………………………………….………………12,18;43
UC Davis Absence Policy, PPSM 2.210……………………………………….…….43
UC Davis Policy Hate Policy 1616…………………………….…………………26;31
UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15………………………………………26;28;31
UC Davis Principles of Community ………………..………………………………..16
Immigration Reform and Control Act………………………………………….…….21
The Family Medical Leave Act…………………………………………….………..21
The Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act………………...………..21
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991
………………………………………………………………………….…………….21
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act…………………….……………21
The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963………….…….….21
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act……………………………………...…21
The law of contract and tort …………………………………………………………21
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967……………………...………..21
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution……………………………………….…..32
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights …………………………..39
State of California Attorney General’s 2001 Third Edition Civil Rights Handbook...39

-6-
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

JAROSLAW WASZCZUK, Case No.: C079254


Plaintiff and Appellant Superior Court
Case No. 34-2013-80001699
vs.
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD,
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT

and

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF


CALIFORNIA

Real Party in Interest

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF


I.
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal by Petitioner and Appellant JAROSLAW WASZCZUK
(hereinafter “Waszczuk,” pronounced “Vashchook”) of the court order that the
Honorable Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, issued and signed on March 12, 2015. This order denied Waszczuk’s
Petition for Writ of Mandate (CT 200-2011), which was filed in the court on
December 2, 2014, against the California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
(hereafter CUIAB) as the Defendant and Respondent and against the Regents of the
University of California (hereafter UC Regents) as the Respondents and Real Party in
Interest (CT 00001-00011). Simultaneously with the Petition for Writ of Mandamus,
-7-
ARB
on December 4, 2013, Waszczuk, in pro per, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit
against his employer in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-
00155479, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California. The
related pending appellate case is Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of
California et al., C079524, Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16, in the complaint
and for this appeal.

A. The record on appeal from the interconnected case C079524 Waszczuk v.


Regents et, al (SLAPP motion appeal, fully briefed)

In the civil case information statement filed in accordance with California


Court Rule 8.100(e)(1) on May 2, 2015, Jaroslaw Waszczuk did not indicate in Part
I(d), appellate history, of the statement that the Waszczuk v. The Regents of the
University of California et al., C079524, is pending in the Court of Appeal. Waszczuk
filed the Notice of Appeal on June 11, 2015 in the case.
However, in the Case No. C079524 civil case information statement,
Waszczuk did indicate in the Part I(d), appellate history, of the statement that Case
No. C079254 Waszczuk v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
(CUIAB) is pending in the Third District Court of Appeal. The above-mentioned
interconnected Case No C079524 (appeal of the SLAPP motion) contains, in part, the
identical Waszczuk Petition for Writ of Mandamus appeal, but also a much larger
record on appeal than that petition included.
Also, the SLAPP appeal motion includes five UC Davis Health System
(UCDHS) employees as defendants who caused this Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and as well by their behavior. They are:
• Danesha Nichols, JD, UCDHS Human resources investigator and
consultant
• Brent Seifert, JD, UCDHS Human resources labor relations supervisor
• Cindy Oropeza, UCDHS Human resources benefits and equal employment
opportunity manager
-8-
ARB
• Stephen Chilcott, JD, UCDHS Human resources executive director and the
superior of Nichols, Seifert, and Oropeza
• Mike Boyd, UCDHS Facilities Executive Director

The above-listed officers are highly trained and skilled professionals. Three are
attorneys and two are executive directors. All are or were enforcers of the University
of California’s policies and procedures, which includes the personnel policies for staff
members (PPSM) and the policy and procedure manual (PPM). The PPSM and PPM
have the force and effect of state statutes (see Kim v. Regents of University of
California (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165).
The above five defendants in the SLAPP motion appeal, under penalty of
perjury in their declarations supporting the SLAPP motion, stated that they had never
harbored any unlawful motives or biases towards Waszczuk and that they never
retaliated against him for filing whistleblower complaints.
These five individuals did not retaliate against Waszczuk for filing a
whistleblowing complaint, but they retaliated against him to try to prevent him from
filing a whistleblowing complaint. Waszczuk learned the real reason for his
termination in June 2015, almost three years after he had been terminated and after
this appeal was filed. See Case No. C079524 SLAPP motion appeal, Augmented
Record on Appeal (ACT 00126-132; 00156).
Waszczuk was kept out of UC Davis Medical Center by these individuals for
over one year, from September 1, 2011 until his termination on December 7, 2012.
These five highly skilled individuals were responsible for keeping Waszczuk out of
the premises under false pretenses for the purpose of orchestrating a campaign of
psychological terror against him. The purpose of the campaign was to force him to
resign from the employment that had been guaranteed to Waszczuk by the settlement
agreement which Waszczuk and these five real parties in interest signed in February
of 2009.

-9-
ARB
The original issue at stake was the illegal sale of tens of millions of dollars of
power, tax free, in violation of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, from the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW cogeneration power plant.
Waszczuk had worked in this plant as an operator from June 1999 to March 2007. In
March 2007, Waszczuk was abruptly removed from the plant by the order of the new
chairman of the UC Board Of Regents, Richard Blum, the banker, investor, regent for
life, and husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. Blum had apparently invested a
lot of money in the 27 MW cogeneration facility, which had been built in the wrong
UC Davis campus for sole purpose of illegally selling power under the aegis of the
University of California.
The main subject of this brief is the February 2009 Settlement Agreement; the
UC Davis employee evaluation policy, PPSM 23; and the corrective action policy,
PPSM 62.
In February 2009, regents of the University of California signed the settlement
agreement with Waszczuk, an agreement that promoted him from the position of
cogeneration plant operator to the position of exempt Associate Development
Engineer.
Waszczuk sent the copy of the settlement agreement to the Employment
Development Department in December 2012, but somehow it is not in the records of
this appeal court. The February 2009 settlement agreement can easily be located by
the court in Case No. C079524, SLAPP motion appeal court record on appeal (CT
Volume I 00153-00163).
If the court examines all decisions in the record on appeal that are related to
Waszczuk’s termination of employment for decisions regarding his unemployment
insurance benefits, the RPII, and the CUIAB court’s filing and briefs, that court will
find nothing about the February 2009 settlement that Waszczuk signed with the
regents, two evaluations of Waszczuk for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 time period,
or two UC Davis policies (employee evaluation policy PPSM 23 and corrective action
policy PPSM 62).
- 10 -
ARB
• February 9, 2012, Danesha Nichols’s investigation report (AR 163-191)
• April 13, 2012, Charles Witcher’s letter of intent to suspend (AR 00196-
00197)
• May 7, 2012 Skelly reviewer Michael Pansius’s decision (AR 00194-00195)
• May 11, 2012, Charles Witcher’s letter of suspension (AR 00192-00193)

September 20, 2012, Oropeza’s investigation (AR 00640-00655)

• September 25, 2012, Charles Witcher’s notice intent to dismiss for serious
misconduct (AR 00196-00197)
• December 3, 2012 Skelly reviewer Allan Tollefson’s letter of termination (AR
00143)(CT00116-00117)
• December 5, 2012, Charles Witcher’s letter of termination (AR 00142)
• February 14, 2013, ALJ Marilyn Tays’s decision (AR00447-00450),
(CT0025)
• May 31, 2013, CUIAB decision (00874-00877), (CT00031)
• February 2, 2015, respondent’s statement in support of decision (CT 0094-CT
00103)
• February 2, 2015, opposition of real parties in interest to petition for writ of
mandamus (CT 00124-00140)
• March 2, 2015 -Court Decision,( Hon. Shelleyanne Chang) denying
Waszczuk’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (CT 00154-00162)(CT00178-
00199)

This is the first time that the Real Party in Interest (RPii) have addressed the
two evaluations of Waszczuk for 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 and UC Davis policies
PPSM 23 and PPSM 62. As usual, their counsel forgot the February 2009 settlement
agreement RPii signed with Waszczuk.

- 11 -
ARB
The above-listed individuals—Nichols, Oropeza, Seifert, HR Director Stephen
Chilcott, two Skelly reviewers, Administrative Law Judge Tays, CUIAB board
members, and Judge Shelleyanne Chang—knew that slanderous investigatory reports
cannot serve as a substitute for UC Davis policy PPSM 23 and corrective action
policy PPSM 62, for Waszczuk’s two evaluations for 2010/2011 and 2011/2012, and
for the February 2009 settlement agreement that Waszczuk signed with the UC
regents.

All of these persons have violated the civil and human rights of 65-year-old
Waszczuk. They should be condemned by the Court of Appeal judges for their abuse
of power, for their conspiracy against Waszczuk, for their violation of his civil and
human rights, and for their destruction of his life at the age of retirement.

1. Example of the PRii’s double standard in application of the UC Davis


Policy PPSM 23, and PPSM 62.
Dereck Cole’s Complaint- UC Davis Resolution Policy PPSM 70
Case No. 03-PPS-003-12/13 (AR 00264-00269;00669-00671))

This double standard and discrimination example was presented in the SLAPP’s
motion Case No. C079524(Volume VI - CT 01751-01757) and in this appeal (AR
00669-00671)
-Michael Boyd (hereinafter Boyd), under penalty of perjury, declared,
Declaration filed on December 1, 2014 SLAPP motion Case No. C079524 SLAPP
Motion appeal CT Volume II 00440-00442)
How it is possible that Director Boyd, with so many years of experience, did not
know UC Davis Policy PPSM 62 and PPSM 23 and stated in his declaration as
follow:
• “I have served as a Complaint Resolution Officer (‘CRO’) in administrative
proceedings pursuant to the UNIVERSITY’s Personnel Policies for Staff
Members section 70 (‘PPSM 70’) numerous times”?

- 12 -
ARB
How it is possible that Director Boyd as Complaint Resolution Officer forget that
Waszczuk advised him in his 24-page letter dated January 28, 2008, about how
important Employee Performance Review is in employer–employee relations. ?

On December 5, 2013, exactly one year after PRii terminated Waszczuk’s


employment with University of California, Waszczuk held a meeting with Boyd in the
UC Davis Medical Center. Boyd was assigned as the Compliant Resolution Officer
(CRO) Step II Reviewer in complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70the Case No.
03-PPS-011-12/13 . Dereck Cole v. UC Davis Medical Center.

During the meeting, Waszczuk was representing HVAC Technician Dereck Cole in
his complaint under UC Davis Policy PPSM 70 for his 2011/2012 “Does Not Meet
Expectation Employee Performance Review (Evaluation). The “Does Not Meet
Expectation evaluation “ was basically the basically last step for the employee to be
terminated if employee will not improve his performance , behavior and achieve the
goals for next evaluation period outlined by supervisors or managers in employee
evaluations.

Director Boyd in his Decision January , 2014 wrote :


• This letter constitutes my decision regarding the Step 2 appeal regarding a
complaint filed on November 5, 2012 by Dereck Cole. In his complaint, Mr.
Cole asserts that he should have received an "Exceeds Expectations" rating
rather than the "Does not Meet Expectations" rating given to him by Patrick
Putney.
In the Step 1 decision issued by Mr. Charles Witcher on November 26, 2012,
the performance evaluation rating of "Does Not Meet Expectations" was
upheld. Mr. Cole's representative (Mr. Jaroslaw Waszczuk) requested that a
Step 2 hearing be scheduled with a Complaint Resolution Officer (CRO)”
Furthermore Boyd wrote in his decision:

- 13 -
ARB
• “While the evidence suggests that Mr. Cole may have engaged in inappropriate
behavior during the 2011-12 evaluation period, the record does not clearly
demonstrate that appropriate counseling was provided on a timely basis.
Without documentation that such counseling was provided in a timely manner,
it is not appropriate for a manager to conclude in an evaluation that an
employee does not meet expectations.
Based on my review of all the documents provided and my interviews, my
recommendation are as follows:
Mr. Cole's 2011-12 evaluation should be modified to state that he "Meets
Expectations"
Mr. Cole should receive the CEMRP2 incentive awards given to comparable
PO&M employees that received a Meets Expectations rating for FY 2011-12
Mr. Cole should be strongly encouraged by Human Resources to take
advantage of the University's ASAP Program to help with communication and anger
management issues.”
No better example could be provided to the court than Waszczuk’s representation in
his coworker’s complaint against the same management responsible for the despicable
bias and discrimination against Waszczuk by RPii and RPii agents.

Director of Facilities Michael Boyd and four high-ranking RPii officers, Danesha
Nichols, Brent Seifert, Cindy Oropeza, and their superior Human Resource (HR)
Executive Director Stephen Chilcott deprived Waszczuk of evaluations for two years
and disregarded the University of California (UC) Davis policies PPSM 23 and
Corrective Action Policy PPSM 62 despite the fact that the allegations made against
Waszczuk in pseudo-reports were despicable and false.

Dereck Cole complained about overtime fraud in the HVAC shop and disclosed
serious safety violations endangering the lives of patients and hospital staff in the UC
Davis Medical Center Hospital. In July 2012, Dereck Cole was accused by
management of being violent and of using racist remarks toward Romanian nationals
- 14 -
ARB
who were working in the HVAC shop in same manner as Waszczuk, was accused in
Danesha Nichols’s and Cindy Oropeza’s investigation reports (AR 163-19; 00147-
00161). In August 2012 and September 2012, Dereck Cole was served with a Letter
of Expectation under UC Davis Policy 62 followed by a “Does Not Meet
Expectation” evaluation under the provision of the UC Davis policy PPSM 23. The
accusations in the Letter of Expectation clearly did not fit the Letter of Expectation
but rather a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Gross Misconduct.

The accusations in the Letter of Expectation were:

• “August 9, 2012
Dereck Cole
Plumber
• RE Letter of Expectation for Inappropriate Behavior
I am issuing this letter of expectation because of your inappropriate
behavior on Tuesday, July 24, 2012. You were observed using profanity
and inappropriate language when you were approached and notified that
you were working on the Sheet Metal table to work on a motor, this
table is only to be used for sheet metal tasks. Working on a motor
would damage the smooth working surface. You then told Mr. Dan
Radulescu fucking off, that he was fucking rude, fucking arrogant and
told fucking lies and that he was fucking difficult to work with.
On July 25, 2012 I met with you and discussed your behavior and what
is appropriate and what is inappropriate. During our conversation
you acknowledged making these statements keeping control of your
temper and keeping things under control were discussed, and you
appeared to understand. On Wednesday, July 26, 2012 I observed more
use of profanity using fucking to describe situations and staff. When I
approached you became arrogant and told me C was interpreting it
incorrectly. It is expected that all communications for staff, visitors and
- 15 -
ARB
guest meets with UC Davis Standards, which is respectful
communication.
On an immediate and sustained basis, I expect you to do the following:
Review the attached policy: #1616 ,Violence and Hate Incidents in the
Workplace
Review the attached UCD Health System: Principles of Community.
Follow Customer Service policy as referenced in your Position Description
I expect you to enroll in the Training and Development Courses by
August 31, 2012.
HVAC Shop Manager
Patrick Putney
This despicable Letter of Expectation written by a UC Davis HR consultant for
HVAC shop manager Patrick Putney was backed up by two separate accusatory
letters from Romanian nationals, one of whom was Dorin Daniliuc, Dereck Cole’s
and Waszczuk’s supervisor. The accusations against Dereck Cole in this Letter of
Expectation and in two letters from Romanians, which HR most likely fabricated,
were far worse than those made against Waszczuk in the September 25, 2012, Notice
of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct. Dereck Cole’s Employee Performance
Review graded “Does Not Meet Expectation” for 2011/2012 followed the Letter of
Expectation. (AR 00518)

Dereck Cole contacted Waszczuk in August 2012, and Waszczuk appealed the Letter
of Expectation on Dereck Cole’s behalf under UC Davis policy PPSM 70.
Additionally, Dereck Cole’s Employee Performance Review graded “Does Not Meet
Expectation” was appealed under the policy, PPSM 70, with Waszczuk’s
representation. Waszczuk also represented two other employees for unwarranted
letters of expectations and bad evaluations from the same department of which
Director of Facilities Michael Boyd was in charge.

- 16 -
ARB
The Dereck Cole case is the best and undisputable example of how HR applied UC
Davis policies PPSM 23 and PPSM 62 to Dereck Cole’s case compared to
Waszczuk’s case regardless of whether the allegations were true or false.

II.
THE REAL PARTY OF INTERST INTRODUCTION
The Waszczuk Reply Brief is the rebuttal to the Real Party of Interest (RPii)
the UC Regents Reply Brief (RB) filed on September 21, 2016, in contrary
Waszczuk’s motion to deny extension of time to RPii counsel David Burkett was
stamped (Denied).
The primary Respondent in this appeal, CUIAB, has not participated in this
appeal since Waszczuk filed the Notice of Appeal on May 7, 2015. The CUIAB
counsel of record Ashante Norton of the Office of the California Attorney General
appeared at the hearing for the Petition for Writ of Mandate, which was presided over
by Hon. Shelleyanne Chang on February 27, 2015.
The Respondents’ RB is the product solely of the RPii’s counsel of record,
David Burkett of the Porter/Scott law firm.
On Page 9 of the RB, the RPii counsel states:

• However, the evidence showed Appellant had been reprimanded for workplace
misconduct in 2011 and further received a notice of suspension on April 13,
2012 explicitly warning him to abide by University policies and remain
professional in the workplace. When he did not do so, the University terminated
him for misconduct, which justifies denying him unemployment benefits.
RPii counsel alleged that Waszczuk had been reprimanded for misconduct in 2011 but
did not point to any document from HR Waszczuk’s personnel or departmental files
in the record which could be consider as a employee misconduct documented
according to the UC Davis Corrective Action Policy PPSM 62/
In his introduction, RPii counsel was apparently trying to rewrite UC Davis’s
Corrective Action Policy and convince the Court that the April 13, 2012, Letter of
- 17 -
ARB
Intent to Suspend was a timely resolution to Waszczuk’s alleged March, April, and
May 2011 misconducts outlined in the April 2012 Letter of Intent to Suspend.
Employee misconduct at UC Davis is regulated by the UC Davis Personnel
Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) Section 62, Corrective Action (CT 00115; 1-21)
(AOB 34)
Waszczuk received the April 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend during his
absence from work since August 2, 2011.
In July 2011, RPii attempted to force Waszczuk to file a fraudulent worker’s
compensation claim to remove Waszczuk from the premises, but Waszczuk refused to
commit fraud (AR 00543) and was put on stress leave for one month by his physician,
with the care of a psychologist to cope with RPii’s psychological terror, which went
beyond human decency. In September, Waszczuk was placed on indefinite
investigatory leave, which violated UC Davis’s policy PPSM 63, which permits only
two weeks of investigatory leave with a possible short extension. RPii extended
Waszczuk’s investigatory leave for more than one year, until his employment was
unlawfully terminated in December 2012.
Waszczuk later found out that RPii filed a fraudulent Worker’s Compensation
claim on Waszczuk’s behalf, without Waszczuk consent and signature.

III.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND-RPii’s BRIEF
A. Appellant’s Employment at UC Davis

On page 9 of the RB, RPii counsel David Burkett wrote:

• Appellant began employment with the University in June 1999. (AR 00095,
CT 00095.) He was employed as an Associate Development Engineer prior to
his discharge. (Id.)

The RPii counsel did not spend much time in the RB on Waszczuk’s 13 years of
employment with RPii in the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC). (AOB 2-5.)

- 18 -
ARB
Waszczuk was employed as an operator in the UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration power
plant from June 17, 1999, to March 23, 2013.
On March 23, 2007, Waszczuk received a Letter of Suspension and
Reassignment that defaced and defamed Waszczuk with accusations far worse than
those in the Letter of Intent to Suspend dated April 13, 2012, and the Letter Intent to
Terminate Waszczuk for Serious Misconduct, dated September 25, 2012. By the
Letter of Suspension and Reassignment, which was unlawful, Waszczuk was abruptly
removed from the cogeneration plant and moved to the UCDMC HVAC shop.
After a fierce year-and-a-half long dispute with UCDMC management under
UC Davis’s Complaint Resolution Policy, PPSM 70, Waszczuk’s employment status
was changed in February 2009 from cogeneration plant operator to exempt Associate
Development Engineer, following a 2009 settlement and agreement the UC Regents
signed with Waszczuk. (AR 00537-00540; AOB 39.)

B. February 2009 Settlement Agreement with UC Regents

Apart from the fact that Waszczuk’s employment with RPii was with Just Cause, in
February 2009 RPii and Waszczuk signed a Settlement Agreement in which RPii
agreed to employ Waszczuk as an exempt employee with the title of Associate
Development Engineer.
RPii did not promote Waszczuk from UCDMC 27 MW cogeneration plant
operator to Associate Development Engineer in 2009 because RPii loved Waszczuk
and wanted to keep him as an employee. The 2009 Settlement Agreement was the
result of RPii’s vicious attack on Waszczuk from December 2006 to March 2007,
resulting from its being ordered to terminate Waszczuk’s employment by the new
Chairman of the University of California Board of Regents, Richard Blum, U.S.
banker, billionaire, and husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.
RPii’s purposeful breach of the Settlement Agreement with Waszczuk was
undertaken for the purpose of depriving Waszczuk of property or legal rights or
otherwise causing him injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Waszczuk to
- 19 -
ARB
cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of his rights, and it was performed
with fraud, oppression, or malice. RPii, by violating the agreement, coordinated,
cooperated, or agreed to misuse, abuse, or disregard University of California polices
and protections so that they could violate Waszczuk’s right to return to work
RPii and RPii’s agents, in purposefully and with evil spirit and faith violating and
breaching the 2009 Settlement Agreement, knew that Waszczuk became distressed, angry,
and upset with every adverse and unfounded employment action, such as but not limited to
biased, one-sided, and incomplete investigation reports, a lack of meaningful investigation
into the misconduct Waszczuk actually reported, or handing Waszczuk a Notice of
Investigatory Leave in September 2011 when Waszczuk believed he was returning to work
after stress-related sick leave, and another Notice of Investigatory Leave on May 31, 2012,
after almost one year of absence, and instructing Waszczuk not to communicate with
employees even though Waszczuk represented them.
RPii and RPii’s agents and officers purposefully and with evil spirit violated and
breached the 2009 Settlement Agreement as part and parcel of their continuing and
repeated retaliation and harassment for the purpose of concealing their misconduct,
violations of state and federal law, and engaged in a course of action that constituted
discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of national origin, ancestry, mental
condition, and medical condition. The discrimination, harassment, and retaliation have
been continuous and persist to date against Waszczuk.
As a result of the violation and breach of the 2009 Settlement Agreement by RPii
and its agents and officers, and their failure to take reasonable steps to prevent
discrimination, harassment and retaliation, RPii and RPii’s agents and officers occupied
themselves every day and week with new harassing and retaliatory plans to drive
Waszczuk out of the University of California, disparage him, or take compensation from
him. Waszczuk has suffered substantial economic losses in wages and benefits, damages to
reputation and credit, and other financial injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.
In addition to the above, PRii and its agents engaged in a course of action from
which it cannot be released from liability to be sued under §7 and §8 of the Settlement
- 20 -
ARB
Agreement, and RPii is liable for its violation of laws including but not limited to the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the law of contract and tort, and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
For the above reasons too, Waszczuk respectfully requests that the Court disregard
all of RPii’s argument in the RB in same way RPii disregarded and violated its own policies
and procedures, state and federal laws, and the 2009 Settlement Agreement, which RPii
avoided mentioning in its pleadings and briefs.
For the above reasons, the Court should disregard the arguments presented in
RPii’s RB as baseless, invalid, unlawful, and presented only to harass and harm
Waszczuk.
After reassignment to the HVAC shop, Waszczuk was informally prohibited
from visiting friends in the cogeneration facility during lunchtime, even though his
title was still operator and he had the right to go to the plant during lunch to visit
coworkers. In December 2010, the operator who in March 2007 had replaced
Waszczuk in the plant committed suicide triggered by the uncontrolled hostile
environment in the plant and department produced by the same managers and
supervisors who were unskilled in supervising employees. (AR 00540; AOB 27.)
As Waszczuk was writing this brief on October 6, 2016, Waszczuk received an
email from one of his former coworkers, who was still working in the plant. This
coworker informed Waszczuk that another meaningless investigation was being
conducted by the Human Resources Department due to a complaint by one worker
who is being abused by the plant manager, who already carried the baggage of his
subordinate’s suicide, and the suicide of his own wife on top of this. (AR 540.) This
was why on May 3, 2012, Waszczuk sent an email with reference to the Columbine
tragedy on behalf of his coworker from the cogeneration plant, William Buckans, who
- 21 -
ARB
had alerted Waszczuk on May 2, 2012, that he was being viciously attacked by the
plant manager and being bullied by the same thug who had triggered Todd Goerlich’s
suicide in December 2010. The e-mail to HR Manager Mike Garcia and the UC Davis
Police used the Columbine tragedy as a warning of what could happened if HR and
UC Davis Police did not intervene. (AOB 33.)9CT00193)
The exploitation of the May 3, 2012, email with word “Columbine” by RPii,
CUIAB Administrative Judge Marilyn Tays, Hon. Shelleyanne Chang, and RPii
counsels will not change the fact that Waszczuk’s 40-year-old coworker tragically
took his life, leaving behind a one-year-old daughter, and another drama is brewing in
the same UCDMC department with the same management in charge. (CT00109)
The exempted Associate Development Engineer position, with an annual
increase in base salary of $8,000, was not given Waszczuk in February 2009 because
RPii UCDMC’s management loved Waszczuk and wanted to keep him as an
employee. In November 2008, after a fierce, lengthy legal battle under UC Davis’s
Administrative Remedies Policy, PPSM 70, involving RPii, RPii’s attorneys, and the
RPii’s own assigned arbitrator, RPii was badly defeated by Waszczuk, representing
himself in the arbitration process, with the outcome that Waszczuk could go back to
the UCDMC cogeneration plant as operator instead of being isolated in the HVAC
shop without permission to go outside the shop. (AOB, page 3.)
RPii counsel forgot to mention in the above statement that since February 2009
Waszczuk was employed by RPii as the Associate Development Engineer, per the
settlement agreement signed with RPii in February 2009, and that RPii violated and
breached this settlement and suspended and dismissed Waszczuk without alleging by
one word in any pleading or any other document submitted to the court that Waszczuk
had violated the settlement, regardless of the fact that the legal process in this
proceeding was entirely corrupt. Waszczuk provided a copy of the Settlement
Agreement to the Employment Development Department (EDD) in 2013. (AOB,
pages 3, 15, 17, 39, 45.)
Further, on pages 9 and 10 of the RB, RPii counsel David Burkett wrote:
- 22 -
ARB
Appellant began employment with the University in June 1999. (AR 00095,
CT 00095.) He was employed as an Associate Development Engineer prior to
his discharge. (Id.)

On April 13, 2012, the University issued a notice to Appellant advising him of
the University’s intent to suspend him for ten (10) working days for violation
of University policy, following an investigation that substantiated allegations
that Appellant engaged in inappropriate behavior in the workplace. (AR
00196-00197, CT 00096, CT 00128.) Specifically, the notice cited
substantiated allegations that Appellant used profanity and pointed his finger
towards his supervisor Dorin Danilicu’s face on March 8, 2011, and
intimidated employee Patrick Putney on April 21, 2011 during a discussion
regarding work performance. (AR 00196-00197, CT 00096, CT 00128.)

C. April 13, 2012, Letter Intent to Suspend

Waszczuk covered the April 13, 2012, Letter Intent to Suspend on page 30 of his
Appellant Opening Brief (AOB). However, Waszczuk would like to add a few words
about RPii counsel Mr. Burkett’s rant in his RB.
Waszczuk would not have any problem if the allegation, whether true or false,
had been addressed to Waszczuk in March, April, and May 2011, in accordance with
UC Davis’s Corrective Action Policy, PPSM 62, and reflected Waszczuk’s 2010–11
evaluation, due in June 2011 and mandated by UC Davis’s policy PPSM 23.
RPii violated both policies PPSM 23 and PPSM 62, thus depriving Waszczuk
in 2011 of the opportunity to resolve the matter of his alleged misconduct by
administrative remedies under UC Davis’s Complaint Resolution Policy, PPSM 70.
(CT 00112)Waszczuk was prosecuted in April and May 2012, and during his absence
from work since August 2, 2012, for misconduct that never occurred and was never
witnessed or documented in Waszczuk’s HR personnel or departmental files.
Waszczuk never denied sending the email to Danesha Nichols on April 27,
2012, with the attached “Welcome to Romania” video clip accessible to anyone on
- 23 -
ARB
Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tozuM2DDA-k) or the May 3, 2012,
mail to HR Manager Mike Garcia and the UC Davis Police. Waszczuk voluntarily
provided both e-mails to ALJ Marilyn Tays during the February 13, 2013, hearing.
Waszczuk covered this subject in his brief. (AOB, pages 10-11.) If he could add
anything it would be the fact that Waszczuk sent the video “Welcome to Romania”
only to investigator Danesha Nichols, not to Daniliuc, and RPii counsel’s accusations
are simply lies. There is no evidence in form of any copy of an e-mail on this matter
from Waszczuk to Daniliuc in April. Any such email would undoubtedly have been
retrieved from the University’s server and presented in the investigatory report if it
existed. Daniliuc, if offended by the video, should have complained about it to You
Tube administration. (CT 00108)

D. May 7, 2012 Skelly Reviewer Decision

On May 7, 2012, UCDMC Human Resources-assigned Skelly Officer Michael


Pansius issued a decision to suspend Waszczuk, absent since August 2, 2011, and
deprive him of 10 days of his income. (AR 00194.)(CT 00116)
In his decision, the Skelly Reviewer completely ignored UC Davis’s
Evaluation Policy, PPSM 23, Corrective Action Policy PPSM 62 and . . The
unfounded, unwitnessed, and fabricated accusations and allegations outlined in the
April 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend were more than one-year-old. Regardless
of whether the accusations were true, they should have been resolved in according to
the Corrective Action Policy PPSM 62 right away after alleged Waszczuk misconduct
took place and by the 2010–11 evaluation period ending on June 30, 2011, not more
one year later. Furthermore, the Skelly Reviewer completely ignored the fact that
Waszczuk’s status and working condition had changed and were dictated by the
February 2009 Settlement Agreement, which was and remains a binding employment
contract and is enforceable by California law and courts. The wrongful termination
case is pending in this matter in the Sacramento County Superior Court and SLAPP
motion appeal in the Court of Appeal 3DCA Case No. C079524.
- 24 -
ARB
The Skelly Reviewer should not have determined whether he or she would take
the same action if he or she were in the shoes of the disciplining authority. Rather, the
question for the Skelly Reviewer was whether the proposed discipline was
unreasonable in the circumstances. In Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudennill (1985;
470 U.S. 532, 545-546), the United States Supreme Court explained this. There is no
need for the further explanation that Waszczuk was defenseless if the Skelly Reviewer
completely ignored fact that allegations, were more than one year old and Skelly
completely disregarded the university’s employee evaluation process (Waszczuk had
perfect or near-perfect evaluations from 1999 to 2010), PPSM 23, the corrective
action process mandated by UC Davis Policy Policy, PPSM 62 (CT 00115; 1-21), and
Waszczuk’s February 2009 Settlement Agreement, which was signed by UC Regents
to settle the March 23, 2007, accusatory, defamatory, and defacing Letter of Intent to
Suspend, which was similar to the April 13, 2012, letter and was signed by the same
UCDMC PO&M department manager Charles Witcher. (AR 00779-00782; AOB
page 11)

E. May 11, 2012, Letter of Suspension

In his RB, the RPii counsel repeats over and over an allegation from the April 13,
2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend and circles back again and again to the “Welcome to
Romania” video and the e-mail referring to the Columbine tragedy. However, the RPii
counsel somehow forgot to address the actual Letter of Suspension issued on May 11,
2012, almost one month after the Letter of Intent to Suspend. Both letters were signed
by Department Head Chares Witcher. (AR 00192.) The May 11 Letter of Suspension
followed the Skelly Reviewer’ decision, dated May 7, 2012. (AR 00194.)

May 11, 2012

Jaroslaw Waszczuk

RE: Letter of Suspension

- 25 -
ARB
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I am suspending you for a
period of ten (10) working days without pay, commencing May 16, 2012
through May 30, 2012. The reason for this action is your continued
inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Specifically, your behavior is in
violation of UCDHS Policy 1616 — Violence and Hate Incidents in the
Workplace and UC Davis Policy and Procedure 380-15 Staff Complaints of
Discrimination. Additionally, your failure to adhere to specific instructions
during the investigation to refrain from engaging in e-mail communications
with witnesses interfered with the investigation as outlined in the report. The
suspension will begin on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 and end on Wednesday,
May 30, 2012.

You are expected to report to work at 8 am on Thursday, May 31, 2012 to


Facilities Support Services Building, 4800 2nd Avenue, Suite 1500,
Sacramento, CA, to Charles Witcher. No new information has been received to
cause a change in the action.

On an immediate and sustained basis, I expect you to:

o Follow and abide by all UC Policies and Procedures


o Show respect and remain professional at all times in the workplace
o Follow the direct orders given to you by a superior
o Attend classes as requested by management, specifically in regard to
communication and respectful treatment

Failure to meet my expectations may result in further corrective action up to


and including dismissal.

You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel Policies for
Staff Members 70 - Complaint Resolution. If you wish to request review of this
action, you must do so in writing, using the appropriate complaint form. A
written request must be received in the Employee & Employee & Labor
- 26 -
ARB
Relations office no later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of this
letter.

Charles Witcher
Manager, Plant Operations and Maintenance
The bad news in Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension was the 10 days without pay.
The good news was that Waszczuk would be going back to work on May 31, 2012,
after having spent 10 months in investigatory /administration leave and being in
unknown status since January 5, 2012, which time he spent walking his dog around
Lodi Lake without a clue as to why he was being held hostage in his own home for
almost a year by an State of California government entity with the name “University
of California.” (AR 00799-00811)
On May 30, 2012, Waszczuk, together with his coworker, attended the “Stress
Management” class held in the HR Building Tycon III. Waszczuk was automatically
kicked out by the host before the class began. Waszczuk was not aware at that time
that his employer, RPii, had something else in mind than a stress management class
for Waszczuk, before his returning to work on May 31, 2012. (AR 00214.)
On May 31, 2012, Waszczuk reported to work as instructed by RPii’s Letetr of
Suspension dated May 11, 2012, and Waszczuk was lucky to come back home in one
piece from the UC Davis Medical Center that day.
In November 2012 Waszczuk received a mass of documents under the Public
Record Provision, and found an e-mail chat among a team assembled especially for
May 31, 2012, including supervisor of UCDMC Trauma Unit 11 and UC Davis Police
Lt. James Barbour, who was bribed with a $35,000 wage increase and whose task was
to deliver Waszczuk to the trauma unit that day and in this way end his employment
with the University of California. (AR 00211-00216; AOB, page 11.)
In an e-mail chat dated June 1, 2012, and initiated by disappointed HR
Compensation Manager Hugh Parker, who on May 30, 2012, had kicked Waszczuk
out of his stress management class, Parker stated that Waszczuk did not get mad when
Charles Witcher handled him another investigatory leave letter upon his arrival at
- 27 -
ARB
work on May 31, 2012. The e-mails were sent to UCDMC Trauma Unit Manager
Karen Kouertas, UC Davis Police Lt. James Barbour, and a few others. (AR
00215.)(CT00181)
On May 14, 2012, Waszczuk appealed Charles Witcher’s Letter of Suspension
dated May 11, 2012, under UC Davis’s Complaint Resolution Policy, PPSM 70:
Administrative Remedy. (AR 00553; AR 00528-00531.) Waszczuk’s appeal was
futile, as Waszczuk was not allowed to come back to work after almost a year of
being held hostage on an administrative leave made up especially for Waszczuk.
Being held hostage in one-year administrative leave is not permitted by any
University of California leave policy.

F. September 25, 2012, Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct

Waszczuk anticipated that something would happen to him during another hostage
situation made up especially for him and amounting to four months of investigatory
leave. On September 26, 2012, Waszczuk received by overnight mail a Notice of
Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct dated September 25, 2012. It was similar to
other documents Waszczuk had received from UCDMC Plant Operation and
Maintenance Department Manager Charles Witcher. (AR00457-00460.) The notice is
given below and commented on:

• Re: Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Serious Misconduct

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that I intend to dismiss you
from your position as a Sr. Development Engineer in Plant Operations and
Maintenance. The reason for this action is your failure to adhere to UC Davis
Policy and Procedure 380-15, Staff Complaints of Discrimination, UCDHS
1616, Violence and Hate Incidents in the Workplace and the Principles of
Community.

On or about April 27, 2012, you sent an e-mail to Danesha Nichols, UCDHS
Investigations Coordinator, stating your disagreement with an investigation
- 28 -
ARB
report she had issued dated February 9, 2012Based on the subject matter and
content of the communication, an investigation was requested to determine if
the communication violated University policies and procedures. During this
time you were placed on investigatory leave.

Charles Witcher and HR Department Executive Director Stephen Chilcott received


two May 2012 e-mails of Waszczuk’s, which did not require the additional four
months of investigative leave created especially for Waszczuk.
HR labor relations attorneys with J.D. degrees had no problem determining
whether Waszczuk’s e-mail with the “Welcome to Romania” attachment and his e-
mail in defense of his coworker William Buckans, with reference to the Columbine
tragedy, were sent prior to the May 11, 2012 Letter of Suspension that Waszczuk was
served for more than a year-old fabricated false allegation.
If the emails were in violation of the UC Davis Policies and in disobedience of
Charles Witcher’s expectations in his Letter Intent to Suspend dated April 11, 2012,
then Waszczuk should theoretically have been fired on May 11, 2012, instead of put
on suspension, if the two e-mails were indeed relevant and violated UC Davis
Policies.
RPii had no intention of terminating Waszczuk on May 31, 2012. The goal was
to lure Waszczuk by a suspension letter to UC Davis Medical Center on May 31,
2012, provoke Waszczuk, and kill him. The team specially assembled for that
doomsday scenario, including bribed UC Davis cop Lt. James Barbour and UC Davis
Medical Center Chief Counsel David Levine, were waiting to legally dispose of
Waszczuk on May 31, 2012, and close the chapter on the white-collar crime
committed by a few wealthy UC regents-for-life, including Richard Blum, the U.S.
banker, investor, and husband of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.
While the investigation was pending you sent additional e-mails to co-workers
and other UC employees that contained inappropriate and discriminatory
language (see attached e-mails). The following are excerpts from these e-mail

- 29 -
ARB
communications:

May 10, 2012: “Somebody will give this Pollack bad evaluation and fire him
or will send Gestapo on his Ass”(AR 00799 -00811)

The “Gestapo on My Ass” letter was originally sent to UCDMC PO&M Manager
Charles Witcher on November 9, 2011. (AR 00276-00280; AR 00804; 00799 -00811)
The reference to this letter was sent on May 10, 2012 UC Office of the President
Director of Investigation John Lohse. ”(AR 00799 -00811)

The Court should read this letter to find out if this letter has anything to do with any
misconduct.

• June 6, 2012: “because you will go straight to Hell for what you have done to
me in the last 12 months together with psychopath Putney, Witcher and HR
‘Devil Advocates.’” and “GO TO HELL ALL OF YOU AND BURN THERE
UNTIL YOU EVAPORATE IN SHAME FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE
TO ME AND OTHERS”

This e-mail was sent by Waszczuk to UCDMC PO&M Assistant Manager Dennis
Curry six days after Waszczuk was not allowed to go back to work on May 31, 2012.
The e-mail was Waszczuk’s response to the threating e-mail Dennis Curry sent to
Waszczuk that same day. Following is the full e-mail, showing Dennis Curry’s
serious misconduct. (AR 00433-00436.)(CT 00187)

From: Dennis Curry trnailto:dennis,curry_@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu)


Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:58 AM
To: ucdmclaborchat@comcast.net
Cc: ann.rice@ucdmc.ucdavis,edu; Witcher, Charles;
Jerry
I recommend that you find a place in the cavity of a chest of yours and go to
see the Wizard of Oz for a heart. Every action you take, every e-mail you send
and every lie you tell is a selfish, self-serving attempt to build your ego.

- 30 -
ARB
Everyone knows you are engaged in a pathetic transparent grasp for attention. I
am convinced you are the lowest vile human being I have ever had the
misfortune to meet, may God have mercy on your soul.

Dennis K. Curry
Dennis Curry was dismissed in June 2012 after 35 years of service for borrowing
money from contractors working on the UC Davis campus and not giving the money
back. (AR 431-432.)

June 22, 2012, PDF attachment to e-mail titled “20120613 to Gina


Gaullaume-Holleman”: “I don’t know why but the Patrick Putney’s working
environment culture in the HVAC shop is closely akin to the culture of Eastern
Europe Gypsy Village from the Borat’s movie or Flea market in Galt.”(AR
00829)September 10, 2012: “ . . . Dorin Danuliuc brought the Gypsy’s culture
from Romania, cheating and stealing from his employer . . .”

The above fragment was taken out of context from the 24-page letter Waszczuk sent
to UCDMC Compliance Investigator Gina Gaullaume-Holleman on June 13, 2016,
portraying misuse of university resources and stealing. Waszczuk’s supervisors Dorin
Daniliuc and Patrick Putney were suspended in April and May 2012 for their
misconduct: cheating and misusing and stealing university property. Dennis Curry
and Charles Witcher were their direct managers. (AR 00817-00840.)

Mr. Seifert and Ms. Oropeza concluded their investigation and issued a report
dated September 20, 2012, which is attached to this Notice. The investigation
report substantiated that you sent disruptive and intimidating e-mail
communications regarding Mr. Daniliuc’s national origin in violation of 1616.
In addition, it was substantiated that you sent harassing communications
regarding Mr. Daniliuc that were in violation of 380-15. (AR 00640-00655.)

Mr. Seifert, Ms. Oropeza, and Danesha Nichols are the individual RPii defendants in
Waszczuk’s wrongful termination lawsuit and the pending appeal in the SLAPP
- 31 -
ARB
motion Waszczuk v. the Regents et. al Case No. C079524 (case fully briefed). These
individuals were the fabricators of the slanderous, lie-filled pseudo-investigation
report for Waszczuk’s termination. They are HR managers and are educated and
trained in UC policies and procedures, and they know PPSM 62, PPSM 23, PPSM 64.
They are directly responsible for the devastation of Waszczuk’s life at age 61, prior to
his retirement after 13 years of service.
Waszczuk did not expect Daniliuc, Putney, or Charles Witcher to know UC
policies because everything was written for them by Human Resources staff, and they
were coerced into acting against Waszczuk. For this reason, Waszczuk dismissed
them from his wrongful termination lawsuit .
The Court should take notice that the e-mail Waszczuk sent on May 3, 2012, in
defense of his coworker William Buckans, to whom Waszczuk provided
representation is not at issue and is not mentioned in the September 25, 2012 letter,
but was subsequently exploited against Waszczuk by ALJ Marilyn Tays, CUIAB
board members Allen and Ashburn, and Hon. Judge Shelleyanne Chang in their
decisions, and was outrageously and despicably exploited by RPii counsel David
Burkett in his RB.
The Notice to Dismiss was signed by Charles Witcher, who was signing all the
other documents defacing Waszczuk.
Waszczuk submitted an appeal to the Notice to Dismiss with the Skelly
Reviewer assigned by HR Labor Relations, UC Davis Associate Vice Chancellor
Allen Tollefson, on November 13, 2012. (AR 00204-00226.)
Allen Tollefson’s decision, dated December 3, 2012, was simply formalities.
None of outstanding work history and performances outlined in Plaintiff’s employee
performance review evaluations were mentioned. Neither decision mentioned the
February 2009 Settlement Agreement that Waszczuk signed with the UC Regents,
which guaranteed Waszczuk a job at the University as the Associate Development
Engineer. (AR 00025-00026.)

- 32 -
ARB
G. December 5, 2012, Letter of Termination

On December 5, 2012, UCDHS Plant Operation and Maintenance Manager


Charles Witcher sent to Waszczuk a Letter of Termination effective December 7,
2012, by e-mail, with the Skelly Reviewer decision dated December 3, 2012,
attached. The e-mail stated (AR 00024):

• Dear Jerry:
Attached below is a letter informing you that I am dismissing you from your
position as a Sr. Development Engineer, Plant Operations and Maintenance at
UC Davis Health System effective December 7, 2012. Skelly Officer’s
recommendations dated December 5, 2012 and Proof of Service are also
included. This Letter of Termination and attachments have also been sent to
you in US Mail today.
Sincerely,
Charles Witcher
Waszczuk was advised by Witcher’s letter of termination as follows:

You have the right to request review of this action under Personnel
Policies for Staff Members 70 Complaint Resolution. If you wish to
request review of this action, you must do so in writing, using the
appropriate complaint form. A written request must be received in the
UCDHS Employee & Labor Relations office no later than thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of the termination letter.

The September 25, 2012, Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the Skelly Reviewer decision
dated December 3, 2012, and the Letter of Termination dated December 5, 2012, are
classic examples, like the earlier 2007 Letter of Suspension, the April 13, 2012, Letter
of Intent Suspend, and the May 11, 2012, Letter of Suspension, of RPii’s total
disregard for the law, its own policies and evaluations, its breach of the Settlement
Agreement, and its violation of Waszczuk’s civil and human rights for six years.
Waszczuk filed an appeal of the termination under UC Davis’s Complaint
- 33 -
ARB
Resolution Policy, PPSM 70, on January 3, 2013. (AR 103-105.) The Step I Appeal
was denied on February 1, 2013.
On February 28, 2013 Waszczuk submitted a Step II Appeal, which was
subject to a hearing with the Compliant Resolution Officer (CRO) on April 2, 2013.
During the discussion, Waszczuk pointed out to the CRO the fragment from the report
Seifert and Oropeza crafted for Waszczuk’s termination to help the CRO understand
how Seifert and Oropeza had crafted cause for Waszczuk’s termination. (AR 00645.)

Mr. Putney reported that Mr. Waszczuk’s volume of unprofessional e-mails,


his filming of employees in the workplace without their consent, the volatile
outbursts of anger, and the repeated ethnic slurs towards Mr. Daniliuc’s
ancestry and the ethnicity of other employees of Romanian descent created an
intolerable, threatening, and harassing work environment.

After reading the CRO this fragment, Waszczuk asked the CRO the following
question in relation to Putney’s lies: “Mr. Boyd, you were born in and have lived your
entire life in the USA, right?” The CRO answered, “Yes.” Waszczuk then asked, “Do
you know or did you ever hear any ethnic slurs in this country directed against
Romanians similar to nigger, Polack, wetback, or other such slurs?” The CRO
responded that he didn’t know and had never heard any slurs directed toward
Romanians. Waszczuk responded, “I don’t know either. Did you ask Putney whether
he or Daniliuc know any ethnic slurs about Romanians, not to mention Daniluc’s
comparison of Mexicans to cockroaches?” This was only one of Putney’s multiple
lies, which Waszczuk provided as an example of how the false cause for termination
of his employment was built by Nichols, Seifert, and Oropeza at the request of the
CRO and other rotten individuals.
Waszczuk’s response to Step I of the appeals process was detailed and to the
point. In addition to his detailed Step II request and response, after this meeting
Waszczuk sent the CRO the brief and exhibits he had written and prepared for the
CUIAB, because the CRO was quite unprepared for the meeting on April 2, 2013.
- 34 -
ARB
The Step II Appeal was denied on May 2, 2013. Waszczuk did not file the Step
III Appeal because the February 2009 Settlement Agreement was enforceable only by
a California court of law.
On March 7, 2013, Waszczuk filed a Whistleblowing Retaliation and
Interference Complaint with the UC Davis Vice Chancellor’s Office due to Plaintiff’s
protected activities by the Government Code Section 8547-8547.13, which was
denied by RPii in September 2014 after more than 18 month of meaningless
investigation. (AR 00535-00571.)

IV.
ARGUMENTS

A. Administrative Law Judge Marilyn Tays’s decision dated February 14, 2013,
is unlawful, baseless, and discriminatory.(CT 00222-00242)

Waszczuk in this AOB provides a detailed chronology of the fact and events that led
to his unlawful termination of Waszczuk at age 62 and the denial of his
unemployment benefits under California Unemployment Insurance Code §1256 due
to prejudice, bias, and favoritism given to RPii by ALJ Tays.

1. The Decision (AR 00447-00450)(00026-002028)

• ISSUE STATEMENT
Claimant appealed from a determination disqualifying Claimant for
unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256.
The issue in this case is whether Claimant was discharged for misconduct
connected with his most recent work.
• FINDINGS OF FACT

Claimant was employed for 13 years, and for the last two and a half years held
the position of Associate Development Engineer. Claimant’s final annual
salary was $71,640. Claimant’s last day of work was August 2, 2011.

- 35 -
ARB
Claimant’s employment ended under the following circumstances.

Claimant was on a combination of medical leave and paid administrative leave


after his last day of work. Claimant’s employer finally made the decision to
terminate the employment relationship on or around December 5, 2012.
Claimant was on paid administrative leave for disruptive behavior in the
workplace. The employer was in the process of investigating allegations of
Claimant’s use of profanity, specifically the words “fuck you,” toward his
supervisor and manager on March 8, 2011, and April 21, 2011. On May 5,
2011, the employer was investigating an incident in which the claimant became
disruptive toward the manager after being issued a warning, and sent e-mails to
employees, managers, and the supervisor which the recipients felt were
disruptive and harassing in nature.(CT 0063 15-16)(AR 00074; 22-00075)(AR
00075; 6-8)

The final incidents occurred on May 3, 2012, and April 27, 2012. On May 3,
2012, Claimant sent an e-mail to the Manager of Labor Relations in which
Claimant used terminology that included “Columbine tragedy” and the topic of
possession of guns. On April 27, 2012, Claimant sent an e-mail to the Human
Resources Director concerning Romania and attached a video with a slideshow
entitled “Welcome to Romania.” The slideshow contained inappropriate
material such as defecation and images of a sexual nature.(CT00108)

The above statement by ALJ Tays in the decision denying Waszczuk unemployment
benefits is not only a matter of bias toward Waszczuk. The decision is part of a
conspiracy with RPii to legitimize the April 13, 2012, Letter of Intent to Suspend, the
May 11, 2012, Letter of Suspension, and the September 25, 2012, Notice of Intent to
Dismiss unlawfully served to Waszczuk and Waszczuk’ unlawful termination dated
December 5, 2012.

RPii counsel David Burket, in his RB rant beginning on page 17, states:

- 36 -
ARB
The University Met its Burden to Prove Misconduct.

Appellant argues “Respondent did not provide any evidence of Waszczuk’s


misconduct because it did not have any evidence.” (AOB 43). This statement is
simply not true.

2. Two E-mails Exploited by ALJ Tays

Skelly Reviewer Michael Pansius issued his opinion about Waszczuk’s suspension on
May 7, 2012, and Charles Witcher issued the Letter of Suspension on May 11, 2012.
(AR 00192-00194). The “Welcome to Romania” e-mail Waszczuk sent to Danseha
Nichols and the e-mail about the hostility in the UC Davis 27 MW cogeneration plant
with reference to the Columbine tragedy were sent before issuance Pansiues letter and
Witcher letters and they both got copies of the e-mails .
According to arguments RPii counsel David Burkett repeats throughout his
RB, Waszczuk should have received a Letter of Termination instead of a Letter of
Suspension on May 11, 2012, because Letter of Intent to Suspend clearly stated:

On an immediate and sustained basis, I expect you to:


• Follow and abide by all UC Policies and Procedures
• Show respect and remain professional at all times in the workplace
• Follow the direct orders given to you by a superior
• Attend classes as requested by management,
specifically in regard to communication and
respectful treatment.

Charles Witcher and HR Department Executive Director Stephen Chilcott


received Waszczuk’s two e-mails, which did not require any investigation, and if the
e-mails were viewed by management as violations of UC Davis’s Policies and
disobedient to Charles Witcher’s stated expectations in his Letter of Intent to
Suspend, then Waszczuk should theoretically have been fired on May 11, 2012,
instead of suspended.
- 37 -
ARB
RPii had no intention of terminate Waszczuk on May 31, 2012. The goal was
to use the suspension letter to lure Waszczuk to the UC Davis Medical Center,
provoke him, and kill him. The team assembled for that doomsday scenario, along
with bribed UC Davis cop Lt. James Barbour and UC Davis Medical Center Chief
Counsel David Levine, were waiting to legally dispose of Waszczuk on May 31,
2012- and close the chapter on the white collar crimes committed by regent Richard
Blum and others.
The e-mail referring to the Columbine tragedy was not even the subject of
Charles Witcher’s Letter of Intent to Terminate for Serious Misconduct, issued on
September 25, 2012, or the Skelly Reviewer’s decision, dated December 3, 2012,
affirming Waszczuk’s termination of employment.
It did not require another six months of keeping Waszczuk on administrative
leave to fire him after leaving him in a year and a half of absence, psychological
terror, and violation of his civil and human rights.
The e-mails Waszczuk sent to represent himself in the administrative process
and in defense of the coworker to whom he provided representation were protected
activities had nothing to do with violation of any UC policies.
Contrary to RPii counsel’s arguments, Waszczuk’s e-mails activities are
protected activities by the law.
The rights to petition the government and speak freely are protected by the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by California’s anti-SLAPP law, under
California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 425.16, which was enacted to further
protect those rights. Waszczuk was redressing his grievances by representing himself
and other employees under UC Davis’s Resolution Policy PPSM 70, and these
constitutional activities are protected by the First Amendment. ALJ Tays, Hon. Judge
Chang, and especially RPii counsel David Burkett are also well aware that these
activities are so protected due to his RPii legal representation in SLAPP motion
against Waszczuk .
The five individual RPiis in the pending Waszczuk SLAPP Motion Appeal
- 38 -
ARB
Case No C079524, which is pending in the Court of Appeal of the Third Appellate
District and is fully briefed, are seeking protection under the First Amendment, but
they denied the same protection to Waszczuk and grossly violated Waszczuk’s and his
coworkers’ civil and human rights and the February 2009 Settlement Agreement
between RPii and Waszczuk.
The United States and California constitutions grant every person the rights to
participate in government and civic affairs, speak freely on public issues and issues of
public interest, and petition government officials for redress of grievances. The right
to freedom of expression is also recognized as a human right under Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights law in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the
ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without
interference” and that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice.” It also states that the exercise of these rights
carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain
restrictions” when necessary “for respect of the rights or reputation of others” or for
the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals.”
For the above reason, the Court should disregard entirely the February 14,
2013 decision by ALJ Tays as unlawful and having been issued only to harm
Waszczuk on RPii’s behalf.
For the above reason the Court should also disregard entirely RPii’s arguments,
as presented in the RB, as baseless, invalid, unlawful, and presented only to harass
and harm Waszczuk.
3. The UC Davis Corrective Action Guide (Discipline), based on UC Davis Policy
PPSM 62 (http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/Elr/er/corrective_action/index.html)
This document states:

The goal is to guide the employee to correct performance or behavior by


- 39 -
ARB
identifying the problems, causes and solutions, not to punish the employee. If
there is no improvement or if there are repeat occurrences, corrective action may
be appropriate. In general, corrective action should be progressive, i.e., beginning
with the lowest severity action before employing actions of more severity. Any
formal corrective or disciplinary action must follow the principles of “Just
Cause”. After establishing that corrective or disciplinary action is warranted, use
some or all of the following steps:

• Oral Warning
• Written Warning
• If the supervisor gave an oral warning and the problem performance or
behavior persists, a written warning may be warranted.
• Suspension without Pay
• Reduction of Pay within a Class
• Demotion to a Lower Classification
• Dismissal. This action may be appropriate after performance counseling
and progressive corrective action have failed to get the employee to correct
the problem(s).

Furthermore, UC Davis’s policy PPSM 62, Note 5: Just Cause, states:

The following elements should be considered prior to administering corrective


action to the employee to determine whether corrective action is warranted:
a) The application of a reasonable rule or performance expectations. Are there
established conduct and performance expectations? Are they reasonable?
b) Non-disparate application of the rule or performance expectations. Has the
department applied its rules, orders, and issued expectations consistently
and without discrimination to all employees?
c) Notice to employees of the rule or expectations and consequences for
failing to comply. Is there evidence that the employee understood, or

- 40 -
ARB
reasonably should have understood, the expectations and consequences?
d) Has a full and fair review been conducted? Has management made
sufficient effort to uncover and objectively consider all the relevant facts?
e) Is the level of corrective action reasonable related to the seriousness of the
offense or deficiency within the context of the employee’s work history? Is
it timely and appropriate?

PPSM 62C: Written Warning

Note 1: Contents. A letter of warning shall describe the unsatisfactory


performance or conduct, what the employee must do to correct it, what action
will be taken if it is not corrected, and the employee’s rights under Policy 70.
The documents that were used in arriving at the decision to take corrective
action (for example, performance evaluations, rules or policies, memos, or
investigatory records) shall be attached to the letter. The Employee & Labor
Relations Consultants can provide assistance in drafting the letter.

UCD PROCEDURE 62.1: CORRECTIVE ACTION

Informal Coaching/Counseling. Under normal circumstances,

a) The supervisor meets with the employee as soon as a concern develops


regarding the employee’s performance or conduct. The supervisor sets
clear expectations regarding performance standards and conduct,
monitors the employee’s progress, and provides regular feedback
through performance evaluations and counseling. If the employee does
not demonstrate the required improvement within a reasonable period of
time through informal means, the supervisor should consider issuing a
formal letter of warning to the employee.
b) The supervisor consults with an Employee & Labor Relations
Consultant, and others as required above, before taking corrective
action.
- 41 -
ARB
c) In accordance with Policy 62.C, the supervisor issues a letter of warning
to the employee.
d) The supervisor continues to counsel and evaluate the employee.
e) If the employee does not improve, the supervisor considers further
corrective action or termination (Policy 64) as appropriate.
f) If a suspension or demotion is appropriate, the supervisor gives the
employee written notice of intent to take corrective action. The effective
date of the action must be more than 8 calendar days from the date of
the notice. The notice contains the name of and contact information for
the official reviewer.
g) The employee may respond, orally or in writing, to the official reviewer.
h) After the date to respond has passed, the official reviewer reviews the
notice of intent, the supporting documentation, and the information
given by the employee, and makes a recommendation to implement,
modify, or rescind the corrective action.
i) The official reviewer sends written notice of his or her recommendation
to the E&LR Consultant handling the case. This recommendation is
then submitted to the disciplinary authority.
j) If corrective action is to be taken, the supervisor issues the letter and
files the copies as described above.
k) After the corrective action, the supervisor continues to counsel the
employee to help the employee to achieve satisfactory performance.
l) If performance does not improve to a satisfactory level, the department
considers termination (Policy 64)

4. The Real Party in Interest’s gross misconduct

The RPii’s gross misconduct consisted of the following:

a) Failure to provide Waszczuk with the annual performance review (evaluation)


for 2010–11 due to Waszczuk in June 2011 and mandated by UC Davis’s
- 42 -
ARB
policy PPSM 23.
b) Depriving Waszczuk of the opportunity to resolve in timely manner, in 2011,
the allegations of Waszczuk misconduct outlined in the April 13, 2016, Letter
Intent to Suspend, through the administrative remedy, in accordance with UC
Davis’s Complaint Resolution Policy PPSM 70, due to failure to evaluate
Waszczuk’s job performance and conduct in June 2011.
c) Failure to discipline Waszczuk in a timely manner in accordance with UC
Corrective Action Policy, PPSM 62.
d) Disciplining Waszczuk with a suspension without pay of ten days, through the
May 11, 2012, Letter of Suspension, issued more than a year after Waszczuk
supposedly offended his two supervisors in March, April, and May 2011,
regardless of whether this accusation is true.
e) Holding Waszczuk hostage on investigatory and administrative leave
unspecified or recorded anywhere for almost a year, in violation of UC Davis
policy PPSM 63: Investigatory Leave, and UC Absence Leave Policy, PPSM
2.210, and then luring Waszczuk to UCDMC through the May 11, 2012, Letter
of Suspension with clear intention to provoke and physically harm Waszczuk
by a team assembled especially for this day.
f) Not allowing Waszczuk to return to work on May 31, 2012, after almost one
year of psychological terror aimed at Waszczuk and in violation of the
February 2009 Settlement Agreement between Waszczuk and RPii.
g) Failure to provide Waszczuk with the evaluation for 2011–12 that was due in
June 2012, thus depriving Waszczuk of his right to resolve conflict under UC
Davis’s Policy Complaint Resolution, PPSM 70.
h) Holding Waszczuk hostage for another four months after May 31, 2012, and
then issuing a Notice of Termination for Serious Misconduct, in violation of
UC Davis’s Corrective Action Policy, PPSM 62, Evaluation Policy, PPSM 23
(AR 00407-00409; AOB 29), Absence Policy, PPSM 2.210, and gross
violation and breach of the February 2009 Settlement Agreement between
- 43 -
ARB
Waszczuk and RPii.

For the above reason, the Court should disregard entirely RPii’s arguments presented
in the RB as baseless, invalid, unlawful, and presented only to harass and harm
Waszczuk.

B. The May 31, 2013, CUIAB Members’ Decision and Hon. Shelleyanne Chang’s
March 12, 2015, Decision(CT 00222-00242)

If Waszczuk had known in December 2012 what he knows today, he would most
likely never have filed a claim for unemployment benefits in order not to deal with
ALJ Marilyn Tays, CUIAB members Michael Allen and Roy Ashburn, and Superior
Court Judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang.
The May 31, 2013 decision by CUIAB members Michael Allen and Roy
Ashburn and Hon. Shelleyanne Chang’s decision of March 12, 2015, denying
Waszczuk unemployment insurance benefits under the provisions of the
Unemployment Insurance Code Section 1256, is nothing but further evidence of the
legitimizing the rotten and corrupt RPii administration’s malicious behavior, not only
toward Waszczuk but also toward coworkers Waszczuk was providing with
successful representation under UC Davis’s Policy Compliant Resolution Policy
PPSM 70 in the state agency and the Sacramento County Superior Court.
In January 2013, Waszczuk appealed the Employment Development
Department (EDD) decision unlawfully denying him unemployment insurance
benefits, which was based on slanderous, defaming, and defacing information on
Waszczuk that RPii provided to EDD.
Waszczuk was employed by the university for 13 years with perfect or near-
perfect evaluations and signed a Settlement Agreement with the UC Regents in
February 2009, which was trashed in April 2011. (AR 00015-000118;00824 ) Then he
became the subject of psychological terror and an inhumane witch hunt for a year and
a half before his employment was terminated on December 7, 2012. After Waszczuk
received the May 31, 2013 CUIAB decision, he started investigating the EDD and
- 44 -
ARB
CUIAB’s obvious collaboration with RPii to harm him further.

1. Waszczuk’s Complaint against EDD and CUIAB

In June 2013, Waszczuk learned that the EDD’s and CUIAB’s decision could be
used against an employee in litigation against an employer, as is outlined in the
State of California Attorney General’s 2001 Third Edition Civil Rights Handbook,
(page 30), which states: (CT 00199)

“Under California law, if you should subsequently lose your


unemployment insurance case, your employer may then be able to
use that decision against you in any subsequent discrimination case
which you might file with some other governmental agency or in
court. In other words, a loss in the unemployment insurance case may
prevent you from prevailing in another forum under a different set of
laws.”

On July 22, 2013, with the advice of the Commission on Judicial


Performance and the EDD office, Waszczuk submitted an official complaint
against ALJ Marilyn Tays and CUIAB members Michael Allen and Roy
Ashburn with CUIAB Chief Administrative Law Judge Alberto Roldan.
On August 8, 2013, Waszczuk submitted another complaint to another CUIAB
Chief Administrative Law Judge, Elise Rose, because it was his understanding from
his EDD correspondence that he needed to file separate complaints against CUIAB
members Michael Allen and Roy Auburn with different CUIAB Chief Administrative
Law Judges.
On August 29, 2013, Waszczuk received a short response to his inquiry of
August 8, 2013, from a different CUIAB Chief Counsel, Mr. Kim Steinhardt, who
wrote: RE: AO-319805

Dear Mr. Waszczuk:

Thank you for clarifying your request. I have reviewed your letter of
- 45 -
ARB
August 8, 2013, as well as the supporting materials you provided. I
will look further into the issues you have raised regarding the
CUIAB, and follow-up with you when I have completed my review.

Yours Truly,
Kim Steinhardt
Chief Counsel
It was Waszczuk’s understanding from Mr. Steinhardt’s response that Mr.
Steinhardt would review Waszczuk’z inquiry and inform him of the result.
On November 21, 2013, Waszczuk sent a letter to CUIAB Chief Counsel Mr.
Steinhardt to find out what was going on with his inquiry of August 8, 2013, and Mr.
Steinhardt’s follow up.
On December 4, 2013, two days after Waszczuk filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Waszczuk received the
following information from CUIAB’s Chief Counsel’s office:

Dear Mr. Waszczuk,

I am responding on behalf of Chief Counsel, Mr. Kim Steinhardt. We


recently received two large packages with your letter dated
November 21, 2013. Due to the enormous amount of documents it
will require additional time for review.

Sincerely,
Carl Vega
Special Consultant
Office of the Chief Counsel
This was the last time Waszczuk heard from CUIAB’s office about the complaint he
submitted to CUIAB about the gross misconduct of three corrupt CUIAB officials, two
of whom are attorneys licensed by the State Bar of California.

2. Decisions

In June 2015, Waszczuk learned what the February 14, 2013 decision by ALJ
Marilyn Tays, the May 31, 2013 decision by CUIAB’S members, and the March 12,
- 46 -
ARB
2015 decisions by Hon. Shelleyanne Chang and Hon. Davis Brown in the SLAPP
motion were about.

3. Petition for Writ of Mandate

Waszczuk’s attorney, Douglas Stein, filed the Petition of Writ of Mandate on


December 2, 2013, and Waszczuk received a copy afterward.
In December 2013, Waszczuk did not have a clue what a Writ of Mandate
stands for and did not pay attention to the fact that Douglas Stein did not mention in
the Petition Waszczuk’s missing evaluations for 2010–11 and 2011–12 or the
February 2009 Settlement Agreement RPii signed with Waszczuk to promote him to
the title of Associate Development Engineer. Waszczuk also did not pay attention to
who Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Honorable Sheleyanne Chang was and
why she was assigned to Waszczuk’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus on March 21,
2014.
Waszczuk had faith in the justice system and the judicial officers of the
Sacramento County Superior Court until he started seeing a different picture of
judicial process around January 2015, after he fired his attorney for gross misconduct
in December 2014. Waszczuk hoped that Judge Chang would use common sense,
seeing that Waszczuk was held hostage for more than a year on administrative leave,
was not given evaluations for his last two years of employment, was punished for
unproved allegations more than a year after the alleged misconduct—specifically, as
outlined in ALJ Tays’s decision, use of the words “Fuck you” directed at his two
supervisors in March, April, and May 2011—and the fact that Waszczuk was
employed by RPii in accordance with the Settlement Agreement since February 2009,
and RPii had not alleged by one word that Waszczuk either breached or violated this
agreement. This required nothing but common sense as it is outlined in Hondo
Company v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 67 Cal.App.4th 176, 78
Cal.Rptr.2d 855 (Cal.App. Dist.2 10/09/1998) citing Halbert’s Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky
Stores, Inc., (supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1239.):
- 47 -
ARB
Because the language of the statute is not clear on its face, and because the
legislative history supports the construction urged by both parties, we are
required to “apply reason, practicality, and common sense” to the language of
section 3333.4(a) in an effort to produce a result “in accord
with common sense and justice, and to avoid an absurd result.”

Or in In re A.M., 225 Cal.App.4th 1075, __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ (Cal.App. Dist.4


04/24/2014):

If the meaning of the statute remains unclear after examination of both the
statute’s plain language and its legislative history, then we proceed to the third
and final step of the interpretive process. We apply “reason, practicality,
and common sense to the language at hand.” [Citation.] The words of the
statute should be interpreted “to make them workable and reasonable.”
[Citation.] We will also consider the consequences that will flow from a
particular statutory interpretation. ‘“In determining what the Legislature
intended we are bound to consider not only the words used, but also other
matters, ‘such as context, the object in view, the evils to be remedied, the
history of the times and of legislation upon the same subject, public policy and
contemporaneous construction. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]
(People v. Verduzco, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 1414.)

It is well established that the university’s policies, including the Personnel


Policies for Staff Members (PPSM) and the Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM),
have the force and effect of state statutes (Kim v. Regents of University of California
(2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 165), and these policies have to be applied and
interpreted properly with common sense and without bias against any employee.
Punishing an employee for allegations a year old and breaching a signed
agreement with an employee in violation of its own established policies and
procedures is not the employee’s misconduct. Nor is it the employee’s misconduct for

- 48 -
ARB
RPii to hold him hostage on administrative leave, suspend him, and fire him at age 61.
This RPii’s misconduct, not Waszczuk’s.
In Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc, 17 Cal.4th 93, 948 P.2d
412, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 (Cal. 01/05/1998) Supra S057098, the Court held:

When an employee hired under an implied agreement not to be dismissed


except for “good cause” is fired for misconduct and challenges the
termination in court, what is the role of the jury in deciding whether
misconduct occurred? Does it decide whether the acts that led to the
decision to terminate happened? Or is its role to decide whether the
employer had reasonable grounds for believing they happened and
otherwise acted fairly? We granted review to clarify the role of the jury in
litigation alleging breach of an implied contract not to terminate
employment except for good or just cause, and to resolve the conflict among
the Courts of Appeal. The better reasoned view, we conclude, prescribes the
jury’s role as deciding whether the employer acted with “a fair and honest
cause or reason, regulated by good faith.” That language is from Pugh v.
See’s Candies, Inc. (1981) 116 Cal. App. 3d 311, 330, 171 Cal. Rptr.
917 (Pugh I), the font of implied contract-based wrongful termination law in
California. Recently, in Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.
4th 454, 467, 904 P.2d 834 (Scott), we elaborated on the content of good or
just cause by enumerating what it is not: reasons that are “trivial, capricious,
unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual.” (Quoting Wood v.
Loyola Marymount University (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 661, 670, 267 Cal.
Rptr. 230.)

• Today, we expressly adopt a governing standard that combines the


formulations in both Scott, (supra), 11 Cal. 4th at page 467, and Pugh I,
(supra), 116 Cal. App. 3d at page 330 (the Scott-Pugh standard), elaborating

- 49 -
ARB
on its meaning and how it should be administered by trial Judges to promote
the policies underlying implied-contract-based wrongful discharge claims
involving employee misconduct. *Footnote 1 And because the Court of
Appeal relied on a substantially similar standard in overturning a jury
verdict in favor of the plaintiff-employee in this case and ordering a new
trial, we affirm its judgment as well. We disapprove Wilkerson v. Wells
Fargo Bank (1989) 212 Cal. App. 3d 1217, 261 Cal. Rptr. 185, the only
published Court of Appeal decision adopting a broader view of the jury’s
function in this species of wrongful discharge litigation.

4. Case Reassignment

The case was reassigned from Judge Eugene Balonon to Judge


Shelleyanne W. L. Chang on March 21, 2014 due to the annual transfer
and reassignment of duties. (CT 00013-00014.)
RPii is apparently making reference to Waszczuk’s statement (AOB 15-16) that
Waszczuk’s Petition for Writ was assigned to Superior Court Judge Honorable
Shelleyanne Chang (CT 00013).
This happened shortly after Judge Chang was disqualified by the Peremptory
Challenge (CCP §170.6) in the wrongful termination case pending in the Sacramento
Superior Court. (Case No. 34-2010-00079869, Janet Keyzer v. The Regents of the
University of California. Appellate Case Keyzer v. Regents of the University of
California et al., Case Number C077974.) Waszczuk noticed from Keizer’s case court
record that the plaintiff filed a peremptory challenge after the Hon. Chang was
assigned to Department 24, and the plaintiff in the case had no pending Petition for
Writ of Mandate.
On December 20, 2013 Hon. Shelleyane Chang was assigned to Sacramento Superior
Court Department 24- Writ of Mandate /CEQA by the Amended 12/20/13 Judicial
Assignments Effective January 1, 2014

- 50 -
ARB
It happened shortly after Waszczuk filed on 12/02/2013 his Petitions for Writ of
Mandate Writ of Mandamus, Case No. 34-2013-80001699, Jaroslaw Waszczuk v.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (CUIAB) and Real Party of
Interest (RPii)—The Reagents of the University of California ( Regents) (CT 00001)
and his wrongful termination complaint on 12/04/2013 Case No. 34-2013-00155479
Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California (CT 0085). Hon.
Shelllyanne Chang assignment happened also eight days after newly recruited by UC
regent Richard Blum and his wife US Senator Dianne Feinstein UC President Janet
Napolitano ordered to cease illegal power sale from UC Davis Medical Center 27
MW cogeneration plant to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District(SMUD) . The
illegal power sale by RPii was resumed on June 1, 2012 after nine years of condoning
of the 1999-2003 illegal operation of the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW and
illegal profit of tens of millions of dollars’ from power sale in violation of Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954

In 1999-2002 Hon. Shelleyane Chang held position of Deputy Chief Legal Secretary
for California Governor Grey Davis according to the March 12, 2015 Hon.
Shelleyanne Chang decision denying Waszczuk Petition for Wirt Mandamus (CT
00169; 00180)

Governor Grey Davis’s Deputy Chief Shelleyanne Chang, in her prior service to
Governor Grey Davis, was a trial attorney (and later a senior trial attorney) in the
Office of Chief Counsel and represented the Internal Revenue Service in civil and
criminal tax matters before federal and district courts and the U.S. Tax Court.

Gray Davis as Lt. Governor and as a member of the UC Board of Regents, from 1994
to 1999, Gray Davis was one of decision makers who decide the build the
$70,000,000–80,000,000 27 MW cogeneration facility in the UC Davis Medical
Center to sell illegally electric power for cash free of tax under the umbrella of the
utilities needed for the UC Davis Medical Center, even though the cogeneration plant

- 51 -
ARB
was operated in violation of the 1978 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA)
enacted into law by Congress and enforced by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. All facts pointing to UC Regent Richard Blum, U.S banker, billionaire
and husband of U.S Senator Dianne Feinstein and three other regents for life Monica
C. Lozano, Sherry Lansing, and Norman Pattiz that they are the true owners of the
UCDMC cogeneration facility

The most bizarre fact in this white collar crime scheme is that, on February 14, 2001,
just one month after Governor Grey Davis declared a state of emergency on January
17, 2001, the same Governor Davis, with his staff most likely included his guarding
angel the Chief Deputy Shalane Chang toured the UC Davis Medical Center 27 MW
cogeneration. It happened when fraud case against the RPii was pending with the
U.S Federal Energy Regulatory Commission since August 2000 of which the Chief
Deputy Shelleyanne Chang was perfectly aware

Governor Grey Davis’s Deputy Chief Legal Secretary Shelleyanne Chang’s duties
included reviewing the work products of other attorneys in the governor’s office,
advises the governor and his staff on legal issues and pending litigation, provides
direction to the Attorney General’s office on litigation involving the governor, and
reviews and analyzes proposed legislation

.In December 2006- March 2007 Richard Blum as new Chairman Board of UC
Regents and husband of US Senator Dianne Feinstei’s in attempt to resume the
illegal power sale ordered to fire Waszczuk and erase Waszczuk from RPii’s payroll
and UC Davis Medical Center landscape. (AR 00480, AR 00538-00539) In 2006-
2007 Waszczuk did not know why Waszczuk came under vicious attack and why he
was singled out for the employment termination .

- 52 -
ARB
In happened after plant manager Dan James told Waszczuk up front of his
coworkers that:” He will “ send Gestapo on Waszczuk’s ass” (AR 00276-00280; AR
00804; 00799 -00811)(CT 00180)

It was very bizarre and odd when in February 2009 the UC Regents signed the
settlement agreement with Waszczuk and provide him exempt position Associate
Development Engineer after Waszczuk defeated regent Richard Blum idea to fire
Waszczuk in arbitration process utilizing UC Davis Complaint Resolution Policy
PPSM 70 representing himself.

V.
CONCLUSION

The Superior Court Honorable Sheyenne in same manner as RPii , EDD, ALJ Tays
and CUIAB Board Members entirely disregarded and ignored UC Davis evaluation
policy PPSM 23, Corrective Action Policy PPSM 62 . Furthermore, the Court
ignored and disregarded the fact that Waszczuk’ employment was “just for cause” and
fact that Waszczuk was employed by written contract signed with the Regents of the
University of California in February 2009 , thus the Court decision denying Waszczuk
Petition for Writ of Mandamus is groundless and despicably unjust, biased and very
harmful to Waszczuk in general because was issued for the purpose to harm
Waszczuk on RPii behalf.
The Superior Court denied the Petition for Writ of Mandate to legitimize Waszczuk’s
unlawful employment termination by RPii, which was carried out in 2012 to prevent
the disclosure of tens of millions of dollars in tax fraud committed by RPii in relation
to illegal powers sale by the UC Davis Medical Center’s 27 MW cogeneration power
plant, where Waszczuk was employed from June 17, 1999 to March 23, 2007.
California Unemployment Insurance Code §1256 creates a rebuttable presumption
that, absent evidence from the employer, the employee was not discharged for
misconduct. (Paratransit, Inc., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 561.) The employer bears the
- 53 -
ARB
overall burden of proving misconduct. (Id.) However, once it is established that the
employee has violated a reasonable order from the employer, the burden shifts to the
employee to show good cause for the violation. (Id.)
In this case, Waszczuk is not the one who violated university policies and
procedures and reasonable order. Rather, RPii agents are the ones who unlawfully
dismissed Waszczuk in violation of policies and procedures and the February 2009
Settlement Agreement and RPii is violator of law and it is own policies , and it is now
RPii’s duty is to show for the court a good cause for its violations of law and
university policies. RPii RB did not show any good cause or reason or good faith to
resolve the dispute according to law and UC Davis Policies and Procedures
For all the foregoing reasons, the judgement of the Superior Court must be reversed.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 15th day of October, 2016, in Lodi,
California.

___________________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk, Plaintiff and Appellant

- 54 -
ARB
VI.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 8.360(b)(1), I certify that
this brief contains 13970 words, based on the word-count feature of my
word-processing program.
DATED: October 15, 2016
Respectfully submitted,

______________________________
Jaroslaw Waszczuk
Waszczuk and Appellant In Pro Per

- 55 -
ARB
VII
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Re: Jaroslaw Waszczuk v. The Regents of the University of California
Case No.: C079524
I, IRENA WASZCZUK, the undersigned, declare that I am over 18 years of age and
not a party to the within cause; my address is 2216 Katzakian Way, Lodi, CA. On
September 15, 2016, I served a true copy of the attached APPELLANT’S REPLY
BRIEF on each of the following, by placing the same copy in an envelope or
envelopes addressed respectively as follows:

The Superior Court of California , Honorable Shelleyanne Chang , Judge


County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street, Department 53,
Sacramento, CA 95814
David P.E. Burkett Esq./RPii
PORTER/SCOTT LAW FIRM
350 University Avenue, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825

Ashante L. Norton
Deputy Attorney General/ Counsel for Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board
1300 "I- Street
Sacramento, CA 94244 -2919

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE. I caused a true copy to be served electronically


pursuant to California Rules of Court 8.212(c)(2).
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister St,
San Francisco, CA 94102
Each said envelope was then sealed and deposited in the United States Mail at San
Joaquin County, California, the county in which I am residing, with the postage thereon
fully prepaid.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 15, 2016, at Lodi, CA.

__________________________

IRENA WASZCZUK
- 56 -
ARB