Engineering Department Lawsuit

1 2 3 4

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation Susan J. Sheridan (State Bar Number: 108851) Ian M. Silvers (State Bar Number: 247416) 655 University Avenue, Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (91 6) 488-5388 Facsimile: (916)488-5387 [email protected]

5 6

Superior Court Of CaSifor Sacramento

8S/07/2QGe elutta s) rf */?tt Bv £
Dftp.

Case M umber:

%tro-zuiKf-utJUda * *3f$irPi nnns*|£%'t&, *f

Attorneys for Plaintiff CICI MATTIUZZI

7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Department Assignments c se f Management 44 Law and Motion 53 Minors Compromise 16

10 ) Case No. ) ) Complaint for Retaliation and Plaintiff, ) Discrimination: V. ) ) 1. Retaliation in Violation of ) California Labor Code Section CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 3610; SACRAMENTO, MIROSLAV MARKOVIC, ) ) 2. Retaliation in Violation of and DOES 1 through 50. inclusive, ) California Government Code ) Section 12940(h); Defendant. ) 3. Gender Discrimination in ) violation of California ) Government Code Section ) 12940(a); ) 4. Negligent Supervision and ) Retention; ) 5. Assault; ) 6. Battery; and ) 7. Intention Infliction of Emotional ) Distress CICI MATTIUZZI,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 zz

23

Cici Mattiuzzi alleges as follows:

24 25

Parties to the Action

26

1.

Cici Mattiuzzi ("Mattiuzzi") is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint

27

was, a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

28

///

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

i Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

2.

Defendant California State University Sacramento ("CSUS") is now, and at all

2

times relevant to this action was, conducting business under the laws of the State of California,

3

County of Sacramento, and was Mattiuzzi's employer.

4

3.

Defendant Miroslav Markovic ("Markovic") is now, and at all times relevant to

5

this action was, an individual and a Full Professor with tenure in the CSUS College of

6

Engineering and Computer Science ("College of Engineering").

7 8

4.

Mattiuzzi presently does not know the true names and capacities of the Defendants

sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and therefore sues these

9 Defendants by fictitious names. Mattiuzzi will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the 10

true names and capacities of these Defendants when determined. Mattiuzzi is informed and

11

believes and based thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is culpable in

12

some manner through their acts and/or omissions for the occurrences and events alleged and that

13

damages as alleged were proximately caused by such acts and events.

14

5.

At all times relevant, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, employee

15

and/or employer of each other, and in doing the acts alleged was doing so within the scope of their

16

authority as such agent, servant and employee and with the permission and consent of each other.

17 Mattiuzzi's Initial Employment and Job Classification

18 19

6.

Mattiuzzi began her employment at CSUS in May of 1978 in the Campus Career

20

Center, as a Career Counselor responsible for the Schools of Business and Engineering. Her

21

employment classification was Student Affairs Assistant II ("SAA II"), a staff position without

22

academic standing.

23 24

Director of Career Services for the College of Engineering Appointment

25'

and First Request for Reclassification

26

7.

In September of 1984, Mattiuzzi became the Director of Career Services for the

27

College of Engineering and was still classified as SAA II, a staff position without academic

28

standing. The President of CSUS created this position for Mattiuzzi in the College of Engineering

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

2 Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

and requested that she be reclassified to a position with academic standing ("SSP-AR") which paid

2

more, provided greater benefits and the opportunity for tenure.

3

8.

On July 10, 1985, the College of Engineering was notified that Mattiuzzi's

4 reclassification review was complete and that she would not receive the classification with 5

academic standing as requested by the President.

6 Second Request for Reclassification

7 8 9 10

9.

On October 12, 1987, Dean Donald Gillott ("Dean Gillott"), Dean of the College

of Engineering, wrote to Betty Moulds, Dean of Faculty and Staff Affairs, and requested that Mattiuzzi be reclassified as follows:

11 12

As I study the classification review of the position occupied by Cici as conducted by Susie and compare that review with the detailed study of Cici's responsibilities, I am convinced that the Student Services Professional Series (Academic Related) is an appropriate classification for Cici.

13 14 15

As her supervisor I must ensure that she is properly classified. With the extensive study I have just completed, I am absolutely convinced that the AR classification is proper, and I request Cici be placed in the SSP-AR series.

16 17 18 19 20

10.

On December

17,

1987, Jacqueline

Holston,

("Holston"), Employment

21

Coordinator at CSUS, informed Mattiuzzi that Dean Gillott' s request to reclassify her had been

22

denied by Human Resources. Mattiuzzi questioned this denial and complained to both the Dean of

23

the College of Engineering and Holston that men hired as Career Counselors in the Campus

24

Career Center after she was hired were reclassified into positions with academic standing. This

25

occurred during the same period of time that Mattiuzzi's classification was under review.

26

Mattiuzzi also complained that men in Student Services positions with responsibilities similar to,

27

but less significant than hers, were classified in positions with academic standing.

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Mattiuzzi was advised by the Dean to be patient and stated that he would continue to pursue the

2 appropriate classification for her. 3 4

Mattiuzzi's Job Duties as Director of Career Services

5

11.

Mattiuzzi is responsible for professional and career development programs for the

6 College of Engineering. In this role she instructs a regular series of classes, counsels students, 7 advises faculty, produces a weekly newsletter to 10,000 subscribers, maintains a web-based 8 information system, develops conferences, oversees visits by recruiters and produces an annual 9 Career Day that serves over 100 employers and 2000 College of Engineering students and 10

graduates.

11

12.

Mattiuzzi established and sustained productive working relationships with many

12

private sector employers and governmental agencies in the Greater Sacramento Area.

13

relationships resulted in partnerships including, but not limited to, Hewlett Packard, Agilent, and

14

Intel.

15

Apple, Cisco, and DST and the receipt of development funds from companies, including,

16

Chevron, Union Pacific, Caltrans, and the Department of Water Resources.

17

These

These relationships also resulted in the donations of computer equipment from

13.

Mattiuzzi created a Career Services Office ("Office") for the College of

18

Engineering students and graduates. The Office has brought regional and national attention to

19

CSUS and has been repeatedly acknowledged as a model by the Accreditation Board for

20

Engineering and Technology ("ABET") and the American Council for Construction Education

21

("ACCE"). The Office has enhanced the stature of the College of Engineering within the industry

22

and established goodwill for CSUS nationwide.

23

14.

In addition to providing a range of career preparation and information services, the

24

Office assists students and graduates with internships and job placement in the Greater

25

Sacramento Area, and throughout the state and nation. In placing students and graduates,

26

Mattiuzzi is responsible for ensuring compliance with College of Engineering procedures and

27

CSUS policies. She is responsible for the oversight of the interactions between students and

28

faculty and private sector employers and governmental agencies.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

4

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1 2 3

Markovic, a Full Professor With Tenure in the College of Engineering 15.

On May 28, 1991, Dean Gillott called a meeting with Mattiuzzi to discuss the

unsolicited calls they had both received from an Engineering Manager at Bentley Nevada

4 ("Bentley"), a private sector employer that hired College of Engineering students. 5

This

Engineering Manager reported receiving 12-15 calls from Markovic about Peter Robino

6 ("Robino"), a College of Engineering student who had applied for a job with Bentley. 7 Markovic had called the Engineering Manager and repeatedly accused Robino of cheating in 8 9

his class and warned Bentley not to hire him. 16.

The next day, Mattiuzzi informed Robino of these calls. Robino told Mattiuzzi

10

that he was shocked because Markovic had encouraged him and told him that he would try to

11

get him a local job at Hewlett Packard.

12

17.

On May 30, 1991, Robino told Mattiuzzi that Markovic had invited him to travel

13

with him and had offered to pay his tuition to obtain a masters degree. Mattiuzzi told Robino

14

that this was completely inappropriate and advised him to write a memo to Dean Gillott about

15

the behavior of Markovic. Mattiuzzi is informed and believes that Markovic learned that she

16

was responsible for advising Robino to write his memo to Dean Gillott.

17

18.

Later that day, Robino called Mattiuzzi to inform her that Markovic was

18

loitering outside his friend's house and that Markovic had also written a letter to another friend

19

of Robino's in which he made inappropriate comments about Robino.

20

19.

On May 31, 1991, Dean Gillott called a meeting with Mattiuzzi, Robino and

21

Stephanie Leiberman ("Leiberman"), the CSUS Affirmative Action Officer, to discuss

22

Robino's memo, the calls to Bentley and the behavior of Markovic.

23

20.

During that meeting Dean Gillott called the Engineering Manager at Bentley,

24

who confirmed that Markovic called Bentley 12-15 times to complain about Robino. He

25

informed Dean Gillott that Markovic also visited the Bentley office twice to speak with

26

company officials to tell them not to hire Robino.

27

21.

On June 4, 1991, Markovic left a threatening letter to Robino on Robino's car.

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

22.

On June 6, 1991, Mattiuzzi reported the threatening letter to Leiberman and

2

Donna Selnick ("Selnick"), legal counsel for CSUS. Both Leiberman and Selnick suggested to

3

Robino that he hire legal counsel and schedule a mental health counseling appointment with the

4

CSUS Health Center. They advised him to find another place to stay where Markovic could

5

not find him.

6

23.

Mattiuzzi was informed and believes that Markovic was told that the next time

7

he engaged in inappropriate behavior he would be terminated. Markovic thereafter was placed

8

on a leave of absence, after which he returned to his position as a Full Professor with tenure,

9

which shocked many students and faculty.

10

11

Mattiuzzi's Appointment as a Part-Time Faculty Lecturer B

12

and Third Request for Reclassification

13 14 15

24.

In August of 2001, in addition to continuing as the Director of Career Services,

Mattiuzzi was appointed as a Part-Time Faculty Lecturer B, a position with academic standing. 25.

In September of 2001, Mattiuzzi requested a reclassification based on the

16

increased duties and responsibilities as the Director of Career Services.

These included:

17

developing an Outcomes Assessment Process for tracking alumni career success (in response to a

18

new mandate from ABET; writing a section of the accreditation report; developing new curricula

19

in response to accreditation board concerns; undertaking new teaching assignments; developing

20

partnerships with industries and outside government entities; developing methods and systems for

21

data collection and the electronic delivery of student services; and developing a weekly career

22

newsletter for faculty, students and alumni.

23

26.

On March 27, 2002, Mattiuzzi's request for reclassification was denied.

24

27.

Mattiuzzi questioned this denial and complained to both the Dean of the College

25

of Engineering and Margaret Blair ("Blair"), the Classification/Compensation Manager who

26

denied the reclassification, that men in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities

27

were classified in positions with academic standing. Mattiuzzi received no response to her

28

complaint.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

6 Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1 2 3

PG&E Complaints About Markovic 28.

For 30 years PG&E has had an established pattern of providing internships to

students and jobs to graduates from the College of Engineering. Mattiuzzi is and has been

4 responsible for overseeing this process. 5

29.

On April of 2002, Frank Tizedes ("Tizedes"), a College of Engineering graduate

6 and PG&E engineer responsible for hiring and supervising PG&E engineers, called Mattiuzzi. 7 He informed her that there was a serious problem with Markovic, who was threatening to smear 8

PG&E's name unless it worked exclusively through him to place College of Engineering

9 student interns and to hire graduates. 10

30.

Mattiuzzi told Tizedes that Markovic's behavior was inappropriate, and advised

11

him and Michael Messina, Head of College Relations at PG&E, to speak with the Dean of the

12

College of Engineering, the Department Chair of the Electrical and Electronic Engineering

13

("EEE") Department and legal counsel for CSUS.

14

31.

On May 23, 2002, Messina met with Dean Braja Das ("Dean Das"), who

15

replaced Dean Gillott as the Dean of the College of Engineering. Also attending were Dr.

16

Yousif, a Professor in the EEE Department, Greg Lemler, Director of Substation Engineering at

17

PG&E, and Markovic. Shortly thereafter, Dean Das informed Mattiuzzi that he would handle

18

the PG&E problem and that he did not want her involved.

19 20

32.

Mattiuzzi was later informed that PG&E concluded that working with Markovic

was "too high of a risk."

21 22

Complaints to Legal Counsel, the Vice President of Human Resources

23

and the Director of Faculty Affairs

24

33.

On November 24, 2002, S.K. Ramesh ("Chair Ramesh"), the EEE Department

25

Chair, sent a memo to legal counsel Selnick informing her of students' complaints about the

26

behavior of Markovic. The letter was also sent to David Wagner ("Wagner"), Vice President

27

of Human Resources, and Sheila Orman, Director of Faculty Affairs. He stated that in addition

28

to the students listed in his memo:

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

7

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Other students have spoken to me in confidence about an escalating pattern of intimidation that they have perceived in his classes. It is imperative that this matter be treated confidentially as these students are enrolled in Dr. Markovic's classes and are fearful of reprisals that may affect their professional future and career prospects in the industry.

2 3 4 5 6 See Exhibit 1. 7 34.

8

In response to this memo, Chair Ramesh requested a meeting with Selnick and

9 Mattiuzzi to discuss the behavior of Markovic. Selnick informed them that nothing could be 10

done about Markovic's behavior and Mattiuzzi understood that it was because of his status as a

11

Full Professor with tenure.

12 Markovic Defamed Mattiuzzi

13 35.

14

On February 12, 2003, Nathan Laye ("Laye"), a College of Engineering student,

15

provided Mattiuzzi with a letter he sent to CSUS President Donald Gerth ("President Gerth")

16

and Chair Ramesh regarding the behavior of Markovic. In this letter Laye explained that he had

17

asked Markovic if Mattiuzzi would be helpful to him in securing employment. He reported

18

Markovic's response as follows:

19 20

Dr. Markovic replied with a tirade. He said that she would be of no help and that he believed she had essentially slept or prostituted her way into the position of ECS career counselor.

21

22 I had assumed that Dr. Markovic was merely sexist, but later came to think that he might be a loose cannon and a potential danger to students.

23 24 25 26

See Exhibit 2.

27 Ill 28

III

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

36.

On February 19, 2003, Chair Ramesh wrote to President Gerth acknowledging

2

receipt of Exhibit 2. He informed President Gerth that he had met with Selnick three months

3

earlier in November of 2002 and provided her with Exhibit 1. In his letter, Chair Ramesh also

4

informed President Gerth that he had provided the letter to the EEE Department and the Faculty

5

and Staff Affairs Department. See Exhibit 3.

6

Additional Student Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic

7 8 9 10

37.

On May 4, 2003, a group of College of Engineering students sent a letter to

Chair Ramesh regarding their concerns about the threatening behavior of Markovic. Their letter read in part as follows:

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Shortly after PG&E made the initial presence on the CSUS campus, two power students were approached by Dr. Markovic and were asked if they would supply him with the names of "electronic" students who applied to PG&E. He followed this request by stating that "electronic" students" should not be applying for positions with a power company as it steals jobs from the "power" students. He concluded by adamantly stating that he would do something about the situation. Other students and I were alarmed and outraged to hear of this. We're extremely concerned that he will attempt to sabotage our chances of obtaining positions with PG&E" as he claimed that "'electronic' students should not be applying for positions with a power company as it steals jobs away from the 'power' students.

22 23 24 25 26 27

A power student was cornered last week by Dr. Markovic for the names of the "electronic" engineering students recently given job offers at PG&E His behavior is unethical and unprofessional and should not be allowed to prevail. We, as students, feel as if we have no power in this situation and are furious that a professor would try to limit our chances of employment that we have worked so hard for.

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Mainly we are furious that we were put into a situation such as this while at a professional institution. His lack of respect and misuse of power as an educator reflects poorly on the Electrical Engineering Department at California State University, Sacramento. Dr. Markovic should be held liable for his actions with appropriate consequences.

2 3 4 5 6

See Exhibit 4.

7

Mattiuzzi's Complaints to CSUS Affirmative Action Officer Peter Lau

8 9 10

38.

On September 7, 2003, Mattiuzzi wrote to CSUS Affirmative Action Officer

Peter Lau ("Lau"). In her letter she stated as follows:

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1. In early spring of this year (2003), I delivered to you a copy of a letter addressed to the campus president from a CSUS alumnus, Nathan Laye, who said that Professor Miroslav Markovic was making derogatory, sexual comments about me to students. As you will recall, I had received a blind copy and was shocked by what was being said about me. 2. When I spoke to you, I asked if I needed to complete any forms or to file any paperwork for your office to receive this as a complaint of sexual harassment. You indicated that no paperwork was necessary and that the delivery of this letter to you constituted a complaint. 3. Following that discussion with you, it seemed to me that my supervisor was hostile towards me.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5. On Wednesday August 27th, when I returned to Campus, Braja Das came into my office. Without any pleasantries or introductory comments, he began railing at me in a loud vituperative manner. In this context, I could not immediately grasp his point, but I came to understand that he had decided not to sign my contract to teach CS 194 for the coming semester, as scheduled. I am a Unit 4 staff and have had a contract to teach this course for the past six semesters as a Unit 3, Lecturer B. This contract represents a $3000+/year source of income for me. 6. I believe that Dean Das' decision to withhold this contract was in retaliation for my having filed the sexual harassment complaint. I believe that this is an act of reprisal on his part. (09/10/03. Subsequent to

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

10 Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

my having prepared this letter, and two hours before the class was scheduled to meet, Dean Das emailed me and said I would in fact be paid to teach the course, as per instructions from Campus Personnel. The immediate issue resolved, but the larger concern remains.

1 2 3 4 5

See Exhibit 5.

6 Dean's Das Did Not Speak with Mattiuzzi for 3 years

7 8

39.

After Mattiuzzi's repeated complaints about the behavior of Markovic, Dean

9 Das, her supervisor, did not speak to her for three years. 10 Fourth Request for Reclassification

11 12 13

40.

On April 4, 2007, Mattiuzzi again requested a reclassification to a classification

with academic standing.

14 Markovic Threatened Mattiuzzi

15 16

41.

On or about May 21, 2007, Mattiuzzi was warned by Ben Schaffer ("Schaffer"),

17

an IT employee, that Markovic had threatened her after computer equipment had been

18

delivered to her by mistake. When Markovic learned of this mistake, he told Schaffer that he

19

would retrieve it directly from Mattiuzzi himself. His tone and temperament caused Schaffer to

20

be alarmed which led him to warn Mattiuzzi. On May 30, 2007, Schaffer provided Mattiuzzi

21

with a written memo which detailed the situation as follows:

22

23 24

*He asked me about a retractable mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light hearted comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it.

25

*In response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade:

26

He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch"

27

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

11 Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

He said that I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back

1 2 3 4 See Exhibit 6. 5 6 7

Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

42.

On October 9, 2007, Mattiuzzi again wrote to Lau about the behavior of

8 Markovic and enclosed Exhibit 6. She also sent this letter to Dean Emir Macari ("Dean 9 Macari"), who replaced Dean Das as the Dean of the College of Engineering, Dr. Suresh Vadhva 10

("Chair Vadhva"), Chair of the EEE Department, and Barbara Peterson ("Peterson"), her union

11

representative. Mattiuzzi informed Lau as follows:

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

For the seventh time I find myself writing to complain about Dr. Miroslav Markovic. Three times I have come to you about his harassing behavior towards me to request you take action. Four times I have come to you and previous persons in authority regarding harassing behavior towards students and major employers. I have never received a response and I have no idea what action has been taken in the past. Attached please find a document given to me in late May. I was made aware that Dr. Markovic was speaking in a hostile and threatening fashion about me once again. In the spring when the event surfaced, three people in this College, all in positions of authority, told me that it would serve no useful purpose to complain because no action would be taken. Upon my return to work for the fall semester, I find the problem distracting and I feel unsafe in my work environment. A little over a week ago my office had been entered and my computer was on when I came to work. Things were moved around. I checked with the IT support staff and the student assistants who work for me, and none of them had been in my office during the previous period. While I cannot prove that Dr. Markovic was in my office, I am aware, as you are aware, that Dr. Markovic has on other occasions destroyed labs and student projects.

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

12

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

I find the continuing harassment embarrassing and humiliating, Once again I am requesting assistance resolving the problem.

1 2 3 4 See Exhibit 7. 5 6 7 8

Concerns About Mattiuzzi's Safety 43.

After Chair Vadhva received Exhibit 7, he met with Mattiuzzi to discuss her

safety. After their discussion, Mattiuzzi emailed him as follows:

9 10

As you suggested I am working on having the lock on my office changed and I am going to work on figuring out how to juggle my schedule so I am not coming in at 7 am to an empty building. It may be safer not being alone in the building at that hour with Dr. Markovic. It is unnerving to find him coming up the stairs behind me at that hour.

11 12 13 14 15

See Exhibit 8.

16 17

44.

After Dean Macari received Exhibit 7, he also met with Mattiuzzi to discuss the

18

behavior of Markovic. He informed her that, "I have been told you have a personality conflict

19

with Markovic" and "I don't want to know about anything that happened before I got here."

20

45.

After that meeting, Mattiuzzi emailed Dean Macari as follows:

21 22 23 24 25 26

Thank you for speaking with me on Tuesday regarding the letter that I wrote in complaint of the continuing harassment directed at me by Dr. Markovic. After I spoke with you, I told Lynne, who supervises a number of students that I had written the letter, she indicated that she is also very concerned about his behavior and is uncomfortable with him. She told me that she was aware that Dr. Markovic had been "hitting" on a number of male students recently and that he had gone into a racist tirade directed at a foreign student, calling him a terrorist.

27 28 Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

13

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

Dr. Vadhva also spoke to me after receiving his copy of the letter and a phone call from Paul, my husband. Dr. Vadhva is aware of Dr. Markovic and he suggested that I change the locks and that I alter my comings and goings here. I usually come in at or before 7 am.

1 2 3

After Dr. Markovic was reprimanded in the early 90s for stalking a student he was admonished that the next time he engaged in inappropriate behavior he would be terminated. That is according to Gwen. It has happened on numerous occasions since.

4 5 6 7 8 See Exhibit 9. 9 10

CSUS Claimed to Take Action in Response

11

to Mattiuzzi's Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic

12 13

46.

On October 22, 2007, in response to Mattiuzzi's numerous complaints about the

behavior of Markovic, Lau emailed her as follows:

14 Action has been taken regarding your complaint against Prof. Markovic. I believe there will not be any more harassment directed towards you. Please inform me as soon as possible in case you encounter any more harassment from Prof. Markovic.

15 16 17 18 19

See Exhibit 10.

20 21 22

47.

In response to Exhibit 10, Mattiuzzi's union representative, Peterson, wrote to Lau

on October 25, 2007, as follows:

23

24 25 26 27 28

It has recently come to my attention that a member of Unit 4, Cici Mattiuzzi has come to you and your predecessors seven times with complaints about the ongoing and escalating harassment directed towards her and certain CSUS students by Dr. Miroslav Markovic. I am sure you can understand, given the long history of abuse here, that she expected something more from you than an email message stating that you

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

14

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

believe there will be no more harassment directed towards Ms. Mattiuzzi. I'm sure she has received similar assurances throughout her long ordeal. I am deeply concerned not only for our Unit 4 but for the students involved as well.

1 2 3

I ask, therefore, that as Ms. Mattiuzzi's union representative, I be provided with the results of the current and all past investigations into the complaints as well as the actions you have taken to ensure a safe and healthful environment for all concerned.

4 5 6 7 8

See Exhibit 11.

9 10

48.

On November 16, 2007, Lau wrote to Mattiuzzi and informed her that Dean

11

Macari had investigated her complaints himself and that his investigation was complete. Lau

12

explained that Dean Macari represented that he took action to prevent any further occurrences.

13

Lau repeated:

14 15

As I said in my email, should you encounter any more harassment from Dr. Markovic, please inform me as soon as possible.

16 17

18

See Exhibit 12.

19 20 Legally Required Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

21 22

49.

In January of 2008, as required by law of all supervisors at CSUS, Mattiuzzi

23 participated in a sexual harassment training online workshop. 24

50.

This training included a definition of sexual harassment to include both economic

25

and environmental sexual harassment.

26

harassment as including the following:

The training materials defined environmental sexual

27 28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

15

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

actions that create adverse working conditions but do not result in a "tangible employment action." It encompasses jokes, comments, slurs, emails, touching, pictures or any behavior that seriously interferes with an employee's work environment" (emphasis added)

2 3 4 5

See Exhibit 13.

6 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

7 8

51.

On January 30, 2008, Mattiuzzi and her husband, Paul Mattiuzzi ("Paul"), met

9 with Lau in his office. Mattiuzzi informed Lau of the disturbing information that she continued to 10

receive about the behavior of Markovic and she realized that reporting sexual harassment to CSUS

11

was futile. Mattiuzzi told Lau that the fourth request for a reclassification was pending and she

12

was concerned that it would be denied in retaliation for making complaints about Markovic.

13

Mattiuzzi complained to Lau that she had been retaliated against in the denial of the three prior

14

requests for reclassification and that each was also based on gender discrimination. During that

15

meeting, Mattiuzzi gave Lau a letter summarizing her concerns as follows:

16 17 18

I have recently been told that Dr. Gonan, a professor in EEE has received a complaint from a student about being harassed by Dr. Markovic and that the student is unwilling to file a formal complaint.

19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

On January 10, 2008 a student told me that Dr. Markovic has invited him to his home on numerous occasions to work on Markovic's car.. .This type of personal involvement with a student may not be appropriate. It is definitely reminiscent of Dr. Markovic's involvement with Peter Robino. You will recall that this was a situation in which Markovic ingratiated himself with a student over a period of time, apparently attempted to develop a distinctly inappropriate relationship, and then stalked him and actively sought to disrupt the student's employment. The Robino matter is well documented. As you know, I was recently required to complete the CSUS sexual harassment on-line workshop. The workshop's instruction is that if a staff member has reason to believe that any type of harassment is taking place, it must be reported. My experience, however, is that the effort is futile and that effective action will not be taken by the campus. In addition, my 16

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

experience is that negative consequences will follow from having made the report. The workshop also stressed that making negative comments about another employee could be actionable. So I am in a position of having to decide whether or not I should warn a student about a faculty member who might be grooming him as prey, as he has done before. Either way, I am subjected to conflict that should not be present in my work environment. And, it necessarily brings back to mind the fact that Markovic has directed hostility towards me, and that he is still just down the hall. And it brings back to mind the fact that my former supervisor immediately stopped communicating with me in almost any way, after that supervisor learned that I had filed a complaint about Markovic. Before communications with that supervisor ceased, he subjected me to an irrational harangue. In addition, he stopped supporting my reclassification and tried to remove an area of responsibility. I was directly told that my supervisor thwarted my reclass after I reported the 2003 event.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

See Exhibit 14.

12 13 14

Affirmative Action Officer Lau Opened an Investigation into

15

Mattiuzzi's Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic

16 17

52.

investigation into her continued complaints about the behavior of Markovic.

18 19 20

On January 30, 2008, Lau informed Mattiuzzi that he opened a 60 day

Complaints About the Behavior of Markovic 53.

On February 22, 2008, Paul emailed Lau and informed him that Markovic was

harassing students again as follows:

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cici heard yesterday from a former student/alumni who is known to have been harassed by the professor whose name you know. The alumni has a student assistant working for him in the industry. The student assistant was upset at work and described the experience of a fellow student who was being pressured by the professor to travel with him to Hawaii. It was distressing to them both, and the student advised his friend to make a report to the campus police.

28 Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

17

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

The alum who spoke to Cici told her that this situation is widely known in his industry, that it is assumed that the problem is well known on campus (i.e. "everybody knows"), and that it is assumed that the campus will never respond effectively. In other words, this is an issue that reflects negatively on the CSUS community.

1 2 3 4

As I said before, even though the sexual harassment itself is not directed towards Cici, it creates a hostile work environment. Contributing to the hostility of the workplace is a common belief that the campus responds immediately to racial and hate speech, while ignoring and tolerating sexual harassment and gender hate speech.

5 6 7 8

9 See Exhibit 15. 10 11

54.

That same day, Paul called Chair Vadhva to request that he move Markovic to an

12

office on a different floor in order to protect Mattiuzzi. Chair Vadhva told him that he did not

13

have the authority to do so.

14

55.

On February 24, 2008, Mattiuzzi received an email from David Black ("Black"), a

15

College of Engineering graduate. Black informed her that Unnamed Student A, a College of

16

Engineering intern with whom Black worked the previous summer, complained to Black about the

17

behavior of Markovic towards Unnamed Student B in the College of Engineering. Black's email,

18

which Mattiuzzi forwarded to Lau, noted as follows:

19 20 21 22

Dr. Markovic had offered to purchase a laptop (for the student) and offered to take the student to Hawaii during the summer so that they could spend some time on the beach and grade papers together. The student filed a complaint with campus authorities.

23 24 25 26

It is very sad that this type of behavior has been tolerated throughout the years at CSUS. The fact that Dr. Markovic is a tenured professor does not give him the right to sexually harass unsuspecting young students. I personally find this behavior intolerable and cannot understand why CSUS has not stepped in to permanently diffuse the situation."

27 28

See Exhibit 16.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

18

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Affirmative Action Officer Lau Requested

2

Witness Contact Information from Mattiuzzi

3

56.

On March 18, 2008, Mattiuzzi received an email from Lau in which he informed

4 her that he had completed preliminary interviews, but was unable to interview Black and 5

Unnamed Student C, another former student of Markovic. Lau informed her that he would notify

6 the Dean and Provost and would begin the formal investigation the next week. See Exhibit 17. 7 8

57.

Mattiuzzi responded to Lau's email and provided the contact information for

Unnamed Student C, but stated that he:

9 10

may not want to talk as he is the student who was fixing Markovic's car at Markovic's house and didn't know that it was inappropriate. I believe it is the same situation as Peter Robino.

11 12 13 14

See Exhibit 17. Denial of Mattiuzzi's Fourth Request for Reclassification

15 16 17 18

58.

On April 11, 2008, one year after the fourth request for a reclassification to a

position with academic standing, Mattiuzzi was notified that her request was denied. 59.

Mattiuzzi questioned this denial and complained to both the Dean of the College

19

of Engineering and Blair that men in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities were

20

classified in positions with academic standing. In response, the Dean told her not to claim gender

21

discrimination and assured her that he would get her reclassified to a position with academic

22

standing.

23 24

Affirmative Action Officer Lau Requested

25

Additional Witness Contact Information

26

60.

On April 30, 2008, Lau emailed Mattiuzzi and asked her for contact information

27

for Unnamed Student B, who was subjected to inappropriate behavior by Markovic similar to that

28

directed towards Robino. Mattiuzzi provided him with this information. See Exhibit 18.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

19

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Mattiuzzi's Union Representative Requested

2

an Update on Lau's Investigation

3

61.

On May 1, 2008, Peterson emailed Lau and asked for an update on the status of the

4 investigation and the actions that had been taken to deal with this "very serious situation." Lau 5 replied that he had learned of new information which required him to interview additional 6 witnesses, which had delayed the completion of his investigation. See Exhibit 19. 7 8

Mattiuzzi's Union Representative Again Requested

9

an Update on Lau's Investigation

10

62.

On June 3, 2008, Peterson again emailed Lau and requested the results of his

11

investigation. In response, Lau emailed Mattiuzzi and Peterson and informed them that he had

12

completed his investigation and that he expected to be finished by June 9, 2008. See Exhibit 20.

13 14

Affirmative Action Officer Lau Provided

15

the Results of His Investigation

16 17

•

63.

On June 4, 2008, Lau wrote a letter to Mattiuzzi in which he detailed the results of

his investigation and concluded:

18 19

At this time, I do not have enough evidence to proceed with a formal complaint against Prof. Markovic.

20 21 22

See Exhibit 21.

23 24

Markovic Threatened to Shoot Lynne Onitsuka

25

64.

On July 15, 2008, Lynne Onitsuka ("Onitsuka"), an IT employee, performed

26

routine work on Markovic's computer. In response, Markovic went into a rage and' told her in a

27

very hostile tone "I'm going to get a gun and shoot you." Onitsuka, who was pregnant at the time,

28

///

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

20

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

did not file a police report as she feared it would prompt further threats from Markovic and place

2

her in greater danger.

3 Missing Email from Mattiuzzi's Email Account

4 65.

5

When Mattiuzzi returned to CSUS for the fall of 2008, she discovered that her

6 outgoing email from January through August of 2008 was missing from her computer and the 7 CSUS server. This email included all of the information that Mattiuzzi had submitted to Lau 8

for his investigation into the behavior of Markovic. 66.

9

Onitsuka restored Mattiuzzi's emails and informed her that she had never seen a

10

similar situation where an entire time period of outgoing email was missing from the CSUS

11

server.

12 Paul's Complaints to CSUS President Gonzales

13 14

67.

On August 27, 2008, Paul emailed President Alexander Gonzales ("President

15

Gonzalez") regarding the behavior of Markovic and the treatment Mattiuzzi had received from

16

CSUS. He informed Gonzales as follows:

17 18

I'm a CSUS alum, and as a psychologist, I'm a colleague of yours.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

My wife Cici is also an alumni, and for the past 30 years she has been a CSUS employee. She came home after her first day back at work after summer vacation and in tears, she told me about how demoralized she is working on the campus. Last Spring, she went through the process of seeking reclassification, for the third time. And once again, her application was denied for reasons that can only be viewed as bogus and arbitrary. As a forensic psychologist, I happen to be an expert in the task of interpreting data relative to criteria. I am routinely examined live in Court in a process that can be likened to an "oral defense on steroids." It is from this perspective that I am confident that Cici meets the criteria for a reclassification and that the final decision involved what are politely referred to as "extra-criterial" considerations.

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

21

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

Also last Spring, Cici learned that the campus has no intention of paying any serious attention to her complaints against E&CS Professor Markovic. This is a guy who has for years been sexually harassing students and otherwise abusing staff members.

1 2 3

Despite her complaints, it has remained "no never mind" that he continues to do so.

4 5

Cici never sought to expose Markovic. She never had an agenda with him. Students and graduates came to her with complaints about Markovic and she did what you told her she should do in the training she completed. It's her issue because she is the person in E&CS to whom people bring their complaints.

6 7 8 9

Today, on her first day back on campus, Cici learned that a valued staff member is intending to resign. The staff member's reason is that he can no longer stand the ongoing abuse he receives from Markovic.

10 11

Cici came home demoralized. She knows that CSUS provides her with no prospect for advancement, that CSUS is intent on ignoring her contribution to the campus, and that CSUS is intent on turning a blind eye towards complaints from women on campus.

12 13 14 15 16

See Exhibit 22.

17 Intentional and Forceful Bumping Incident

18 68.

19

On August 28, 2008, while at a fall reception for faculty and staff, Markovic

20

intentionally and forcefully bumped into Mattiuzzi on his way to the drink table. He made no

21

attempt to apologize or make any excuse for his actions. In fact, he said nothing to Mattiuzzi.

22

Moments later, he again intentionally and forcefully bumped into her, and again said nothing.

»

23

69.

That same day, Paul emailed Markovic and instructed him to stay away from

24

Mattiuzzi. He told him that if he failed to do so, he would obtain a Temporary Restraining Order.

25

Paul also sent this email to Lau, Dean Macari, and Chair Vadhva. See Exhibit 23.

26 27

70.

After Dean Macari provided Kent Porter ("Porter"), Associate Vice President of

Human Resources, with Paul's email to Markovic, Porter asked Macari:

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

22

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Does Cici want to pursue this matter since apparently there was physical contact? Is she willing to speak with someone about the incident? We need specifics to determine how to proceed. Also, were there any witnesses to the "bump?" Please advise.

2 3 4 5 6

See Exhibit 24.

7 8

71.

On September 2, 2008, Paul responded to Exhibit 24 by informing Porter of the

9 continued behavior of Markovic as follows: 10 11 12 13 14 15

This is not a matter for Cici to pursue. It's your problem. This goes back to May of 1991 when Markovic stalked and harassed a graduating student who had spurned his advances, and when he intervened with that student's employer, trying to retaliate by derailing his career. Cici became involved because in her position, she is the one the employer contacted.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cici was drawn into it again in 2002 when Markovic sent bizarre and intimidating letters to PG&E and when students were complaining about being bullied by him. I believe that was the first time she heard a student say that they felt physically threatened. It was in the context of that incident that a student documented comments Markovic had made about Cici, indicating that she had (in the student's words) either "slept or prostituted her way" into her position. In 2007 when a staff member came to her and warned her about Markovic, it was not because Markovic had called her a bitch, it was because the staff member thought she might be at risk. Cici has pursued this before. There is no reason she should pursue it again. The final outcome of her complaints is that he seems to have been emboldened. If you bump into a person twice (and make no effort at all to at least pretend it was an accident), that's intentional and it's a message.

27 28 Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

See Exhibit 25. 23

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

72.

On September 5, 2008, at the request of Dean Macari, Greg Revelez ("Revelez"),

2

in the CSUS Public Safety Department, called Mattiuzzi to discuss the August 28, 2008 intentional

3

bumping incident. She informed him of the long history of harassment by Markovic and that

4 CSUS had done nothing about it. She told him that it was her role as the Director of Career 5

Services to report College of Engineering student complaints to the administration and that she

6 had done so repeatedly regarding the behavior of Markovic. Mattiuzzi informed Revelez that she 7 was harassed by the continuing and recent behavior of Markovic and that he had forcefully 8

bumped into her to send her a message that he could do what he wanted because he was a Full

9 Professor with tenure. She further informed him that she was retaliated against as a result of 10

reporting his behavior. Revelez discouraged Mattiuzzi from filing a police report and told her that

11

it was a Human Resources Department problem. 73.

12 13

On September 19, 2008, Porter emailed Mattiuzzi to follow up on the intentional

bumping incident by Markovic as follows:

14 15

Since the incident last month involving Miroslav Markovic that was brought to the attention of the College Dean, who in turn contacted Human Resources and Public Safety, it is my understanding that you have not spoken with anyone to formally report the incident.

16 17 18

The University does not treat such matters lightly. We are concerned and we wish to properly deal with this matter. To do so, however, we need to obtain from you specific information about the incident. You should expect to be contacted by Greg Revelez, an investigator from our Public Safety Department.

19 20 21

Your kind cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns, you are welcome to contact either Mr. Revelez (2787245) or me.

22 23 24 25 26

See Exhibit 26.

27

I/I

28

III

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

24

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

74.

On September 23, 2008, Mattiuzzi informed Porter that she had spoken to

2

Revelez who told her that the incident did not involve a Penal Code violation, that it was a

3

civil offense and remained a problem for the Human Resources Department.

4

75.

Porter followed up:

5 6

If you had spoken with Mr. Revelez and provided him with the details about the incident, he could have assessed whether the incident was a matter for Public Safety. If Mr. Revelez would have assessed the incident to be an administrative matter for HR to address, however, at least by now my office would have more information about what happened than it currently has.

7 8 9 10

Regardless of whether the incident might be criminal or civil or something else, the University needs specific information from you about the incident. Without specific information, HR cannot initiate any action. I would respectfully invite you to meet with a representative from HR to tell us what happened, or if you prefer, you can submit a written statement describing the incident. In either case HR would need as much specific information about the incident as you can provide.

11 12 13 14 15

You are welcome to contact me if you have questions or concerns, or if you would like to schedule a meeting.

16 17 18

See Exhibit 27.

19 20 Mattiuzzi and Onitsuka Reported Shooting Threat

21 22

76.

On September 24, 2008, Onitsuka informed Mattiuzzi that Markovic had

23

previously threatened to shoot her. Together, Mattiuzzi and Onitsuka called Porter and reported

24

this threat. Onitsuka told him that she was afraid for her safety and for that of her unborn child. In

25

response, Porter asked each of them how tall they were compared to Markovic. Mattiuzzi told him

26

that she was five foot one, Onitsuka was five foot four, and that Markovic was over six feet tall.

27 28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

25

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1 2 3

Mattiuzzi Emailed Porter Again About Markovic's Intentional Bumping 77.

That same day, Mattiuzzi emailed Porter and again informed him that she had

spoken to Revelez more than two weeks ago and provided him with all the details of the incident.

4 She addressed Exhibit 27 as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 10

I am not sure why you are using the word "if in your email. As I indicated in the last email I did speak to Greg Revelez. I spoke with Greg over two weeks ago. He called me at the behest of Dean Macari. I did give him all of the details. It was he who indicated that it was administrative. For the record- in my own words- the email you received from my husband, Paul Mattiuzzi, is extremely accurate. Pull out the records. This campus does not take harassment seriously.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

In addition to my own observations, I have repeatedly heard from students and staff that this campus does not take harassment seriously. I have wished to believe otherwise I have written 7 or 8 formal letters and I have been pulled into numerous investigations. At this point I am demoralized. My husband and I are offended by the response of the campus on numerous occasions regarding harassment issues. Filing a complaint on this campus causes one to lose credibility and to feel more isolated and more harassed. Recently, Dr. Markovic threatened a pregnant staff member, shouting that he was going to shoot her. Her response is that since no one heard him so no one will believe that it happened. She does not plan to report it, she does not believe anyone will do anything and that it will put her in further danger. I learned this this morning. She told me that she is afraid all of the time here. So am I. She said to me "I am glad that you are complaining, I don't think I can". She too has observed the harassment of young males at Dr. Markovic's hands.

22 23 24 25 26

The staff member who told me Dr. Markovic made threats towards me and was extremely fearful told me that he was told he should not have told me "because it just makes me angry." The student who heard the comments at the same time said he continues to be afraid for me. He told me this recently even though the event happened over a year ago.

27 28 Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

26

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

When I shared the threat event with another person in management here he said "he is a full professor", indicating that no full professor will ever be removed no matter how significant the threat of harassment.

1 2 3

The reason I choose not to write out a formal complaint regarding the bumping incident to HR is because in my last meeting with Peter Lau, in January of 2008, he indicated that although he would reluctantly investigate my complaint, there was very little that the university could do. "The best we can hope for is that he might take early retirement."

4 5 6

I cannot begin to tell you how disruptive this continues to be to my work and my life.

7 8 9 10

See Exhibit 28. Mattiuzzi Reported Markovic's Harassment of an International Student

11 12

78.

On September 24, 2008, Mattiuzzi sent Porter a second email in which she

13

reported an incident involving Markovic and an international student in the College of

14

Engineering. Mattiuzzi informed Porter as follows:

15 16

He said he, like others, was afraid to complain.

17

This is relentless. The situation is getting worse and the incidents are more extreme and more frequent. I do believe he is becoming bolder and more aggressive.

18 19 20 21

See Exhibit 29.

22 23

Mattiuzzi Learned Markovic Threatened to Shoot a

24

Second IT Employee and Reported it to the Police

25

79.

On October 2, 2008, an IT employee told Mattiuzzi that Markovic had "threatened

26

to shoot him and make his wife a widow." Mattiuzzi called Porter twice but was unable to reach

27

him. She then called her union, which referred her to a labor attorney that instructed her to call the

28

police, which she did. Officer Nguyen responded and took a report from Mattiuzzi, who told him

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

27

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

that Markovic threatened to shoot the IT employee. She also reported that she was concerned

2 because of the previous threats of violence by Markovic and the intentional bumping incident. 3

She informed Officer Nguyen that she had already reported these matters to the CSUS

4 Administration and the CSUS Police Department. 5 6 7

Mattiuzzi Reported Second Shooting Threat to Porter 80.

That same day, Mattiuzzi emailed Porter and informed him of the September 30,

8 2008 threat by Markovic to shoot an IT employee and reminded him about Markovic's threat to 9 shoot Onitsuka. Mattiuzzi also informed him that she filed a police report against Markovic and 10

stated as follows:

11 12 I find it incredibly difficult to perform my work under the stress of the continued outbursts of Dr. Markovic against my fellow staff and the intimidation he directs towards me. Once again, I do not feel safe in my work environment.

13 14 15 16 17

See Exhibit 30.

18 19

81.

On October 6, 2008, Mattiuzzi received an email from Chair Ramesh after he

20

learned of Markovic's recent threats to shoot CSUS employees. Chair Ramesh informed her that

21

he brought his concerns about the behavior of Markovic to the attention of the CSUS President

22

and legal counsel on more than one occasion. He also stated as follows:

23 24 25 26

As far as I know no action was taken on this matter as of the time I left Sacramento State in 2006. My concern then and now is for the welfare of our students, faculty and staff and it is imperative that appropriate steps are taken to ensure their safety at all times.

27 28

See Exhibit 31.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

28

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1 2 3

Dean Macari's Refusal to Address Markovic's Conduct 82.

Throughout the fall of 2008 and spring of 2009, Mattiuzzi complained numerous

times to Dean Macari about the behavior of Markovic. On each occasion, he informed her that, "I

4 am staying out of this." 5 Mattiuzzi Lost the Right to Teach Classes

6 7

83.

On November 4, 2008, Dean Macari informed Mattiuzzi that she could no longer

8 teach the engineering classes she had developed and taught for 25 years. He told her that she 9 had no computer access to class lists and student records, but that she could teach the classes 10

under the names of the 5 different Department Chairs. During that meeting, Dean Macari also

11

addressed her longstanding complaints about the behavior of Markovic and told her to "drop

12

it", "move on" and to "not mess with Markovic." Dean Macari told her that he had pushed it

13

too far when he attempted to get her reclassified which had angered Joseph Sheley ("Sheley"),

14

Provost and'Vice President for Academic Affairs. He told her that Sheley told him to "drop it"

15

and that she was not going to be reclassified.

16 Complaint to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing

17 18

84.

Mattiuzzi timely filed a complaint against CSUS for retaliation, gender

19

discrimination, and sexual harassment with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing

20

("DFEH") on November 18, 2008. A Notice of Case Closure letter was issued on November 21,

21

2008, and the DFEH Complaint and was served on CSUS on December 19, 2008.

22 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

23 24

85.

On December 10, 2008, Mattiuzzi again wrote and complained to Lau that she

25

personally had been harassed by Markovic and she addressed other disturbing events. She told

26

him that she was hesitant to complain again since she had previously complained with no results.

27

She concluded her summary of previous events with the following:

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

29

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

It seems that the campus cannot figure out if the threatening and intimidating behavior that Dr. Markovic displays is a police matter or a human resources matter. In the mean time staff are left to wonder if anyone is in charge of sorting out this type of problem or cares about protecting staff from threats and intimidation.

2 3 4

Six staff members on this floor have observed threats and tirades or been directly threatened or intimidated by Dr. Markovic. Three staff members of the College of Engineering and Computer Science filed police reports in October of 2008. We have heard nothing.

5 6 7

As you have observed in your previous investigations, it is very difficult to get students, faculty and staff to come forward for fear of reprisals. The fact that the three of us have come forward and that a student shared his numerous observations with Office Nguyen is remarkable. The climate of fear and intimidation, and previous inaction by the university are difficult obstacles to overcome.

8 9 10 11 12

I trust that you find my letter helpful as you once again are called upon to investigate the hostile work environment here in the College of Engineering and Computer Science.

13 14 15 16

See Exhibit 32.

17 Letter to President Gonzales and Investigation into the Behavior of Markovic

18 19 20 21 22 23

86.

On December 16, 2008, Mattiuzzi's legal counsel wrote to President Gonzalez and

outlined the behavior of Markovic. See Exhibit 33. 87.

Later that month, Lau informed Mattiuzzi that Kira King ("King"), an independent

investigator, had been hired to conduct an investigation into her complaints about Markovic. 88.

On January 7, 2009, Mattiuzzi met with King and provided her with numerous

24

documents including Exhibit 23 and a November 4, 2008 email from James Wilson ("Wilson"), a

25

former employee in the EEE Department. Wilson detailed inappropriate and threatening behavior

26

of Markovic as follows:

27 28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

30

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

He made threats to students so that they would drop his class and lower his class size to his satisfaction. There is one instance that sticks out in my mind in which he told a student he would hit him in the head with a baseball bat if he returned for another lecture.

2 3 4

Even students that were allowed to stay in Dr. Markovic's class were subjected to verbal abuse and often times had their grades adversely affected.

5 6

Dr. Markovic had made attempts to contact companies that were hiring some former students to have them 'blacklisted' from being hired.

7 8

After the department chair had decided to let another professor use the same lab Dr. Markovic uses for instructional purposes, Dr. Markovic flew into a rage and removed all of the electrical equipment from the lab and tossed it into the bushes behind the building. The sprinklers ruined the equipment all weekend long and when it was discovered the following Monday, nearly $30,000 in electrical equipment was considered a total loss. The police were called and a report was filed, but no action was taken against Dr. Markovic.

9 10 11 12 13 14

I hope this brief narrative illustrates that Mrs. Mattiuzzi's experiences are not unique and that it is part of a larger pattern in the way Dr. Markovic has treated colleagues.

15 16 17 18

See Exhibit 34.

19 20

Mattiuzzi Informed that College of Engineering Department Chairs

21 22 23 24

Must be the Faculty of Record for her Classes 89.

On January 13, 2009, Mattiuzzi received an email from Dean Macari informing her

that she would no longer be the faculty of record for classes she had taught for 25 years. Dean Macari stated as follows:

25 26 27 28

Starting with this semester, ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of record for workshops we offer to our ECS students (CE 194, ME 194, EEE 194 and CSC 192) Career Planning.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

31

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

This is in compliance with the new regulations of Bargaining'Unit 4.

2

Students do enjoy and get a lot of these workshops and I want to make sure that we continue with our tradition of focusing on what is best for our students. Thanks for all your work and I look forward to continuing to work with you for many years to come.

3 4 5

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

6 7 8

See Exhibit 35.

9 10 11

90.

In response to Exhibit 35 and previous discussions Mattiuzzi had with Dean

Macari, Mattiuzzi emailed him and stated as follows:

12 13 14 15

You indicated that in an effort to comply with the agreements with Unit 4 (sic), "ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of record" for these classes. I have spoken with representatives of both Unit 3 and 4. This solution does not meet their approval.

16 17 18 19 20 21

Be that as it may, I have no problem continuing to teach these classes, consistent with my job description. These classes are essential to the academic mission of the College. They are essential components of a student services program developed in the College over the course of 25 years and under the leadership of four different Deans. These classes cannot simply be described as "workshops" as you suggested in your note. And they are not simply something that "students enjoy," as you also suggested. These classes have been and continue to be an integral part of the student services program in which I work.

22 23

Removing me as instructor of record would substantially alter my job description and the terms of my employment.

24 25 26

I have been repeatedly denied reclassification and promotion for arbitrary reasons, irrespective of the stated criteria and specifically in response to gender discrimination.

27

28

See Exhibit 36.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

32

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Mattiuzzi Compelled to Notify Department Chairs

2

that She Had No Access to Class Lists

3

91.

On January 29, 2009, Mattiuzzi was compelled to inform 5 different CSUS

4

Department Chairs that she no longer was able to access her class lists. She apologized for any

5

inconvenience this caused them as follows:

6 7

I notice that I can no longer access my classes on My Sac State.

8

I have 4 classes that are cross listed in all engineering majors and one CS class. I teach a total of 5 classes with 13 classes feeding into those 5. I will need you to print me updated class rosters each week for the next three weeks. Many students are adding my class and I am not able to update the lists.

9 10

11 12

I know that this is an inconvenience to each of you. It is also very difficult for me. I am sorry for this problem. I expect that at some point the problem will be resolved one way or another.

13 14 15 16

See Exhibit 37.

17 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

18 19

92.

On February 4, 2009, Mattiuzzi wrote to Lau and complained for the tenth time

20

regarding the behavior of Markovic. She informed Lau of a conversation she had with Unnamed

21

Student D, a College of Engineering graduate currently employed by PG&E. Unnamed Student D

22

also reported complaints made by Unnamed Student E. The letter detailed the discriminatory

23

behavior of Markovic towards women, including as follows:

24 25 26 27

Dr Markovic repeatedly stated in class that he "hates women" and that "women do not belong in engineering." She stated that Dr. Markovic continuously belittled and degraded women in the class and held women to a different standard than men.

28 Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

33

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Both women went to numerous persons in a position of authority on this campus and were told that they "should just graduate and get out of here." They were told that there was nothing that could be done.

2 3 4 5

See Exhibit 38.

6 7

Dean Macari's Attempt to Shut Down the

8

Investigation into Markovic's Conduct

9 10

93.

On March 23, 2009, Onitsuka informed Mattiuzzi that Dean Macari was trying to

"shut down the investigation."

11 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

12

•

13

94.

On March 23, 2009, Mattiuzzi wrote to Lau after she received an email from

14

Shalveena Dayal ("Dayal"), a College of Engineering student, and again complained about the

15

behavior of Markovic. Dayal informed Mattiuzzi that that during class Markovic:

16 17

"shakes chairs and throws pens in a threatening way" creating a climate of fear and anxiety in his class. She indicated that he displays anger in his office hours by throwing pens.

18 19 20 21

See Exhibit 39.

22 23

95.

On March 24, 2009, Mattiuzzi wrote to Lau to inform him that she learned

24

Markovic had threatened to shoot Chetan Krishna ("Krishna"), an international student. Krishna

25

told her that he was discouraged by the CSUS Police from filing a formal report in order to protect

26

his future employment opportunities.

27

informed her of Markovic's threat and the discouragement by the CSUS Police Department. See

28

Exhibit 40.

Krishna spoke to King during her investigation and

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

34

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1 2

96.

On March 25, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed Exhibit 40 to President Gonzales, King,

Lau, Peterson, and CSUS Affirmative Action Officer Maria Santos.

3 Second Meeting with King

4 97.

5

On March 31, 2009, after providing her with Exhibit 40, Mattiuzzi again met with

6 King. 7 Assault Complaint Against Markovic By a CSUS Employee

8 9

98.

On April 2, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed King and Lau regarding a call she had

10

received from a CSUS employee who previously worked in the College of Engineering. The

11

employee informed Mattiuzzi that she had been assaulted by Markovic and stated as follows:

12 13

He shoved his hand in her face and pushed her out of his way as he was exiting the elevator with his bicycle. He spoke harshly to her and shoved her.

14 15

She reported "the assault" to multiple people in the Dean's office including the office manager.

16 17

No report was written and she was not instructed to go to Peter Lau or any other person in a position of authority in the administration.

18 19 20

See Exhibit 41.

21 22 23

Mattiuzzi Communication with the Regional Staff Representative

24

for the California Faculty Association About her Improper Classification

25

99.

On April 27, 2009, Mattiuzzi spoke with Jason Conwell ("Conwell"), the Regional

26

Staff Representative for the California Faculty Association, to discuss her improper classification.

27

Conwell asked her to provide documentation regarding the classes she taught under the names of

28

the 5 different Department Chairs.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

35

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1 2

100.

On April 28, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed Conwell and provided the information he

requested. Her email, which was also sent to Lau, King and Peterson, stated as follows:

3 4 5 6 7

As I mentioned to you yesterday it is very difficult to run my classes as they are now structured. I have 13 classes listed across 4 disciplines of engineering and computer science. I actually teach 5 classes but they are cross listed for the convenience of the students. I have taught these classes for 30 years.

8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

In past years these classes have been listed under my name exclusively. This semester for the first time the classes are all listed under the respective department chairs. It should be noted that if I were correctly classified as an SSP AR this would never have happened. Because the university refuses to correctly classify me as an SSP AR I am required to operate in this fashion or discontinue the classes all together. That is an unacceptable option particularly in the midst of a recession. This class is an integral part of my job and and the College of Engineering and has been for three decades. For me this semester's change has created a logistical nightmare. As you requested I am documenting this by way of this email. Some of the difficulties I am experiencing with this change include: Removal of access privileges to class lists Failure to receive book ordering email regarding the textbook from the book store Denial of access to the computer system for classes, students, class lists and grading. I have no updated lists for the class without pestering the secretaries in four departments or the secretary in the Dean's office for the info which they are instructed to print for me. It became so embarrassing to me after the third or fourth week of the semester- I stopped doing it. I have no student ID numbers for grading. Many students finish the class after the semester ends. This means that I will have to have department chairs do the final grades as well as any and all change of grades that occur up to one year later after the class has ended. I will have to repeatedly pester department chairs to do the change of grade forms as the students complete the class assignment or make up for missed classes.

26 27 28 Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

36

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

This entire semester has been embarrassing, humiliating and infantilizing.

2 I am attaching my recently updated resume with my educational background, professional work experience, publications, papers, programs and projects so you can understand my continuing dismay with the failure to correctly classify me.

3 4 5 6

See Exhibit 42.

7 8 Mattiuzzi Escorted to her Car

9 10 11

101.

Throughout the 2008 - 2009 academic year, Mattiuzzi was escorted to her car by

students who were concerned for her safety.

12 Mattiuzzi's Repeated Complaints to Affirmative Action Officer Lau

13 14

102.

On May 6, 2009, Mattiuzzi emailed Lau after she went home sick. She also sent

15

her email to Edmundo Aguilar ("Aguilar"), legal counsel for CSUS, and President Gonzales. The

16

email stated as follows:

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

I visited my doctor because I am distressed and depressed in response to Dr. Markovic's frightening behavior. I am routinely worried and afraid while at work. I do not go out of my office without being wary. I constantly worry that he will hurt students or other staff. Every time I host a major event, bringing people to the campus or students together, I am concerned he might come in shooting. I cannot ignore the threat that exists. As you know, I have repeatedly been told about his having harassed, abused and intimidated students. This knowledge continues to weigh on me and constitutes a hostile work environment. I have a right to a healthy work environment. You have a responsibility to provide it. In a healthy work environment, employees do not have to listen to endless horror stories. I cannot escape exposure to such stories. I cannot escape my thoughts about these episodes at home or in the gym or even in my sleep. And it is made the worse by the failure of the administration to make good on its duty to me as an employee.

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

37

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

I have been told by my Dean to "just forget about it.. .move on."

2 Right now, the campus is expecting to receive millions of dollars in a "smart grid" proposal funded by the Federal Stimulus package. Markovic has been written in to this proposal as if nothing about his status on campus is ever going to change. And if he is part of the team, he will have an even more powerful perch from which to prey upon students. Already it seems, he has again been told that he can act with impunity.

3 4 5 6 7

8 See Exhibit 43. 9 10 11 12

King's May 15,2009 Investigation Report 103.

On May 15, 2009, Lau sent Mattiuzzi the results of King's report, which concluded

as follows:

13

a. The August 28, 2008 incident was an accidental bumping;

14

b. There was no evidence of any retaliation by CSUS against Mattiuzzi as a result

15

of her complaints about the behavior of Markovic;

16

c. CSUS hired women into classifications with academic standing; and

17

d. CSUS adequately investigated past complaints about the behavior of Markovic.

18

See Exhibit 44.

19 20 21

Onitsuka Reported Continued Fear of Markovic 104.

On May 21, 2009, Onitsuka informed her supervisor, Michael Wimple

22

("Wimple"), Director of the College of Engineering and Communications Services, that she

23

continued to suffer from anxiety attacks, distress and nightmares as a result of Markovic's threat.

24

She stated as follows:

25 26 27

Due to the continued anxiety attacks and nightmares related to the threat last summer from Dr. Miro Markovic that he would get a gun a shoot me, I

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

38

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

am going to start a series of depression classes and therapy sessions with a psychologist. It is unfortunate that this incident is having such long term effects.

1 2 3 4

See Exhibit 45.

5 6 Reopened Investigation

7 8

105.

On July 9, 2009, Mattiuzzi learned that CSUS reopened the investigation with a

9 new investigator, Deborah Allison. 10 11

Relocation of Faculty to Accommodate the Removal of Markovic

12

from the Work Area of Mattiuzzi and Onitsuka

13

106.

Mattiuzzi was informed that Dean Macari recently requested three faculty

14

members relocate their offices to accommodate the removal of Markovic from the work area of

15

Onitsuka and Mattiuzzi. Markovic initially agreed to move, but after the three faculty members

16

relocated to new offices, he refused to move.

17 California Government Tort Claims Act Claim

18 19 20

107.

Mattiuzzi timely filed a Government Tort Claims Act Claim against CSUS and

Markovic on July 29, 2009.

21 22

First Cause of Action

23

Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code Section 3610

24

(Against CSUS)

25 26

108.

Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.

27

109.

Mattiuzzi was at all times relevant an employee of CSUS.

28

110.

The wrongful treatment of Mattiuzzi by CSUS was in violation of California Labor

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

39

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Code Section 6310(a)(l).

California Labor Code Section 6310(a) makes it unlawful for an

2 employer to "...discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the 3

employee has... made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies

4 having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or 5 health, his or her employer, or his or her representative." 6

111.

Further, pursuant to California Labor Code Section 6310(b) "Any employee who

7 is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner 8 discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because 9 the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to. . .his or her employer, or his or her 10

representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or her employment or place

11

of employment... shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work

12

benefits caused by the acts of the employer. . ."

i

13

112.

During the course of Mattiuzzi's employment at CSUS, she repeatedly reported

14

health and safety issues, specifically regarding Markovic and his treatment of employees and

15

students at CSUS, including but not limited to:

16

a. Markovic' s May 14, 2007 threat to physically retrieve a computer mouse from

17 18

Mattiuzzi; b. Her October 1 1 , 2007 complaint to Dean Macari that Markovic was "hitting on

19

male students" and "had gone into a racist tirade directed at a foreign student,

20

calling him a terrorist";

21

c. Her January 30, 2008 complaint to Lau that Markovic had engaged in conduct

22

with a student similar to Markovic's prior conduct with Robino;

23

d. Her February 24, 2008 complaint to Lau, which forwarded Black's email that

24

Markovic was "sexually harassing young unsuspecting students" including

25

Unnamed Student B;

26

e. Markovic's July 15, 2008 threat to shoot Onitsuka;

27

f.

The August 28, 2008 intentional bumping incident;

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

40

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

g. Markovic's September 30, 2008 threat to shoot an IT staff member and to make

2

his wife a widow;

3

h. Markovic's September 30, 2008 threat to shoot Krishna;

4

i.

Markovic's threat to a student that he would "hit him in the head with a baseball bat if he returned for another lecture";

5 6

j.

Her December 10, 2008 complaint to Lau that she had been personally harassed by Markovic;

7

k. Her February 4, 2009 complaint to Lau regarding Markovic's treatment of

8

female students; and

9

1. Her May 6, 2009 complaint to Lau of the unsafe working environment created

10 11

by Markovic. 113.

12

As a result of Mattiuzzi's legally protected activity of complaining about these

13

health and safety issues, CSUS retaliated against her by, including but not limited to, denying her

14

reclassification to a position with academic standing, preventing her from teaching classes she had

15

taught for 25 years, deleting her outgoing email from January through August of 2008 and

16

refusing to address the dangerous situation posed by the continued actions of Markovic against

17

CSUS employees and students.

18

1 14.

As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained special

19

damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

20

Court.

21

115.

As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained general

22

damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

23

Court.

24

116.

As a direct and proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has incurred

25

attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional

26

limits of this Court.

27

Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

41

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Second Cause of Action

2

Retaliation in Violation of Violation of Government Code Section 12940(h)

3

(Against CSUS)

4 5 6

117.

Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint. 118.

Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment and

7

Housing Act, Mattiuzzi is a covered employee and CSUS is a covered employer as defined

8

therein.

9

1 1 9.

The wrongful treatment of Mattiuzzi by CSUS was in violation of the California

10

Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Section 12900, et seq.

11

California Government Code Section 12940(h) makes it an unlawful employment practice "to

12

discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any

13

practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted

14

in any proceeding under this part."

15

120.

Mattiuzzi engaged in the legally protected activity of complaining about sexual

16

and national origin harassment

17

employees and students including, but not limited to:

18 19 20 21

and gender discrimination towards herself and other CSUS

a. Laye's February 12, 2003 letter which Mattiuzzi delivered to Lau in the spring of 2003; b. Her October 11, 2007 complaint to Lau that for the seventh time she was complaining about Markovic's harassing behavior towards her;

22

c. Her October 11, 2007 complaint to Dean Macari that Markovic was "hitting on

23

male students" and "had gone into a racist tirade directed at a foreign student,

24

calling him a terrorist";

25 26

d. Her January 30, 2008 complaint to Lau that Markovic had engaged in conduct with a student similar to Markovic's prior conduct with Robino;

27

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

42

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

e. Her February 24, 2008 complaint to Lau, which forwarded Black's email that

2

Markovic was "sexually harassing young unsuspecting students" including

3

Unnamed Student B;

4

f.

5

g. Her December 10, 2008 complaint to Lau that she had been personally harassed

6

Markovic's sexually harassing behavior towards other students at CSUS;

by Markovic;

7

h. Her February 4, 2009 complaint to Lau regarding Markovic's treatment of

8

female students; and

9

i.

Her complaint after each denial of her requests for reclassification that men

10

in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities were classified in

11

positions with academic standing.

12

121.

As a result of Mattiuzzi's complaints, she was subjected to retaliation by CSUS,

13

including but not limited to, denying her reclassification to a position with academic standing,

14

preventing her from teaching classes she had taught for 25 years, deleting her outgoing email from

15

January of 2008 through August of 2008 and refusing to address the dangerous situation posed by

16

the continued actions of Markovic against employees and students.

17

122.

As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained special

18

damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

19

Court.

20

123.

As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained general

21

damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

22

Court.

23

124.

As a direct and proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has incurred

24

attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional

25

limits of this Court.

26

Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.

27 28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

43

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Third Cause of Action

2

Gender Discrimination in Violation of Government Code Section 12940(a)

3

(Against CSUS)

4 5

125.

Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.

6

126.

Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment and

7 Housing Act, Mattiuzzi is a covered employee and CSUS is a covered employer as defined 8 therein. 9

127.

The wrongful treatment of Mattiuzzi by CSUS was in violation of the California

10

Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code, §12900, et seq. Government

11

Code Section 12940(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice "For an employer, because of

12

... sex ... of any person ... to discharge the person from employment... or to discriminate against

13

the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment."

14

128.

At all times herein mentioned, Mattiuzzi was qualified for and should have

15

received an academic related classification. The fact that Mattiuzzi is a woman was a substantial

16

factor in the repeated decision by CSUS to deny her requests for reclassification.

17 18

129.

The facts on which Mattiuzzi bases her allegation that she was discriminated

against include, but are not limited to, the following:

19

a. The denial of her requests for reclassification to an academically related

20

position in 1985, 1987, 2002 and 2008 although she met the academically

21

related classification criteria;

22

b. Men hired after her as Career Counselors were classified as academically

23

related but she, as a woman, was not; and

24

c. Men in comparable job positions with similar responsibilities were classified

25 26

in positions with academic standing. 130.

As a direct or proximate result of the conduct of CSUS, Mattiuzzi has sustained

27

special damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of

28

this Court.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

44

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

131.

As a direct or proximate result of the conduct of CSUS, Mattiuzzi has sustained

2 general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of 3 this Court. 4 5

132.

As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of CSUS, Mattiuzzi has incurred

attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional

6 limits of this Court. 7

Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.

8 9

Fourth Cause of Action

10

Negligent Supervision and Retention

11

(Against CSUS)

12 13

133.

Mattiuzzi alleges as against CSUS as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.

14

134.

CSUS owed a duty of care to Mattiuzzi as an employee to provide her with a safe

15

and secure workplace and also to encourage the reporting of credible threats of violence in the

16

workplace.

17

135.

CSUS breached its duty of care when it failed, and continues to fail, to allow the

18

unsafe working conditions caused by the repeated and known threatening behavior of Markovic.

19

CSUS failed, and continues to fail, to property investigate the complaints of Markovic's behavior.

20

CSUS has allowed this unsafe working environment to continue by failing to address Markovic's

21

actions and threats of violence which have been ongoing for years.

22

136.

As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained special

23

damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

24

Court.

25

137.

As a direct or proximate result of CSUS's conduct, Mattiuzzi has sustained general

26

damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

27

Court.

28

Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS as follows.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

45

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Fifth Cause of Action

2

Assault

3

(Against Markovic)

4 5

138.

Mattiuzzi alleges as against Markovic as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint.

6

139.

CSUS has allowed Markovic to continue to harass, threaten and abuse employees

7 and students without repercussions despite numerous complaints by Mattiuzzi and others. 8

140.

With this knowledge, on August 28, 2008, Markovic forcefully bumped into

9 Mattiuzzi twice with the intent of intimidating her and causing her apprehension of immediate 10 11

injury. 141.

As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered

12

special damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of

13

this Court.

14

142.

As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered

15

general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of

16

this Court.

17

143.

The acts of Markovic were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify

18

an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess

19

of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

20

Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against Markovic as follows.

21

22

Sixth Cause of Action

23

Battery

24

(Against Markovic)

25 26 27 28

144.

Mattiuzzi alleges as against Markovic as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint. 145.

CSUS has allowed Markovic to continue to harass, threaten and abuse employees

and students without repercussions despite numerous complaints by Mattiuzzi and others.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

46

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

146.

With this knowledge, on August 28, 2008, Markovic forcefully bumped into

2 Mattiuzzi twice, without her consent, with the intent of harming or offending Mattiuzzi. 3

147.

As a result of Markovic's conduct Mattiuzzi was harmed and offended.

4

148.

As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered

5

special damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of

6 this Court. 7

149.

As a direct or proximate result of the actions of Markovic, Mattiuzzi has suffered

8 general damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess of the jurisdictional limits of 9 this Court. 10

150.

The acts of Markovic were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify

11

an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess

12

of the jurisdictional limit of this Court.

13

Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against Markovic as follows.

14 15

Seventh Cause of Action

16

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

17

(Against CSUS and Markovic)

18 19 20 21 22 23

151.

Mattiuzzi alleges as against Defendants as follows, re-alleges, and incorporates by

reference paragraphs 1 through 107 of this Complaint. 152.

During the course of her career at CSUS, Mattiuzzi has been subjected to extreme

and outrageous acts including, but not limited to: a. An unsafe working environment, caused by the actions of Markovic, which CSUS allowed to continue;

24

b. Retaliation for complaining of an unsafe working environment, sexual

25

harassment, national origin harassment, gender discrimination, and improper

26

actions by Markovic;

27

c. Assault, battery and sexual harassment by Markovic; and

28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

47

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

d. Gender

2

discrimination

by

CSUS

regarding

Mattiuzzi's

requests for

reclassification.

3

153.

Mattiuzzi was at all times mentioned herein, an employee of CSUS.

4

154.

At relevant times mentioned herein, CSUS's agents and employees took the

5

actions alleged within the course and scope of such agency and with the permission and consent of

6 CSUS. 7

155.

Markovic engaged in the extreme and outrageous behavior including, but not

8 limited to, assaulting and battering Mattiuzzi and creating an unsafe working environment for 9 Mattiuzzi and others. 10 11

156.

causing Mattiuzzi to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.

12 13

Defendants' conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the purpose of

157.

As a result of this conduct, Mattiuzzi has suffered, and continues to suffer

humiliation, mental anguish and physical and emotional distress.

14

158.

As a direct or proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mattiuzzi has sustained

15

special damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

16

Court.

17

159.

As a direct or proximate result of Defendants' actions, Mattiuzzi has sustained

18

general damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this

19

Court.

20

160.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Mattiuzzi has incurred

21

attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be established at trial, and in excess of the jurisdictional

22

limits of this Court.

23

161.

The acts of Markovic were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive and justify

24

an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be established at trial and in excess

25

of the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

26

Wherefore, Mattiuzzi prays for judgment against CSUS and Markovic as follows.

27 28

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

48

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

Prayer

2 As To The First Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code 3

Section 3610

4

1.

For special damages according to proof;

5

2.

For general damages according to proof;

6

3.

For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and

7

4.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

8

As To The Second Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of California Government

9 Code Section 12940(h) 10

1.

For special damages according to proof;

11

2.

For general damages according to proof;

12

3.

For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and

13

4.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

14

As To The Third Cause of Action: Gender Discrimination in Violation of California

15

Government Code Section 12940(a)

16

1.

For special damages according to proof;

17

2.

For general damages according to proof;

18

3.

For reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and

19

5.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

20

As To The Fourth Cause of Action: Negligent Supervision

21

1.

For special damages according to proof;

22

2.

For general damages according to proof; and

23

3.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

24

As To The Fifth Cause of Action: Assault

25

1.

For special damages according to proof;

26

2.

For general damages according to proof;

27

3.

For exemplary or punitive damages; and

28

4.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

49

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

1

As To The Sixth Cause of Action: Battery

2

1.

For special damages according to proof;

3

2.

For general damages according to proof;

4

3.

For exemplary or punitive damages; and

5

4.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

6

As To The Seventh Cause of Action: Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress

7

1.

For special damages according to proof;

8

2.

For general damages according to proof;

9

3.

For reasonable attorney' s fees and costs of suit incurred herein;

10

4.

For exemplary or punitive damages against Markovic; and

11

5.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

12 13

Dated: August 7, 2009.

Respectfully submitted, Sheridan & Associates Law Corporation

C? /~) ~

14 15 Bv:

16 17 18

H 679 0

(Jt^y, (^/U^^ Susan J. Slteridan (State Bar Number: 108851) Attorney for Plaintiff CICI MATTIUZZI

G \M\Mattiuzzi, CiCi\P!eadings\Complamt ver 6

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sheridan o Associates * , . <x Law Corporation

/^

50

Complaint for Retaliation and Discrimination

Exhibit 1

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING

Memo To:

Donna Selnick, University Counsel

From:

S K. Ramesh, Department Chair

CC:

David Wagner and Sheila Orman, FSA

Date:

11/24/02

Re:

Dr Miroslav Markovic

- _'

The purpose of this memorandum is to make you aware of student concerns regarding Dr Markovic's conduct and interactions with them. Students who were selected to attend employment interviews with PG&E have expressed serious concerns about Dr. Markovic's behavior. PG&E is a utility company that hires significant numbers of CSUS graduates and is eager to build a long-term relationship with the University. I became aware of Dr Markovic's e-mail correspondence with PG&E in May 2002 and have taken steps to reassure PG&E of the University's commitment to build a long-term relationship with them (see attachments) The following students have contacted me in person or by e-mail to voice their concerns i

(in person)

(by e-mail and telephone) (in person) Other students have spoken to me in confidence about an escalating pattern of intimidation that they have perceived in his classes It is imperative that this matter be treated confidentially as these students are enrolled in Dr Markovic's classes and are fearful of reprisals, that may affecl their professional future and career prospects in the industry Thank you for your attention to this matter

1

6000J Street. Sacramento. California 95819-6019 • (916) 278-6873 • (916)

278-7215 FAX

Tin. CnufORNiA SIATI UmvhKsrrv • Sakcrsfieki • Chico • Dormngut: Hilb, • Fresno • Fullmon • Hayurard • Humboldl • Long Bejch • Los Angeles • Maritime Acadenrj Monterey Bjy • Northndge • Pumona • Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego « San Francisco • Sartjose • San Lim Obispo • San Marcos • Sonoma - Stanislaus 1.1

Attachment A : E-Mail Message from Student Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:57:03 -0800 From: . <• ^ @hotmail.cQm> To: [email protected] Subject: From:. .(CSUS student) Dear Dr. Ramesh: My name is . I am an Electrical & Electronic Engineering with concentration in Power. Recently, I interviewed with PG&E on campus. They called me back for second interview. I was so happy because this is my first second interview. However, I talked with Dr. Markovic that I would miss his class (Will be my first miss in his class), he told me right a way that he would fail two of my classes from him if I should go to the second interview. So I need you advise fast. I tried to see you at your office but you was not there. So email is my only option. The interview will be next week Tuesday, this is the reason I have to hurry to get answer. So piease help me. I will try to see you again later. Thank you. Note: Incase you want to talk with me, my cellphone # is

Sincerely,

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

Attachment B: Dr. Markovic's e-mail message to PG&E in May 2002 and response from Shan Bhattacharya to Dean Das From: Braja Das [[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:22 AM To: 'rameshs' Subject: FW: Proposed meeting SK: FYI. Braja

1.2

—Original MessageFrom: Bhattacharya, Shan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 6:50 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Johnson, Sue (SCJ1) Subject: FW: Proposed meeting Mr. Das: It was nice meeting you on the CSUS campus a few weeks ago. As I mentioned to you, I am looking forward to maintaining my contact with you and your, staff on an on-going basis. Accordingly, I asked our director of Substatiqn Engrg. to follow up with your staff to explore the possibilities of student projects. He has been setting up contacts with some of your faculty members (including Dr. Markovic) in the Power Programs. The attached e-mail shows that this effort may have uncovered professional jealousy among your faculty that you should be aware of. This experience, however isolated it is, negatively affects the hiring supervisor's interest in reaching out to your faculty.

Even with this initial setback, we are committed to re-e.stablish a healthyi relationship between PG&E and CSUS. I would appreciate receiving your guidance in this area. , Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Shan Bhattacharya

Original Message From: markovic [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:58 AM To: Lemler, Gregg; Bhattacharya, Shan Subject: Proposed meeting

Hello Mr. Lemler: How are you today? I heard your taped message from last Friday regarding my original request

1.3

of meeting with you. It is beyond my ability to understand what you are trying to do. I have asked Mr. Battacharya to facilitate a meeting between me and you, nothing else. Your lengthy preparation to include all those people that you are listing is not only necessary but puzzling. Those other people neither did call you no ask for a meeting. They care about power engineering program at the CSUS and cooperation with PG&E as much as an alley cat may care for a marriage license. Your Personnel Department is as good as a gallon of dehydrated water to a thirsty man in a desert. Why are you wasting your time? Your move to include them is like calling Osama bin Laden to help US in fight against the terrorism. Your plan to include some other persons from the College of Engineering is like asking a banjo player to help wind orchestra in performing a better wind music. If you want to meet with me and hear what my students are concerned about, I shall be glad to meet with you and talk about that like one professional person can talk to the other. I don't need any entourage and make a big production out of something that doesn't exist. Anything else is sheer waste of time, mirrors and smoke screens. Please, include me out of it. After a full year of hard trying to talk to somebody from your company who is in postion to listen and change the things as they are, now I am gradually becoming able to understand why the PG&E Company is having such a hard time in surviving as a viable organization. Sincerely, Dr. Markovic

1.4

Attachment C: E-mail from PG&E following May 23rd meeting regarding; a partnership Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:50:42 -0700 ; From: "Messina, Michael" <[email protected]> i To: 'S. Ramesh' Cc: "Bhattacharya, Shan" <[email protected]>, '"[email protected]" , '"[email protected]"' , "Lemler, Gregg" ', , ' "Leder, Steve" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: PG&E - CSUS Partnership ; Dear Dr. Ramesh: On behalf of Shan Bhattacharya, Gregg Lemler, and PG&E's College Relations team, I offer our sincere thanks for the time and attention you and your colleagues afforded Gregg and I during our May 23 visit to CSU Sacramento. ! Special thanks to you for your efforts in arranging a most enjoyable, informative, and productive meeting. It was a pleasure meeting both you and Dr. Yousif, and to once again have Dr. Das participate in our discussion. Gregg and I left campus with a better understanding of CSUS's Power Program, a great sense of energy regarding the many mutual support opportunities discussed, and the satisfaction of knowing that we'd taken another step toward personalizing the relationship between our two organizations. The energy and receptivity demonstrated by the CSUS team is a great source of encouragement. \ Thank you as well for your follow-up message summarizing the points of our discussion. I believe you have very accurately captured not only the topics covered, but, the related agreements and commitments as well. Gregg and I will follow-up with Shan, our respective workgroups, and other key stakeholders to ensure that we capitalize on the appropriate identified < opportunities. Toward that end, you can expect to be hearing from one or both of us in the coming weeks. Thanks again, and best regards, Michael Michael Messina College Relations Supervisor Pacific Gas and Electric Company

;

415.972.5322

for information about programs and career opportunities, visit us at: http://www.pge.com/005_career/005d_college_recruit.shtml

1.5

-Original MessageFrom: S. Ramesh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:29 PM To: Messina, Michael Cc: Bhattacharya, Shan; Lemler, Gregg; Hauntsman, Debra; Brodhead, Devon; Tizedes, Frank; Rothenberg, Petra; S. Ramesh Subject: Re: PG&E - CSUS Partnership

Dear Gregg and Michael Thank you for visiting with us this afternoon. I hope you found the meeting useful. We are looking forward to building stronger ties between our College and PG&E in the days ahead. I've listed a brief summary of the Action Items (Timelines/Owners) for your review. Please feel free to edit and make any changes that you deem necessary. 1. Goal: Build a closer relationship with the CSUS College of Engineering and Computer Science: a. Shan Bhattacharya will be joining the College Level IAB (letter in the works/Dean Das) b. Gregg Lemler and perhaps one additional member from PG&E to serve on EPEI and provide feedback and input to Power Engineering program (Gregg Lemler-PG&E, Ramesh-CSUS, by mid August 2002) c. PG&E reps on EPEI to attend semi-annual meeting of EPEI (date: TBD in November 2002) 2. Goal: Promote Career opportunities for EE's, ME's and CE's at PG&E a. Mike Messina, PG&E will inform Cici Mattiuzzi, Director, Career Planning and Placement, CSUS College of Engineering and Computer Science of opportunities to be advertised in weekly electronic newsletter and bulletin board (during the academic year). Also plan on attending annual career fair in March 2003. 3. Goal: Promote Co-Op's and internships at PG&E a. Mike Messina, PG&E , to contact Carol Hopfe, ECS Co-Op Program Coordinator, to advertise opportunities. Carol may be reached at 916-278-7220 or by e-mail at [email protected] 4. Goal: Sponsor Senior Projects in Power Engineering

1.6

Gregg Lemler (PG&E) will identify suitable projects and work with Dr. Gonen ([email protected] or 916-278-6756) from CSUS to identify appropriate students. (Fall 2002) 5. Goal: Curriculum Enhancement

i

Gregg Lemler (PG&E) or other representative from PG&E will work with Power faculty to identify areas of interest. A Preliminary area that was identified today was Capacity Planning. PG&E representatives to present a list of areas at Fall EPEI meeting. ' i

6. Goal: Student Scholarship Programs

;

PG&E to consider renewing focused scholarships for high achieving power engineering students through EPEI. Target approx. $ 1,500/student. Present proposal at Fall EPEI meeting (PG&E representative) listing desired qualifications. 7. Goal: Equipment Support CSUS Power faculty to identify critical equipment needs along with development plans (Fall EPEI meeting)

:

8. Goal: Offer courses of contemporary interest to PG&E engineers PG&E to identify specific topical areas of interest. In response, CSUS Power faculty to develop and offer short courses/seminars etc., of value to practicing engineers. : Best wishes Ramesh *

S. K. Ramesh Tel : (916) 278-7955 Department of Electrical Engineering FAX : (916) 278-721 5 California State University Sacramento, CA 95819-6019. Internet : [email protected] *

On Tue, 21 May 2002, Messina-, Michael wrote:

1.7

> Dr. Ramesh: > > Thank you so much for agreeing to meet with us, and for taking the > time to make arrangements for our visit to CSU Sacramento on Thursday, > May 23. We are delighted at the > opportunity to meet > with you and the the assembled "Power Faculty.'1 As you know, Shan > Bhattacharya and I met last month with Dr. Das and Dr. Markovic to > discuss avenues toward a stronger, mutually productive > relationship between our company and the University, we are very pleased to > be back on campus > so soon to continue that dialog. > > I am looking forward to meeting you and the others, and also pleased > to introduce Gregg Lemler at that time. Gregg is our Director of > Sub-Station Engineering, and represents Shan's Engineering > and Planning organization. Gregg welcomes the opportunity to serve as > Company liaison to the > University, and is a key stakeholder in PG&E's recruitment process. Together > with College Relations, > members of Gregg's team are actively recruiting electrical, civil, and > industrial engineering students at CSUS. > > We recognize a long and positive relationship with CSUS, with many a > University alum among the staffs of our Engineering and Planning, and > Operations Maintenance and Construction organizations, > That said, we feel strongly that with more frequent contact and continuous > dialog, the future holds > many more mutually beneficial opportunities for both our organizations, and > the engineering students > at CSU Sacramento. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > Michael Messina > College Relations Supervisor > Pacific Gas and Electric Company > 222.5322-415.972.5322

> for information about programs and career opportunities, visit us at:

I.8

http://www.pge. com/005_career/005d_college_recruit.shtml

Attachment D: Dr. Markovic's November 18 e-mail message to PG&E and response from Mr. Steve Leder on .behalf of PG&E From: Leder, Steve [[email protected]] ! Sent: Thursday, November 21;, 2002 3:21 PM ; To: [email protected] I Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Bhattacharya, Shan; Johnson, Sue (SCJ1); Lernler, Gregg; Messina, Michael; Brodhead, Devon ! Subject: Sacramento State and PG&E j Dr. Markovic:

i

Shan Bhattacharya, PG&E's vice president of engineering and planning, has asked me to res^md to your e-mail message dated November 19 (attached). It concerns me that PG&E's interaction with some CSU Sacramento students may have inadvertently created? difficulties for you. The students, faculty and staff, and entire CSU Sacramento campus community is important to us. It is neither our intent nor desire to trouble or inconvenience any member of that community as we conduct pur recruitment activities. PG&E representatives who visit the various universities and interact with students either on or off campus, do ; so in accordance with guidelines which are given to us by the respective schools and/or departments. While we always do our best to comply with the general guidelines o1j the 24 universities where we recruit, the information provided is usually limited to advisories about final exams,
1.9

On-Site (second round) Interviews PG&E's identifies multiple on-site interview days to afford students scheduling options. These interview days are scheduled in a manner intended to balance PG&E's business needs with the individual needs of the many students seeking employment opportunities with us. We offer scheduling options, and rely on the students to manage their various educational and personal commitments and obligations in a responsible and professional manner. PG&E is committed to conducting all university related business in a manner consistent with the wishes of the institutions where we recruit. Our policies and programs are designed to ensure that we act in the student's best interest, and maintain that their academic endeavors remain paramount to our employment needs. Toward that end, we schedule regular meetings with university faculty and staff to ensure a successful partnership that provides mutual benefits. We have met often with various representatives of CSU Sacramento, most often in fact with the College of Engineering and Computer Science where we have enjoyed a long standing positive relationship. We will be on-campus again in the Spring for that purpose. \ hope that you can find time in your schedule to be a part of our on-going dialog; your thoughts are important to us. Again, I'm concerned that our actions may have caused you some inconvenience, but, hope that my comments have shed some light on both our intentions and recruitment practices. If you wish more information or have additional issues you wish to address, please feel free to contact our College Relations department directly. Sincerely, Steve Leder Director Professional Staffing and Diversity cc:

Dr. Braja M. Das Dr. S. K. Ramesh Shan Bhattacharya Sue Johnson Gregg Lemler

1.10

Devon Brodhead Michael Messina

From: Markovic, Miroslav [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:02 PM To: Bhattacharya, Shan Cc: '[email protected] Subject:

Hello Mr. Bhattacharya: I am appealing to you to convey my grave concerns to your Personnel Department for its deliberate disregard of my classes and my College of Engineering and Computer Science's standards. Your Personnel Department should know that the attendance of my lectures is mandatory. If a student decides to leave on his/her own without my permission, the return into the class is not allowed. This rule is a part of my syllabus. If your Personnel Department deliberately demands from some of my students to leave my classes in order to be interviewed by'your , company on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I object adamantly to that practice, because I know that the interviews could be done as well on Mondays, , Wednesdays, and/or Fridays. ^ : On Tuesdays and Thursdays, I have two classes and two labs to teach. If a student misses those lectures, there is no room in my schedule for make up of the missed sessions. <-

; |

For several years, I have tried my best to accommodate the unreasonably demands of your Personnel Department, but it doesn't work any more. My University had never disturb a normal work of your company. And it wijll not even try to inconvenient anybody in your company, while your people are working. Therefore, I am requesting and demanding a full reciprocity. 1.11

Through you, I am asking your Personnel Department not to deliberately disrupt my classes. They are sacred for me and my student. I would appreciate your full attention to this serious matter. Sincerely, Dr. Markovic of CSU, Sacramento

1

I Page 11

1

1.12

Exhibit 2

2ti03: 2870lS!EHpganE#475 Gresham, OR 97030 Dr. Donald R Gerth President CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Dr. Gerth, I am writing to discuss recent actions of Dr. Miroslav Markovic. In November, I spoke with Dr. Ramesh, the Chair of the FKF, department regarding these incidents. I wanted to follow up that oral conversation with a written statement. I have taken several classes from Dr. Markovic during the past three semesters. He has always been good instructor as fat as academics are concerned. However, his recent .personal behavior regarding students and industry has been erratic and frightening, and it •eclipses any iO'fhis instructional abilities. Dr. Markoyic's actions .during the fell semester of 2002 have undermined the efforts of students seeking, employment for. after graduation; and have created bad relations between potential employers and the College. This has created a great deal df stress for several students, inchiding myself. In October 2002, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) conducted several on-campus interviews of .electrical engineering students. Two of these students, x-v >•• • and jtvere subsequently chosen for secondary interviews that were conducted at PGE's corporate offices in San Francisco. The secondary interviews lasted afl day, and happened to conflict with Dr. Markovic's classes. A professor should be expected to allow students who are hi the process of obtaining employment in their chosen field of industry to miss class for interviews. Such was not the case with Dr. Markovic. He announced in class that students who went to interviews during class time would be failed. In what seemed like a rant, he said that industry needs to respect academia, and that PG&E needed to change its interview dates to avoid interfering with his class times. (He repeated these statements in the next class period.) At first, I just thought Dr. Maricovic was simply frustrated for some unknown reason, and that he was venting in .front of the class: However, in subsequent conversations with Mr _>.and Mr.^ 1 learned that Dr. Markovic had said that he would make good on his threats and that he would not pass them if they went to the interviews. Mr. actually went to Dr. Markovic's office to plead bis case, and he received the same response: "Attend the interview and you will fail this class."

2.1

This caused both of them considerable mental stress. Mr. said to me: "The reason I go to school is to get a job. I cant get the job if I don't go to the interviews and I cant get the job if I dont pass the class." Mr and Mr continued to be upset about this situation until after graduation. Dr. Markovic's statements were also quite upsetting to me, for several reasons. First, his actions caused a lot of stress for my classmates and me. I felt that this behavior crossed the line and that he was bullying and brow beating students. Second, a few weeks before this incident, I had informed Dr. Markovic that I would be missing class for an interview with a company. At the time, he seemed to have no problem with it. However, after his statements in class regarding the PG&E interviews, I became concerned that I would not pass the class. I continued to worry about this for a number of weeks before graduation On 11-19-2002, Dr. Markovic took written roll in a manner I'd never seen him use before. He sent apiece of paper around the class and asked us all to write down our names. At the end of this process, he made a verbal comment that Mr. • and Mr .were absent '(This was the day of their PGE interviews.) On several later occasions, Dr. Markovic made comments in class that seemed to be a veiled threat, relating to this same issue. Near the end of the semester, when the instructor comment sheets were distributed to the class, Dr. Markovic told us that he had conflicts with staff and with the College in the past He said that he had weathered these difficulties without problem, and that "negative comments about instructors are often reflected back on the writer." I took this to be a threat to the class that negative comments regarding Dr. Markovic would do no good, and may come back to haunt us. (I considered this a very real threat. In the Electrical Engineering specialty of power engineering, there are very few instructors available for the area. Dr. Markovic teaches most of the power classes. I have heard, but cannot substantiate, that Dr Markovic would give very low grades to those who somehow got on his bad side.) I also believe that Dr. Markovic is a detriment to CSUS in Ms relations with company recruiters. During a SDGE interview that I attended, the recruiter commented negatively about Dr. Marfcovic's attitude and behavior. (Dr. Markovic himself stated in class that he had communication with several recruiters and had written several letters regarding when they could conduct interviews. To me it sounded more fike harassment of the recruiters and their superiors; Either way, I feel that this would make a potential employer less likely to bother to recruit at CSUS.) There are a few other things that have caused me to be concerned about Dr. Markovic's behavior. In the week of 12/7/2002, Dr. Markovic said that per a memo from the CSUS president (Dr. Gerth), he could not see students during finals week outside of class "due to safety

2.2

reasons" and "because accidents had occurred at other campuses." I don't know if such a memo exists, but it sounded like he was saying that students might have reason to be concerned about Ms mental stability, and that others might have considered him to be some kind of a safety threat. Finally, during an office visit, about two semesters ago, I asked Dr. Markovie about several career issues. One question was whether or not the ECS career counselor, Cici Mattiuzzi, might be helpful in securing employment. I had expected a simple yes or no answer on whether or not she could help. Dr. Markovic replied with a tirade. He said that she would be of no help, and that he believed that she had essentially slept or prostituted her way into the position of ECS career counselor. I was so surprised by this response that it stuck hi my mind for a long time. (I did aot mention this conversation to anyone until speaking with Dr. Ramesh regarding Dr. Markovic's student relations. I had assumed that Dr. Markovic was merely sexist, but later came to think that he might be a loose cannon and a potential danger to students. I could not imagine a professor speaking about a staff member in that way.) I should say again that as far as technical knowledge is concerned, Dr. Markovic is an excellent instructor. However, ,in liglit of the behaviors I have observed, his propensity to intimidate students, and his erratic and sometimes frightening actions, I'm wondering if he should be removed from his position.

Cordially,

Nathan Laye cc: Dr. S.K Ranresh

2.3

!/alfian Laye |§70NE Hogan Rd E#47S Iresham, OR 97630

CERTIFIED MAIL

,&"-** rH:> 7001 2510 OOOt flQ40 i<833

•TUH1

O ri "-•'

x

h

FS MEtSfl 844733!

SKRamesh Department of Electrical Engineering

CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819

04 14

to

imfift

Exhibit 3

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING February. 19; 2003 President Donald R. Gerth CSUS Dear President Gerth:

I just received a copy Mr. Nathan Laye's letter to you, dated February 12,2003, regarding Dr. Miroslav Markovic of the EEE department The purpose of this letter is to update you on the steps that I have taken to address student concerns about this situation As soon as I became aware of the student concerns regarding Dr. Markovic's actions and behavior, I met with Donna Selnick, University Legal Counsel, on November 15m 2002. Following that meeting. I submitted a letter with supporting documents to Donna, with copies to Dean David Wagner and Sheila Onman in Faculty and Staff Affairs, conveying student concerns about Dr. Markovic's behavior. My letter of November 24th and the supporting documents were hand delivered by the EEE Office Assistant prior to the Thanksgiving Break, to the office of the University Legal Counsel and Faculty & Staff Affairs. We are awaiting a response. If I can provide any further information please feel free to contact me

Sincerely,

,u.

S. K. Ramesh Professor & Chair

6000J Street, Sacramento, California 95819-6019 • (916) 278-6873 - (916) 278-7215 FAX THE CoiroanA STATI UNTVUSITY • Bakersfield • Chko • Domlnguez HlDs • Fresno • Fuflcmm • Haywud • Humholdl • Long Beach • U» Angeles • Maritime Academy Monterey Bay • Nonhrldge - Pomona - Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Franosco • San Jose - San I.UTS Obispo • San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus

3.1

Exhibit 4

May 4, 2003

Dr. S. K. Ramesh Chair, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering This written statement is in regard to the actions and behavior of Dr. Miroslav Markovic at California State University, Sacramento that my colleague I,

and

I find inappropriate. Our chosen field of study at CSUS is Electrical/Electronic Engineering in which

we plan to obtain a Bachelor's degree in the Spring and Summer of 2003. Dr. Markovic teaches classes that focus on Electncal/Power Engineering; therefore, we have only had him once as an instructor for Electromechanical Conversion (EEE 130), Since graduation is approaching, job hunting was done early in the semester. Pacific Gas and Electric Company had made an impressionable presence at the CSUS campus early in the semester making it clear that they planned to hire many college graduates within the immediate future. PG&E made no discrimination between "electronic" or "power" concentration majors. Therefore both

and I applied for entry

level positions within the company. After several weeks of interviewing and talking to the company, a few other students and I were offered positions. Students from both fields of "electronic" and "power" engineering were hired as it was made clear that both were needed within the company. We were all excited about the job offers. It made us realize that all of the hard work put forth in the last several years had finally paid off. Shortly after PG&E had made the initial presence on the CSUS campus, two power students were approached by Dr. Markovic and were asked if they would supply

4.1

him with the names of the "electronic" students who applied to PG&E. He followed this request by stating that "electronic" students should not be applying for positions with a power company as it steals jobs away from the "power" students. He stated that only "power" students are qualified for positions with "power companies". He concluded by adamantly stating that he would do something about the situation. Other students and I were alarmed and outraged to hear of this. We're extremely concerned that he will attempt to sabotage our chances of obtaining positions with PG&E. At this point, I felt it was necessary to talk to you, as I did. After speaking with you, you told me to document the situation. As time passed our classes consumed us, as they always do, and the situation took a state of low priority. The situation remained low priority until last week. A power student was cornered last week by Dr. Markovic for the names of the "electronic" engineering students recently given job offers by PG&E. That same day another power student who Dr. Markovic knew was offered a position with PG&E was cornered by the professor and was asked to give the name and phone number of the person who hired him at the company. The student said that he felt very uncomfortable to be put in that situation. He was taking a class by the professor and did not want to jeopardize his grade but at the same time did not want to give him any information. This latest event by Dr. Markovic is deemed as "over the top" by many of the "electronic" and "power" engineering students. His behavior is unethical and unprofessional and should not be allowed to prevail. We, as students, feel as if we have no power in this situation and are furious that a professor would try to limit our chaaces of employment that we have worked so hard for.

4.2

As of now, we don'I know what Dr. Markovic will do concerning PG&E and the list of students that he obtained. We feel as if the company will ignore any input from the professor but at the same time we don't want to underestimate him. Mainly, we are furious that we were put into a situation such as this while at a professional institution. His lack of respect and misuse of power as an educator reflects poorly on the Electrical Engineering Department at California State University, Sacramento. Dr. Markovic should be held liable for his actions with appropriate consequences.

Sincerely,

Those who support the findings within this letter and the viewpoints expressed.

4.3

Exhibit 5

September. 7,. 2003 Peter I ,au Affirmative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Dear Peter, 1.

In early spring of this year (2003), I delivered to you a copy of a letter addressed to the campus president from a CSUS alum, Nathan Laye, who said that Professor Miroslav Markovic was making derogatory, sexual comments about me to students. As you will recall, I had received a blind copy and was shocked by what was being said about me.

2. When I spoke to you, I asked if I needed to complete any forms or to file any paper work for your office to receive this as a complaint of sexual harassment You indicated that no paperwork was necessary and that the delivery of the letter to you constituted a complaint 3.

Following my discussion with you, it seemed to me that my supervisor was hostile towards me. For that reason, later in the semester, I asked you whether my boss had been informed about the complaint f had made; you assured me that that would not be the case. I then asked you if you actually knew who my supervisor was, and you expressed surprise when I told you that my boss is Braja Das, Dean of the College of H&CS. You said that you would get back to me about this situation.

4.

I had not heard from you by the end of the spring semester, and I spent the summer away from the campus as I am an academic year employee.

5

On Wednesday August 27th, when I returned to the campus, Braja Das came into my office. Without any pleasantries or introductory comments, he began railing at me in a loud and vituperative manner. In this context, I could not immediately grasp his point, but I came to understand that he had decided not to sign my contract to leach CS 194 for the coming semester, as scheduled. I am a Unit 4 staff and have had a contract to teach this course for the past six semesters as a Unit 3, Lecturer B. This contract represents a $3000+/ year source of income for me.

6. 1 believe that Dean Das' decision to withhold this contract was in retaliation for my having filed the sexual harassment complaint. I believe that this is an act of reprisal on his part (09/10/03: Subsequent to my having prepared this letter, and two hours before the class was scheduled to meet. Dean Das emailed me and said I would in fact be paid to teach the course, as per instructions from Campus Personnel. The immediate issue resolved, but the larger concern remains.) 7

1 would appreciate a response to this letter.

Sincerely, Cici Mattiuzzi 278-7091/ [email protected]

5.1

Exhibit 6

To whom it may concern: During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred: *Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at the time this occurred. *He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it. *ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade: • -He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch" -He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back -Ben Schaffer

6.1

Exhibit 7

October 9, 2007; Pelcrl.au Affirmative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Dear Peter, For the seventh time I find myself writing to complain about Dr Miroslav Markovic. Three times 1 have come to you about his harassing behavior towards me to request that you take action. Four times I have come to you and previous persons in authority regarding harassing behavior towards students and major employers. I have never received a response and I have no idea what action has been taken in the past. I just know that the behavior does not stop I am aware that past department chairs in the department that Dr Markovic reports to have on numerous occasions come to you and your predecessors seeking relief from Dr. Markovic. 1 believe that there is a failure to protect individuals from this type of behavior on this campus. Attached please find a document given to me in late May. I was made aware that Dr Markovic was speaking in a hostile and threatening fashion about me once again. [n the spring when the event surfaced, three people in this College, all in positions of authority, told me that it would serve no useful purpose to complain because no action would be taken. Upon my return to campus for the fall semester, I find the problem distracting and I fee] unsafe in my work environment A little over a week ago my office had been entered and my computer was on when I came to work. Things were moved around. I checked with the IT support staff and the student assistants who work for me, and none of them had been in my office during the previous period. While I cannot prove that Dr Markovic was in my office, I am aware, as you are aware, that Dr Markovic has on other occasions destroyed labs and student projects. ! find the continuing harassment embarrassing and humiliating. Once again I am requesting your assistance with resolving the problem. 1 would appreciate a response to this letter. Sincerely, Cici Mattiuz.d 916-278-70917 cicifflcsus edu cc Emir tvlacari, Dean College of Engineering and Computer Science Suresh Vadhva, Chair, Electrical Engineering Barbara Peterson, Vice President, Academic Professionals of California

7.1

I'o whom it may concern. During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred"Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at ihc lime this occurred. *He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it. •*ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade: -He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch" -He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back -Ben Schaffcr

7.2

Exhibit 8

Date: Tue, To: vadhva """ From: Cici Mattiuzzi

16:04:59 -0700 <[email protected]>

Subject: your advice Cc: Bcc: [email protected]

X-Attachments: Suresh,

i

Thank you for your advice this morning. I appreciate your kindness and concern. As you suggested I am working on having the lock on my office changed and I am going to work on figuring out how to juggle my schedule so I am not coming in at 7 am to an empty building. It may be safer not being alone in the building at that hour with Dr. Markovic. It is unnerving to find him coming up the stairs behind me at that hour. Cici Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949 email [email protected] web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

8.1

Exhibit 9

Date: Thu, .Wi^^iggWl3:53:57 -0700 To: emacari From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Subject: update: corrected copy Cc: Bcc: [email protected] X-Attachments: Emir,

Thank you for speaking with me on Tuesday regarding the letter that I wrote in complaint of the continuing harassment directed at me by Dr. Markovic. After I spoke with you, I told Lynne, who supervises a number of students that I had written the letter, she indicated that she is also very concerned about his behavior and is uncomfortable with him. She told me that she was aware that Dr. Markovic had been "hitting on" ,a number of male students recently and that he had gone into a racist tirade directed at a foreign student, calling him a terrorist. Dr. Vadhva also spoke to me after receiving his copy of the letter and a phone call from Paul, my husband. Dr Vadhva is- aware of Dr Markovic and he suggested that I change the locks and that I alter my comings and goings here. I usually come in at or before 7 am. After Dr. Markovic was reprimanded in the early 90s for stalking a student he was admonished that the next time he engaged in inappropriate behavior he would be terminated. That is according to It has happened on numerous occasions since. Cici Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street 9.1

Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949 email [email protected] web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

9.2

Exhibit 10

Paul Mattiu/2i|lfe«8:02 A

3700, Fwd: Your concern.

To: paul From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Your concern. Cc: X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAALbcGEeCVICEnZdsbZJhbACOVAEBAQEHBAYJIIEn X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,302,11 88802800"; d="scan'208";a="117409907" Subject: Your concern. Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:39:09 -0700 Thread-Topic: Your concern. Thread-Index: AcgSqT7cs3oPUPVvQZCji+Od/+vMkg== From: "Lau, Peter" To: "Mattiuzzi, CiCi" X-Virus-Status: No X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.90.2/4545/Wed Oct 17 14:05:57 2007 Cici: Action has been taken regarding your complaint against Prof. Markovic. I believe there will not be any more harassment directed towards you. Please inform me as soon as possible in case you encounter any more harassment from Prof. Markovic. Peter Lau Director, Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action California State University, Sacramento 916.278.6907 Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

.„ .

Exhibit 11

Local 1002, LIUNA, AFL-CIO roara Perersen, Northern Vice President

10770 Oakon Way, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

(916)851-9449

Fax (916) 851-9449

af>^[email protected]

Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action California State University, Sacramento . 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Dear Mr. Lau: It has recently come to my attention that a member of Unit 4, Cici Mattiuzzi has come to you and your predecessors seven times with complaints about the ongoing and escalating harassment directed towards her and certain CSUS students by Dr. Miroslav Markovic. I'm sure you can understand, given the long history of abuse here, that she expected something more from you than an email message staling that you believe there will be no more harassment directed towards Ms Mattiuzzi. I'm sure that she has received similar assurances throughout her long ordeal. I am deeply concerned not only for our Unit 4 member but for the students involved as well. I ask, therefore, that as Ms. Mattiuzzi's union representative, I be provided with the results of the current and all past investigations into these complaints as well as the actions you have taken to insure a safe and healthful work environment for all concerned.

. Petersen Vice President CSUS Chief Steward Cc:

Office

Maria Santos EdPurcell Cici Mattiuzzi

5040 Partridge Drive, Oakland, CA 94619-3514

(510) 482-1155

Fax (510) 482-1160

[email protected]

www.dpd002.org

11.1

Exhibit 12

California State University, Sacramento Office of Human Resources 6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032 http //www csus edu/hr

November 16, 2007 To:

Cici Mattiuzzi College of Engineering & Computer Science

From

Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

Re:

Harassment Complaint

This is a follow-up to my Oct. 19, 2007 email to you. I have discussed your complaint with Dean Macari. Dean Macari has decided to investigate the complaint himself. He has informed me that he has concluded the investigation, and has taken action to prevent any further occurrence of similar behavior from Dr. Markovic. As I said in my email, should you encounter any more harassment from Dr. Markovic, please inform me as soon as possible. Sincerely yours,

Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

, v AUf-ORNiA S T A T t UNivtRSlTY Bakersfield

ChanneMslands • Chico • Domtnguez Hills - Ease Say • Fresno • Fulierton • Humboldt • Long Beach • Lo*Ano**U»<, • Maritime Academy

Pomortd • Sacramenio Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Sanjose Jose • San Luis Obtspo

San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus

12.1

Man

Exhibit 13

ASKCSU

POLICY

GLOSSARY CONTENTS

MAIN PAGE

Economic & Environmental Harassment

DEFINED The language of sexual harassment has evolved. Today courts talk about it in terms of economic and environmental harassment. • Economic Harassment is any persistent or severe action that results in a "tangible employment action." This can mean that the recipient of the harassment loses pay or experiences some significant change in workload, assignments or hours of work. • Environmental Harassment includes actions (that create adverse working conditions but do not result in a "tangible employment action." It encompasses jokes, comments, slurs, emails, touching, pictures or any behavior that seriously interferes with an employee's work environment. In reality, environmental harassment is more common than economic harassment. In cases of environmental harassment, the focus is on the environment rather than on a tangible economic loss suffered by the recipient.

of 2

1/15/08 11:03 AM

13.1

Exhibit 14

January 30,2008

Peter Lau

'

<

Affirmative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Dear Pctci, As in the past, I continue to receive information about Dr. Markovic that is disturbing and unsettling and that causes me to experience stress in the work environment. I have recently been told that Dr. Gonan, a professor in EEE has received a complaint from a student about being harassed by Dr. Markovic and that the student is unwilling to file a formal complaint. My understanding is that this was brought to Dr. Gonan's attention last semester. On January 10th, a student told me directly mat Dr. Maikovic has invited him toiisitome on-numerous occasions to work on Markovic's car. The student is quite unaware of the implications. This type of personal involvement with a student may not be appropriate. It is definitely reminiscent of Dr.Markovic's involvement with Peter Robiiio. You will recall that this was a situation in which Markovic ingratiated himself with a student over a period of time, apparently attempted to develop a distinctly inappropriate relationship, and then stalked him and actively sought to disrupt the student's employment The Robino matter is well documented. As you know, I was recently required to complete the CSU sexual harassment on-line workshop. The workshop's instruction is that if a staff member has reason to believe that any type of harasssieat is taking place, it must be reported. My experience, however, is that the effort.is futile and that effective action will not be taken by the campus. In addition, my experience has been that negative consequences will follow from having made the required report The workshop also stressed that making negative comments about another employee could be actionable. So I am in the position of having to decide whether or not I should warn a student about a faculty member who might be grooming him as prey, as he has done before. Either way, 1 am subjected to a conflict that should not be present in my work environment. And, it necessarily brings back to mind the fact that Markovic has directed hostility towards-me, and that he is still just down the hall. And, it brings back to mind the fact that my former supervisor immediately stopped communicating with me in" almost any way, after that supervisor learned that I had filed a complaint about Maffcovic. Before communications with that supervisor ceased, he subjected me to an irrational 'harangue. In addition, he stopped supporting my reclassification and tried to remove an area of responsibility. I was directly'told that my supervisor thwarted my reclass after I reported the ,2003 event Indeed, the workshop itself and the requirement that I take it gives reason for me to experience distress. The workshop's injunctions put me in a bind. The workshop's assertion that matters such as this will be resolved correctly defies reality as I know it Sincerely, Cici Mattiuzzi 916-278-7091/ [email protected]

14.1

Exhibit 15

Original Message From: paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 2:24 PM To: Lau, Peter; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: harrassment on campus, hostile work environment TO: Peter Lau Peter:

I want to let you know that it is happening again. The information is third hand but reliable. Cici heard yesterday from a former-student/alum who is known to have been harassed by the professor whose name you know. Cici was in contact with this alum for a completely unrelated purpose (scheduling him as a guest speaker). As an aside, he said "I guess you know ..." and proceeded to describe a recent incident. This alum had a student assistant working for him in industry. The student assistant was upset at work and described the experience of a fellow student who was being pressured by the professor to travel with him to Hawaii. It was distressing to them both, and the student advised his friend to make a report to the campus police. The alum who spoke to Cici told her that this situation is widely known in his industry, that it is assumed that the problem is well known on campus (.i.e., "everybody knows"), and that it is assumed that the campus will never respond effectively. In other words, this is an issue that reflects negatively on CSUS in the community. The fact that this continues creates distress for Cici. In addition,

15.1

it is exceedingly disruptive to me and requires unimaginable restraint on my part. And as I said before, even though the sexual harassment itself is not directed towards Cici, it creates a hostile work environment. Contributing to the hostility of the workplace is a common belief that the campus responds immediately to racial insensitivities and hate speech, while ignoring and tolerating sexual harassment and gender hate speech. I am meeting with an attorney on Wednesday the 27th for an initial consultation. paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d. Criminal Forensic Psychologist '(916) 485-0285

15.2

Exhibit 16

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:38:19-0800 To: [email protected] From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Dr. Markovic Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Bcc: X-Attach merits: X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:Ao8CAEaFwUdMYD4Yb2dsb2JhbACCOzKNbgEKBAQEBQoRBYEP X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,398,1199692800"; d="scan'208,217";a="130056239" From: "David Black" To: <[email protected]> Subject: Dr. Markovic Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:56:28 -0800 Thread-Index: Ach3OHzNYrvHAdW8RXq2YfxEOGoz3A== X-Virus-Status: No X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.92/5977/Sun Feb 24 13:56:54 2008 Cici, During the summer of 2007, I worked with a CSUS intern named . He informed me that he was a student of Dr. Miroslav Markovic and that there had been some strange behavior exhibited by Dr. Markovic involving another male power student. .was close friends with the power student and was told that Dr. Markovic had offered to purchase a laptop (for the student) and offered to take the student to Hawaii during the summer so that they could spend some time on the beach and grade papers together. The student did not feel comfortable with the situation because he was also a student of Dr. Markovic and approached L with advice on what to do. advised his friend to notify campus security about the situation because he thought that this behavior was not appropriate. The student filed a complaint with campus authorities ana_ was under the impression that an investigation had begun and that Dr. Markovic would be reprimanded for his inappropriate behavior. That is all that can remember from what ;told me last summer concerning Dr. Markovic. It is very sad that this type of behavior has been tolerated thrbughout the years at CSUS. That fact that Dr. Markovic is a tenured professor does not give him the right td sexually harass unsuspecting young students. I personally find this behavior intolerable and cannot understand why CSUS has not stepped in to permanently 'diffuse the situation. An educational facility should foster and support a harassment free environment as does any professional work place. Sincerely, Dave Black P.E. CSUS EE Power Graduate, 2003

Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

16.1

Exhibit 17

From: Cici Mattiuzzi <mattiuzc@gaia ecs.csus edu> Subject: Re: Keeping you informed. Date: March 18, 2008 11.30:38 AM PDT To: "Lau, Peter" Cc: [email protected] Peter,

I sent you David Black's info and I confirmed that it was correct. through to him. He indicated he would call you. Contact info for

I had no problem getting

-. current student:

[email protected] i@vohoo. com

may not want to talk as he is the student who was fixing Markovic's car at Markovic's house and didn't know that it was inappropriate. I believe it is the same situation as Peter Robino. Cici Cici: I want to keep you informed as to what I am doing. I have done some preliminary interviews. A couple of the addresses you gave me are incorrect so I have been unable to contact David Black and Next week I am going to initiate the formal investigation, which means I'll notify the Dean and the Provost as part of the procedure. I'll talk to a couple more witnesses before I notify Prof. Markovic. Peter Lau Director, Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action California State University, Sacramento 916.278.6907 Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949 email [email protected] web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

17.1

Exhibit 18

Lau, PeterJ|f|fg8Ji38 AM -07'" Re: Contact info. To: "Lau, Peter" From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Contact info. Cc: Bcc: Attachments: - EEE major' - _ email addresses -. @saclink.csus.edu /

. ^juno.com

Cici: Do you have contact information for former student Peter Lau Director, Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action California State University, Sacramento 916.278.6907 Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949 email [email protected] web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

,g ,

Exhibit 19

Lau, Pete^^^^j^;51 AM •" ^0, Re: [email protected],msar

@ calstate.edu

From: "Lau, Peter" To: "[email protected]" CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [email protected],[email protected] Barbara and Cici: As Cici already know, new information has come up and I need to interview additional witnesses. Some of the new witnesses do not work for Sac State nor do they go to school here at this time. They may not even live in the Sacramento area. Thus it will take some time to gather up more evidence. Thank you for your patience. Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action SAC 162 CSU Sacramento 916.278.6907

_

From: Barbara Petersen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:48 AM To: Lau, Peter Subject: [email protected],[email protected] Good Morning Peter, I am writing to you today as the union representative for Ms Cici Mattiuzzi. Ms Mattiuzzi has given you written permission to communicate with me regarding her complaint. On January 30. 2008 you notified Ms Mattiuzzi that you were initiating a level 1 investigation and that that process would take 60 days. On March 1 8, 2008 you notified Ms Mattiuzzi that you would start your investigation the following week. Here we are at the beginning of May and neither Ms Mattiuzzi nor I have received any communication from you as to the status of your investigation. What is the status of your investigation? What, if any, actions have you taken to deal with this very serious situation? I expect a timely answer to my inquiry. Barbara Petersen APC Labor Relations Representative 916-851-9449

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

Exhibit 20

Lau, Peteig^i)$p:24 PM -07^ Re: Investigation '

ffFF-°,

**- \^I-C—UA—fliJ «M

<J

From: "Lau, Peter" To: "[email protected]" CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Investigation Cici and Barbara: I have completed my investigation. I am in the process of writing up my findings. It will take several days. I anticipate I will finish by next Monday. Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action SAC 162 CSU Sacramento 916.278.6907 From: Barbara Petersen [mailto:apcnvp®pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:09 AM To: Lau, Peter Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Investigation Good Morning Peter, At the beginning of May you indicated that your investigation would be complete by May 30, 2008. Please provide me with the results of that investigation. My mailing address is 10774 Oakton Way, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. Thank you, Barbara Petersen APC Labor Relations Representative 916-851-9449

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

~n

Exhibit 21

California State University, Sacramento Office of Human Resources 6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032 http://www.csus.edu/hr

June 4, 200$ Ms. Cici Mattiuzzi College of Engineering and Computer Science Dear Ms. Mattiuzzi: I am completed-my ffivestigation into your complaint against Professor Miroslav Markovic. You made two allegations against Prof. Markovic: 1. You alleged that Prof Markovic attempted to develop inappropriate personal relations with students. 2. You alleged that Prof. Markovic created a harassing work environment for you. My investigation found, the following: 1. On your first allegation, I have talked to a number of witnesses, including current professors and staff in the College of Engineering, and current and former students. Of all the witnesses, only one has any direct experience with the type of behavior you alleged. This witness, who is a former student, confirmed some of the facts as told to me by others. However, this witness did not indicate to me that there was any inappropriate action on the part of Dr. Markovic. This witness experienced no attempt from Dr. Markovic in trying to develop any inappropriate relationship with him. Aside from this one individual, other witnesses who I have talked to could only provide me with second hand information and rumors. Some of this information went back a number of years. No one else had any direct, or current information to support your allegation. 2. Your second allegation concerned verbal harassment against you by Prof. Markovic. As you know, my office and the Dean's office have investigated theije complaints. The most recent incident was investigated by Dean Macari. He had confirmed the incident and had taken action based on his investigation. I understand that he had also discussed his finding with you. You did not allege any new incident since that time.

IMC CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVfcRSITY: Batersfield • Channel Islands • Chico • Dommguez Hills - EasiBay • Fresno • Fullenon - Humboldt • Long Beach • Los Angeles • Maritime Academy . M, ,„„.,.„ • Pomona • Sacramento • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Jose • San Luis Oblspo • San Marcos • Sonoma • Stanislaus

•21.1

At this time, I do not haWesotOogk evidence to proceed wrfli a fennai complaint against Prof. Markovic. Sincerely yotirs, •

• >.„•

Peter Lau, Director, Equal Opporturaty/AfBrmalive Action

21.2

Exhibit 22

"paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d." <[email protected]> For Dr. Alex Gonzalez ... please forward August 27, 2008 5:29:57 PM PDT [email protected] Dr. Gonzales: I'm a CSUS alum, and as a psychologist, I'm a colleague of yours. My wife Cici is also an alum, and for the past 30 years, she has been a CSUS employee. She came home today after her first day back at work after summer vacation, and in tears, she told me about how demoralized she is working on the campus. This should have been a good day. On her first day back, her first task was to chair a Department meeting in the College of Engineering and Computer Science. She had no business chainng such a meeting. That task is way outside her pay grade. But the fact is that in E&CS, she is routinely recognized and relied upon to perform tasks that far exceed her personnel classification. She was asked to chair the meeting because she is recognized as being an effective professional and an independent subject matter expert. Last Spring, she went through the process of seeking reclassification, for the third time. And once again, her application was denied for reasons that can only be viewed as bogus and arbitrary. As a forensic psychologist, I happen to be an expert in the task of interpreting data relative to criteria. More so than any academician facing a journal review board or defending a dissertation, I am routinely examined live and in Court in a process that can be likened to an "oral defense on steroids." It is from that perspective that I am confident in saying that Cici met the criteria for reclassification and that the final decision involved what are politely referred to as °extra-criterial considerations." I think you Know what that means in less polite language. Also last Spring, Cici learned that the campus has no intention of paying any serious attention to her complaints against E&CS Professor Markovic This is a guy who has for years been sexually harassing students and otherwise abusing staff members. If s well documented. Despite her complaints, it has remained "no never mind" that he continues to do so. He's a professor, so what can you do? The students he has assaulted want to get on with their lives, or they are embarrassed, and so they are not going to step into any mess on the campus they left behind. Never mind that he remains a threat. Cici never sought to expose Markovic. She never had an agenda with him. Students and graduates came to her with complaints about Markovic and she did what you told her she should do in the training you insisted she complete. Ifs her issue only because she is the person in E&CS to whom people bring their complaints. Never mind that he has slandered her repeatedly. Never mind that in an ideal world, the things Markovic has said about Cici would provide a basis for a complaint. Today, on her first day back on campus, Cici learned that a valued staff member is intending to resign. The staff member's reason is that he can no longer stand the ongoing abuse he receives from Markovic. Cici came home demoralized. She knows that CSUS provides her with no prospect for advancement, that CSUS is intent on ignoring her contribution to the campus, and that CSUS is intent on turning a blind eye towards complaints from women on campus. I want you to know that I am entirely prepared to provide you with a complete history of the events involved in Cet's feelings of demoralization. It goes way back and before your tender. But for now, you should know that I am disappointed in CSUS's performance in recognizing employee contributions and in responding to complaints about staff behavior. Sincerely paul g mattiuzzi, ph.d

22.1

Exhibit 23

"paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d." Markovic: putting you on notice August 28, 2008 9:12'21 PM PDT markovic@gaia ecs.csus.edu [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Markovic. I don't know if you think you were being clever this afternoon when you bumped into my wife Cici, not once but twice, and with purpose and intention. The fact that you decided to annoy, harass and intimidate her is a matter that the campus could deal with. Or perhaps, as you seem to have learned, the campus will not. You should know, however, that you just stepped over a line (a line that is written in the law) and now you have to deal with me This is a warning and you are only going to hear it once. Don't you ever again come anywhere near my wife. Don't you ever speak to her and don't speak about her If as today you happen to be in a room where you are both present for some meeting, stay on the other side of the room. If you see her walking down the hall, turn around, walk away and wait till she passes. If you see her, don't even look at her. And again, dont you dare come anywhere near her. Here is what will happen, I will march down to the Sacramento Superior Court and file a "Petition for Injunction Prohibiting Harassment and Application for Temporary Restraining Order." I work in jails and in courts and with sociopaths, so I am down there all the time anyway, and I know how to fill out and file the forms. If s about what1 s called "Civil Harassment." Be aware that if you slur her name again, even behind her back, that constitutes actionable harassment. To make the case for the order, I will air your dirty laundry. And I will ask for a "stay away order," barring your presence at her place of work (the Engineering Building). I am in the business of persuading judges and juries, and for me, this is a no-brainer. You will have your hearing in front of a Judge, and you will have a chance to explain yourself. Good luck. Don't reply to this message and dont contact me. You will not hear from me again, paul mattiuz?i

23.1

Exhibit 24

Paul Mattiuzzi, 9/2/08 7:18 AM ^00, Fwd: FW: Somewhat importar

.. FW: Markovic:

To: paul From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: FW: Somewhat important FW: Markovic: putting you on notice Cc: Reply-To: <[email protected]> From: "Emir Macari" <[email protected]> To: '"Cici Mattiuzzi'" <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Somewhat important FW: Markovic: putting you on notice Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:49:44 -0700 Organization: CSUS Thread-Index: AckJjW9aFvsWvAVXQYyTqtkQyeUAZgAAj63gABRSWVAAAVzPkA== X-Virus-Status: No X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV .0.92/811 6/Fri Aug 29

07:39:23 2008

From: Porter, Kentrmailto:porterk(5)saclink.csus.edu] Sent: Friday;^^^^^f^7:15 AM To: [email protected]!edu Cc: [email protected]; Wagner, David L; Sheley, Joseph; Lau, Peter Subject: RE: Somewhat important FW: Markovic: putting you on notice Importance: High

Emir Thank you for this information. Does Cici want to pursue this matter since apparently there was physical contact? Is she willing to speak with someone about this incident? We need specifics to determine how to proceed. Also, were there any witnesses to the "bump?" Please advise. Kent Kent R. Porter Associate Vice President, Human Resources California State University, Sacramento Tel (916) 278-6169 FAX (916) 278-7153 Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

24 i

Exhibit 25

X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-ResUlt: AkMBAIYuvUjRVcbzlGdsb2JhbACCNDCPLD4BAQEBCQMKBxEDmj0wCYZBAQJshCo X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,317,1217833200"; d="scan'208";a="148048848"

DKIM-Signature: v=l; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=QL4uTx554nnTm3YYjPB25VVuyZFzSELPiQPocHehfzs=; b=rgiyA9k64lqmLUTY0PjXMJiTuvrGVrG/9oYKBJ08b8nz5rkjfC3vtTQs6C2AjT0t+p tQqoJHN8gD8NZsMn/4gQCuxHwmw43UvuYxPXDpmTu4vLESxBzpO/q/f88Y6AOWFeEMKh rMBnRaYRNWWByiKwr6XPWb0Xw4g4+ybWV3PX0= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:18:29 -0700 From: "paul g. mattiuzzi, ph.d." < > To: Subject: Re: FW: Somewhat important

Cc:

,

FW: Markovic: putting you on notice

,

,

X-Virus-Status: No X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.92/8141/Tue Sep 2 08:52:21 2008 Kent: This is not a matter for Cici to pursue. It's your problem. This goes back to May of 1991 when Markovic stalked and harassed a graduating student who had spurned his advances, and when he intervened with that'student's employer, trying to retaliate by derailing his career. Cici became involved because in her position, she is the one the employer contacted. Before Cici could respond, the employer contacted Dean Gillott, who also turned to Cici for assistance. Cici was drawn into it again in 2002 when Markovic sent bizarre and intimidating letters to PG&E and when students were complaining about being bullied by him. I believe that was the first time she heard 'a student say that they felt physically threatened. It was in the context of that incident that a student documented comments Markovic had made, about Cici, indicating that she had (.in the student's words) either "slept or prostituted her way" into her position. In subsequent years, students would come to her with their concerns about Markovic. She always faced the conflict: tell the students that he's a sexual predator (that could be deemed harassment according to her mandatory on-campus training) or instead, fail to warn them. Whether she complained or didn't, it created distress on her part and constituted a hostile work environment. While not directed towards her, his episodes of explosive behavior on campus were of a similarly distressing nature. In 2007, when a staff member came to her and warned her about Markovic, it was not because Markovic had called her a bitch, it was because the staff member thought she might be at risk. In January 2008, it was only by coincidence that Cici learned that Markovic was once again "chicken hawking" a student. On her first day back at work last week, a staff member came to her and told her about being intimidated by Markovic. Again, it was not about her, but it was unsettling none-the-less and a reminder that it's a hostile work environment. Cici has pursued this before. There is no reason she should pursue it again. The final outcome of her complaints is that he seems to have become emboldened. If you bump into a person once, that could be an accident. If you bump into a person twice Cand make no effort at all to at least pretend that it was an accident), that's intentional and it's a message. And because the person has to decide whether to pursue it, and has to decide whether to talk about it, and is confronted with the demand to produce evidence, and has to wait and watch to see if anything happens, it's like mission accomplished. It's a clever, common and devious move.

25.1

What's different this time is not that it was physical, but that it was direct and intentional, We are no longer talking about the broad and ambiguous definition of hostile work environment. Whether you choose to restrain him or not, I will. I've defined the behavior to which I will respond and I've outlined the intended action steps. It will happen off-campus and in public. My petition to the Court will include the history. It will include an argument that an injunction is necessary because he has been given license-by the campus, paul mattiuzzi

25.2

Exhibit 26

Page 1 of 1 From "Porter. Kent" «mailto ponerk<&$3<->in.k < »i«> Kji^portfrK jS&g':iini : :-.i. To "Mattiuzzi. CiCi" «mailto cJaSisaclink cm *clu>ricu.gsacim>< csus tn .> CC' "<mailto ij^rnollkigicsus odu>burn?ftKi;gcMi3,edu" «mailto banMii>.*., ,i . "Revelez, Gregorio" «mailto gnu^saclink csu«,sau>3nng;sariiiik cius 6*.i>, H

<mailtoa(Tiac«n@(»cs csus cdu>t?rnacsn^ec5.csu5 eclu" «marfto -vr.t 7

"Wagner. David L" «maclto wagnej.diSsl'yrri?!! C?uj..aiu>w_a3n9rcl!i-'k/raii qsus,e Date Fn. 19 Sep 2008 08 20 09 -0700 Subject Follow-Up to Report of Incident Thread-Topic Follow-Up to Report of Incident Thread-Index ActeazPAsf+l8Z28R7W2OZ|+aqWUkA== Accept-language en-US accepUanguage en-US X-vlrus-Status No X-Virus-Checker-Version damassassm 1 2 4 with damdscan / ClamAV 0 92/8287/Fn Sep 19 01 13 26 2008 Dear Cid • Since the incident late last month involving Miroslav Markovic that was brought to the attention of the College Dean, who in turn contacted Human Resources and Public Safety, it is my understanding you have not spoken with anyone to formally report the incident The University does not treat such matters lightly We are concerned and we wish to properly deal with this matter To do so, however, we need your assistance We need to obtain from you specific information about the incident. You should expect to be contacted by Greg Revelez, an investigator from our Public Safety Department Your kind cooperation in this matter is appreciated If you have any questions or concerns, you are welcome to contact either Mr Revelez (278-7245) or me Sincerely, KentR Porter Associate Vice President. Human Resources California State University, Sacramento Tel (916)278-6169 FAX (916) 278-7153 Confidentiality Notice This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged Information It is solely for the use of the intended recipient (s) Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Pnvacy Act If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication

26.1 http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=lqygpcgurkovy

8/4/2009

Exhibit 27

Cici If you had spoken with Mr. Revelez and provided him with details about the incident, he could have assessed whether the incident was a matter for Public Safety. If Mr. Revelez would have assessed the incident to be an administrative matter for HR to address, however, at least by now my office would have more information about what happened than it currently has. Regardless of whether the incident might be criminal or civil or something else, the University needs specific information from you about the incident. Without specific information, HR cannot initiate any action. I would respectfully invite you to meet with a representative from HR to tell us what happened, or if you prefer, you can submit a written statement describing the incident. In either case HR would need as much specific information about the incident as you can provide. You are welcome to contact me if you have questions or concerns, or if you would like to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Kent R. Porter Associate Vice President, Human Resources California State University, Sacramento

Tel (916) 278-6169 FAX (91 6) 278-71 53 Confidentiality Notice: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended rea'pient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

27.1

Exhibit 28

Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> RE: Follow-Up to Report of Incident • §eptember;^4;'2008;8:48:36 AM PDT "Porter," Kent" [email protected], [email protected]

Kent,

I am not sure why you are using the word "if" in your email. As I indicated in the last email I did speak to Greg Revelez. I spoke with Greg over two weeks ago. He called me at the behest of Dean Macari. I did give him all of the details. It was he who indicated that it was administrative. 1. He wanted to know if anyone witnessed the bumping event.

Cnot that I am aware)

2. Then he wanted to know if there was a verbal threat, (no) 3. Then he told me that it didn't rise to the level of a criminal matter. He said it was an administrative HR issue not a matter for Public Safety. point that he called me- I did not initiate the call.

He seemed frustrated. I reminded him at this

Perhaps it was unclear in my last email that I was paraphrasing Greg's comments. For the record- in my own words- the email you received from my husband, Paul Mattiuzzi, is extremely accurate. Pull out the records. This campus does not take harassment seriously. In addition to my own observations, I have repeatedly heard from students and staff that this campus does not take harassment seriously. I have wished to believe otherwise I have written 7 or 8 formal letters and I have been pulled into numerous investigations. At this point I am completely demoralized. My husband and I are offended by the response of the campus on numerous occasions regarding the harassment issues. Filing a complaint on this campus causes one to lose credibility and to feel isolated and more harassed. Recently, Dr Markovic threatened a pregnant staff member, shouting that he was going to shoot her. Her response is that since no one heard him so no one will believe that it happened. She does not plan to report it, she does not believe anyone will do anything and that it will put her in further danger. I learned this this morning. She told me that she is afraid all of the time here. So am I. She said to me "I am glad that you are complaining, I don't think I can". She too has observed the harassment of young males at Dr. Markovic's hands. The staff member who told me that Dr. Markovic made threats towards me and was extremely fearful told me that he was told he should not have told me "because it just makes me angry." The student who heard the comments at the same time said he continues to be afraid for me. told me this recently even though the event happened over a year ago.

He

When I shared the threat event with another person in management here he said "he is a full professor", indicating that no full professor will every be removed no matter how significant the threat or harassment. When I discussed the 2007 issue with the proper authority he told me he was "aware that I have a personality conflict with Dr. Markovic". During this last go around, Peter Lau spoke with numerous alumni who after finally getting their careers to a level that they were no longer afraid that Dr Markovic could harm them told their stories. He wrote me that those events occurred too long ago. A staff member in the Dean's Office asked me why I would complain. When she complained that she was stalked and harassed by a CSUS staff member she was told by HR "but he planted the trees here." 28.1

A professor who is now in administration told me to change my hours so that I am not in the building alone with Dr Markovic. He told me he was afraid for my safety and that I should stop complaining because Markovic is a "loose cannon". The reason I choose not to write out a formal complaint regarding the bumping event to HR is because in my last meeting with Peter Lau, in January of 2008, he indicated that although he would reluctantly investigate my complaint, there was very little that the university could do. "The best we can hope for is that he might take early retirement." I cannot begin to tell you how disruptive this continues to be to my work and my life. Cici

28.2

Exhibit 29

..

cici mattiuzzi Thank you and another event September 24, 2008 526:46 PM POT [email protected] Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

Dear Kent,

Thank you for speaking to me and Lynne today.

I appreciate your willingness to listen.

I ran into an international student on the way out today who was quite upset. I asked him what was wrong and he indicated that he was being abused and belittled by Dr Markovic for being a foreigner. He indicated that he didn't understand why the university would tolerate this and that it is common knowledge among the Indian students. He said he, like others, was afraid to complain. It was very much like what Lynne had told you. The student is from India and speaks perfect, clear English. Markovic ridiculed him by saying he could not understand him and to "learn English". I told him to send email to me with all of the information and I would get the information to the right person. He said he would but that he didn't want to have his name used. I expect email from him tomorrow morning. This is relentless. The situation is getting worse and the incidents are more extreme and more frequent. I do believe that he is becoming bolder and more aggressive. I tried the number on your email but it was not a direct line. I realized that you had not given that to me. I am writing from home to preserve my memory. Cici Mattiuzzi

29.1

Exhibit 30

Porter, Kent, 10/2/08 12:08 PT

V700, filed police report and new in

nt

To: Kent_Porter From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Subject: filed police report and new incident Cc: vadhva, emacari Bcc: [email protected], lynne-ecs.csus.edu, paul, brannanp, wimple Attachments: Kent Porter, VP Human Resources Kent, I just finished filing a police report for the bumping event that occurred on August 28th. I was prompted to do so because of a new-disturbing incident that happened this week on Tuesday 9/30/08. The police have given me a case number - 08-0581 for the incident. I have been informed this morning that Dr. Markovic, in another outburst, threatened to shoot an IT staff member and his wife on Tuesday. I do not have the details, but Lynne, who you spoke with last Wednesday (9/24) on speaker phone was upset by the event. As you will recall Lynne is the pregnant staff member who was threatened (7/15) by Markovic. He said that he was going to shoot her in a verbal tirade. She was afraid to file a report for fear that she would be in greater danger if she did so. The police officer indicated that the other two members in the ECS IT staff would have to share their experience directly with the police. He advised me to have call directly. Officer Nguyen (278-6851), who took the report today indicated that he could take the report but that it did not rise to the level of a criminal complaint unless he verbal threatened me or physically assaulted me. He indicated that it was a Civil matter. Both Officer Nguyen and I recorded our conversation. I find it incredibly difficult to perform my work under the stress of the continued outbursts Dr. Markovic against my fellow staff and the intimidation he directs towards me. Once again, I do not feel safe in my work environment. I left a phone message with your staff member Lorena at 278-6779. She indicated that you would call me at 11 am. I left a message with her last week also. I have not heard from you so I am putting this in writing. Cici Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949 email [email protected] web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

-ft .

Exhibit 31

From: S K Ramesh <[email protected]> DateflfelQ^'C'^f'S'-iSSiSS PM PDT To: "[email protected]" Cc: "[email protected]" Subject: Dr. Markovic Cici and Paul

I was saddened to hear about the recent threats by Dr. Markovic towards you and other members of the staff. During the time I was at Sacramento State there was more than one occasion where his behavior and interaction with our students raised serious concerns. I brought these to the attention of Donna Selnick (University Legal Counsel) and the Office of Faculty Affairs in November 2002 and subsequently to the President's Office in February 2003. As far as ,l,fen©wm©:a£^©n was taken on this mailer as of the time I left Sacramento State in 2006. My concern then and now is for the welfare of our students, faculty and staff and it is imperative that appropriate steps are taken to ensure their safety at all times. Sincerely, Ramesh S. K. Ramesh, Ph.D. Dean, College of Engineering and Computer Science & Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering California State University, Northridge CA 91330-8295 Tel: 818-677-4501 Fax: 818-677-2140 e-maii: [email protected]

31.1

10,200'8' Peter Lau Affirmative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento Dear Peter, I am writing once again to inform you about me behavior of Dr. Miroslav Markovic. I have personally experienced harassment and I am aware of four other very disturbing events. I hesitate to complain since I have complained to no avail so many times in the past and I have been involved in so many investigations since the first stalking incident in 1991. I will outline the latest events in this letter. On Thursday, August 28th, I was at a fall reception for faculty and staff. I did not notice that Professor Markovic was there until he forcefully bumped into me on his way to the drink table. He passed without saying anything and without making any pretense that this was an accident. The room was not so crowded chat bumping was understandable. A number of moments later, on his way back past me, he again forcefully bumped into me and made no effort to dismiss his actions as accidental. Once might be an accident, twice is a pattern I have never had direct contact with Dr. Markovic in the past. I have not spoken to him in many years. I perceived this as an intentional effort to annoy, harass and intimidate me, and as a direct message. He is aware that I had complained about him and reported the student harassment incident during the previous semester and other incidents in the more distant past and that nothing was done. I perceived him as having put me on notice that he can act with impunity. My view is that he has been emboldened by the failure of the campus to restrain him and that he is in fact more threatening by virtue of having been granted license. What was different about the above is that it was it was an intentional, deliberate and direct act of physical harassment taken against me. It was subtle but devious. It left me in the position of having to decide whether to pursue it and talk about it, and if so, with a demand to produce "evidence," and to be left wondering again if anything will be done in response. As an act of harassment, it was "mission accomplished" 1 decided not to complain. My husband decided to act otherwise. My husband wrote a very pointed email lo Markovic and informed him that if he harassed me again in any way, he would pursue a TRO and protective order. This is the first time that I felt that anyone was acting on my behalf in dealing with Dr. Markovic. 1 am aware that some of his actions are subtle and ambiguous and that they give rise to innocent explanations. But taken together with the history, even if it is dismissed as simply boorish, impolite and inconsiderate, his behavior serves to create a hostile work environment that causes me to be substantially distressed and disturbed. After my husband's pointed email to Dr. Markovic, which was copied to various campus authorities, I received email from Associate VP of HR, Kent Porter requesting that I speak to the campus police. I had done so pnor to receiving Kent's email. My boss, Dean Emir Macari, after learning of the incident with Dr. Markovic, contacted the campus police to have them follow up. I spoke to Officer Greg Revelez Officer Revelez indicated that it was a "human resources" rather than a "criminal matter" and therefore not a police matter and "should be handled by the HR department". I did not feel that filing a police report was going to be productive after speaking to Officer Revelez. (I later filed a police report as I indicate below). Later in early September, after the bumping incident. I was informed that Dr. Markovic had verbally harassed the campus telephone installer:, Brandon had come to the building to replace all of the old phones and Dr. Markovic was excessively unhappy about the change. Several staff members and a student assistant observed a most ugly and humiliating tirade and spoke to me about it at length. One

32.1

individual told me that he was inclined to search for a job elsewhere given the constant tirades. He indicated that "a faculty member on tkis campus could do anything and not be held accountable". 1 encouraged staff to report the incident They indicated that it would be a waste of time given the campus' response lo numerous other reports about Dr. Markovic. On Wednesday the 24th of September, I was visibly upset about the bumping experience with Dr Markovic and the continuing hostile environment. A fellow staff member who is pregnant, Lynne Onitsuka, asked why 1 was upset and then proceeded to tell me that on July 15th, while she was fixing his computer Dr. Markovic had gone into a rage over her routine work on his computer and among other things and in exceedingly harsh tones, said to her: "I'm going to shoot you," (This happened when she was 6 months pregnant). Although she stated that she was afraid for her safety and that of her unborn child, Lynne had not reported the incident because she felt she had good reason to believe that,any complaint to campus authorities 1) would be futile, 2) that it would put her in greater danger, 3) that she would jeopardize her pregnancy and 4) that she believed that complaining would impede her career on this campus. (She is the sole income earner in her family). She further indicated that none of the male IT staff members are witling to go into Dr. Markovic's office to update his computer because they are afraid of him. This was not the first incident for her, but it was the most disturbing. On the same day as my conversation with her (9/24) and at my urging, Lynne Onitsuka, agreed to speak to Kent Porter, the VP of HR He had seemed concerned and had called me to discuss the bumping incident that day (9/24) after I had emailed him about the threat to Lynne. She happened to come into my office while I was on the phone with Kent and I asked if she would share her experiences with Kent She and I spoke at length (for 45 minutes to an hour) on the phone to Kent Porter about the fears that we have and gave him detailed information on the bumping incident and the "threat to shoot incident" described above During our long phone conversation with Kent Porter, Lynne shared the long history of her observations of Dr. Markovic's tirades with the IT staff, and her observations of his sexual harassment of engineering male students, as well as all of the information in the preceding paragraph. We both indicated to Kent during our discussion that we are afraid all of the time, f indicated to Kent that I am afraid when I am with -students for their safety as well as my own. On Thursday, October 2nd I learned of a second shooting threat. On September 29th Dr. Markovic went into a rage and threatened to "shoot " 01*4 "make his wife a widow". The day 1 learned of the second shooting threat, I immediately called Kent Porter and left two urgent messages that we were afraid and that another threat had been made. To this day I have not received a returned call from Kent Porter I contacted my union, which referred me to a labor attorney. I told the attorney about the second shooting threat and he instructed me to immediately uhang up and call the police". I hung up and 1 made a police report to the campus police (Officer Douglas Nguyen) of my bumping incident. The two IT staff members, Lynne Onitsuka and also filed police reports of the shooting threats. Officer Nguyen came and took my report and later that day he came back and took Lynne's report. I was later told that an international student who had witnessed numerous incidents, was in the room when Lynne gave her report and it was decided that he should not give a report because of his international status and his hope of remaining in this country for employment after graduation. ' __has filed a police report. He did so after check with me. The technical staff believed that if they filed reports or complained that it would put me in jeopardy. He told me that they had discussed the .situation in a staff meeUng and it was presumed that if they complained the campus administration might take retaliatory action against me. Dr Markovic's behavior serves to create a hostile work environment that causes me to be substantially distressed and disturbed. The intensity and frequency of the complaints from staff and students and the warnings from students and faculty who fear for my safety have reached a new level of intensity since my return to campus this fall. Dr. Markovic's behavior and threats are alarming to me and to others.

32.2

This letter is the forth time I have personally given this information to a campus authority. To enumerate. 1) to Officer Greg Revelez (phone conversation); 2) to Associate Vice President of Human Resources, Kent Porter (phone conversation and in email copied to appropriate authorities); 3) to Officer Douglas Nguyen in a formal police report; 4) and now in writing to you. It seems that the campus cannot figure out if the threatening and intimidating behavior that Dr. Markovic displays is a police matter or a human resources issue. In the mean time staff are left to wonder if anyone is in charge of sorting out this type of problem or cares about protecting staff from treats and intimidation. Six staff members on this floor have observed threats and tirades or been directly threatened or intimidated by Dr. Markovic. Three staff members of the College of Engineering and Computer Sciencefiled police reports in October 2008. We have heard nothing. I have been unable to get a copy of the police report although I have asked three times. As you have observed in your previous investigations, it is very difficult to get students, faculty and staff to come forward for fear of reprisals. The fact that three of us have come forward and that a student shared his numerous observations with Officer Nguyen is remarkable. The climate of fear and intimidation, and previous inaction by the university are difficult obstacles to overcome. I trust that you find my letter helpful as you once again are called upon to investigate the hostile work environment here in the College of Engineering and Computer Science.

Sincerely, Cici Mattiuvczi 916-278-7091/ cicifficsus edu

Maria Santos, Senior Director, Employee Relations, CSU Alexander Gonzalez, President, CSUS James McGIamery, Attorney at Law Barbara Peterson, Labor Representative, APC

32.3

Exhibit 33

LAW OFFICES OF

JAMES E. McGLAMERY 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 600 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone (916) 446-623S Facsimile (916) 446-6218 Paralegal (916) 489-79SS

gDecember 16, 2008 ' Dr. Alexander Gonzalez President CSUS 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Re:

Cecilia Mattiuzzi

Dear Dr. Gonzalez: I have been retained by a long-term employee of California State University Sacramento (hereafter "CSUS"), Cecilia Mattiuzzi, with regards to issues of sexual harassment, genderbased discrimination and personal safety, caused by a professor at CSUS. Ms. Mattiuzzi has attempted to resolve her concerns through informal and formal complaints with the Affirmative Action Office, however, these complaints have not resulted in any resolution of this severe problem. In fact, since Ms. Mattiuzzi made her concerns known to the Affirmative Action/Human Resources Departments, she has experienced retaliation in the form of reduction of her job duties. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the basis of our conclusions that CSUS has violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. We would like to resolve this matter without resorting to litigation; however, we are prepared to pursue this matter in a court of law if necessary to obtain a fair and just resolution on behalf of Ms. Mattiuzzi. The following sets forth a summary of the factual issues that compelled Ms. Mattiuzzi to retain my office for assistance; and, a discussion of pertinent evidence that supports her claims of harassment and retaliation, followed by a discussion of the pertinent law and a demand for resolution.

SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ISSUES AND EVIDENCE Ms. Mattiuzzi has worked for CSUS since 1 978. She is the Director of Career Services in the College of Engineering and Computer Science. Her contributions to CSUS during her tenure with the College of Engineering and Computer Science have been substantial. Her Employee Performance Evaluations have been "outstanding." The following comments from her evaluator and Supervisor, Dean of College Engineering, Emir Macari, reflect Ms. Mattiuzzi's dedication and service to CSUS:

33.1

"Ms. Mattiuzzi is an outstanding employee. Her work quality, quantity, professionalism and contributions to the campus and CSUS community are all exceptional. She runs a unique and exemplary program that is of great benefit and demonstrated efficacy. In this position, she has developed sophisticated programs that are essential to our recruitment, retention and graduation rates. The benefits of the Career Services Office that she runs provide the campus with a solid and beneficial connection with the local community. 'The benefits that students receive are considerable. She has pioneered in the design, development, and implementation of sophisticated career services, alumni networks, alumni tracking web-based services that extend the reach of our career Services Office well beyond what might be expected from resources dedicated.'" The Professor that is the subject of this letter is Milosic Markovic (hereafter referred to as "Markovic"). In 1991, Ms. Mattiuzzi learned of allegations that Markovic had stalked and harassed a graduating student who had spumed his advances and, tried to retaliate against that student by derailing his career. Ms. Mattiuzzi became involved because she was contacted by the student's employer to inform CSUS about Markovic's conduct. In early Spring of 2003, Ms. Mattiuzzi delivered a copy of a letter from a CSUS alumnus, who had expressed significant concerns about the behavior of Professor Markovic. This alumnus, a former student of Markovic, noted in the letter that Markovic had displayed behavior toward students that was erratic and frightening and "eclipses any of his instructional abilities." That alumnus also revealed that when the alumnus asked Markovic about whether Ms. Mattiuzzi, as the Career Counselor, might be helpful in securing employment for that alumnus (who at that time was a student), Markovic replied with a defamatory tirade against Ms. Mattiuzzi. Markovic stated that Ms. Mattiuzzi would be of no help, and that Markovic believed that Ms. Mattiuzzi had slept or prostituted her way into the position of ECS Career Counselor. The alumnus also expressed the belief that Markovic "might be a loose canyon and a danger to students." A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Shortly after Ms. Mattiuzzi delivered the letter that is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Affirmative Action Department in the Spring of 2003, Braja Das, former Dean of the College Engineering and Computer Sciences, began to act in a hostile fashion towards Ms. Mattiuzzi. This hostility continued after the Summer break when Dean Das verbally attacked Ms. Mattiuzzi on August 27, 2003. Dean Das informed Ms. Mattiuzzi that he had decided not to sign her contract to teach CS 194 for the upcoming semester, as scheduled. Ms. Mattiuzzi was convinced that the decision by Dean Das to withhold this contract was retaliation for her submitting the letter from the CSUS alumnus to Braja Das. That issue was ultimately resolved when Dean Das received instructions from Campus Personnel that the Contract was to be renewed and that Ms. Mattiuzzi would be allowed to teach the course. Unfortunately, however, Dean Das continued to be angry at Ms. Mattiuzzi for her

33.2

report of this harassment. He did not speak to Ms. Mattiuzzi at all during the last three years of his tenure at CSUS, despite the fact that he was her direct supervisor and their paths frequently crossed. Markovic's intimidating, threatening and abusive behavior has by no means been limited in its scope to Ms. Mattiuzzi and a few students. A thorough and complete investigation would reveal that the following individuals either have knowledge of harassment have been victims of harassment by Markovic, or can attest to the continuing gender-based discriminatory practices at CSUS. (1)

Lynn Onitsuka, IT Consultant for CSUS, has filed a police report this year against Markovic for threatening her, particularly stating, "I am going to get my gun and shoot you. Tell your husband he better get a new wife." This statement was made while Ms. Onitsuka was six months pregnant. Furthermore, Department records should verify that approximately six to eight students, or student assistants, have experienced romantic or sexual advances by Markovic. Ms. Onitsuka feels that Markovic has created a very uncomfortable and intimidating work atmosphere.

(2)

Ben Schaffer, Systems Analyst for CSUS, heard the May 2007 tirade of Markovic toward Ms. Mattiuzzi, including Markovic's reference to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch." (See Exhibit "B," attached hereto).

(3)

Suresh Vadhva, current Chair of the EEE Department, has knowledge about the numerous outbursts and threats by Markovic.

(4)

S. K. Ramesh, former Chair of the EEE Department, and currently the Dean at CSU Northridge is also aware of the threats, outbursts and harassment by Markovic. Dr. Ramesh became extremely frustrated by the lack of action by CSUS to take remedial action against Markovic. (See Exhibit "G").

(5)

James Wilson, former Secretary of the EEE Department observed several years of Markovic's intimidating and harassing conduct.

(6)

', Associate Electrical Engineer, and a former Engineering student of Markovic knows about incidents of harassment by Markovic.

(7)

was a student who was dropped by Markovic from his class when she was pregnant, because she was sick and missed class. Ms. has knowledge about how Markovic routinely belittled the women in class and how Markovic favored men. She reported this information, but was informed that the Campus would not take any action. 33.3

(8)

Nathan Laye is an alumnus CSUS who wrote the letter attached as Exhibit "A."

(9)

David Black is an alumnus of CSUS and heard Markovic make derogatory comments about Ms. Mattiuzzi. Mr. Black also has information about sexual harassment by Markovic.

(10)

Barbara Peterson, Union Representative, has expressed concern about the lack of affirmative action on the part of CSUS to take effective remedial action to end harassment and possesses knowledge of gender-based discrimination against Ms. Mattiuzzi.

(11)

Amir Macari, Dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science, and Ms. Mattiuzzi's Supervisor has knowledge about Ms. Mattiuzzi's claims of gender-based discrimination and harassment.

As noted above, Markovic again attempted to destroy the reputation of Ms. Mattiuzzi during the week of May 14, 2007. At that time, Markovic referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch" to Ben Schaffer and two student assistants. (See Exhibit "B" attached hereto). On October 9, 2007, Ms. Mattiuzzi wrote to Peter Lau, Affirmative Action Officer for CSUS. in that letter, Ms. Mattiuzzi noted that it was the seventh time she was writing to complain about Markovic. Three of those times concerned harassing behavior by Markovic toward Ms. Mattiuzzi. Four of those times concerned harassing behavior by Markovic towards students and major employers. Ms. Mattiuzzi noted, "I have never received a response and I have no idea what action has been taken in the past. I just know that the behavior does not stop." (See Exhibit "C" attached hereto). In November of 2007, Ms. Mattiuzzi received a letter dated November 16, 2007, from Mr. Lau, which noted that Mr. Lau had discussed Ms. Mattiuzzi's complaint with Dean Macari, who decided to investigate the complaint himself. Mr. Lau noted, "He [Dean Macari] has informed me that he has concluded the investigation, and has taken action to prevent any further occurrence of similar behavior from Dr. Markovic (See Exhibit "D" attached hereto). Neither the scope of this investigation, nor the form of remedial action, was relayed to Ms. Mattiuzzi. On January 30, 2008, Ms. Mattiuzzi again wrote to Mr. Lau, expressing serious concerns about the behavior of Markovic. In this letter, Ms. Matttuzzi revealed that she continued to receive information about Markovic "that is disturbing and unsettling and causes me to experience stress in the work environment." Ms. Mattiuzzi noted that Dr. Gonan, a Professor in Engineering, had received a complaint from a student about being harassed by Markovic, but that the student was unwilling to file a formal complaint. Ms. Mattiuzzi

33.4

further stated that a student told her on January 10-2008, that Markovic had invited the student to his home on various occasions to work on Markovic's car. Ms. Mattiuzzi noted that this action was reminiscent of Markovic's involvement with another student. (See Exhibit "E" attached hereto). On February 25, 2008, Dave Black, a CSUS) Engineering graduate, wrote to Ms. Mattiuzzi, informing her about another incident of inappropriate behavior by Markovic. This inappropriate behavior was directed towards a CSUS intern. (See Exhibit "F" attached hereto). On May 1, 2008, Union Representative, Barbara Peterson, wrote to Peter Lau, asking about the status of the investigation that Mr. Lau had told Ms. Mattiuzzi he was conducting. Mr. Lau noted in a response email that new information had come up and he needed to interview additional witnesses. In a letter dated June 4, 2008, to Ms. Mattiuzzi, Mr. Lau indicated that he had completed his investigation into her complaint against Markovic. Mr. Lau noted that he had talked to "a number of witnesses, and only one, a former student, 'confirmed some of the facts'." With regards to Ms. Mattiuzzi's allegation of harassment against her by Markovic, Mr. Lau noted that Dean Macari had investigated that allegation, "confirmed the incident" and had taken action based on his investigation. Ms. Mattiuzzi was not informed of the scope of this investigation, nor was she informed of any remedial action. On August 28,2008, Markovic encountered Ms. Mattiuzzi and went out of his way to bump her two times. This caused her to fear for her personal safety. Ms. Mattiuzzi reported this incident to Campus Police and the Affirmative Action Office; yet, no action has been taken against Markovic regarding that incident.

ANALYSIS OF THE LAW The California Fair Employment and Housing Act expressly prohibits workplace harassment based on sex. Government Code Section 12940(j)(1) dictates that, "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer... because of... sex... to harass an employee ... harassment of an employee ... by an employee other than an agent or supervisor shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring." Sexual harassment is defined as conduct of a sexual nature, including, but not limited to: (A)

Verbal harassment, e.g., epithets, derogatory comments or slurs on a basis enumerated in the act; or

33.5

(B)

Physical harassment, e.g., assault, impeding or blocking movement, or any physical interference with normal work or movement, when directed at an individual on a basis enumerated in the act. (See California Government Code Section 129400), California Code Regs. Tit. 2, Section 7287.6(b)(A-D) and 7291.1(f)(1)).

Conduct that is not sexual in nature, but is otherwise based on a person's gender, will also constitute sexual harassment in violation of California and Federal law. For example, in Fuller v. City of Oakland (9th Cir. 1995) 47 F.3d 1522, the Court found that repeated "hangup" telephone calls, intrusion into the employee's personnel files, and threats to plaintiff and her boyfriend's physical safety violated Title VII. In Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 341, 350, the Court held that comments that women do not belong in the workplace created an actionable claim of hostile work environment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In Hall v. Gus Construction Company (8th Cir. 1988) 842 F.2d 1010, 1014, the Court held that a sexual harassment, hostile environment claim was established under Title VII where female traffic controllers at all male construction sites were subjected to name calling; male crew members urinated in one female employee's water bottle and another in plaintiffs car, gas tanks; and, the defendant failed to fix the truck females were forced to drive until one of the males had to drive it. Finally. Birschtein v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 994, 1001-1002, the Court held that a male co-worker's repeated acts of staring at his female co-worker, after being rebuked for his prior harassment of her, may qualify as actionable sexual harassment. Incidents of sexual harassment directed towards employees in the workplace other then the complainant, but observed or known to the complainant, are admissible to determine whether a reasonable person in the complainant's position would find the conduct severely hostile or abusive. A reasonable person may also be offended by knowledge that other workers are being sexually harassed in the workplace, even if he or she does not personally witness that conduct. Bevda v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 519. It is not a defense to a hostile environment claim that the harasser did not intend the behavior to be offensive or harassing. (See Ellison v. Bradv [9th Cir. 1991] 924 F.2d 892, 961). Once an employer receives a report of sexual harassment, an employer is required to investigate the claim promptly and thoroughly. (See American Airlines v. Superior Court [2003] 114 Cal.App.4th 881, 890; EEOC Compliance Manual CCH, Section 615, If 3114, pg. 3284). Furthermore, the Fair Employment and Housing Act imposes on employers an obligation to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to end the harassment. (California Government Code Section 12940(j)). Under both State and Federal law, effective action is action that satisfies the twin purposes of ending the harassment and deterring future harassment by the same offender or others.

33.6

(See e.g., Swenson v. Potter [9th Cir. 2001] 271 F.3d 1184, and Ellison v. Brady T9lh Cir. 1991] 924 F.2d 892, 881, held, continued counseling, warnings and an attempt at informal separation were insufficient when it was apparent that these disciplinary measures were ineffective in terminating the harasser's behavior). While it may be reasonable for an employer not to want to discipline a highly productive employee, the employer is statutorily obligated to do so if harassment occurs. If the only appropriate remedy is to separate the harasser and victim, the employer may be required to demote or transfer the harasser, even if it is an "unreasonable" management decision to do so - under no circumstances can the victim be penalized in response to a finding of harassment. Steinerv. Showboat Operating Company (6th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 1459. Our concern regarding the harassment issue focuses on three areas: (1) CSUS did not take reasonable steps to prevent harassment against Ms. Mattiuzzi and other employees and students from taking place; (2) CSUS did not conduct thorough and complete investigations into the allegations of harassment by Markovic after complaints of harassment were made; and, (3) CSUS did not take effective remedial action to end the harassment by Markovic against Ms. Mattiuzzi and others, once CSUS Management learned of this harassment. Markovic continues to threaten, intimidate and frighten employees, including the heinous act of threatening to get his gun and shoot a female employee while she was in the middle of her pregnancy. Without question, a Sacramento Jury would be outraged by the fact that the Campus allowed Markovic to conduct himself in such an arbitrary and capricious fashion. We are also concerned with retaliation that Ms. Mattiuzzi has experienced because she reported the harassment against herself and others at CSUS. The courts have held that an employee engages in "protected activity" and may not experience any adverse employment action for that "protected activity," when the employee opposes in good faith the harassment of a co-worker (Hernandez v. Space Labs Medical, Inc. [9th Cir. 2003] 343 F.3d 1107, or opposes in good faith the perceived sexual harassment of another, even if this belief is mistaken. See Flait v. North American Watch Corporation [1992] 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 477). In late October, or early November of this year, Human Resources and Campus Administration for CSUS declared that Ms. Mattiuzzi would no longer be allowed to teach the Career Planning class that she has taught for 30 years. Ms. Mattiuzzi was told by her Supervisor that he has been informed by the Provost and Human Resources that now, only employees in academic-related classifications can teach. Ms. Mattiuzzi has been seeking to be reclassified to Student Services Professional Academic-rRelated Services (SSPAR) for approximately 25 years. Ms. Mattiuzzi's Supervisor supports this reclassification and the APC Union has stated that it does not object to her reclassification. We consider the removal of Ms. Mattiuzzi's teaching responsibilities by Human Resources to be retaliation for submitting complaints about Professor Markovic's illegal activities. The refusal to reclassify Ms. Mattiuzzi's position, when such reclassification is fully warranted, constitutes at a minimum, gender-based discrimination, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

33.7

Ms. Mattiuzzi has experienced significant distress and trauma, including nightmares, sleeplessness, and anxiety as a result of the harassment and retaliation that she has experienced. IV.

DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION In order to resolve this case without resorting to litigation, and in exchange for signing a Release of all Claims for all acts or omissions that have taken place to the date that the settlement and release agreement is signed, the following must take place: Dr. Markovic should be terminated. At an absolute minimum, he should be transferred out of Riverside Hall and, away from the staff so that Ms. Mattiuzzi and other staff members do not have regular contact with him. Ms. Mattiuzzi must be reclassified as a SSP AR III. There is no legitimate reason why this reclassification cannot take place. Sexual Harassment training for the faculty and staff must occur. Ms. Mattiuzzi must be reimbursed for all attorneys fees. Payment of $50,000.00 must be made to compensate Ms. Mattiuzzi for the severe emotional distress that she has been subjected to, and to help cover costs of therapy and counseling, which we estimate, at this point, to be approximately $7,500.00 to $10,000.00. We filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and have obtained a "Right-to-Sue" letter, allowing us to resolve this matter in the Sacramento Superior Court, if necessary. As previously noted, we would like to resolve this matter without resorting to Court intervention, if possible. If, however, we are not able to resolve this matter informally, through either discussions, a meeting, or mediation, we will pursue this matter in Court. We would like to remind CSUS that there must be no retaliation against Ms. Mattiuzzi for reporting these acts of harassment. This includes, but is not limited to, changes in work assignments, transfers or changes in work schedules.

33.8

Please contact me or have CSUS University General Counsel contact me within two weeks from the date of this letter to discuss these issues. We look forward to hearing from you and thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully,

James E. McGlamery, Esq. Enclosures JEM:mdd

33.9

2870NEHogaa.E#475 Gresham, OR 97030 I>r. DosaM R. Gerth President 6000 J Stteet Sacsafaent-e, CA 95819 Dr. Gertfa, I am writing to discuss recent actions of Dr. Miroslav Markovic. In Noveaaber, I spoke with Dr. Kamesh, liie Chair of the KEE department regarding these incidents. I wanted to follow up that oral conversation with a written statement. I have taken several classes from Dr. Markovic during die past three semesters. He has always bees, good instructor as far as academics are concerned. However, his recent industry V^£ been erratic ^v« fiigHtemog, ftrxj it Dr. Markoyip's actions daring the1 fall semester of 2002 have uaderMned tfeb efforts of studeats seefcbjg;eraployjaeal •fee after-'- graduation; arxj have created bad relations between poteatial ea^loyers and the CoSege. This has created a great deal of stress for several students, including myself. In October 2002, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) conducted several on-campus mterviews of .electrical eogmeeriug stodents. Two of these students, Z^LJ:- ^— L__aad TOPTP stife>se{|ueGdy chosen for secondary interviews that were coadtieted at PGE's cefj^Qfafee offices in San Praaeiseo. The secondary interviews lasted all day, and happened to conflict with Dr. Markovic's classes. A professor should be expected to allow students who are in the process of obtaining employment hi their chosen field of industry to miss class for interviews. Such was not the case whii Dr. Markovic. He anBO«aaced in class that students who west to interviews during class time would be failed. In what seemed Kke a rant, he said that industry needs to respect aeaderaia, and that PG&E needed to change its interview dates to avoid interfering with his class tones. (He repeated these statemeots in the next class period.) >

At fast, I just thought Dr. Maifcovic was simply frustrated for some unknown reason, and tiiat fee was vesting in front of the class. However, in subsequent conversations with Mr. ( pad j8dSr_ I learned ttmt Dr. Markovic had said that he would make good on his t&reats aad that he would not pass them if they went to the interviews. Mr. , actually !?sfent to Dr. Markovic's office to plead his case, and he received the same response: "Attend the interview and you wiD fail this class."

33.10

This caused both of them considerable mental -stress. Mr.., said to me: "The reason I go to scfcoolistp getajob. I can* get the job if I dont go to the interviews and I cant get the job if I desalt pass fee dass." Mr. and Mr contimed to be upset about this situation mail after graduation. Dr. Maricovic's statements were also quite upsetting to me, for several reasons. First, his actions caused a lot of stress for my classmates and me. I felt that this behavior crossed the line and that he was bullying and brow beating students. Second, a few weeks before this incident, I Ired informed Dr. Markovic that I would be missing class for an interview with a company. At the time, he seemed to have no problem with it. However, after his statemeats in dass regarding the P<3&£ interviews, I became concerned that. I would not pass the dass. I contiE»edto wony abont this for a number of weeks before graduation. On 11-19-2002, Dr. Maaiovic took written roll in a manner I'd never seea him use before. He sent a^peee-ofgajiier around tfie class asd asked us aH to write dowc 0£ff names. At the end of tihis process, he made a veitoal comment tj«tf Mr _aad Mr ;w?eFe absent '("Etas w#s tfa^ day of theit PG£ interviews.) On several later occasions, Dr. Maitovic made comments in class that seemed to be a vefled threat, relating to this same issue. Near the end of the semester, when the instructor comment sheets were distributed to the class, Dr. Markovic told us that he had conflicts with staff and with the College in the past He said that he had weathered these difficulties without problem, and that "negative comments about instructors are often reflected back on the writer." I took this to be a threat to the class that negative comments regarding Dr. Markovic would do no good, and may coose back to haunt us. (I considered this a very real threat. In the Electrical Engineering speciafcy of power engineering, there are very few instructors available for the area. Dr. Maricovie teaches most of the power classes. I have heard, bat carniot sufestaatiate, titat Dr. Markovic would give very low grades to those who somehow got oa bis bad side.) I also believe that Dr. Markovic is a detriment to CSUS in his reJatioas with company recruiters. Daring a SBCHB interview that I attended, the recruiter commented negatively about Dr. Mafcfco'vic's attitude aM behavior. (Dr. Maifejvie himself stated in class thai he had coiorBtfflieaiiem wifli seares-al recruiters and :had written several letters regardiag when they could .eoadact interviews. To me it sounded more Eke harassment of the recruiters aad their sapejriors. E&her way, I feel that this would make a potential employer less likely to bother to recruit at CSUS.) There are a few other things that have caused me to be concerned about Dr. Maricovic's behavior. In the week of 12/7/20€>2, Dr. Markovic said that per a memo from the CSUS president (Dr. GeriiX he could sot see students during finals week outside of dass "due to safety

33.11

reasons" aad "because aeektesis to/t occurred at other campuses." I don't know if such a mem© exists, bta it sounded Kfee be was- saying, that students might have reason to be coneeiBed about IMS menial stab3&y, and that others might have considered him to be some kind of a safety threat Finally, during aa office, visit about two semesters -ago, I asked Dr, Markovie about several career issoejs. One qaestiod was -cyke&er or not the ECS career eoBasei&r, Cici naght be keJp&l in seeming exoi^ojffleat. I had expected a simpie yes or no answer OB wfaedier or IK* she co«M help. I>. Markovic replied with a tirade. He said that she would be of no help, and that he beEeved that she had e^entiafly slept or prostituted her way into tfce positioa of ECS career counselor. I was so surprised by this response that h stuck hi my trcmd for a long time. (I did not mention this conversation to asyone until speaking with Dr. Ramesh regardiag Dr. Markovic's student relatioHS. I bad assumed that Dr. Markovic was merely sexist, but later came to think that he might be a loose cannon aad a potential daager to students. I could not imagine a professor speaking about a staff member in that way.) I should say again that as far as technical knowledge is concerned, Dr. Markovic is an excellent instructor. However, in light of the behaviors I have observed, his propensity to intimidate students, and his erratic and sometimes fiighteaiog actions, I'm wondering if he should be removed from his position.

Cordially,

Nathan Laye cc: Dr. SJKRamesh

33.12

Laye i§70 NE Hogan Rd E#475 Iresham, OR 97030

\

7001 2S10 QQOb flOHQ 4833

SK Ramesh Dcpattuient of Electrical Engineering CSU, Sacramento 6000.1 Street Sacramento, CA 95819

11,1 Illillll

liullll

To whom it may concern: During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred: "Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at the time this occurred. "He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it. *ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade: -He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch" -He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back -Ben Schaffer

33.14

October 9, 2Q©7

•ii » fr* •

•»

Peter Lau Affirmative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Dear Peter, For the seventh time I find myself writing to complain about Dr Miroslav Maikovic. Three times 1 have come to you about his harassing behavior towards me to request that you take action. Four times I have come to you and previous persons in authority regarding harassing behavior towards students and major employers. 1 have never received a response and I have no idea what action has been taken in the past. I just know that the behavior does not stop. I am aware that past department chairs in the department that Dr Markovic reports to have on numerous occasions come to you and your predecessors seeking relief from Dr. Markovic. 1 believe that there is a, failure to protect individuals from this type of behavior on this campus. Attached please find a document given to me in late May. I was made aware that Dr Markovic was speaking in a hostile and threatening fashion about me once again. In the spring when the event surfaced, three people in this College, all in positions of authority, told me that it would serve no useful purpose to complain because no action would be taken. Upon my return to campus for the fall semester, I find the problem distracting and I feej unsafe in my work environment A little over a week ago my office had been entered and my computer was on when I came to work. Things were moved around. I checked with the IT support staff and the student assistants who work for me, and none of them had been in my office during the previous period. While I cannot prove that Dr Markovic was in my office, I am aware, as you are aware, that Dr Markovic has on other occasions destroyed labs and student projects. ! find the continuing harassment embarrassing and humiliating. Once again I am requesting your assistance with resolving the problem. I would appreciate a response to this letter. Sincerely, Cici Mattiuzzi 916-278-7091/ cicifficsus edu cc Emir Macari, Dean College of Engineering and Computer Science Suresh Vadhva, Chair, Electrical Engineering Barbara Peterson, Vice President, Academic Professionals of California

33.15

To whom it may concern: During the week of 5/14 the following events occurred: *Dr. Markovic stopped by my work area in 2016. A student assistant and I were both sitting in the room at ihe time this occurred. "He asked me about a retractable cordless mouse that I had been using in the past. I made a light-hearted comment about Cici Mattiuzzi having "stolen" it. *ln response to this comment, Dr. Markovic went into a small tirade: -He referred to Ms. Mattiuzzi as a "bitch" -He said I was a young employee and that he would handle getting my mouse back -Ben Schaffer

33.16

California State L jrsity, Sacramento Office of Human Resources 6000 j Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032 httpy/www.csus.edu/hr

November 16, 2007 To.

Cici Mattiuzzi College of Engineering & Computer Science

From.

Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

Re:

Harassment Complaint

This is a follow-up to my Oct. 19, 2007 email to you. I have discussed your complaint with Dean Macari. Dean Macari has decided to investigate the complaint himself. He has informed me that he has concluded the investigation, and has taken action to prevent any further occurrence of similar behavior from Dr. Markovic. As I said in my email, should you encounter any more harassment from Dr. Markovic, please inform me as soon as possible. Sincerely yours,

Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

«'. . AUI-ORNIA STATt UNIVtHSlfY Bakersfield • Channel Islands • Cnieo • Domingue* Hills • East Say • Fresno • Fullerton • Humboldt • Long Beach • LosAngeles • Maritime Acadtmy • Mo->
33.17

January 30, 2@©8 Peter Lau Affinnativc Action Officer CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819 Dear Peter, As in the past, I continue to receive information about Dr. Markovic that is disturbing and unsettling and that causes me to experience stress in the work environment. I have recently been told that Dr. Gonan, a professor in EEE has received a complaint from a student about being harassed by Dr. Markovic and that the sTnQent is'unwilling to file a formal complaint. My understanding is that this was brought to Dr. Gonan's attention last semester. On January I Oth, a student tofd me directly that Dr. Masfcovic has nrafeekksa 6s>Ais.fea»e OB Hssjerous occasions to work on Markovic's car. The student is quite unaware of the implications. This type of personal involvement with a student 'may not be appropriate. It is definitely reminiscent of DrMarkovic's invotveraeat with Peter ^obiao. You will recall that this was a situation in which Markovic ingratiated himself with a student over a period of time, apparently attempted to develop a distinctly inappropriate relationship, and then stalked him and actively sought to disrupt the student's employment The Robino . matter is well documented. As you know, I was recently required to complete the CSU sexual harassment on-line workshop. The workshop's instruction is that if a staff member has reason to believe that any type of harassment is taking plaee, it must be reported. My experience, however, is that the effort is futile and feat effective action will not be taken by fee campus. In addition, my experience has been that negative conseqaeaees-will follow from having made the required report The workshop also stressed that making negative comments about another employee could be actionable. So I am in the position of having to decide whether or not I should warn a student about a faculty member who might be grooming him as prey, as he has done before. Either way, 1 am subjected to a conflict that should not be present in my work environment. And, it necessarily brings back to mind the fact that Markovic has'directed hostility tow^s-me, and that he is still just down the hall. And, it brings back to mind the fact that my former supervisor immediately stopped communicating wife me in almost any way, after that supervisor learaed feat I bad fifed a cemptaJHt about M&3eevic. Before communications with mat supervisor ceased, he subjected me to an irratSSraafteajsaBigue. In addition, he stopped supporting my reclassification and tried to remove an area of responsibility. I was dircctlytote tketiay supervisor thwarted my recfess after I reported tfese,2©83 etflM. Indeed, the workshop itself and the requirement that I take it gives reason for me to experience distress. The workshop's injunctions put me in a bind. The workshop's assertion mat matters such as this will be resolved correctly defies reality as I know it Sincerely, Cici Mattiuzzi 916-278-7091/ [email protected]

33.18

From: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Dr. Markovic Date: February 25, 2008 7:39:18 AM PST To: [email protected] Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:38:19 -0800 To: [email protected] From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Dr. Markovic Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Bcc: X-Attachments:

X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-lronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:Ao8CAEaFwUdMYD4Yb2dsb2JhbACCOzKNbgEKBAQEBQoRBYEP X-lronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,398,1199692800"; d="scan'208,217";a="130056239" From: "David Black" To: <[email protected]> Subject: Dr. Markovic Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:56:28 -0800 Thread-Index: Ach3OHzNYrvHAdW8RXq2YfxEOGoz3A== X-Virus-Status: No X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.92/5977/Sun Feb 24 13:56:54 2008 Cici, During the summer of 2007,1 worked with a CSUS intern named __^ He informed me that he was a student of Dr. Miroslav Markovic and that there had been some strange behavior exhibited by Dr. Markovic involving another male power student was close friends with the power student and was told that Dr. Markovic had offered to purchase a laptop (for the student) and offered to take the student to Hawaii during the summer so that they could spend some time on the beach and grade papers together. The student did, not feel comfortable with the situation because he was also a student of Dr. Markovic and approached iwith advice on what to do. • ladvised his friend to notify campus security about the situation because he thought that this behavior was not appropriate. The student filed a complaint with campus authorities and_l was under the impression that an investigation had begun and that Dr. Markovic would be reprimanded for his inappropriate behavior. That is all that can remember from what told me last summer concerning Dr. Markovic. It is very sad that this type of behavior has been tolerated throughout the years at CSUS. That fact that Dr. Markovic is a tenured professor does not give him the right td sexually harass unsuspecting young students. I personally find this behavior intolerable and cannot understand why CSUS has not stepped in to permanently 'diffuse the situation. An educational facility should foster and support a harassment free environment as does any professional work place. Sincerely, Dave Black P.E. CSUS EE Power Graduate, 2003

Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

33.19

From: S K Ramesh <[email protected]> Datef©Gfober 6; 20©i 3:33:38 PM PDT To: "[email protected]" Cc: "[email protected]" Subject: Dr. Markovic Cici and Paul I was saddened to hear about the recent threats by Dr. Markovic towards you and other members of the staff. During the time I was at Sacramento State there was more than one occasion where his behavior and interaction with our students raised serious concerns. I brought these to the attention of Donna Selnick (University Legal Counsel) and the Office of Faculty Affairs in November 2002 and subsequently to the President's Office in February 2003. As far as l.k-n-ow no action was taken on this ma
33.20

Exhibit 34

Forwarded message From: cici mattiuzzi Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Markovic Statement To: kiraking@,sbcglobai,net

Forwarded message From: James Wilson <james.i [email protected]> Date: Tue, Nov 4,2008 at 1:15 PM Subject: Markovic Statement To: cicima2z(o),gmail.com My name is James Wilson, and from November 2005 to February 2007,1 was the Administrative Support Coordinator in the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department at Sacramento State University. During that time, there were numerous incidents that occurred involving Dr. Miroslav Markovic that were disturbing, if not frightening. The beginning of every semester was sure to bring complaints into my office as Dr. Markovic adhered to a self imposed policy of only 12 students per class. Even after being warned by the department, and pleaded with to admit more students into his classes, he steadfastly refused. Not only did he refuse, but he made threats to students so that they would drop the class and lower his class size to his satisfaction. There is one instance that sticks out in my mind in which he told a student he would hit him in the head with a baseball bat if he returned to another lecture. Complaints ranged from verbal harassment to sexual harassment. The threats were so common at the beginning of every semester that, sadly, the staff became accustomed to hearing them and would joke about what the next student through the i

.,. .

door would have to say about their experiences trying to add a course of Dr. Markovic's. Even students that were allowed to stay in Dr. Markovic's class were subjected to verbal abuse and often times had their grades adversely affected. Of those that were brave enough to come forward with grade appeals against Dr. Markovic, they were always afraid that their appeal would enrage him enough to try to derail their careers. Dr. Markovic had made attempts to contact companies that were hiring some of his former students to have them "blacklisted" from being hired. Once he gained a reputation for doing that, it was sufficient to scare many of his prospective students away and to keep those that were subject to his abuse silent. Imagine being an undergraduate student and having to withstand being berated and threatened, and knowing that you had to put up with it or face receiving a bad grade or even having your career threatened after graduation. Dr. Markovic's demeanor also presented problems for the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department as a whole as well. As a senior member of the Faculty, he was one of the few members eligible to serve on the department's, Retention, Tenure and Promotion committee. As a member of that committee, he had sway over whether junior faculty members would receive tenure within the department. Since junior faculty almost always served on committees such as the Grade Appeals Committee, the department was left with the political decision of what to do with the constant flow of grade appeals that Dr. Markovic's students generated. Junior faculty felt uncomfortable with the position of determining to grant a student a grade appeal, fearing that overturning one of Dr. Markovic's grades would affect their chances of tenure within the department, and hence, jeopardize the 4 to 6 years of hard work that they had put in to try to be awarded tenure as a professor. Although Dr. Markovic can come across as a soft spoken, humble and almost genteel person, he has a capricious side that has been well documented by students through complaints and grade appeals. Dr. Markovic was rarely seen at mandatory department meetings (over the almost two years I was there, he attended two meetings to my knowledge), and frankly was not missed. No one in the department, from the department chair to the faculty wanted to confront him about why he did not attend the mandatory meetings. His temper for exploding when questioned about his actions, or in this case, inaction, was well known by all the faculty, and most people just left him alone. As you can see, not only students are afraid of Dr. Markovic, but his colleagues as well are afraid of him, either via intimidation or actual threats that he has levied. And not without reason. At one

34 2

point, Dr. Markovic was in a dispute ^ v^er lab use with another professor. After the department chair had decided to let another professor use the same lab Dr. Markovic uses for instructional purposes, Dr. Markovic flew into a rage and removed all of the electrical equipment from the lab and tossed it into the bushes behind the building. The sprinklers ruined the equipment all weekend long and when it was discovered the following Monday, nearly $30,000 in electrical equipment was considered a total loss. The police were called and a report was filed, but no action was taken against Dr. Markovic. I hope this brief narrative illustrates that Mrs. Mattiuzzi's experiences are not unique and that it is part of a larger pattern in the way Dr. Markovic has treated colleagues. Regards, James .1. Wilson

34.3

Exhibit 35

Subject: ECS Career Planning Class Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:55:10 -0800 Thread-Topic: ECS Career Planning Class Thread-Index: Acll ++WaOWnlovHARM+NgiaOdayKjQ== From: "Macari, Emir" <[email protected]> To: "Cici Mattiuzzi" <[email protected]>T <[email protected]> X-Virus-Status: No X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.4 with clamdscan / ClamAV 0.92/8861/Tue Jan 13 08:09:19 2009 Dear Cici, Starting with this semester, ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of record for the workshops we offer to our ECS students (CE 194, ME 194, EEE 194 and CSC 192) Career Planning. This is in compliance with the new regulations of Bargaining Unit 4. Students do enjoy and get a lot of these workshops and I want to make sure that we continue with our tradition of focusing of what is best for our students. Thanks for all your work and I look forward to continuing to work with you for many years to come. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best wishes, Emir

Emir Jose Macari, Dean College of Engineering and Computer Science Riverside Hall 2014 California State University, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 (916) 278-6127 phone (916) 278-5949 fax [email protected] http://www.ecs.csus.edu

35.1

Exhibit 36

From: Subject: Date: To: Cc:

Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected] edu> response to your email re: ECS career classes January 20, 2009 11 43:29 AM PST [email protected] [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Emir: I am writing in response to your note and our discussion regarding CE 1 94, ME 194, EEE 1 94 and CSC 192 - the classes I ordinarily teach and have taught for 25 years as a regular part of my job description. You indicated that in an effort to comply with agreements with Unit 4 (sic), "ECS Department Chairs will be the faculty of record" for these classes. I have spoken with representatives of both Unit 3 and Unit 4. This solution does not meet with their approval. Be that as it may, I have no problem continuing to teach these classes, consistent with my job description. These classes are essential to the academic mission of the College. They are essential components of a student service program developed in the the College over the course of 25 years and under the leadership of four different Deans. These classes cannot simply be described as "workshops," as you suggested in your note. And they are not simply something that "students enjoy," as you also suggested. These classes have been and continue to be an integral part of the student services program in which I work. Last semester, I had 59 students enrolled. For this semester, there are 34 students currently registered (early January). Historically, my classes fill during add/drop. Given the early enrollment figures, and given the current economic crisis, I expect unusually high numbers of registrations for this Spring's semester. Ordinarily, I attract a number of students who are simply seeking to fulfill their two-unit career planning requirement in CS. More often, students enroll in my classes to obtain the information and skills necessary to translate their academic training into a career action plan. \s

In these classes, I am not simply providing information I have gathered in the absence of extensive academic research and professional training. These classes depend on the fact that I am an authoritative and independent subject matter expert in the fields of career development, labor market economics, and the ever changing technologies and industries associated with engineering and computer science. In these classes, I rely on my extensive and ongoing research program relating to hiring trends and hiring practices in the fields of engineering and computer science. For these classes, I have developed curricula and written a textbook that is published and in it's third edition. I am working on a second book. ABET accreditation teams have repeatedly noted that the CSUS College of E&CS provides a model of excellence with respect to its career services office. They review our program and they say that it is model to be emulated, particularly citing the credit classes. The benefit to the College and to our students is recognized. Removing me as the instructor of record would substantially alter my job description and the terms of my employment. Canceling these classes would do great harm to the students and to the College's student service program. You suggested that perhaps I could teach these classes "after hours." That is not an option. The current problem is not the result of Unit 3 demands. The current problem is that I have for years been working "out of class" and beyond the expectations for my classification. This is not just about the classes I teach. The entire College of E&CS Career Services Program depends on my continued willingness to work beyond my classification level. I have repeatedly sought to be classified correctly. I greatly appreciate the energy and enthusiasm you have expended in seeking to rectify and resolve this administrative error. On October 14th, 2008, President Alexander Gonzalez signed off on the campus Affirmative Action report, where it was noted that: "promotion and advancement at the University are encouraged and will continue to be based solely on explicit criteria."

36.1

His assertion notwithstanding, I have repeatedly been denied reclassification and promotion for arbitrary reasons, irrespective of the stated criteria, and specifically in response to gender discrimination. CICI

36.2

Exhibit 37

Original Message From: Cici Mattiuzzi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: need updated student rosters Importance: High Hi,

I notice that I can no longer access my classes on My Sac State. I have 4 classes that are cross listed in all engineering majors and one CS class. I teach a total of 5 classes with 13 classes feeding into those 5. I will need you to print me updated class rosters each week for the next three weeks. Many students are adding my class and I am not able to update the lists. I know that this is an in convenience to each of you. It is also very difficult for me. I am sorry for this problem. I expect that at some point the problem will be resolved one way or another. Thank you for your assistance. Cici Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949 Printed for Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

37.1

Exhibit 38

fe'braary 4, 2009* Peter Lau Affirmative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento

^

Dear Peter, I am coming to you for the 10th time to inform you about the disturbing behavior of Dr. Miroslav Markovic. I spoke on Friday, January 30th, to a recent graduate in Electrical Engineering who now works for Pacific Gas and Electric. Her name is ] ' , She and ' •• were students in Dr Markovic's EEE 145 class and were falsely accused of cheating. According to Madeline Fish, Director of the Minority Engineering Program, both students had A's and B's in all of their classes and received a D in Dr Markovic's class. told me that Dr Markovic repeatedly stated in class that he "hates women" and that "women do not belong in engineering". She stated further that Dr. Markovic continuously belittled and deg-Faeted the women in the class and held the women to a different standard than the men. She indicated that she andj worked feverishly to deliver to Dr Markovic what he required, but even when it matched the work of the men in class, their work was given a failing grade. She stated that Dr Markovic gave more.points to the men and called the women cheaters.

c

_,also indicated that Dr. Markovic requires all students in his class to purchase the course text directly from him and to pay in cash ($65). The text is an assembled compilation (i.e., photocopied) and not a published work or a compilation sold through the bookstore. ______ told me that the semester after they took his class, Dr Markovic demanded that the women provide him with copies of their Sr. Project documents. When they refused, he pressured them with repeated, menacing phone calls. There is no apparent academic reason for him to have needed access to their work from another class according to Both women went to numerous persons in a position of authority on this campus and were told that they "should just graduate and get out of here". They were told that there was nothing that could be done. jndicated that she is willing to make statements about the treatment she and. received at the hands of Dr. Markovic. She stated that there are other women at PG&E that she has met who have been belittled or harassed by Dr Markovic. She also indicated that she is very familiar'with a male stalking incident. She is willing to document the above. I am providing this information to you consistent with my responsibilities. Cici Mattiuzzi

38.1

Exhibit 39

?:March 23, 2009

Peter Lau, Affirmative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento

Dear Peter, Once again I am coming to you to inform you about the behavior of Dr. Miroslav Markovic. This oast week I spoke to Shalveena Dayal (Shalve) . ; ^ who was referred to me through Mariana Rivera of the Minority Engineering Program regarding her treatment in Dr. Markovic's classes. She has taken 3 classes from Dr. Markovic. She is currently in EEE 131 and took EEE 143 and EEE 145 last semester. Shalve indicated that she fainted in class in the fall of 2008 because she was afraid to ask Dr Markovic to leave his class. She was in a 3-hour lab and felt ill but because of the intimidating climate she felt that Dr Markovic would belittle and ridicule her if she asked to leave. She stated that Dr. Markovic "does not make sense" and that "he shakes chairs and throws pens in a threatening way" creating a climate of fear and anxrety in class. She indicated that he displays anger also in his office hours by throwing pens. She stated that he frequently tells students that they are too stupid and should change their majors. She indicated it is very uncomfortable in class. She stated that if a student asks to leave he very angry. Shalve further states that she received a lower grade than the men in 145 spite of the fact that she did better in class and understood the material better. She got a C+ and men who did poorly got a B-. When she asked the men what they got in the class they indicated that they were amazed that they had received a B- and they were surprised to have received such a high grade. Shalve is currently taking EEE 131 from Dr. Markovic. She indicated that she would not be taking it but she absolutely must have the class for her major. She is currently the only woman in the lab. She stated that Markovic holds women to a different standard than he hold the men indicating that the women are graded differently. It should be noted that when women receive lower grades they frequently receive lower offers at graduation. Both government and private industry use GPA to decide on starting salaries. Once again, I am providing this information to you consistent with my responsibilities.

Cici Mattiuzzi

39.1

40

fft'arch 24, 2009-f'f Peter [,au, Affinnative Action Officer CSU, Sacramento Dear Peter, li has recently come to my attention that I was incorrect in my letter dated December 10, 2008. I told you that Dr. Markovic threatened to shoot two people. IB fact, he threatened to shoot three people. in his tirade on September 29th, Dr Markovic not only threatened to shoot Krishna, the international student from India who was in the room at the time.

T

, he also threatened Chetan

i'o correct the record, he.threatened to shoot three individuals: staff members Lynne Onitsuka and ' student Chetan Krishna.

, and

Fioin my original letter of December 10, 2008: On Thursday, October 2nd I learned of a second shooting threat. On September 29th Dr. Markovic went into a rage and threatened to "shoot ". ' '• • ' • and "make his wife a widow". The day I learned of the second shooting threat, I immediately called Kent Porter and left two urgent messages that we were afraid and that another threat had been made. To this day I have not received a returned call from Kent Porter I contacted my union, which referred me to a labor attorney. I told the attorney about the second shooting threat and he instructed me to immediately "hangup and call the police". I hung up and I made a police report to the campus police (Officer Douglas Nguyen) of my bumping incident. The two IT staff members, Lynne Onitsuka and ' also filed police reports of the shooting threats. Officer Nguyen came and took my report and later that day he came back and took Lynne's report. I was later told that an international student who had witnessed numerous incidents, was in the room when Lynne gave her report and it was decided that he should not give a report because of his international status and his hope of remaining in this country for employment after graduation. Chetan Krishna was the student who was discouraged from filing a formal police report to protect his ability to obtain employment. Me informed me on Thursday, March 19th of the shooting threat he experienced when he told me that hehad been called and had spoken with the campus's investigator, Kira King. Chetan was not merely an observer of Dr Markovic's tirades, as I had believed; he was also a victim of Dr. Markovic's threats. 1 found myself overcome with sadness after Chetan's revelations. I returned to my office hi tears and unable to work. Che fact that he was threatened is horrifying. The fact that he was discouraged from disclosing the facts is even more horrifying i am providing this information to you consistent with my responsibilities (as outlined in the campus mandatory harassment reporting training) and to create an accurate record of the events of fall 2008.

Cici Mattiuxzi

CO

Mana Santos, Senior Director, Employee Relations, CSU Alexander Gonzalex, President, CSUS James McGlamery, Attorney at Law Kira King, Attorney at Law Barbara Petersen, Labor Representative, APC

40.1

Exhibit 41

From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Bcc:

cici mattiuzzi Earlier unreported assault by Markovic April 2, 2009 7:28:08 AM PDT Kira King , [email protected] "James E. McGlamery" <[email protected]> [email protected]

Kira,

I received a call yesterday from : .who worked in the College of Engineering and Computer Science several years ago and she told me she was assaulted by Dr Markovic. He shoved his hand in her face and pushed her out of his way as he was exiting the elevator with his bicycle. He spoke harshly to her as he shoved her. She was new and young and was seriously frightened by him. No action was taken according to her. She later found out that he thought she was a student as if that justified "the assault". She still works on campus and she is still frightened by Markovic. She stated that she walks away when she sees him to avoid him. She further stated that Markovics "hates women". She reported "the assault" to multiple people in the Dean's office including the office manager. She believes the Dean was informed. No report was written and she was not instructed to go to Peter Lau or any other person in a position of authority in the administration. She stated that when she left the College of Engineering and Computer Science the then dean- Braja Das stated that she was a "trouble maker". 's husband works in the College and was aware of my law suit. Contact info:

@csus.edu Cici

41.1

42

From: Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]> Date: April 28, 2009 10:50:37 AM PDT To: "Jason Conwell" Cc: [email protected]. [email protected]. [email protected]. Subject: thank you and

[email protected]

Jason, As I mentioned to you yesterday it is very difficult to run my classes as they are now structured. I have 13 classes listed across 4 disciplines of engineering and computer science. I actually teach 5 classes but they are cross listed for the convenience of the students. CE 194- Four sections EEE 194 - Four sections ME 194 - four sections CS 192-one section I have taught these classes for 30 years. I wrote a book in 2006 and I have a new book close to publishing date. Previously I taught Career Planning for Engineers as Engineering 194 and Computer Science Career Planning as CS 192. The class became part of every engineering discipline a number of years ago allowing students to take the class (and see it) under each of the respective engineering and CS majors. In past years these classes have been listed under my name exclusively. This semester for the first time the classes are all listed under the respective department chairs. It should be noted that if I were correctly classified as an SSP AR this would never have happened. Because the university refuses to correctly classify me as an SSP AR I am required to operate in this fashion or discontinue the classes all together. That is an unacceptable option particularly in the midst of a recession. This class is an integral part of my job and and the College of Engineering and has been for three decades. For me this semester's change has created a logistical nightmare. As you requested I am documenting this by way of this email. Some of the difficulties I am experiencing with this change include: Removal of access privileges to class lists Failure to receive book ordering email regarding the textbook from the book store Denial of access to the computer system for classes, students, class lists and grading. I have no updated lists for the class without pestering the secretaries in four departments or the secretary in the Dean's office for the info i

42.1

which they are instructed to print foi .ae. It became so embarrassing to me arid the third or fourth week of the semester-1 stopped doing it. I have no student ID numbers for grading. Many students finish the class after the semester ends. This means that I will have to have department chairs do the final grades as well as any and all change of grades that occur up to one year later after the class has ended. I will have to repeatedly pester department chairs to do the change of grade forms as the students complete the class assignment or make up for missed classes. Students hoping to take the class in the upcoming semester have repeatedly asked me why I will not be teaching the class in the Fall of 2009 since they cannot see my name on the schedule of classes. This entire semester has been embarrassing, humiliating and infantilizing. I was recently interviewed, rather extensively, by the local public television station for a 30 minute program on demand for the graduates of the College of Engineering and Computer Science. One of the highlights of the program was explaining how students in technical fields can take a one unit course specifically designed to plan and manage their professional careers. I also spoke with 350 potential students and their parents about the College of Engineering and Computer Science Career Services Office and the care with which we deliver innovative, cutting edge career services and career planning classes. I am attaching my recently updated resume with my educational background, professional work experience, publications, papers, programs and projects so you can understand my continuing dismay with the failure to correctly classify me. Cici

Cici Mattiuzzi Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023 phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949 email [email protected] web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

42.2

Cici Mattiuzzi CSU, Sacramento • College of Engineering & Computer Science 6000 J Street •Sacramento, CA 95819 (916) 278-7091 • [email protected] http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career AREAS OF EXPERTISE • Employment and Labor Market Information • Employment Systems Development • Career Counseling and Vocational Choice • Career and Employment Related Classes, Workshops and Seminars • Disabilities and Employability in Technical Fields • Transferability of Skills and Technical Expertise EDUCATION Master of Arts in Social Science Concentration: Economics California State University, Sacramento. December 1981 Bachelor of Arts in Psychology California State University, Sacramento. June 1974 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Director, Career Services College of Engineering & Computer Science California State University, Sacramento September 1984 to present Consultant: Labor Market, Career/Vocational, Employment Issues May 1984 to present Career Counselor, Schools of Business and Engineering Career Development and Placement Center California State University, Sacramento May 1978 to August 1984 Employment Development Officer Employment Development Department State of California July 1974 to May 1978 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Secretary, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Sacramento Chapter Employment Editor, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Sacramento Circuit Member, Executive Committee, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Honorary Member, Golden Key International Honour Society Outstanding Staff Award, CSUS College Of Engineering and Computer Science 1999 42.3

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS • Book: The Serious Job Seeker, Publishing Date, June 2009 • Web Site: seriousjobseeker.com, April 2009 • "Moving On: Leaving campus is not always easy!" Career Updates, April 2009 • "What are your salary requirements? Never answer this question!" Career Updates, April 2009 • "Leaving Gracefully" IEEE Circuit, May 2009 and Career Updates, March 2009 • "Slobs Don't Get Jobs!" Career Updates, March 2009 • "Networking Your Way to the Perfect Job!" Career Updates, February 2009 • "Economic Pain is Less Severe for College Degreed Technical Professionals" Career Updates, February 2009 • "Erroneous Assumptions" Career Updates, October 2008 • "Healthcare - It is Infrastructure" Career Updates, October 2008 • "Economic Shock Waves Change Everything" IEEE Circuit, October 2008 and Career Updates, September 2008 • "Multidimentional Engineers" Career Updates, September 2008 • "Equal Pay: Not Just a Women's Issue" Career Updates, May 2008 • "Employers Enticing Employees to Join and Stay" Career Updates, May 2008 • "Do You Qualify?" Career Updates, April 2008 • "Sorting the Offers- Career/Life Planning" Career Updates, April 2008 • "Economic Uncertainty- Is a Storm Brewing?" Career Updates, March 2008 • "State Dominates Hiring for Engineers and Computer Scientists! How to Study for State Exams" Career Updates, February 2008 • "Economy Melt Down Provides Opportunity and Pitfalls" Career Updates, November 2007 • "The Perfect Candidate Has the Right Stuff Career Updates, November 2007 • "What Way is the Wind Blowing?" Career Updates, September 2007 • "Job Seeking is the First Job a New Grad Needs Master!" Career Updates, May 2007 • "Figuring Out What You Want to Do in Life" Career Updates, March 2007 • "What is a Good Reference and What Should You Give Your References?" Career Updates, February 2007 • "Got Help?" Emir Jose Macari & Cici Mattiuzzi Sacramento Bee, February 2007 • Book: The Ultimate Career Planning Manual for Engineers and Computer Scientists, Published by Kendall Hunt, January 2006 • "Drug Testing: a Costly Prescreening" IEEE Circuit, April 2006 • "Blog Alert" Career Updates, April 2006 • "Planned to Perfection" Sacramento Bee, February 19,2006 • "Huge Public Works Project for California?" Career Updates, November 2005 • "Got Balance?" Career Updates, November 2005 • "What Distinguishes CSUS Students" Career Updates, October 2005 • "Life Guarding Your Future" Career Updates, September 2005 • "Why Training is Important for Career Success" Career Updates, May 2005 • "Embrace Change!" Career Updates, May 2005 • "Following Up Works!" Career Updates, March 2005 • "Fear of Applying" Career Updates, March 2005 • "Develop a Professional Image!" Career Updates, March 2005 42.4

• "Advice for Foreign Students" Career Updates, November 2004 • "Do You Have a Question" Career Updates, November 2004 • "Dangers of Globalization" IEEE Circuit Newsletter, October 2004 • "Direct Contact is Required for Job Seeking" Career Updates, May 2004 • "Job Seeking is a Forty Hour Per Week Job!" Career Updates, May 2004 • "Why a Summer Job is the Best Thing Since Sliced Bread" Career Updates, April 2004 • "Bad Times Don't Last Forever" Career Updates, February 2004 • "Get Help!" Career Updates, February 2004 • "Must Walk on Water" Career Updates, February 2004 • "Lets Get Rolling on the Day" Career Updates, December 2003 • "Goal Setting and Time Management" Career Updates, October 2003 • "Where Will the Jobs be When the Economy Improves?" Career Updates, September 2003 • "Show Up on Time!" Career Updates, September 2003 • "Being Positive is Efficient" Career Updates, May 2003 • "Costly Errors that Kill Job Offers" Career Updates, May 2003 • "Enthusiasm Gets the Job" Career Updates, May 2003 • "The Winds are Changing", Career Updates, March 2002 • "Layoffs Effecting Demand" Career Updates, September 2002 • "Networking Your Way to a Job" Career Updates, October 2002 • "How Bad is the Economy?" Career Updates, October 2002 • "High Tech Jobs Leaving the Country" Career Updates November 2002 • "Sacramento's Best Sources for Company Info" Career Updates, November 2002 • "Technical Interviews Done Right!" Career Updates, December 2002 • "Closing the Loop: Industry Site visits for Program Outcomes Assessment" ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10-13,2001, Reno, NV (with SK Ramesh, PhD) • "Industry Visits as an Assessment Tool" ASEE Conference, June 2001, Albuquerque, NM (with Fred Reardon, PhD) • "You Want Some Help?" Sacramento Circuit, March 1997. • "The Candy Bar Question" Sacramento Circuit, October 1996. • "Could it Get Any Better?" (Annual survey of technical employers) Sacramento Circuit, June 1996. • "Is that Salary Negotiable?" Sacramento Circuit, April/May 1996. • "The Occupational Outlook to 2005. What is Hot!" Sacramento Circuit, February/March 1996 • "Will You be Left in the Dust?" Sacramento Circuit, December 1995. • "Just do it! (Stop Procrastinating)." Sacramento Circuit, November 1995. • "Time to Move?" Sacramento Circuit, October 1995. • "The Market for Engineers is Flying." (Annual Survey of Technical Employers) Sacramento Circuit, March/April 1995. • "So You Think You are Stressed? Who cares..." Sacramento Circuit, February 1995. • "Portfolios for the Professional Job Search." Sacramento Circuit, November 1994. • "Predicting the Future." Sacramento Circuit, January 1994. • "A Ticket to Ride: the importance of professional activities." Sacramento Circuit, February/March 1996 • "Shoot Yourself in the Foot: mistakes job seekers make." Sacramento Circuit, September/October 1993. • "Can You Thrive in the New Organizational Structure of the 21st Century?" Sacramento Circuit, April/May 1993. 42.5

• "Have you considered self-employment?" Sacramento Circuit, January/February 1993. • "Electronics Engineers Find Opportunity in the Transportation Field," Sacramento Circuit, October/November 1992. • "How to Take Advantage of an Improving Market," Sacramento Circuit, September 1992. • "What if the Unthinkable Happens to You?" Sacramento Circuit, May/June 1992. • "Job Seeking in the Midst of a Recession," Sacramento Circuit, March/April 1992. • "How To Do a Job Fair," Sacramento Circuit, January/February 1992. PAPERS, PROGRAMS & SELECTED ADDRESSES "Patent Your Idea!" IEEE Special Workshop for Engineering Students and Professionals, April 27, 2009 "The Search for Talent: Attracting and Retaining Technology Professionals" Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance (SARTA), CTO/CIO Roundtable, April 9, 2009. "Quality Software Development Conference" College of Engineering and Computer Science, October 2008. "Computer Security Seminar- Emerging Field" College of Engineering and Computer Science, January 2008. "Sacramento Regional Engineering Workforce Summit" College of Engineering and Computer Science, January 2007. "Last Shot at Improving Writing Skills of Computer Science Majors" Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum Conference, February 2006. "The Five Elements of Good Career Planning" Key Note Address, Golden Key National Honour Society, March 2001. "The Future and How to Plan Yourself into It" IEEE Spring Workshop, February 2000. "Engineering in the Millennium" IEEE Spring Workshop, February 1999. "Why Choose Engineering or Computer Science" High School Invitational CSUS, February 1998. "Career Management in the 90's and Beyond: Thriving in a Climate of Constant Change." Sacramento Chapter Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, January 1994. "Job Hunting in A Shifting Economy," Society of Women Engineers, Regional Conference February 6, 1993. "Preparing for a Tough Market: What Can You do to Make Yourself More Marketable?" Golden Key National Honor Society, Statewide Conference, April 4, 1992. "Job Seeking Techniques Forum," IEEE Spring Workshop, May 16, 1993. "Getting an "Attitude": How to Handle the Stress of a Job Loss and Job Search in a Recession." Alumni Job Club Seminar, March 9, 1992.

PROJECTS • ABET Industrial Visit Reporting System • Interview Advantage System • Interview Scheduling System • Career Services homepage http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career • Job Environment Tracking System -Computerized Job Listings • Alumni Tracking System • Coordinate the Annual CSUS College of Engineering and Computer Science Career Day • Conduct annual employer survey of regional hiring plans • Editor, Career Updates Weekly Newsletter, distributed electronically to 10,000 students and technical 42.6

Professionals throughout California.

42.7

43

from

Cici Mattiuzzi <[email protected]>

to

[email protected]

cc

[email protected],

[email protected], [email protected] date

Wed,!®^ 6,- 2fi09.,at 2:16 PM

subject

endless anxiety

mailed-by

ecs.csus.edu

Reply

Follow up message Peter,

1 went home sick with anxiety on Monday. I visited my doctor because I am distressed and depressed in response to Dr. Markovic's frightening behavior. I am routinely worried and afraid while at work. I do not go out of my office without being wary. I constantly worry that he will hurt students or other staff. Every time I host a major event, bringing people to the campus or students together, I am concerned that he might come in shooting. I cannot ignore the threat that exists. As you know, 1 have repeatedly been told about his haviBg harassed, abused and intimidated students. This knowledge continues to weigh on me and constitutes a hostile work environment

I contacted you Monday after Lynne Onitsuka spoke with me. Lynne maintains a cheery disposition and she makes an effort not to let it show how this situation affects her. Her demeanor might make some think that she is not troubled or distressed by the hostility present in our work environment I know this is not the case. In late March, I received a phone call at home from her husband. He told me that she has been depressed about work and that the situation weighs on her constantly.

43.1

The reason I called most recently was to tell you that Lynne has been instructed to go to Markovic's office and to fix his computer. She told me that she was not happy about having to do so, but that she felt powerless and that she was afraid to refuse or to protest She told me she does not feel comfortable talking to her supervisor about her concerns. Markovic causes her distress (as you know, he has threatened to shoot her) and when she has complained to her supervisor, Mike Wimple, he has told her to "just suck it up." She said because she is too afraid to go into Markovic's office on her own, she would be bringing a student assistant along with her.

I was distressed on Monday because it just doesn't stop. You have known and the campus has known for months and for years that Markovic scares people. You know that he threatens and insults staff and abuses students. He is a noxious presence. People have been hurt and people are in pain, and the administration has failed to intervene. It is unconscionable that Wimple would send Lynn back into Markovic's office - as if he doesn't know - and even more unconscionable and irresponsible for the administration to have failed to have instructed Wimple to refrain from doing so. irrespective of whatever process the campus believes it must pursue, the campus had an immediate responsibility (by which I mean at least nine months ago) to mitigate the threat and the harm.

I have a right to a healthy work environment You have a responsibility to provide it. In a healthy work environment, employees do not have to listen to endless horror stories. I cannot escape exposure to such stories. I cannot escape my thoughts about these episodes at home or in the gym or even in my sleep. And it is made all the worse by the failure of this administration to make good on its duty to me as an employee. I did not attend the recent ceremony at which I would have received my 30 year award. The thought of being thanked by the campus for my service, while knowing that the campus has in every way failed to respond to my complaints - the thought of it made me sick.

i have been told by my Dean, "just forget about it... move on." I can't do that The stories 1 have heard from students are gut wrenching. What am I supposed to do when an alum comes to me and tells me that her career has consistently been off track because Markovic cheated her out of the grades she deserved? What am I supposed to say when I hear that the young student that Markovic stalked and preyed upon 17 years ago has never gotten over it? Do I just "forget about it" when I hear that a staff member has been terrorized? What do I do when a manager at PG&E says to me, out-of-the-blue, "I hear Markovic's doing it again?"

43.2

And how can I perceive my work environment as being healthy after complaining and finding that I have become "radioactive." As I have told you, some years ago when I complained about Markovic, Dean Braja Das didn't speak to me for three full years. For the past six months, Dean Emir Macari has said hardly a word to me at all. I am no longer included in the planning of major projects and events that have employment implications. It's happening again. The victims are the problem.

! am upset not just because the campus has failed in its duty. It goes beyond that Right now, the campus is expecting to receive millions of dollars in a "smart grid" proposal funded by the Federal stimulus package. Markovic has been written in to the proposal as if nothing about his status on campus is ever going to change. And if he is part of the team, he will have an even more powerful perch from which to prey upon students. Already, it seems, he has again been told that he can act with impunity.

In fact, I do not believe that he will remain on the "smart grid" team. It seems more likely that he will in someway derail the project Just last week, I was speaking with a PG&E manager (not the same one I mentioned above). He said that he had heard that Markovic has continued to be a problem (it's well known in the large alumni community at PG&E). In speaking with me, he recalled the events in 2003 when PG&E was engaged in discussions with CSUS to create a large and significant partnership. He recalled that Markovic had been calling relentlessly and displayed rude and aggressive behavior with a number of PG&E staff and that PG&E requested a meeting to resolve the issue (believing that there must have been some misunderstanding). During that meeting, Markovic was abusive towards a PG&E manager and a VP, and Braja Das stood by and watched. PG&E withdrew their proposal, viewing it as too risky to partner with CSUS.

1 interact with the community on behalf of the campus on a regular basis. I am embarrassed when people off campus ask about this. I help recruit students and I talk to parents about why they should send their kids here to CSUS. I feel depressed at the at the prospect of answering the question of why didn't the campus do anything to protect my child. Do we have to wait for the unthinkable to happen.

This continuing situation has the potential to embarrass the campus well beyond Che confines of Riverside Hall.

Cici

43.3

Cici Mattiuzzi

Director, Career Services Office College of Engineering & Computer Science CSU, Sacramento 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819-6023

phone: 916-278-7091 fax: 916-278-5949

email [email protected] web site: http://www.ecs.csus.edu/career

Subscribe to weekly Career Updates at the above web address!

43.4

Exhibit 44

California State University, Sacramento Office of Human Resources 6000 J Street • Sacramento, CA 95819-6032 http://www.csus.edu/hr

S-MaylS, 206$ "* Ms. Cici Mattiuzzi College of Engineering & Computer Science (Also sent via email) Dear Ms. Mattiuzzi: I have completed my review of your harassment and retaliation complaint. An investigation was conducted by Ms. Kira King under Chancellor's Office Executive Order 928 (http://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-928.html). In order to sustain a finding of violation of University policy: 1. To be unlawful harassment, the conduct must be: a. Unwelcome; b. Directed at gender, race or other protected categories, or in sexual harassment cases, be sexual in nature; c. Offensive to both the recipient and to a "reasonable person"; and d. Severe or pervasive. 2

To be unlawful retaliation an employee must suffer an adverse employment action for engaging in protected activities.

The following summarizes the findings by Ms. King: 1

You alleged that Dr. Miroslov Markovic harassed you by intentionally and forcefully bumping into you twice at a department event.

Based on the description of event, the witness interviews, and the fact that an intentional and/or aggressive move would have been noticed by others, particularly Dr. Oldenburg, Ms. King concluded that the event was accidental. This finding was further supported by your police statement by which you stated that it might have been an accideitf at the time. 2. You alleged that the University retaliated agaiast you fer raJsiag,claims against Dr. Markovic. Specifically you alleged that you were removed ^fe>m year teaebiag duties and were deaied reclassifibatKTs is&? the SSF-AR ciassMeation because you filed complaints against Dr. Markovic.

'• it

•'"' HNivfKM'*

!'..M'on, • (,,jd.viu m.

ililtpnheld • ChannelIsland-. • Chico • DominyuezHills • EasiBay • Fr«no • Fullenon • Humboldt • Lonq Beach • LosAngtilei • M^nnm*Aimlrmy • MUM '
44.1

I

Ms. King concluded that there was HO-evidence of any coaaeetkra between the removal of your teaching position and your c©B3f rel="nofollow">kints against Dr. Markovic. This was based on the following facts: a. The July, 2008 collective bargaining agreement between CSU and APC prohibited Unit 4 employees from teaching for-credit courses as part of their job assignment. The parties agreed to a one-time continuation of teaching duties by Unit 4 employees for the Fall semester, 2008 only. b. You were not the only Unit 4 employee whose teaching assignment was modified or eliminated under the collective bargaining agreement. c. The two employees you indicated have continued to teach are either not in Unit 4, or have not taught for-credit courses since this prohibition was agreed to. Ms. King also concluded that there was no evidence supporting a fmding of retaliation in the decision to maintain you current classification. This was based on the following facts: a. Ms. Margaret (Blair) Georgie was not aware of your complaints against Dr. Markovic. b. Neither Ms. Elizabeth Redmond nor Mr. David Wagner had any input into Ms. Georgie's decision that your SSP TV classification was appropriate. c. Neither Ms. Redmond nor Mr. Wagner discussed your allegations of harassment against Dr. Markovic with Ms. Georgie. d. Ms. Georgie was not toM by former Dean Das that he had withdrawn his support of your 2002 reclassification effort. e. Your 2007 application for reclassification was processed in a timely manner. It was categorized as a "Management Scheduled" application and was thus not subject to the 180 day deadline as an "Employee Initiated" application. 3. You alleged that the University refiises to hire women into the SSP-AR classification. The University currently employs 16 SSP-AR classified employees. Eight are females, and eight are males. Since SSP-ARs were removed from Unit 4 in the early 1990s, no SSP has been reclassified to SSP-AR. 4. You alleged that the University failed to adequately investigate past complaints regarding Dr. Markovic's behavior. Ms. King found that the investigation and follow-up regarding your 2007 complaint against Dr. Markovic was appropriate. Ms. King also looked into your concerns regarding complaints by others (former and current students and employees) against Dr. Markovic. Due to the privacy interests of fee individuals involved, the University cannot give you any details regarding those actions. However, we can tell you that any findings will be reviewed and the University will take any actions that are necessary.

44.2

Based on Ms. King's findings, I find no support specifically for your allegations of harassment and retaliation. Therefore I am cIosing-.B-by Level I investigation into your complaint against Dr. Markovic. If you are not satisfied with the outcome at Level I, you may file a Level II complaint with the Office of the Chancellor no later than ten days after this Level I response. Please refer to http ://www. calstate. edu/eo/EO-928. html for specific procedure if you wish to file a Level II complaint. I want to remind you that retaliation against someone for filing a complaint or for participating in an investigation is against University policy. Should you be subjected to any retaliation for engaging in this conduct, you should contact this office. In addition, this investigation and the related findings are considered a confidential matter. You may expose yourself to discipline or liability should you disclose or discuss these findings with others not legally authorized to discuss these matters. Sincerely yours.

'•J

Peter Lau, Director Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action

44.3

Exhibit 45

From: [email protected] Subject: Dr. Appointments Date: May 21, 2009 8:21:40 AM PDT To: [email protected] Mike, Due to the continued anxiety attacks and nightmares related to the threat last summer from Dr. Miro Markovic that he would get a gun a shoot me, I am going to start a series of depression classes and therapy sessions with a psychologist. It is unfortunate that this incident is having such long term effects. It was difficult enough to have my life threatened while pregnant. It is more difficult to see and interact with Dr. Markovic daily now that my child is born. This has forced me to go on anti-depressants and risk the health of my baby, who is still nursing. Long term effects of anti-depressants received through a mother's breastmilk is still unknown. When the day comes that I am shot and killed at work, I trust that you will tell my son how much I loved him. My appointments so far are: June 9, 2009 at 9:00am - therapy session June 9, 2009 at 2:30pm - depression class June 16, 2009 at 2:30pm - depression class June 23, 2009 at 2:30pm - depression class Thank you, Lynne

45.1