4 William N. Woodson, III, SBN 73224 LA W OFFICES OF WILLIAM N. WOODSON, III, APC 1807 Edelweiss Drive Cedar Park, TX 78613 (760) 535-6645 FAX (512) 358-4759 Email: Wnwoodson3@gmail.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff Virginia Moeller 2 3 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CENTRAL BRANCH 10 ~ Case No: 37-2013-00067620 PLAINTIFF MOELLER'S NOTICE OF LODGEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTIADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, EVID. CODE SECTIONS 451-453 . 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 20 --------------------------) 11 VIRGINIA MOELLER, Plaintiff, 12 13 vs. 14 IS 16 17 NORTH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants. 18 Hearing Date: Apri117,2015 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 27, Honorable Jacqueline M. Stem Trial Date: August 7,2015 21 22 23 24 III III III 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF MOELLER'S NOTICE OF LODGEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA MOELLER SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IN 2 OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT NCTD's MOTION FOR SUNIMARY 3 JUDGMENT/ ADJUDICAITON OF ISSUES. 4 5 I, the undersigned William N. Woodson, III, state: 1. I am one of the Plaintiffs attorneys in this matter, and make this declaration of my own 6 personal knowledge. If called as a witness in this case, I could and would competently 7 and truthfully testify to these things. 8 9 2. I attended the deposi,tion of the Plaintiff VIRGINIA MOELLER taken in this case, and such was taken on February 26 th and 27th of2014. Attached hereto, and marked Exhibit l o A , are true and correct portions of that deposition. 11 12 13 14 15 3. Attached hereto, and market Exhibit B, is the Declaration ofMr. Richard Hannasch, a witness in this matter. 4. Attached hereto, and market Exhibit C, is the Declaration of Ms. Susan Lockwood, a witness in this matter. 5. I took the deposition ofMr. Matthew Tucker, Director of the Defendant North County 16 Transit District, this case, and such was taken on March 12,2015. Attached hereto, and 17 marked Exhibit D are true and correct portions of that deposition. 18 6. I took the deposition of Ms. Karen Tucholski, a managing agent of the Defendant North 19 County Transit District, this case, and such was taken on March 13,2015. Attached 20 hereto, and marked Exhibit E are true and correct portions of that deposition. 21 7. I previously served Defendant NCTD with certain Requests for Production of Documents 22 asking for certain statistical information in order to make a showing of the demographics 23 of the Defendant regarding hires, layoffs, promotions, demotions, and other personnel 24 related activities in order to resist the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and if 25 necessary, trial in this action. A true and correct copy of those requests, and the 26 Defendant's Supplemental Response to those requests, is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 27 F, and incorporated herein. Defendant refused to provide many of such documents, and 28 Plaintiff made a motion to compel production of those materials, which Defendant PLAINTIFF MOELLER'S NOTICE OF LODGEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY ruDGMENT; REQUEST FOR ruDICIAL NOTICE resisted. The matter proceeded to a hearing before this court, and the court granted the 2 Plaintiffs motion to compel as to certain specific requests, especially numbers 86, 88, 3 and 89. The court will note that the Defendant stated, in response to each of those 4 requests, that it did not have the documents, and had "never had" the documents. [See 5 Exhibit E, Tucholski Depo., especially Exhibit 5 to that deposition, which is Exhibit F, 6 attached hereto, at pages 21-23] 7 8. At the deposition of Ms. Tucholski, [Exh. E] as indicated above, under paragraph 6, and 8 specifically asked Ms. Tucholski about the herein mentioned responses regarding 9 numbers 86, 88, and 89, asking her whether NCTD actually had the demographic 10 information contained in these requests, and specifically, where such information was II located at NCTD. Ms. Tucholski not only indicated that NCTD maintained such 12 information, but she recited where the information is located, and how one might easily 13 retrieve it. She indicated most of the information was easily obtained, and that it was 14 actually generated by a program automatically in some instances, especially regarding 15 gender and ethnic information to fiU out the EE04 form. [See Ms. Tucholski's 16 deposition, attached hereto as Exhibit E, especially at pages 79-84] 17 9. I also showed Ms. Tucholski this court's minute order dated February 10,2015, [Exhibit 18 4 to Ms. Tucholski's deposition] attached hereto, marked Exhibit G, incorporated herein, 19 in which the court ordered NCTD to tum over the described materials. Ms. Tucholski 20 frankly admitted she had no knowledge of the court's order. The court will note that Ms. 21 Tucholski's signature appears on the affidavit at the end of the responses to the 22 Supplemental Requests for Production, [Exh. E, Tucholski Depo., pp. Exh. 5, p. 24] 23 which essentially says that someone "informed" her NCTD didn't have the subject 24 documents, and never had them . At that point, Defense counsel launched into a lengthy 25 objection, and would not allow the witness to answer the questions. The court ordered the 26 production, Defendant has now admitted under oath it has the documents, despite the 27 written statements in the Supplemental Response indicating otherwise, and as the court 28 has indicated in its order, this information is "directly relevant" to the issues in the case. PLAINTIFF MOELLER'S NOTICE OF LODGEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE It is for these reasons Plaintiff asks the court to deny the motion for summary judgment, 2 pursuant to CCP Section 437c(i), or to continue the hearing on the Defendant's motion 3 for summary judgment pursuant to CCP Section 437c(h). 4 10. I have also arranged with the court to hold a hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel in 5 order to explore the subject of what should be done to obtain the information, and for 6 whatever sanctions may be appropriate under the circumstances. That hearing is set on 7 this court's calendar for June 19, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. 8 9 11. Mr. Brad Racino of inewSource, a local news magazine, wrote several articles highlighting allegations of wrongdoing at North County Transit District. Two of those 10 articles contain claims that Mr. Tucker engaged in acts of discrimination against women II in their fifties, and specifically created the spectre of age/gender bias on the part of Mr. 12 Tucker, the key player in this case. The two articles in question are attached hereto, and 13 marked as one Exhibit, Exhibit H, incorporated herein by this reference. Plaintiff requests 14 that the court take judicial notice of these articles pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 15 451,452, and 453. These articles were mentioned in Ms. Tucholski's deposition to see if 16 they might have prompted an investigation into at least some of the claims made as 17 referenced in these articles. [Exhibit E, at pp. 108-109] 18 12. One of the assertions in this case is that the District "eliminated" Ms. Moeller's position 19 as an HR Generalist in the year 2011, which presumably was to continue for "at least two 20 years" according to the Defendant's Brief, and according to Ms. Tucholski's Declaration 21 in support of this motion. However, as is clear from the attached Exhibit I, incorporated 22 herein by this reference, which is the for the fiscal year 2013, which begins as of June 23 2012, in which the District had allocated funds for the HR Generalist position as early as 24 the spring of2012, as is shown in the section of that budget under "HR, Training, and 25 Organizational Development", Human Resources Generalist II, where it shows that that 26 position continued into 2012, and then a position very much like it, began as early as Jun 27 2012 entitled "HR Generalist." I obtained this document from the NCTD website located 28 at http://gonctd.org// ... , specifically at http://www.gonctd.com!wp- PLAINTIFF MOELLER'S NOTICE OF LODGEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE contentluploads/20 13/05/FY20 13-AdoptedBudget.pdf. Plaintiff requests that the court 2 3 take judicial notice of this document pursuant to Evidence Code Section 451-453. 13. Another issue raised in this case is whether the District "failed to prevent" discrimination 4 on the basis of age or gender, or both, with respect to its handling of Ms. Moeller's 5 layoff. Part of that analysis is whether, upon reasonable notice of some claim of 6 discrimination or harassment, the District failed to investigate the claim. Toward that 7 end, Plaintiff asks the court to take judicial notice of the lawsuit filed by Ms. Kim Stone 8 in April 2012, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit J, and 9 incorporated herein by this reference. Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice 10 of this document pursuant to Evidence Code Section 451-453. II 14. On March 20, 2015 I wrote defense counsel Mr. Watson and Mr. Garchie expressing my 12 dissatisfaction with Defendant's failure to provide documents ordered turned over by the 13 court. Defendant responded to the letter on March 31,2015, explaining why the 14 documents were not turned over. Both letters are attached hereto, marked Exhibit Kl to 15 K 11, and incorporated herein by this reference. 16 17 18 I swear under penalty of perjury of the laws of the States of Texas and California, and of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed this 2tR.. day of April, 2015, at Cedar Park, Texas. 19 20 21 William N. Woodson, III, Attornpxt=- ­ Plaintiff VIRGINIA MOELLER 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF MOELLER'S NOTICE OF LODGEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 :->' 1-" COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 2 "-"' NORTH COUNTY 3 4 5 6 ORIGINAL VIRGINIA MOELLER, Plaintiff, No. vs. 37-2013-000676 2 0 CU-WT-NC 7 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 12 ~ .....,., 13 14 15 VIDEOTAPE D DEPOSITION OF VIRGINIA MOELLER 16 San Diego, California Wednesday, 17 February 26, 2014 Volume I 18 19 20 21 22 Reported by: JEANNE M. GARLOW 23 CSR No. 3456 24 Job No. 1808742 25 Pages 1 - 225 Page 1 Veri text National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 SUPERIOR COURT Of THE STATE Of CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH COUNTY 3 4 5 6 VIRGINIA MOELLER, Plaintiff, vs. No. 37-2013-00067620 CU-WT-NC 7 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 12 .......,., 13 14 15 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF VIRGINIA MOELLER, 16 Volume I, taken on behalf of Defendant, at 701 B 17 Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California, beginning 18 at 10:13 a.m. and ending at 5:03 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 February 26, 2014, before Jeanne M. Garlow, 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 3456. 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 THE VIDEOGRAPH8R: 2 record at 11:33 a.m. 3 BY MR. WATSON: 4 5 Q. You 11:34 understand you're still under oath? A. Yes. 7 Q. Great. Prior to 8 well, let me see. Let me hand you a document we'll mark as Exhibit 4 to the 10 deposition. 11 Virginia Moeller, document Nos. It's a two-page 11: 34 it's a resume of 110 and Ill. 12 (Exhibit 4 was marked for identification by 13 the court reporter and is attached hereto.) 14 ...... We've taken a break, Ms. Moeller. 6 9 We are back on the BY MR. WATSON: 15 Q. Is this a current resume for you? 16 A. Looks like it is. Q. Is there anything on here that should 17 18 I 11: 34 either be deleted or is there anything missing? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Correct? 21 A. It's correct. 22 Q. And so if you look on the second page, 11: 35 23 prior to working for NeTO you worked at a Travelodge 24 At the Park in Anaheim, 25 A. correct? 11: 35 Yes. Page 54 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 MR. WATSON: Okay. Let me hand you a 2 document which we'll mark as Exhibit 5, 3 It's a 4 Opportunity." I believe. five-page document entitled "Employment 5 (Exhibit 5 was marked for identification by. 6 the court reporter and is attached hereto.) 7 BY MR. WATSON: 8 Q. Have you seen this document before? 9 A. It appears to be the document for the 10 job description at North County. 11:51 11 Q. Is this the job that you applied for? 12 A. It looks like it. 13 Q. And is that the job you were hired to do: 14 11:50 Human Resources Generalist II? 11: 51 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And what -- what were your duties in that 17 position? 18 A. The the role was to create a 19 cradle-to-grave type of scenario with employees. 20 The human resources manager wanted someone who 21 performed all of the generalist duties, 22 the -- from the recruitment standpoint of bringing 23 people in, 24 compensation regarding such, 25 so forth in the recruitment area. interviewing, selection, 11: 51 meaning from working with the on-boarding duties and 11: 52 Page 66 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 Then in the -- we did labor relations. 1 2 at the time that I was hired/ still had the 3 600-and-some employee-represented people in 4 operations/ so I was their labor employee 5 representative. 6 investigated/ you know/ any complaints and things 7 like that. 11: 52 and dealing with those that were under -- you know/ 10 in -- incapacity -- or in need of leaves/ using 11 leaves. 11: 53 The operations people had a high usage 12 ........ So we heard grievances and Also/ did all the leave-tracking/ and -­ 8 9 We/ 13 of -- of FMLA leaves. And some 60 percent of them 14 were -- had an open FMLA leave/ so there was a lot 15 of following up with that. 11: 53 16 Also did any employee relations work that 17 was necessary within the -- within the represented 18 areas and administration/ worked on policies and 19 procedures/ any/ you know/ admin-type work such as 20 that. 21 surveys/ special projects/ helping other departments 22 obtain information for various -- you know, for 23 their jobs. Followed up on surveys/ you know/ like salary 24 Pretty much touched on any -- any 25 anything that would go through a normal HR 11:53 11: 54 Page 67 Veri text National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 department. 2 Q. When you began, 3 A. Jane Arnold. 4 Q. Is Jane the one that hired you? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Do you know what the process was by which 7 who was your direct boss? 11: 54 you were hired, within NCTD? 8 A. You're referring to the employment process? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. Do you want me to tell you what process I 11 That was used to hire you. 11:54 went through when I got hired? 12 Q. Sure. Tell me. 13 A. Okay. The -- I applied for the position. 14 I was -- Steve Vigil contacted me, 15 supplemental questionnaire. Filled out the 16 supplemental questionnaire. Then I received a 17 telephone interview from Jane Arnold. 18 that, 19 interview date, she asked sent me the And after or Steve set up a -- an actual so I interviewed. 20 Q. How old were you at the time? 21 A. This was in 2006, 11:55 so that would have 22 been -- how old would I have been? 23 calculator? 58. 11: 55 Do you have a Is that correct? 24 Q. This is just your best guess. 25 A. I'm estimating I was 58. I'm not -­ Then after the 11:55 Page 68 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 interview, 2 the job, and then I 3 Actually ~- 4 interview. 5 deputy director, 6 executive director, 7 ..... I was called and told that I had gotten Q. came on board. I'm sorry. There was a second I was called in again and met with the I believe, I think, and -- and -- and the 11: 56 too, maybe. And at that time in 2006, who was the 8 deputy director that you met with in that second 9 interview? 10 A. I don't remember his name. 11 Q. It was a man? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Who was the executive director that was in 14 11: 56 the meeting? 15 A. Karen. 16 Q. Karen? 17 A. Karen. 18 Q. Karen-something? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And she was the executive director at the 21 And I don't remember her last name. 11:57 11:57 time -­ 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. -- in 2006? 24 A. Right. 25 Q. So you had a total of two interviews, then, 11: 57 Page 69 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 2 A. (Nonverbal response.) 3 Q. Where was steve Vigil in the chain of 4 5 6 command? A. He was the -- at the time, he was the Q. Was he part of HR? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you recall what his position was? 10 A. HR coordinator. 11 Q. Is that a position that's In the 13 11: 57 A. It's -- it's a lower-level position, position was a new position. 15 position before. l7 In your same chain of command or is it different? 14 16 11: 57 person that set up all the interview schedules. 7 12 --.... for that position? Q. but my They hadn't had this 11:58 It was created -- you were the first one to occupy that newly created position? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you know why they needed to create a new 20 position? 21 22 A. I say "they." I mean NeTD. 11:58 Right. They felt that it was necessary in that the 23 employees weren't getting, you know, enough service. 24 They had people doing -- they had some -- a temp -­ 25 a temp doing some work, and they were overburdened, 11: 58 Page 70 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 evidently. 2 Q. Who told you this? Jane Arnold? Or is 3 that -- did you come to what you just said by your 4 own observation once you began? A. 5 That would be my own observation and 11: 59 6 summary of everything that I heard and understood at 7 that time. 8 Q. How many people, when you started, were in the HR department at NCTO? 9 A. 10 11 11: 59 There were -- there were three regular employees and one temp. 12 Q. 13 So there was Jane Arnold, Steve Vigil, Virginia Moeller? 14 A. Oh, 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. - - me. 17 Q. Steve Vigil, that's -- that was without -­ 11: 59 Jane Arnold. And do you 18 recall the names of the other people who were there 19 when you started? 20 A. 21 two temps. 22 because they actually even -- I think they've 23 changed, 24 The temps changed. Sorry. Actually, you know. in -- HR assistant, L 12:00 And I don't recall their names But Jane Arnold, Steve Vigil, 25 there were Kim-someone Linda Barber, Benefits 12:00 Page 71 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 Administration, 2 first started, 3 another lady there. her temp assistant. Linda wasn't there. Oh, when I There was 4 Q. Who was that? 5 A. I don't remember her name. 6 Q. Did she quit? 7 A. Yeah. 8 Q. Disappeared? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. Is there something nefarious that happened? 11 A. No. ,1 2 Q. Okay. 13 A. She 14 Q. You don't recall her name? 15 A. I don't. 16 Q. Do you recall how old she was? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you recall when she left? }9 A. She left 20 Q. Was part of your job responsibility 21 12:00 She just disappeared. 12:00 I don't know what happened. she left the -- our employ. 12:00 Except that she was over 40. estimate January of 2007. 12:01 employee discipline? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And -­ 24 A. Well, 25 Q. Tell me the yes part -- yes. It -- yes and no. Yes. 12:01 Page 72 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 ~ I the organization. 2 input and -- and would make various decisions. 3 4 Okay. Q. He would -- you know, he had So with respect to your own situation, what was his specific input? 5 A. He selected me. 6 Q. And -- and what do you base that on? 7 A. The fact that he selected and made all the 01:43 8 decisions on -- and okayed or approved, 9 know, 10 organization, any -- any business matter. And as far as the terminations, 12 he chose who was going to go, 13 wanted to have in those situations. 15 you could change or modify any -- any part of the 11 14 or, Q. 01:44 he he according to who he Did Mr. Tucker ever tell you that he 01:44 selected you personally for layoff? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Did you ever read a document which 18 indicated to you that Mr. Tucker selected you for 19 layoff? 20 A. No, 21 Q. He's the executive director, 22 A. Exactly. 23 24 25 but he represents NCTD. 01:44 correct? And he makes the decisions behind the terminations for NCTD. Q. Okay. What -- what was -- was he part of a committee that decided to lay you off? Do you know? 01:44 Page 96 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 A. As far as I 2 Q. You don't know if there was or wasn't? 3 A. I don't know that. 4 Q. Do you know if he was involved in know, there was no committee. 5 discussing or -- or having communicatio n with any 6 sort of consultants about your specific layoff? A. 7 8 No. He wouldn't -- he -- no. Q. Other than Mr. Tucker, do you know who was 11 specifically include you in a layoff? 12 A. 13 involved. 16 17 18 19 Q. I know no one other than Mr. Tucker who was Do you think there are other people that 01:45 were involved? A. I don't think it would matter if other people were involved. Q. Okay. He will make the decision. Do you know if anyone else was involved in recommending you for layoff? 20 A. I don't have any reason to know that. 21 Q. Do you know if Mr. 22 01:45 who else was part of the decision to 10 15 I don't know anything about consultants regarding a layoff. 9 14 01:45 01:45 Tucker recommended you for layoff? 23 A. Probably. 24 Q. Do you know? 25 A. Most assuredly, he -- he is the 01:45 Page 97 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 decisionmaker. 2 Q. 3 guessing? 4 A. I'm not guessing. 5 Q. Do you know if he's the one who brought 6 But you said "probably." Are you -- you your name up in terms of let's lay this person off? 7 A. Please rephrase the question. 8 Q. Do you know if Mr. Tucker's the one who 9 10 first raised -- first indicated let's layoff Virginia Moeller? 01: 46 11 A. Well, I don't know that, but I know that. 12 Q. Okay. 13 01:46 Now, you don't know that. What-­ the first you don't know that, what do you mean? 14 A. 15 know that? 16 document or something? 17 all the decisions came through him; that he selected 18 and approved and disapproved or made whatever -- you 19 know, made those things happen and could have 20 reversed it if he didn't agree with it, or -- yes. 21 I'm sure that I was -- that he had firsthand 22 selection process. 23 Q. I mean that how would I be in a position to 01: 46 To -- to have witnessed him signing a But do I know that? That 01:47 And do you know of any other person, 24 besides Mr. Tucker, that you believe had part of -­ 25 was part of the selection process relating to you, 01:47 Page 98 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 A. Right. 2 Q. Did Mr. Tucker ever give you any sort of 3 written or verbal reprimand personally? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Did he -- did -- did Ms. Barber? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did Mr. Hannasch? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did Jane Arnold? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you recall when you were informed 02:07 02:07 12 specifically that you'd be part of the layoff in 13 December of 2011? Well, the the first indication was -­ It would have and I -- and I'm not -- I'm A. 14 15 no. 16 not positive whether it was July or August. 17 guessing August 'cause it's the beginning of fiscal 18 year, 19 August? 20 sure it must have been during -- you know, sometime 21 in the month of July. 22 23 Q. 02:08 I'm so I'm -- I'm thinking it was -- did I say I meant July. And I'm -- I'm -- I'm pretty 02:08 and your best recollection is that Linda Barber gave you that message? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And what was your response to Ms. Barber? 02:08 Page 116 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 throughout the layoff processes; that it was out 2 with old guard and in with the new. 3 Q. 4 5 Yeah. Do you know how many WOODSON: MR. I don't think the witness had finished her response, Counsel. WATSON: 6 MR. 7 THE WITNESS: 02:18 I'm sorry. -- The Go ahead. the the selection 8 of those people who were selected for termination 9 or -- and layoff, and those -- there were those that 10 were selected for demotions and younger people put 11 in their jobs. 12 positions and other people repositioned somewhere so 13 that the new people could come in and take those 14 positions. 15 And there were many, many reorganizations and -- and 16 cha n ges. -. 17 There were a lot of replacements of All of that . It -- this went on and on. It became -- you know, 02:19 it was just so 18 apparent that there wasn't -- there wasn't going to 19 be rhyme or reason to -- or anything that you could 20 deflect or take issue with, 21 policies and pr o cedures and consistencies in hiring 22 and firing and -- none of those were being followed . 23 So there wasn't anything -- there wasn't anything to 24 fall back on. 25 02:19 0 2 : 19 because none of the You can't -- you can't say, well, according 02:20 Page 124 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 to the policy, you know, 2 because none of that was being adhered to. 3 There -- there -- it was just chaos. 4 chaos. 5 Q. 6 you should look at me here, Did you tell anybody that? Just Did you tell 02:2 0 anybody that? A. 7 I was always making -- every time a policy 8 or procedure or -- or a ruling was crossed, 9 set everything up. I always Everything I did was according 10 to our process and procedures. 11 wanted to -- to question that or to change that or 12 not go along with that, then it was -- then -- I 13 would leave it -- then it would be up to them to say 14 no, And if somebody 02:20 I don't want it that way. 15 Okay. So then I'd say, well, this is the 16 way it is, or -- or this is the process, 17 procedure. 18 needed that to be changed, then they had to get 19 Matt's approval to do that, and he would approve it 20 every time. 21 not fol l owing the rules, 22 23 24 25 Q. 02:20 this is the And -- and if they didn't -- if they I mean, you know, he -- he was all for 02: 2 1 really. You're -- you're being very vague. Specifically what are you talking about? A. Well, there is many -- too many examp l es to go into, maybe, but -- 02:21 Page 125 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 Q. Let -- let me stop you right there -­ 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. -- because I didn't real l y have a question 4 pending. 5 But with respect to your layoff, are there 6 any rules that you are claiming or procedures or 7 policies that you are claiming were not followed? 8 A. Oh, yes. 10 There were MR. WOODSON: 9 first, Let me make an objection and then I want you to respond. 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MR. WOODSON: Objection. it's an interrogatory-type question, but you may 14 respond. THE WITNESS: 02:21 Overbroad and 13 15 Two distinct policies that 02:21 16 directly involved me are Resolution 1-78 and the 17 ordinance -- the number is slipping me -- the 18 ordinance that was in place which were the governing 19 regulations for the district at the time that I was 20 employed. 21 02:21 02:22 These regulations stipulated that -- that 22 those allowed -- or those involved in layoffs and 23 terminations had certain rights for being selected 24 for other positions or being put on reemployment 25 lists if an immediate position wasn't available. 02:22 Page 126 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 I mean, there were -- there are time -- and 1 ~. don't recall the exact wording, of course, in 2 I 3 these resolutions, but they're giving the employee 4 certain rights and reemployment and being put on 5 notice for available jobs and that type of thin g . And those -- those rights were never given 6 7 to me. 8 reemployment list or asked to respond to any 9 openings. 10 I didn't -- I didn't -- wasn't put on a 02:23 BY MR. WATSON: 11 Q. Now, t hat policy was changed, correct? 12 A. It was changed after my -- after my 13 02:23 notices. 14 Q. After you were laid off? 15 A. After my notices. 16 Q. What do you mean? l7 A. -- and -- I was still employed till the end 18 I was still employed -- of 201l. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. And 21 Q. When was the policy changed? I 02:23 know -- MR. WOODSON: 22 Let me make an objection. 23 "C hanged" is vague and ambiguous, but you may 24 respond. 25 02:23 THE WITNESS: I believe it's 1-78 was 02:23 Page 127 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 cause . 1 Except -­ 2 Q. Do you feel -- go ahead . 3 A. I ' ll tell you what gives me that feeling . 4 There was an all-hands meet ing in held o ver at S the civic center , at the library , maybe July . 6 as I walked over to the lib r ary, I was thinking 7 that -- kind of anticipating , I guess , a new - - the 8 ne w -- what might be in for NCTD. And 9 So I sit down at a table and T hea r Matt 10 talk , and Matt 's saying this is -- you know , I' ve 11 called this meeting together to, you know, kind of 12 say good-bye to the old and hello to the new . 13 mean , that , of cou r se , is summarizing . 02 : 26 T He says, you know , we ' re -- we've had a lot 14 15 of layoffs and that 's behind us , and we have -- you 16 know, the world is ours to take, going forward . You people are the future of NCTD . 17 r then 19 that aren ' t with us anymore, they -- they -- they 20 haven ' t fit the - - the future here at NCTD. I 02 : 27 And 18 21 02 : 26 hea r d him say those that were selected for is -- there's cause for them not to be here . There 02 : 27 And 22 whethe r they were -- and I don ' t r emember at this 23 point -- I don ' t remember all of the words because 24 it's -- it sort of hit me like a -- you know , I feel 2S like I' ve just been hit over the head . Like, hello? 02:28 Page 130 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 "-" Like , what? 2 The -- a ll this time I really thought it 3 was a business 4 and to hea r that , well , for some reason these people 5 that aren ' t here anymore have , you know , don e the 6 dirty , and -- and they ' re no longer -­ economic decision . 7 Q. Did he say that? 8 A. They ' re no longer with us. MR . WOODSON : 9 10 02:28 That ' s what -­ Counsel , you 're inte r rupting the witness . 02:28 THE WITNESS : 11 12 And then That ' s what he is saying. BY MR . WATSON : 13 Q. He said "done the di r ty" ? 14 A. No . He didn ' t say "done the dirty ." I' m telling you that I 15 -- I d on ' t remembe r 16 the exact words he used , but he made many statements 17 that had to do wi th the pe ople that weren ' t there 18 an d ho w their abilities and -- just suggested that 19 they had done something to cause t heir termination . 02:29 Well , that wasn ' t what I understood this 20 21 was all about . 22 I 23 by -- by what was hap ening , and I 24 that this was n' t -- yo u know , this wasn't a l l p u re . 25 And , you kno w, I was totally devastated by that . -- I As -- and in my naivete , I -- 02:29 but was naturally feeling totally overwhelmed realized then 02:29 Page 131 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 Q. Did he s ay anything about you? 2 A. Well , he did catch my eye during the 3 speech , but it was when he was asking for the big 4 hurrah. 5 give me a hurrah . 6 asked for another . 7 tha t wasn 't quite big enough , either , so he asked B for another one . For all those people to say -- he says , so And it wasn ' t big enough . Gi v e me another h urrah. So he And And during t he course of that -- anyway . 9 10 Q. Did he get a nother one? 11 A. I imagi ne that they responded in kind . 12 Q. Well, you were there . 13 A. Yes . 15 Q. Okay . 16 A. Everyone was there . 17 Q. Was Linda Barber there? 18 A. I Did t hey or did n't believe Linda Barber was there , but I don' t know that. Q. How many people were in tha t room? 21 A. I 23 24 25 02 : 30 And Linda Barber was the r e? 20 22 02 : 30 they? 14 19 02 : 30 have no ide a. called to tha t meet ing. Q. The whole organization was It was a mandatory meeting . Now, before the layoff started, how many employees were there, A. 02 : 30 if you know? 02:31 Altogether? Page 132 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. 604. 3 Q. Okay. 4 were part of this restructuring? This layoff? 5 A. That were affected by the layoff? 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. About 475. 8 Q. And of those 475, 9 10 '-' And how many people, approximately, do you know how many of those were rehired by independent companies who had contracts -- 02:31 11 A. I have no idea. 12 Q. -- with the NCTD? 13 A. I know that most of the supervisors in 14 operations were offered a position with -- with 15 First Transit. 16 02:31 Q. 02:31 I asked you 'cause you're part of HR. I 17 thought maybe you might be privy to those 18 percentages, as to how many of the people laid off 19 actually continued employment but for a different 20 employer. Do you know? 02:32 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Was it a majority of the people? 23 A. The operations supervisors were offered 24 positions; that I know for a fact. 25 fact I know. That's the only 02:32 Page 133 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 2 Q. You don't know if coach operators, engineers -­ 3 A. Oh. 4 Q. -- if they were offered positions? 5 A. Yes. Operations people were offered 6 positions with First Transit, without very few 7 with very few exceptions. 8 9 Q. 02:32 Most of the people that were laid off, is it fair to say, were rehired by other companies? 10 MR. WOODSON: 11 foundation. 12 knowledge, 13 BY MR. WATSON: Let me make an objection. Calls for speculation. No No personal but you may respond. 14 Q. Is that your understanding? 15 A. The largest percentage of termination and 16 layoffs, 17 operations, when they were all -- or when most of 18 them accepted positions with First Transit, 19 substantiated, you know, 20 the total layoffs and terminations. 21 02:32 02:32 because there was a 435-employee base at that the largest percentage of 02:33 Of the people that were administrative or 22 non-represented, those people I 23 were -- where they -- I 24 you know, what happened in their future; whether or 25 not they were reemployed by anyone or not. I have no idea. They do not know their 02:33 Page 134 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 2 Q. So you're in this meeting over at the civic center. And do you recall when that took place? 3 A. 4 know I 5 out to be my final layoff notice, so I had to go to 6 this meeting knowing that I wasn't part of the 7 rah-rah team. It was right about that time in July. had just gotten my final -- well, 8 Q. So it's July 2011? 9 A. I think it was. 10 Q. And just to be clear, I what turned you didn't have any 11 personal conversation one-on-one with Matt Tucker at 12 that meeting; is that correct? 13 A. At that meeting, 14 Q. And just to be clear, Matt Tucker didn't mention you by name at that meeting; 16 correct? 02:34 is that 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Now, 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. How many people were there, approximately? 21 A. I'm not supposed to guess. I 23 02:33 no. 15 22 02:33 you stay for the entire meeting? 02:34 would estimate somewhere around 100. Q. How -- how many of those 100 -- 100 people 24 in there, if you know -- you may not know -- how 25 many of those people were female? 02:34 Page 135 Veri text National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 was a little glib about it because he, 2 just referred to the past, 3 surprise? 4 he -- he was, 5 the reorgs. 6 promptly recruited for, 7 after he was terminated. 8 same -- it wasn't the same title. 9 my old job. 10 11 12 And, you know, again, and, like, why is that a we're -- I you know, a victim of the of one of And his position, of course, 02:40 And it wasn't his -- the It was a title of So it had most of his duties and a So-- 02:41 So his job -- the -- how do you know that? Is that what he told you? 13 A. No. 14 Q. You saw it where? 15 A. In the NCTD job line thing. 16 Q. Why were you looking at that? 17 was in about a week or two, couple of the old duties combined. Q. you know, I saw it. 02:41 Were you hoping to apply? 18 A. I thought it might be a possibility. 19 Q. Did you? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Have you ever submitted an application for 22 a position at NCTD since your layoff? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Have you ever attempted to make contact 25 02: 41 I was too late. I have a standing application at NCTD. with anyone to see if any of the positions might fit 02:42 Page 141 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 you or your skill set? A. 2 3 since I've been gone. 4 set. 5 Q. They're aware of my skill Linda Barber continued after you were gone. 6 Did you ever make contact with Ms. Barber to say, 7 you know, 8 come up? 9 A. didn't -- we didn't have that I conversation because i t wasn't necessary. 11 the conversation prior to my leaving. 12 was willing. I mean, Q. Willing to do what? 14 A. Willing to have me back if there was she 02:42 something that she could do about it. Q. Did you ever make any calls to, 17 remind her? 18 things. like, Frequently, we need reminders to do 19 A. No, 20 Q. You didn't -- you didn't do that? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. 23 02:42 We had 13 16 02:42 keep me in mind for any positions that 10 15 ,.,.. Not -- I haven't personally contacted them HR manager, we don't. No. 02:43 Have you ever contacted the current Karen Tucholski -­ 24 A. No. 25 Q. -- to ask her about any possibility of 02:43 Page 142 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 rehire? 2 A. No. 3 Q. But you keep your eye on job postings for 4 NCTD? A. 5 6 Sure. I for anywhere. 7 Q. Okay. Why haven't you submitted any -- why 8 haven't -- you -- you mentioned a standing 9 application. A. 10 What does that mean? That means that I was a past employee. 11 should be on a reemployment list. 12 who I Q. 13 14 am and what I I A. 16 Q. They're aware of did. Have you attempted to talk to anyone to see No. I don't know if I was ever on a list. 02:43 to see if you have been considered for any further positions? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Do you know if Matt Tucker ever went to the 20 board of directors to ask for more time for you and 21 other similarly-situated employees before being laid 22 off? 23 A. Can you repeat the question? 24 Q. Do you know if Matt Tucker ever went to the 25 02:43 if you're still on that list -­ 15 17 02:43 keep my eye out on job postings board on your behalf and on behalf of other 02:44 02:44 Page 143 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 .... 2 3 4 5 6 Q. Now, did you ever have personal discussions with Matt Tucker relating to Ordinance 1-78? A. I don't recall a discussion with Matt regarding 1-78. Q. What about Ordinance 4? 03:07 Did you have discussions -­ 7 A. No. 8 Q. -- with Mr. Tucker relating to Ordinance 4? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Tucker 11 03:07 policies that you felt NeTD was not complying with? 12 13 Well -- no. MR. WOODSON: May I have the question back, please? 14 (Record read.) 15 THE WITNESS: It's a broad question for me 16 because policies, procedures, 17 issues were -- under the old policies were -- they 18 were being compromised many times over. 19 be -- yes. 20 it all and call it policy, 21 broken, and -- and I have -- I would confront Matt 22 or let Matt know that certain procedures or 23 processes were -- you know, 24 you know, we've been doing them; that's not past 25 practice. 03:08 those compliance So to -- to I was aware that there were -- I'll lump And -- you know, if that's okay -- were 03:08 that's not the way that, and then he would make 03:08 Page 149 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 the decision to go ahead and change it or leave it 2 the way it was, or -- normally he changed it to 3 or not changed it exactly, but did what he wanted to 4 do regardless of how -- of of what it h ad been. 5 But he was made aware of what it was. So it was, 6 7 forward with -­ 8 BY MR. WATSON: 9 Q. you know, 03:09 his decision to go What would be the circumstances where you 10 would be able to speak with Mr. Tucker about what -- 11 what you've termed policy? 12 A. Well, Matt, as I've indicated, 13 wanted to be involved in everything, 14 everything HR, is -- was -­ and especially it seemed. He didn't want any decisions being made 15 16 about -- all employment decisions needed to be 17 okayed by him. 18 his approval, 19 involve him and -- and -- sometimes in more ways 20 than one. 21 03:09 He didn't want anyone hired without for example. And so the process would 03 : 10 He may -- and often took a special interest 22 in certain positions being filled and would ask to 23 see those resumes prior to the interviews. 24 25 03:09 You know, he'd call. what's come in today? What's come in today? You know, And so you 03:10 Page 150 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 would -- and he would always get -- he'd get angry 2 with me because in HR, 3 on any Social Security numbers or addresses and 4 telephone numbers, and, 5 information that might be on that resume to a 6 manager, 7 remember he was a little irritated at the -- you 8 know, at 9 but you're somebody else, 10 you know, any personal and that included him. i t's me, he'd say. 03: 10 And -- and I And I s aid, I know, so you can't see -- you can't have that. 03:11 11 But 12 might get in 13 of our recruitment. but that's how involved that he in some of the -- you know, in some So he would orchestrate different parts of 14 ~ you -- you don't want to pass 15 it. I went you know, he would -- he might pick 16 certain resumes to be -- to be interviewed, and -­ 17 and that isn't part of the process. 18 is -- you know, the managers get qualified resumes 19 to pick from. The process 20 Q. Where do they get them? 21 A. From me. 22 Q. Who qualifies the resumes? 23 A. I do -- or I did at that point. 24 25 03: 11 03:11 From HR. And the qualifications are based on their resumes versus the qualifications and requirements 03: 11 Page 151 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 of the position. 2 And for Matt I usually made some kind of a 3 spreadsheet for -- a lot of the directors I would 4 make the spreadsheet, 5 he liked to see how many of the attributes a person 6 had, 7 And then I could justify why I was giving him these 8 people versus not some people. you know, but Matt, especially, 'cause that -- of the resumes coming in. But he would not -- not always pick from 9 10 the qualified list. 11 sometimes my recommendations would go unheeded. 12 13 14 Q. 03:12 So that was one way that And just to be clear, the qualified list is a qualified list that you created? A. Right. You qualify the resumes coming in. 15 You might get 200 resumes come in on a position, 16 when I was there, 17 poor enough that we had really good response on -­ 18 on resumes. 19 to cross his desk. 20 it was a way of screening out, 21 were, 22 weren't really applying for that particular job 23 with -- and then letting him see, 24 25 03:12 the -- you know, 03:12 the economy was And many of them had no you know, and They didn't have you know, didn't need you know, so those that 03:13 kind of like the junk resumes that you know, others. But at times he had special interests with given resumes, and I don't know what those might be, 03:13 Page 152 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 but he might pick some out that I hadn't, 2 But it wasn't like I could say, 3 qualified candidates, and let it go as that. these are the Well, let me see the rest of them. 4 5 yes, or not. know, You and so -- 03:13 6 Q. Would you give him the rest of them? 7 A. I would do whatever he asked within legal 8 9 10 ramifications, yes. Q. resumes, Sure. So if he asked to see the other 03:13 you would 11 A. Oh, yes. 12 Q. -- provide him with the other resumes? 13 A. Oh, 14 Q. Would you redact them? 15 A. Would I -- 16 Q. Do any redactions on the resumes in case yeah. 1-­ .~ 17 03:13 they did have a Social Security number -­ 18 A. Oh, 19 Q. -- or something like that? 20 A. Yeah. 21 I tried to -­ I purified I tried to purify 03:14 everything that he got. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. Don't know if he ever got one that -­ 24 sometimes they'll come in from other managers, 25 know -- you 03:14 Page 153 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 Q. Yeah. 2 A. -- via another source, or outside or 3 something, 4 Q. 5 and -- or be sent directly to him. Was there a written policy in place that you had to follow to qualify the candidates? 03:14 In other words, as you reviewed the -- all 6 7 the 200 -- let's just pick a number -- 200 resumes 8 that come in for a particular position, 9 some written policy that you had to follow in order 10 11 was there to qualify those candidates? A. Yes, so to speak. 03:14 There was -- we -- the 12 HR department had recruitment policies, 13 policies were set up for -- to make sure that the 14 recruitments and the employment -- the employment 15 process was consistent and fair for all employees, 16 so that we could pass audits, and -- and so forth 17 with -- you know, 18 diligence, 19 process. 20 those processes. 21 Q. and show our and -- you know, and the 03:15 that we did due in our selection And so that's -- that's why we followed Okay. 03:15 Do you -- is there a name of a 22 specific process or policy that you're referring to? 23 Is it part one of l-78? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you know who created those HR policies? These are HR policies. I -- 03:15 Page 154 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. 3 They were there when I got there. Fair enough. Do you know if they were board-approved HR 4 policies, 5 Jane Arnold created and followed? 6 A. or were they just internal policies that Yeah. Jane, I don't think, 03:15 created them. 7 I think they were there. 8 but -- so I don't know the answer to that. 9 know if they were board-approved, but they were -­ 10 11 12 certainly worked for many, Q. All right. They were already there, I don't many years. 03:16 And those were -- that process was what you were using -­ 13 A. Right. 14 Q. -- before Matt Tucker came on board as the 15 03:16 executive director? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. And after Matt Tucker came on board as the 18 19 executive director, A. Well, correct? that's what we attempted -- to still 03:16 20 keep things as consistent and fair as possible, 21 and -- so that kept out personal agendas and biases, 22 you know, 23 possible. 24 25 Q. outside the process. Yeah. But it wasn't always Were there -- at some point in time, were there hiring panels? 03:16 Page 155 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 A. 1 ~ That was slightly before my time. 2 understand there's called a Jet, 3 something. 4 Arnold shared that information with me, 5 there when those were in force. Q. 6 I -­ I the Jet Team or And I -- I was just -- you know, Jane but I wasn't 03:17 Were there -- when a candidate was 7 interviewed, were there a panel of persons who would 8 interview the candidate? A. When I was there? 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And who would decide who would be included 9 13 on those panels? 03:17 Is that the right term, 14 A. Yeah. 15 Q. Interview panel. 16 A. Okay. "panel"? I t was an interview panel. The -- again, 03:17 your recruitment 17 process was that the panel consist of -- of an HR 18 person and a person who had -- had interest. 19 the panel wanted to discourage the actual manager 20 being in the f i rst interview session. 21 needed to be someone that was familiar with that -­ 22 the aspects of that job that they were interviewing 23 for. 24 area. 25 So they could be, like, The So it still 03:17 an expert in that And -- and then another person was 03:18 Page 156 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 encouraged -- we were encouraged to always have an 2 outside person on the panel. 3 know, 4 all across the county. 5 panels have an outside person to help keep that 6 you know, 7 interview panel for the first interviews . 8 9 Q. And that's -- you that's really a -- a totally familiar picture All governmental interview 03:18 that agenda factor out -- out of the What type of person would this outside person generally be? 10 A. It would generally be someone that knew 11 again, that was some kind of expert in the area. 12 I had an accounting position, 13 accountant at the City of Oceanside to come over and 14 sit in the panels. 15 know, maybe -- you know, maybe San Diego Transit had 16 someone that -- you know, you 03:18 that type of thing. give us good feedback, 19 of -- that they could offer. 22 I may ask the chief If it was an ADA person, 18 21 If So it was always using someone that could 17 20 03:18 Q. yet had an unbiased opinion Who was in charge of -- of putting the 03:19 panels together? A. I was. However -- however, well, usually, after Matt, he if it was -­ 23 would sometimes 24 again, 25 his positions were new positions or added positions if it was a position that he was -- a lot of 03:19 Page 157 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 that we didn't have before, or -- or possibly he 2 had, you know, somehow created. 3 would often direct who was going to be on the -- on 4 the panel in that instance, 5 the outside So he would -- he and he did not encourage an outside panelist. 03:20 So if I could find one without causing any 6 7 delay in the interview, 8 I couldn't stop the interview process by -- by not 9 having that person. 10 I would. But if I couldn't, I had to go ahead. So then would it be a two-person panel or Q. 11 would you find a third person from someplace else, 12 from within? It -- it depended on -- it A. 13 14 just depended on who was available. 15 people. 16 person, That's HR, again, it That's three that's the person -- in-house 03:20 and then the outside person. 17 Q. Right. 18 A. So that -- that was -- we were smaller I mean, you know, 19 panels to begin with. 20 standard, 21 that had a particular interest in it, 22 wanted to put someone else on it later, 23 sometimes had more people involved. 24 yes. 25 03: 20 let's say. as a But if there was someone else 03:20 or -- or Matt you know, we But he would So Q. How would you work with Mr. Tucker in 03:21 Page 158 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 '~ 1 deciding who would be on the panel for a particular 2 category or a particular position? 3 4 A. There was -- there was no -- there was no process. There was no given way of doing that. I would set up -- I would set up each 5 03:21 6 interview the way it was -- you know, 7 my process and the people that should be involved in 8 that particular aspect or that particular job. 9 if -- if someone took issue with that, Matt wanted, according to And then they 10 would need to say, well, you know, 11 So-and-So to be on the panel, or -- or make some 12 change. 13 clear it with me, 14 know, 15 saying it's okay. 03:21 and then I'd ask them to have Matt And 'cause I wasn't changing -- you I couldn't change my processes without him 03:22 So I usually tried to work with him that 16 'Cause 17 way by making sure that he was aware. 18 something happened and he wasn't aware of it, 19 that could come down on me, 20 Q. 21 A. 22 then I 23 going on and agreeing to it. 24 the case. 25 Q. too, then so -­ 03:22 Sure. if we were going to deviate from policy, kind of wanted to have him knowing what was So that generally was But they messed with my panels a lot. And you said "they," so who's "they"? 03:22 Page 159 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 but also managers who were looking for a particular 2 position would sometimes give their input into who 3 they want on hire -- on interview panels? 4 A. Right. And they could input all they 5 wanted, but it wasn't going to happen unless they 6 got Matt's approval to do it because that's -­ 7 wasn't consistent practices, and that's what I was 8 there for. 9 Q. 10 panel. 11 or -- or wanted to add input, 12 to you and -- or Mr. Tucker, and sometimes there was 13 a change, sometimes there wasn't; is that accurate? Okay. 03:24 And so you would put together the If someone had a problem with the panel 03:24 they would either go 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. How often were you on the actual panel? 16 A. Almost 98 percent of the time. 17 Q. And is this from the time you started your 18 Pretty accurate. 03:24 employment until the time you left? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So the entire time you worked for NeTD? 21 A. Yes, 22 Q. And what -- what portion -- what percentage yes. 23 of your working -- of your work involved this 24 recruitment? 25 A. 03:24 In the last -- since Matt was there, 03:24 Page 161 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 more -- a lot more than before Matt was there. So 2 we used to do -- I think we had figured out about -­ 3 well, Steve Vigil did the -- he worked wi th 4 operations folks, 5 there was always ongoing recruitments there. 6 all the non-reps over there. 7 represent -- no. so that was 430-some people. So He did And I did the I'm sorry. The rep- -- he did the operations 8 represented, union-type folks, 9 and I did the 03:25 non-represented, administrative-type folks. 10 How many people was that? 11 Q. 12 changed. 13 A. I understand it Before the operations, it was -- let's 14 see 150 or 60 might have been the numbers for 15 the for admin non-reps. 16 forgot your initial question. 17 18 r Q. 150, 160 20 Q. Yeah. 21 A. 24 25 03:26 I were there, and you said 150 to 160. A. 23 I'm -- I'm sorry. How -- how many -- how many non-rep people 19 22 03:25 03:26 yeah, of -- of non-represented employees. Q. People? L __ A. Yes. A_n_d_t_h_ose are the people that you had 03:26 Page 162 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 '-"'. 1 responsibility for in terms of filling those 2 employment positions? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. And so you were the person who would accept For doing whatever, yeah. 5 the resumes and go through them and qualify them; 6 that correct? A. 7 Well, I recruited for the position. 8 posted the announcements online and wherever, 9 when the resumes came in, 10 11 12 and, and Q. 15 03:26 I and then I started screening, doing that. 03:26 Would you work with the managers -- let me strike that and start over. Who would you work with to create the post 13 14 you know, is for the position? A. Initially, the -- if you have a -- once you 16 get notice that somebody wants to -- wants a new 17 asset -- real estate asset administrator, 18 go pull the info on the -- you know, 19 description and the interview questions that were 20 used the last time that job was filled. 21 it to the manager and ask him to look over the job 22 description and the interview questions. 23 there's anything that he wanted to change, 24 needed to get it approved, 25 description change had to be approved by HR 03:27 then you the past job And we send 03 : 27 And if that we because any job by 03:27 Page 163 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 the HR manager. And those were hard to get changed 2 because that's not what job descriptions are for. 3 But -- and then the -- yeah, 4 questions are formed. 5 interview questions -- you know, they just -- they 6 thought they were pretty good to go. 7 while, they had their own twist on them or they 8 wanted to add to them, update them, because 9 sometimes we hadn't applied -- that position may not then the interview Most of the times the But once in a 10 have been open for years, and, you know, 11 changed. 12 then -- and then the -- the job was recruited for 13 after those corrections and updates had been made. So we did those updates. times had 03:28 And -- and 14 Q. And then the -- the resumes would come in? 15 A. Uh-huh. 16 Q. And you would review them, 17 A. Right. 18 Q. And then you would pick out the ones that 03:28 correct? 19 you felt best met the qualifications for the 20 position. 03:28 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Correct? 23 A. Right. 24 Q. And then what would you do with those 25 03:28 resumes that you then qualified? 03:28 Page 164 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 A. 2 to their manager. 3 send them up to the manager to look at and to select 4 candidates for interview. lid do the, you know, write-outs, And then they'd do that. 5 Send them back to 6 me. 7 the people who were going to be on the panel, get 8 all their schedules, you know, schedule the 9 interview, prepare all the packets and stuff for the 10 11 ....... Then lid ask the manager -- lid send them And we'd -- I'd set up -- you know, lid find interview and -- and we'd interview. Q. 03:29 Would -- would you try and get a panel 12 together that would interview multiple persons, or 13 did you usually have a different panel for each 14 candidate? 15 A. 16 Oh, no. We had the same panel. Oh, 03:29 definitely the same panel. 17 Q. All right. 18 A. But you had -- you know, the whole purpose And-­ 19 was to present a consistent experience for each 20 candidate, you know, an unbiased and fair appraisal 21 of their skill versus the job description, and -­ 22 03:29 Q. 03:29 So when you see the resumes, what would be 23 the criteria that you, Virginia Moeller, would look 24 for to create that -- whatever your language that 25 you use with -- 03:30 Page 165 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 A. 1 I'd take the job description and go through 2 your requirements and the -- the requirements and 3 all the summary of duties, 4 essential -- essential characteri s tics, 5 I the position. the essential -­ I guess, And literally and by hand, 6 through a machine, 7 finding those. 8 look for, 9 through those, not 03:30 go through each resume and start You know, you know. of I didn't have key words to But anyway, finding -- going and -- and really scrutinizing them. 10 And I was very keen on doing that to the best, 11 know, really -- I didn't want anyone to question my 12 choices, Q. Would you call references? 14 A. No, 15 Q. Not at that point? 16 A. Huh-uh. 17 Q. Did the not at this point. 03:31 did the resumes usually come with photographs? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. 21 03:30 and generally you couldn't. 13 18 you I 03:31 So you wouldn't have any photographs? 22 A. Thank heavens. 23 Q. You just had the resume? 24 A. Yeah. 25 Q. And -- and would you look at any -- would 03:31 Page 166 Veri text National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 you look at any personal information that may be 2 included on a resume? 3 information, 4 5 6 7 some don't. Not at all. That's not part of the requirements or the characteristics of the job. Q. included personal information? A. Very few anymore. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. Less and less. 12 03:31 Did you find that most of the resumes 8 11 .... A. Some people put personal People are concerned about their privacy. Q. Right. And so most of the resumes that you 13 would qualify or wouldn't qualify -- most of the 14 resumes that you would receive wouldn't include very 15 much personal information; is that correct? 16 A. There's always 17 not -- not -- you know, 18 hobbie s, 03:31 there's still some, but they're not listing their I guess I would say. 19 Q. People don't list their hobbies anymore? 20 A. Not so much anymore. 21 Q. Okay. And 22 testimony is -- is, 23 was hired, 24 today? 25 03:31 and so I 03:32 believe your on occasion, Mr. Tucker, once he would come by and say what do we have for Would he do that as to a particular 03:32 Page 167 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 I > 0 S i tion, 2 3 I A. or just in general he would come do that? He would do that usually for positions he was interested in. 4 Q. What types of -­ 5 A. But he wouldn't come by. 6 Q. Yeah. 7 A. You had to go to him. 8 Q. Oh, 9 03:32 Do you recall okay. Would he call you up to his office? 10 A. He might call me to his office. 11 Q. Did you ever just go up there, 12 on your own, to say here's what I have for today? 13 14 03:32 A. If he indicated that that's what he would like me to do, Q. 15 yes. So for positions you knew he was interested 16 in, 17 with certain resumes to show him; is that correct? 18 you might just, A. 03:32 on your own, go up to his office He would have let me know that that's what 19 he wanted me to do. I -- I wouldn't add extra work 20 if -- if -- if it was unnecessary. 03:33 I mean 21 Q. Walking up to his office is extra work? 22 A. It is extra work to follow your resumes 23 that are loose in the field. 24 them, 25 back in my envelope and getting them back to me. So if he wanted to see he usually was really good about putting them 03:33 Page 168 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 So it wasn't -- it wasn't very often that I 1 2 would do that on -- without his request. Q. 3 4 Do you recall any of the positions that he was interested in and wanted to see resumes about? A. 5 There were so -- there was a lot. 6 lot of recruitment, 7 one, 8 position, 9 those. 10 Q. We had a so I can't recall one particular but -- for example, if there was a director he definitely would be looking at all of So some positions where he might have to 11 have direct interface with that person, he'd be 12 interested in that? 13 14 A. Yes. something clear down the chain of command. Q. Pick out -- what do you mean? 16 A. Like, maybe he'd be interested in 17 accounting position. 18 know, 20 03:34 But sometimes he'd -- he'd pick out 15 19 Q. And you wonder, why the sudden interest? 03:34 well, in an you But-­ Would you ask him why the sudden interest 03:34 in this position? 21 A. Probably. 22 Q. Mr. Tucker, what do you want to know about 23 24 25 03:33 an accountant for? A. Would you ask him that? I -- it -- we could have conversations like 03:35 that. Page 169 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5 J 27 ~ 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was your pay ever decreased? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you receive raises? 5 A. We only got raises, 6 think, 7 like, the first year, while I was there, I 03:45 and then the -- then we were, on freezes. 8 Q. 9 condition? Is that because of the tough economic 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 Q. Yes? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Were the freezes across the board? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Were there -- was there still a -- a 16 freeze 17 laid off? 18 A. 03:45 03:46 salary freeze or wage freeze when you were I -- I believe technically that may have 19 been the case, although individuals were being given 20 raises. Not as unilateral -- 21 (Interruption by the reporter.) 22 THE WITNESS: 23 24 25 03: 46 Not unilaterally. BY MR. WATSON: Q. Do you know -- you gave some testimo ny e arl ier a b out having a standing application. 03:46 Page 178 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 2 you c l aim you were qualified for but were passed 3 over fo r for a l ess qualified per s o n ? 4 A. Well , I woul d h av e l i ked to have been 5 consi de r ed for the HR manager position when it was 6 open . 7 Q. The Linda Barber positio n ? 8 A. Corre c t. 9 10 general ist posi tion was advertised for -- or opened. Q. Do you know if you are more or less 03:47 qualified than Karen Tucholski, who's the current HR 12 manager? A. I have not -- I don't know what her 14 qualifications are, per se. 15 that I met the qualifications of the positi on , 16 believe. 17 didn't have, and I have many more years of 18 experience than she has. 19 more qualified -­ 20 Q. I only kno w t hat But whether or n ot I 'm 03:47 How do yo u know that you had public experience that she didn't have? 22 resum e? A. 03:47 I And I had public experience that s h e 21 23 03:47 And then later, when the HR 11 13 '-"' Do you know of any specific openings that Did you s ee her My understanding was that she didn't ha ve 24 public experience -- that she didn't come from a 25 public experience. 03:48 Page 179 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 Q. 2 issue, 3 made in a way that implicated NCTO in gender-, 4 or age-based bias claims? 5 .- Did you ever talk to Mr. Tucker about that i.e., A. Yes. that -- that his decisions were being race- We have had discussions related to -- 6 especially the employment issues on -- on the 7 choices of -- you know, on the interview panel 8 positions, and so forth. 9 the -- usually on the -- in the context of what is But they were more on 10 the compliance requirements. 11 issues that I had were involved with people that 12 were placed on the panel that didn't follow, 13 know, 14 forth for the interview panels there. the -- oh, And many of the actual the process in the -- that was set 16 panels, 17 members that they -- we had set questions that they 18 had to just follow, 19 outside of those questions or ask questions that 20 were not -- that were extra, or that -- you know, 21 order to provide this -- this fair and consistent 22 interview experience. 23 04:37 you At the beginning of the -- of the interview 15 04:36 04:37 we would apprise or appraise the panel and that they shouldn't ad-lib And if someone didn't, in 04:38 you know -- violated 24 those -- that criteria, it could easily get us 25 into -- into problems. So at times I would you 0 4 : 38 Page 203 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 ~ 1 know, 2 with panel members, 3 brought to his attention. we had to report on -- report those issues 4 Q. 5 attention? 6 A. and -- you know, so it was Did you personally bring it to Mr. 04:38 Sometimes. Oftentimes, it would be -­ 7 towards the last -- probably the last year, 8 Caldwell, 9 right arm -- became, 10 Tucker's Reed who was kind of Matt's right arm -- new like, a constant in the employment -- in the interview panels. 11 Q. Sure. 12 A. And he usually took it on himself to go 13 14 15 talk to Matt about issues that came up. Q. Did Mr. Caldwell comply with the set list of questions? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. 18 19 04:39 04:39 But it would be other people that maybe weren't on the panel all the time? A. Yes. And there was -- or there was one or 20 two that were often offenders. There was one that I 21 asked not even to put on a panel ever again -­ 22 Q. Who was that? 23 A. -- and they continued -- Tim McCormick. 24 And they continued to put him on the panels, 25 regardless of the issues we were having during the 04:39 04:39 Page 204 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 ~ 1 that implicated or might implicate the NCTD in 2 gender-, 3 race- or age-based bias claims? A. Well, again, there -- you know, there's 4 just a lot of situations that come up with this -­ 5 all these recruitment and -- employment 6 recruitments. 7 particular, 8 when, 9 suspect, again, 04:44 And not being able to recall a you know, date. But there were times the choices of candidates would be I guess. And, you know, we would discuss 10 them, and they weren't always -- they just weren't 11 clean. 12 and, 13 there wasn't a basis for having some -- you know, 14 choosing some of the people, and things like that. They just weren't always straightforward, you know, there wasn't a -- there wasn't a -­ So it was often that the age and gender 15 04:45 16 issue came more in -- in the person than they did, 17 you know, 18 19 20 Q. on paper. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. A. Well, you -- as you're interviewing people, 21 you bring people -- he wanted to see everyone that 22 was interviewed after the fact, 23 offer was made. 24 25 04:45 Q. before the -- an Explain what you mean by that. to see them? 04:46 He wanted Like, physically see them? 04: 46 Page 208 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 A. Uh-huh. He wanted to meet them. And so we 2 would bring up our recommended candidate of choice, 3 and he would, 4 Q. 5 positions '? 6 A. you know, meet them, and then Is that for all posit i ons or just certain 04:46 Most positions. He wanted to personally 7 approve or disapprove all positions, 8 know, 9 10 11 and in, you only a few cases did he not do that. Q. Who wou l d -- would this be right after the interview or would this be on a subsequent occasion? A. This would be at such time that we had a 12 recommended candidate that we were -- it usually was l3 when they were right there, 14 likely have been after the second interview, 15 the first interview usually you went back, 16 regrouped. 17 candidates. 18 things, 19 the second interview and made your decision. 20 maybe you've already, 21 but still brought them in for a second interview, 22 go through different -- maybe a different couple 23 extra people, 24 it's free questioning, more or less. 25 04:47 You, you know, You did your, and -- which would most 'cause 04:47 you selected your top you know, scoring and and then brought in the top candidates for you know, 04:47 had the decision, and it's less formal. At that point, Or to It's not -­ if you have -- whenever you 04:47 Page 209 L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 . ~ 1 have that person that you want to hire, 2 person's presented to Matt. 3 Q. then that Are you saying for the second interview 4 are you saying candidates who would pass the 5 interview panel's criteria would then be invited 6 back for a seccnd interview? 7 A. Normally, 8 Q. And I assume that list would be cut down 9 yes. A. One to two. 11 Q. One tc two? 12 A. Uh-huh. 13 15 Normally. from the amount that were in the first round? 10 14 04:48 04:48 (Interruption by the reporter.) BY MR. WATSON: Q. So the second interview would generally be 16 one to two people. 17 preferred candidates? Those would be the -- the most 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And those candidates would meet with a new 20 panel? 21 A. 04:48 Usually they would meet with the manager of 22 the actual department that they were going to be 23 working for, 24 a bigger say in the hire. 25 Q. 04:48 And because then that manager starts having and would an HR person also be 04:48 Page 210 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 I present for that? 2 A. Not usually. 3 Q. So they would get a chance for the first I 4 time to meet one-on-one with their actual potential 5 boss? 04:49 6 A. Right. 7 Q. And there was -- was there a set list of 8 9 10 questions for that second interview? A. We often worked them up, but they didn't 04:49 have to follow them. 11 Q. Okay. 12 they want, 13 judgment and 14 they're So they could talk about whatever and, hopefully, the person is using good and doesn't talk about things that 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. -- not supposed to talk about? 17 A. Right. 04:49 They, a lot of times, would show 18 them around their -- the area that -- you know, 19 they're working in, 20 little show and tell and sell the company a little 21 bit to them. 22 Q. and, that you know, maybe give them a 04:49 And so at the time of those second 23 interviews, if Mr. Tucker was available, he would 24 ask that you bring those people by so that he could 25 meet them? 04:49 Page 211 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. All right. Did you ever discuss that 3 practice with Mr. Tucker or the reason that he did 4 it? 5 A. No. 6 Q. You never had any conversations with him 7 about it? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Did you ever have any concern that that was 10 11 04:50 somehow inappropriate? A. 04: 51 The inappropriateness would come if he 12 changed the decision of the manager and/or 13 recommend- -- recommendation of the panel, 14 I would have an issue with it. and then 15 Q. Would you discuss that with Mr. Tucker? 16 A. I would. He -- we would -- he would know 17 that -- that, 18 appraise 19 interview. 20 have to come fight for -- you know, 21 involved in why he thought that was -- you know, 22 would just start a whole discussion about that -­ 23 that, 24 25 Q. you know, (sic) 04: 51 I had -- would have to him of how this person did in the And the -- and the manager usually would you know, ask them to get 04:51 it person. Tell me -- tell me all the persons you recall where Mr. Tucker changed the hiring decision ~04 : 52 Page 213 ~---------------------------------------------- Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 after meeting the person. A. 2 3 We had an ADA administrator, and Alex Wiggins, 4 Scott Transue, and that whole thing. Scott was the -- the candidate that the 5 offer was to be made, 6 more money. and -- and then Scott wanted So instead of negotiating with them, 7 8 said he'd take the other candidate. 9 candidate was Alex Wiggins. 10 Matt And the other And then Alex Wiggins didn't really have 04:53 11 the background for the ADA administrator position. 12 So about two weeks later, Matt made him -- I don't 13 know -- director of communications or something. 14 And got ahold of 15 Scott and give Scott what he -- negotiated with 16 Scott the salary that he wanted, 17 position. then we had to get ahold of 04:53 and put him in that Q. So -- and what'd you say Scott's last name 20 A. Transue. 21 Q. Transue? 22 A. Yeah. 23 Q. Do you know how to spell that? 24 A. T-R-A-N-S-U-E. 25 Q. Because she -- she would ask you if I 18 19 04:52 was? 04:53 04:53 Page 214 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 didn't. 2 A. Oh, 3 Q. No. A. And then -- it's funny. 4 I'm sorry. That's okay. That's just what they do. 5 That was a really 6 tough -- that was a bad -- that was an unusual 7 position, 8 some point was transferred over into another 9 capacity in rails, 10 Q. recall, and we, then, again, at went Okay. 04:54 So -- so let me back up, just to make sure I have the story straight. So you -- do you bring Scott Transue up to 13 14 I Because Scott, through this process. 11 12 that ADA thing. 04:53 Mr. Tucker to meet him? 04:54 15 A. Uh-huh. 16 Q. Yes? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did Mr. Tucker also meet Mr. Wiggins? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Before anybody was offered a position? 21 A. No. 04:54 At the time the -- the emphasis was on 22 the hiring for this position, and that he was 23 that Scott was the preferred candidate. 24 No.1. 25 Q. And was that -- I'm sorry. So he was Go ahead. Go 04:54 Page 215 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 ahead. 2 A. We actually -- but you don't know this 3 the -- Mr. Wiggins was someone that the panel 4 thought Matt should meet regardless, 5 he had an interesting background, and Matt was -- I 6 don't know -- working on his reorganizational plans 7 and -- and creating positions. And we thought with Mr. Wiggins' 8 9 simply because background that Matt might be interested in meeting him. And 10 the other members of the panel were -- insisted that 11 that should -- you know, 12 he should meet him, so Q. Did you agree with that? 14 A. -- he did end up -- I didn't think that -­ 15 well, 16 man, 17 didn't have an issue with him meeting him, 18 but I 19 first, 04:55 he was -- he's -- he was a very charismatic just wanted to fill that position. So I you know, wanted to take care of the -- this position so that's wha·t we did. And he did meet Mr. Wiggins, 20 04:55 that -- really thought that 13 but I 04:54 and he ended 21 up giving him the position after he had -- you know 22 Scott turned down the first offer, 23 Q. Right. 24 A. Got that. 25 Q. So -- I'm sorry. 04:55 right? Okay. Were you finished? 04:56 Page 216 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 2 3 4 A. No. Q. So -- so at the time of Mr. Wiggins -­ strike that. Did Mr. Wiggins have a second interview? A. I don't even think -- well, 7 did not, 8 don't think so, that I remember. No. I he -- no, -- I -- no. 04:56 he I no. 9 Q. Did -- he had a first interview? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. For the same position as Scott Transue? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And was he the second candidate in line for 14 ~ so it's hard. 5 6 It's j u st kind of complicated, that position, 04:56 in terms of how you -­ 15 A. I 16 Q. -- rank 17 A. I 18 Q. Okay. 04:56 think he was. them? think he was. And at the time Mr. Tucker was told 19 that Scott Transue wanted more money, 20 already met Mr. Wiggins? had Mr. Tucker 21 A. I 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. So he -- they still needed to have -- to 24 25 talk, Q. 04:56 don't think so. and then the rest happened. Do you recall who on the interview panel 04:57 Page 217 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866299-5127 1 W' thought that Mr. Wiggins should meet Mr. Tucker? 2 A. I for sure remember Tim McCormick. 3 Q. Anyone else? 4 A. I don't recall who else was on the panel 5 that day. 04:57 6 Q. You felt Mr. Wiggins was charismatic? 7 A. Oh, 8 Q. Did he have qualifications? 9 A. Not for that -- especially for the ADA he's I mean, he's a very charming man. 10 position. he didn't -- there was, 11 big -- he was, 12 quite a gap between the recommended guy and -- and 13 the like, No.2, like, a but he was -- there was 14 Q. Sure. 15 A. -- you know, 16 Q. But still you agreed that he was the second 17 18 most qualified, A. 04:58 and him. in your mind at that time? I don't -- I -- I'm not looking at my 19 scoring sheet, 20 remember disagreeing. so I don't know what -- I don't 04:58 21 Q. 22 panel, 23 A. I don't 24 Q. Why are we interviewing this guy -- or why 25 04:57 Okay. Okay. You weren't arguing with the then? are we recommending him? 04:58 Page 218 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 1 A. Yeah. 2 him for that job, 3 meet Matt. 4 Q. 5 7 8 9 10 first off. 04:58 Did you feel that he may have some benefit to NCTD? A. Yes. And I think that was the reason why he -- he should at least be met. Q. And so you felt position, 12 a position available, 13 NCTD? 14 A. 15 possible. maybe not for that that he might add benefit to The way he presented it at the time, 17 money, 18 happened to be Alex Wiggins? And so when Scott Transue asked for more Mr. Tucker said take No.2, No, not yet. He just and that No. no, 2 he just 04:59 and then he had this denied Scott. 21 meeting with Alex, 22 with the job, but just to meet him, 23 of just happened that he says, 25 And then No. 20 Q. it was 04:59 Q. A. 04:58 but did you feel that -- that if there was 16 24 if you recall -- you may not recall. 11 19 We just wanted him to Did you feel -- did you feel, 6 ~ I don't think we wanted to recommend kind of -- not in conjunction oh, and then it kind you can do that. Who arranged the meeting between Alex Wiggins and Mr. Tucker? 04:59 Page 219 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 VlRGINIA K. MOELLER, SPHR 3249 Vista Del Rio Falfbrook, CA 92028 Home: 760.728.7338 vmoeller@Sbcglobal.net SUMMARY Human ResourCes Professional with experience in Public, Manufacturing and Hospitality industries. Enthusiastic and insightful generalist whose strength is dealing with people successfully. Thrives in an environment that aJlows imagination, flexibility and the opportunity to contribute. Strong, broad-based skill set to include: • Employee Relations • Perfonnance Management Recruitment and Selection • • Accounting Principles • Training and Development • Project LeaderlFacilitator Employment Law • • Labor Force Restructuring Compensation • • Benefit Administration • Workers Compensation & Safety • HRlS, Excel, MSWord PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, Oceanside, CA. September 2006 -December 2011 Human Resources Generalist II Perfonned full range of HR duties including; provided HR support to employees and management; responded to government agencies; tracked FMLA activity; managed leaves; provided counsel and assistance in employee relation activities; conducted complaint investigations and made recommendations, conducted research, analyzed data and prepared written and statistical reports for various issues; assisted in conducting HR related training and coordinate training programs. Managed recruitment, selection, and on-boarding processes. Wrote job descriptions; assisted with new written procedures and policies. Managed assigned and varied projects such as Fl' AI EEOC reporting. Selected Accomplishments: • Responsible for Employee Relations Consortium registration and tracking of participants on spreadsheets and 'reporting sratistics back to Managers; also includes hosting a training on-sight annually. Hosted University of Pacific, Transit Para-Transit 10- week certificate series. • Restructured and updated various forms to satisfy regulatory and compliance changes. (such as FMLA, Time Off Requests, application fonns, requisitions etc.) • Created and disseminated infonnation and procedural instructions to managers and displaced employees during recent lay offs, i.e. included suggestions as to how Managers might field questions from displ'aced employees and those "left behind". • Partici pated in salary surveys, benchmarking projects, best practice surveys and other data for the purpose of reaching conclusions for recommendations to improve or implement policy or procedures. • Provided back-up data and research to support decision-making process by management during the downsizing and reorganization of the District. Moeller: Plaintiffs Response to RFP1 Docs 110 NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, Orange, CA 1991- 2005 NOV is an industry-leading international oil and gas drilling equipment manufacturer and services company. Senior Human Resonrces Generalist Member of manufacturing management team; counseled and coached managers and employees. Administered employee benefits, compensation, orientation, performance appraisals, adhering to all company practices and legal guidelines. Lead work team in staffing, managed temporary agency activity, AAP process/goals, merit budget/planning process and participated in department budget process. Managed employee relations to include disciplinary issues, investigations through results and respond to governmental agencies. Initiated or participated in projects and programs of diverse scope and complexity that supported business initiatives. Back up for Workers Compensation,. Safety and Environmental Health organization and was an active participant on Safety Committees. Selected Accomplishments: • Key player in identifying and administering recruitment and/or reduction in force initiatives without negative legal consequences. • Achieved yearly goal of 100010 on time delivery of performance reviews annually - 5 straight years. • Adapted and customized perfonnance appraisal fonn to reflect current values projected from cellular manufacturing. Included non-exempt forms and exempt format, achieving effective reviews within specified time frame. • Participated in implementation, recruitment and training ofcellular based teams. Manufacturing overcame substandard performance and Bctual1y over-reached corporate goals. • Developed with IT department a way to track training in the plant. Employee enters time in training in system. One benefit of this is the ability to audit ISO procedures. Another advantage enabled company to track manufacturing training to achieve training goals. . 1990 -1991 GRAND HOTEL, Anaheim, CA Hotel with 250 union and non·union employees. Human Resource Manager Started up and developed Human Resource Department, as sole practitioner. Responsible for recruitment, disciplinary actions, employee relations, UNICEF drive, workers compensation administration and record keeping. • Brought hotel into lega'i compliance on EEO affinnative action and any legal requirements. • Managed workers compensation administration and reduced reserves significantly. • Recruited and selected qualified staff. • Hotel benefited by having skilled, trusted staff with little turnover. TRAVELODGE AT THE PARK, Anaheim, CA 1988 • 1990 Started up Human Resource Department for 240-employee hotel. Sole practitioner responsible for record keeping, legal compliance, workers compensation, recruitment and selection, disciplinary action and coaching and counseling of employees and managers. Human Resource Manager • Managed front executive office and its administrative tasks along with Human Resource's duties. • Perfonned Manager-On-Duty role, acting a.c; General Manager in hotel for weekend on a rotation basis. • Answered to all issues: housekeeping, guest complaints, employee and maintenance issues. EDUCATION B.S., Business Administration Certificate in Industrial Relations Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) Notary Public-AP/CNSA Moeller. Plaintiff's Response to RFP1 Docs 111 •• •• NORTH COUNTY TRANSIIT DISTRICT 810 Mission Avenue OceanSide, N' C T D Job Hotline: 760-599-8387 Toll Free: 888-783-6283 CA92054 (760) 967·2828 www.gonctd.com recruitment@nctd.org EMP'L OYMENT OPPORTUNITY NCTD Is an equal opportunity empfoyer HUMAN RESOURCE GENERALIST II Salary: $55,577-$83,304 per year (DOE) Internal/External Recruitment #06070030 OPEN UNTIL FILLED Posted: Friday, July 14, 2006 Initial Screening: Friday, July 28, 2006 DEFINITION Performs a variety of professional level administrative, technical and analytical duties in support of the District Human Resource functions including recruiting, selection, wage and salary administration, employee and labor relations. training and other typical human resource activities. Distinguishing Characteristics This position is distinguished by the performance of a full range of professional human resource duties as assigned, working independently, applying well developed human resource knowledge to human resources functions of routine to moderate complexity. Supervision Received and Exercised This position performs under the supervision of the Human Resource Manager, and provides direction and guidance to technical and clerical staff. Working Conditions Position works primarily in an office setting with a majority of the working shift spent in a seated position. Perfonns several functions at a computer termina'i and monitor. Position travels locally, and between District locations. Position must be able to handle changing priorities and a stressful work environment. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Essential Functions • Conducts recruiting and selection activities for assigned positions. • Provides human resource support to employees and management. • Assists Human Resource Manager in responding to govemment agencies pertaining to charges or inquiries of various kinds. • Attends hearings of various kinds and may represent the District at hearings. • Responsible for wage and salary administration functions such as writing job descriptions and preparing documentation pertains to classification activity. __ Duties include. but are not limited to the following: • Coordinates and implements recruiting and selection activities, including determination of recruiting strategy and selection methodology. • DEPosmON I'l ; EXHIBIT ;;­ '~ 5 rn lJ{..{~ -!:. ~ ~ •. ' •• • Prepares documentation pertaining to wage and salary administration, including writing job descriptions and preparation of documentation for JET (Job Evaluation Team) relating to the classification and reclassification of positions. • Provides assistance with employee and labor relations issues; consults with managers and employees regarding the Interpretation of human resource policies, practices and procedLH'es, union contract and related laws and regulations. • Provides information and assistance to department managers pertaining to employee evaluations, diSciplinary action and other employee/management issues. • Interacts with union representatives pertaining to human resource matters. Assists the Human Resource Manager by gathering data and preparing for grievance hearings. • Assists in conducting human resource related training programs; coordinates the implementation of training programs with department managers and directors. • Tracks and monitors FMLA activity within aSSigned employee group. • Conducts research, analyzes data and prepares written and statistical reports and recommendations for a variety of human resource issues and topics; ma'kes oral presentations as required; updates and -revises written directives, rules and regulations and employee handbooks as appropriate. • Responds to public inquiries in a courteous manner; provides information within the area of . assignment; resolves complaints in an efficient and timely manner. • Attends and participates in .professional group meetings; stays abreast.of new trends, innovations and the legal' basis in the field of human resources. • Conducts New Hire Orientations and Exit Interviews • Perform other related duties as assigned. QUALIFICATIONS Mental Requirements • Self-motivated and highly flexible with the ability to handle multiple priorities. • Possess strong communication skills, both verba! and written and have the ability to communicate effectively with all levels of personnel • KnOWledge of laws and regulations, operations and activities of a human resource program. • Knowledge of principles and practices of human resource administration in the areas of employment, compensation, employee and labor relations, and training. • Knowledge of the methods of research and analysis of human resource administration. • Ability to perform professional human resource work with a minimum of supervision. • .Ability to collect and analyze information and data. . • Ability to make complete and accurate analysis, reports and recommendations in a variety of human resource areas. • Ability to understand, interpret and apply specific human resource policy and procedures as well as applicable federal and state employment regulations. • Ability to prepare clear and concise oral and written presentations. Knowledge of business letter writing and report preparation. • AblHty to plan and organize work to meet changing priOrities and deadlines. • Ability to communicate and interact in situations requiring tact, persuasion and counseling. • Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work. w- Phvsical Requirements Ability to comp'l.ete tasks at a computer terminal and monitor; ability to remain seated for extended periods of time; ability to lift or carry objects such as files or packages; ability to physically travel between • .' Distrid locations and other destinations, occasional exposure to hazardous conditions, and occasionally ..., lift up to 251bs. Position requires sitting, bending" stooping, carrying. standing, walking, lifting, fingering, grasping, talking, hearing, and seeing. ExperiencelEducationlCertificateslUcense Requires a SA degree in public or business admlnfstration, human resources, psychology or related field plus three years of experience at the full professional level in human resource administration, or any combination of education and experience to fulfill the duties of the position. Prior Public human resources and/or Union administration experience preferred. PHR, SPHR certificate a plus. Ability to obtain a valid Ca. drivers license. Machines/TooisiEquipment Ability to operate standard office eqUipment such as personal computer, fax and copy machines, scanner and telephone, and District Vehicles. Must have a wor1 cllurged wi:f1 irisunng Ihal District personnel policies and procedures provide for an eHective and efficient organizalional slrLlclure. slaffed with QU3lified employees receiving f (;Ind. eXl:epl a~ vtherwise provided by ordinance or these rules. no person shall be appointed or employed 10 fill (lny such position until the classification plan shall have been amended to provide Ihercfore and, if applicable. an appropriate employmentlisl tlas been established for such position. 3. Reclassification: Positions, the dulies of which h8\ic Cl1anged materially so as to ne ce 'sitate reclassific.ation, shall be allocated to a more appropriate class, whelher ne..v Or already created, in the same manner as originalfy classified and 6l : loc~Jled. Reclassi~c{)llOn shaH not be used for the purpose of avoiding restriGtions surrounding demotions arxJ promotions. t.RT1ClE IV 1. COMPENSATION AND fiELATED BENEFITS Preoaration of Plan: The Director oJ Human ReSOur'cHS, or the perso. or agency employed for 1hi:ll purpose, shalf prepare and maintain 1:1 pay pl' ncoverino all cli'1sses 01 posilions in tre District. other than the Executive Director, showing the minimum and maxirnum r te:; of pay. In mriyin9 at SLJch salary' ranges, consideration sllall be fliven to prevailinn rates of pay for comparable work in othol public agencies and in private ernploYITlt;:Il\ allo to UIC existiny (1ifferences in duties and respon, lbilihes as :,et forth in 1118 classification plan. TIle Direclor of Human F~esourceg, or the person or agency employed for that purpose, shall 1hereafter make any additional studies of Ihe cornp.;:nsatiot'l p~(.m os rnay be requested by the North San Diego County Trans,1 Deve loprnf; nt Bo rd. gLe/an: For (~mp!oyee5 not covered by a collective bargaining Dg'eelllenl, a salary re solution adopted annually by the Board will slate the compensation plan for the calendar year. For 311 other enployees, the pay plan shall be submitled 85 part or tho <:w nual Dis trict budget to the Nort San DiE:.'go County Transit Development Board. 2. .A.dr.rl~Q!s tratl()n 3. ;'pplica:ion of RaLs: Employees oCC~l py:ng a position in Ihe system shall be paid a waye or salary within the wnge established for thaI posi tion's class in U·le pay plan. The minimum rate for the class genl~rallJ' shall apply 10 ernployees upon origi;:al appoinlment but the Executive Director may pprove i'.l high()r rflte of cor ,pensation ,t.'ithin the range if hetslle shall lind that the person ppo inted is reasonably entilled because ot hisJher experience or ability to <'I (<'11 e ahov,3' the minimum 0( that it is not possible 10 obtain qUDlitied appointees 8tthe este:lbllshe minirnum ra t(~. Officers and employees reemployed after lay-otf shall ~ ecei'Je a rale within 1he range eSlabli shed for Ihe class and a~, agreed upon by the appointing power and the employee concemed, subject to approval or the Executi ve Dlrec1or. Transfers stlallnot affect an employee's salary range. Compensa tion Policy for non-represent d em ployt:es: Please: ref ",r to the Compensation Philosophy adopted by the Board on October 21, 1999 and lhe Compensa tion Policy adopted by the Board t)y Resolution 00·05 G. Group Health and Accident Insurance Plan: Probationary ~1I1d reg ular full-lillie Di51rict ernpfoy 'e" not covered by a collective b rgaining flgreement are efigible 'or the Group Insurance Plans provid(~d 10 the employees by Ihe District An p.ligihle employee may include his/her dependen:(s) in 1I'le GlOup In U f(mc(~ Plans (as provided for in the plan contr act). The employee shall pay the cosl th ereof in excess of lhe a~Jreed lelal cost to the Dislricl . The teml!;, awards. conditions, ard premiums of lh ~ Group InSUf;;)flCe Plans ShBIl be 8S specified by tile Di slrict's agreement wilh the Insuring company or person cting on beha!r of the camp ny. The Board ClS pal'1 of th , annual blJdgelin~J prm;f;fi~) shall set the ~mC llnl of the District's con lribulion to the cust of Group Insurance Bene fils. l EfJir_qm enl- PrOU8 tlo nart and regular employees are covered undr;r the C aliforni a Stole Publi·: Employees' Retlrflrnenl SY"t;t 'm (PERS) and arc required 10 ecome members !) ginnioq th('! first day of ernr 'oyment in aCGorc!anc_ with the Olstricl's con lrac! with PERS. The employee 64 conlributiorl is determined by the Public Employees' Hetlrernent System and is deducted proportionately during each pay period, B fe Insuranc~ All probationary and regular District employees are covered by life insurance made a vailable by the District Management en1ployees, as designated by the Executive Dire<:tor, will be issued the equivalen1 of one y ear's salary in cOIJerage or $20,000 whichever is larger. 10, Deferred ComDensation~ The Dlstricf may provide all permanenl employees with a deferred compensation program at no cost to the Districl. Enrollment in Ihis program will be offerad to ernployecs on a voluntary basis. Employee con lributions to tile program will be made by payroll dedu ction c , 11 . Emplovee Use 01 Transit Sys tem: Free lran portat !on passes shaU tx~ grant.~d to aU employees 8nd thei r spouse and their 16gal clepend- nts through age 23 (provided they mee t dependanl status r ursuanl 10 IRS gu idelines) 10 rid e on any prese1t or expanded tranS it service line or fOute and on any equipr:1enl presently operated by. or acquired b~' tt1f:1 District in 1he future except chaliers ()( special serv'ices. Lifetime passes shall be granted to all employc ~s leaving the District in good standing follo'll/;ng ten (10) or mOTe ~(ears of service or Board members leaving the District after len (10) or more years of SCI ilice. Such lifetime pass 8'J tilorizes ti1e eligible employee or Board member use 01 the pass as stated above 12. Additional or Rela ted Benefits: All and any benefits required by taw and not covered in ~ his Resolution will be ma de available by the District or an agency designated by the said law . ARTICLE V 1. APPLICATI0t-lJ\ND APP LICANTS Announc ements (Op(m): All open eX~lmin<)l.ions lor clas "H lclucled w ithin 100 Di strict shall be publictced by posting the announcements in the District offices, orl oHicial bUiletin boards. Cl nd by 5Uctl other methods as tilE: !\,Ianager of Human Resources deems advis ble 10 assure that lhe broadest range of potential applicants wilhin the area served by (I, e District is reached. The announcemen t shall Sp~}city Uw tille and pay of 11le class for which the exa minatio n is announced; the nature of ttle ,,"ork Ie be performed; preparation desirable for the perfo:-mance of the work of the class: the manner or fIl;;t~i ng ap:'Jlicaiion; and olher pertinent informalion. Open exa ninations may be first offered to District employees before Ihe public, as incentive and 10 imp a ve mori'll€! . Promotional examinalic ns may be pLblicized by poslin£; amouncernenl in the District offices , and on official bullelin boa rds. 2, Application FonDS I\pplic;J lions shall be m ade on forms provided by the Manager or Human Reso urces , Such forms shall require information cOile Ing Iralnlng . experience, and other pertinenl i formation, and mus.t be signed by tho person applying , 3, Disgua lilkation: The Manager of Human Resources, or designee, sllall reiect any application which does not indicale that Ihe applicant meets Ibe minim rn qLlcJliri ations reqUired ror tI~ e position. Defective applications may be re1urnecl :0 Ih@applicant wilh notice to amend the same , providing the lime Ilmil for receiving applica tions has not e)(pired , /\RlICL VI 1. EXAMINATIONS General Nature and Types of Examinations: The seleclion techniques used in the exa inahon process shall be imp' rtial , of ,J practical r~ature, and shalilelalf~ to those subjecls winch. in the OpilliOfl o f Iflf:~ Manager 01 HurmlO ResotJ['ce , fuirly mea: ure Hl C relative capacities of the pe rsons examined 10 execute tllelul ies and responsibifil les of 1hH class to 'Nhich they seek 10 be appoi nl ed Exornil1:hausted. Employmenl lists may be declared null and void by the Executive Director when deemed necessary in the interest of the District. 3. Re -Employment US! : TI'lc nam s oi probationary and regular employees who h;,we been laid off shall be placed on ap~ropriate re..employmenl II -ts in th@ order of th ir ~eniority (hire dale) Such name Shrl lf ell1ain Ihereon ioc a x~riod of one j,:ear unless such persons <'Ire sooner re-employed. When a fe-employment list is to be IIsec to fill vacancies, the Manager of Human Resources hall certify from the lOp 01 such list the TllJ'nber of narnes equal to the nUl11ber of vacancies to be filleo, and the apr/ointing pow(~r shan appoint such persons to fililhe vc;cancies. 4. Removal 91 Nwnes from Li t; The 1l<'l1Tl8 of any person appearing on an employment, re­ employm nt, or promo lonallist shall be removed by 1I e r'Mnager 01 HUJnan Resource:; if the eligible requests in writing thai tlis;her Ilame be removed, ilile/stie f<1ils 10 re pond tc 8ri offer of f-Irnployrnont mailed to his/her kno',vn address. or lor any of the reas ons specified in Article V, SeCboli :} Qr these rules. The person allected slJall be notified of tile lcmcvai of hisJher name by a Dolice mailed 10 ~lis!h8r last kno\~11 Jddress The name s of persons on promotional employment lists who leave the employment of the District shall automatically be dro['Jped from sllch lists ARTICLE VIII METHOD OF FILLING VACANCIES 1. Types o f Appointment: All vacancies ir rhe Distric1 shall be filled by re-ernployment. transfer, demotion, from eligibles cf.:rtified or through a direct recruitment P'UC(!S$ by the Director of Human Resources from an appropriate employment or prornotionallist In the absence of persons eligible for appointment in these ways, provisional appointments may be pemlftted in accordance wilh the Personnel Ordin8t1Ce and these rules. 2. No:ice 10 Mal}Qger or Human Resourc · 5: Whenever a va:;ancy in It,e D:slricl is to be filled, the appointing power sh II notify UIEc: Ma~18ger of Human Resources. The Manager of Human Resources shall advise the appoinling power as to the availability of employees for fe-employment, request(~d transfers. or demotion. alldior of existing eligibility lisls. 3. Certification of EI~Jible.$: The apJ,:.'O inling power shall indicate whether it is desired to fillihe vacancy by re -employment, transfer , demotion, from a prcmotional or empioyment list. or by new recrujtment If appointment is to be made from an employment or promotional list, the names of 811 persons w'illing to accept appointment shan be certified in the order in which they appear on the list. 4. Order of Certificalion: INhenever certification is to be made, the employment lists, if each exists, ::;hall be used in \lIe fc/lowing order: re"emrloyment list, promolional list. op€: n-cornpetiti',/e IL,\. VlJhenev~~r thGfe are fewer than three names on a promotionallisl or an open-compelitive list the appointing authOrity may make an appointment from among such eligibles or may request the i-Iuman Resources OHice to hold a nev,' .xarnmalicn and establish a newempJoymenllist. 5. ~oin1ment Aft er interview and investigation , th appointing pov.. er shall make appoinlnlents from a mong those certified ;;Ind sl1alllmrnedialely notify the Manager 01 Human Resources of the person or persons appointed. If the appointing power rejects Ihose applicant., having a higher lotal score than HIe one !',eiec1en , rca" ons for such rejections shall be given iq writing to the M.inager of liuman Resources. Tile 1\·1anager of Human Hesources shall thereupor'l no:ify the prson appointed and If thE) a::lplicant 8ccepls the appointment and presents himse lf/herself fG·r duly within such period of lime as tho appointing autllority shall prescnl)e, he/she shall be deemed to be appointed; otherwise, heJshe shall be deemed 10 have declined Ihe nppoint1llenl. O. Provisional A pooinlments: 1"1 the absence of appropriate ernploym(mt lists, a provisional appointme nlll'.ay be made by the appointing authority of a person rneeting the minimu m training and 'xperience quslificat 'ons for tile posi1ion. T:1 e Executive Director may extend the peri.od for any provision;:)1 appointment as necessary for the efficient conduct of Districi business. No credit shall be allowed in meeting any quaiifiC'....1Iions or in tile giving of 8ny test or If)€! of any employment or prornolionallis!s, lor servIce rendefed under 8 provISional Clppointment. esta bli~hment 7. EI r ergency Appointment: To meet the immediate requir ments of an emergellcy GOndition. SUdl as extraordinary fire, (It:ood or ar1hquokc, whiclllhrealens p~lbiic Ilie Qr property, any legally com p -!Lnl office I or employee may employ such persons as may be needed for the duration of the emergency without regard to the Personnel Ordinance or rules ilffecling appointm enls Such appointments shall be rep oll" d tmrnedic:.lely to the Director of Human Resourcos. ARTIC LE IX_ 1. AIJ·t;NJ!t-J:JCE AND EAVE ;Vlll u81 Vaca hc n l en ve· Ernployees shall accrue vacation hours as follows, based on an eighty (,sO} I)our pay p .riod 61 O <1t(~ of hire to 48 months 49 months I~ 108 mon1hs 109 months to 2·10 mOnihs Over 240 In onttlS 2. '! hour for every 1 hourfor every 1 'lour for every 1 flour for e Vf!f'j 26 hI S of work 17.2 hrs of work 13 h;s of work 10 .4 ~lr $ ()f work t\pproximalely 80 hn; per year Approxima1ely 120 hrs per yNl.r Approximately '160 hrs per y at Approxim at el~' 200 hrs per year DelermiQS!tlon of \/acaliQo Bene Is: For the purpose of corllputing vaca tion grams, emr::loyrnent shall be consid ered to have commenced on 1he first day of emproymenl. For Ihe purpose of accruing V(lcation credits. regular hours paid Include paid leave time such as sick leave, vacation, 100. holiday used, jury duly and bereavement as weir as regular 110Uls worked, Time worked in excess of the normal required work week such as Qvertimeand lime spent in an un~aid leave of ab~cncc a re nol included. The refore, if an employee is consistenUy paid 80 regular hours. he/she w]1I accumulate the appropriate amount of vacation accrual. The limes during a calendar year al 'Nllich an employee may lake thell cFxrued vaci;l tion leave sholl be determined by the division head with due regard for Ihe wishes of Ihe employee and particul ar reg i;lr cl for tile needs of Ihe ser'Jice. NQ employee may accumulate more Ihan 240 hours of vacation , Regular employees who terminate employment shall be paid the salary equivalenl to all accrued \iacalion leave Ihal was earned prior 10 their telminCltion dale. Wit.h approval of the d epartment manager, an employee who has worked overtime may be granted c:Jrnpensalion time off in lieu of pay. provi ing the compensating time off does 1101 exceed 80 hours per y€ a r . Terrninatic)n of ernptoymenllerminates conlinuity of service for '1ac.ation benefits. 3. Sick Leave Sick leave ',lYith pay shall ~e granted to 011 pro bationary and regular full-tim e ernployees. Employees (l eer Ie s ic~ leave credils 1 optical exarninatlons rnlJ~t be approved in advance by the supervisor. !Jo..ny gra.nt of sick leave in excess of two (2) consecutive work d.ays must be support ed by a medical cerllficale (umist)ed by the Hurnan Resource., Office to be fill ed out by ~l pli ysicion or proctitioner. T he Human Resources Office may a::cepllhe employee's c8J11fica lion as 10 1tl€ re Dson For absence. W·riltcn application for sick leave must be filed wi!!, the sUp€ rvis or within the r ay period in wtlich the employee returns to duty. Applica tions of sick leave entitlement to medical and dental calls durirlg Workirlfj hOOfS may be authorized at the discretion of the deparlfTlentmanagcr, For th e purpose of computing s ick leave, employment shall be considered to have commenced on the rirst day of emr:loyment Holidays occurring during sick leave shall not be counted as a day of sick leave . Sick lea ve shall not be taken as vacation time, nor compensated for in cash, except as provide:::! In Article X, Section 6 or for each calendar year an emplo yee who ha .Js ed 32 hours or less, of accumulaled sick leave shalt be eligible at the employee's opTion to be compensated fo r 1/4 of his unused sick leave earned during tha t year. The amount of paid sick leave sh all be deducted from the employee's accrued sick lea 'Ie. Those employ€: 0S who wish to receive compe nsation for unu sed sick JCOlvO in 8ccordnnce wilh this section must so requesl of Ihe Manager of Finance annually prior to. December ·l. Pay-off of unused sick leave will be rnade during the tina! pay period of the ca le ndar year. 4, A Hg'Nance for Occopatioflal Sick leave: Leave for inj uries sustained in the line of duty shall be granted as follows: (a) Three (3) days 1.0 .0 . lime ('injured on duty) \Viii be grantee the employee. T his will provide himlher wlth income for the lirsl three (3) days or untillhe Worker's Compe nsation benefit begins whichever comes first. This lime will not be granted for regularly scheduled days off (b) Once Worker's Compen sation payments begin, U1es e can be coordinated with (lny 8vailajlc Icave time (sick lealJe, vacation. accrued ho lidays, at a l) to m ake for a full paycllcck . 5. Be reav~ m § nl Leavr.;: Wile n an employee is bereaved. the e mployee is eligibl e for Ihree (3) calendar c a ys paid leave . Employees wi!! receive eig!: ! (8) Ilo urs pay, or ps )' pursU30! 10 the ir a lternative work s chejule . at their regular straight lime hourly wage ralB for eClch day off. payable only il1tle days 01 le ave coincide witl1lheir regular scheduled work days . The berea vemen t m a y apply to the emp loyee's imlTlediate family which s ha ll int,;lude tile employee's fHltler, flloll')(?r, grandparent, bron-,er, sisler, SPOl/S€!, children, step- chlldron . mother-in-law, or lather-in-Iaw. 6. Military Leave: Military lea'i ~ for lhos~ enlployees requir ed to perform military service During working hours sha ll he 8warded upon request ror mililary leave Gf absence. Military leave for weekend reserve duty shall be without pay and rnust be approved by the departmer't head. For employees who have completed alleasl one year's employm ent as a full­ time regul ar employee, IIp to thirty (30} (jays per fiscal year can be tDken with pay for performa nco 01 active duly reserve se roices each year, a ~ provided in Sect ion 395.01 of the Calif()rnia Military and Velerans Code. An')' leave tha t doe not fa I into the abo\)(: c.ategorie s shall b,C) gra nted only up o n appro val of the Execut ive Di rector . /I.n em plo yee who is required (o lake a phYS ical examinatio n in connectio n ",..ill'l induction or e nlistme nt in the Arm ed Forces is not charged leave 10r IFle time necessary to cornplele the examina tion. Members of the m ililary res erve who are recalled to active duty and who are pla ce(J o n pay s!a ltlS wilh :M hr.:lnch of the f\rmed Force s for Ihe time required to take the ptl y::;ic;;ll ex amination , 1,1.'111be conSidered on rnililBry lea v'::! without pay for 1ha t purpose. 1. ut{ Ernployees orary or permanen1 change in status of t~mploYE!es shall be reported to the Manager of Human Resources in such 3l matter as he/she may p((~s cr i be . Et...1PLOYEE SERVICE REVIEW At the emJ of the fi~st , third, and fifth months of employment. the appropriate supervisor shall ccmplete employe(~ ~;ervicc r ~views fur each applicable employee . After the probatlonari period, reviews will be sctleduted annually in accordance with the merit review system. Supervisors will discuss these reports with their employees before they ate placed in personnet files Lo become part of the personnel record. In aeJdilion 10 the above reporting, certai/) employee service ra violl!s can be rrlQ9 VOle 1 AYES: NAYES ABSENT ABSTAiN: C HAIRV\!O~'1AN, North San Diego County Tmnsit De velopment Board ATIEST: __._._ - ----­ -_ ... SECRET,\RY, North Sail Diego Counly Transrt D~!velopmenl Board N TN C UNTY TRANSIT Operating Budget S TIC L YEAR 2012 JUNE 23, 2011 NORIH COUNTY ~ lRANSII DISTRICT _ 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 967-2828 www.GoNCTD.com Operating Budget by Classification SUMMARY (millions) FY 2009 Actual TOTAL REVENUES $ TOTAL EXPENSES FY 2010 Actual 86.6 $ $ 5.5 $ FY 2009 Actual DETAIL 80.8 $ 78.6 81.1 ANNUAL SURPLUS (DEFICIT) FY 2011 Budget 2.2 FY 2011 Y/E Est Actual 80.8 $ o $ FY 2011 FY 2010 Actual 82.6 $ 78.1 80.8 $ 4.5 Budget FY 2011 Y/E Est Actual 17,170,328 $ % CHANGE FY12 TO FYll Est Actual FY 2012 Budget % CHANGE FY12 TO FY11 Budget 85.9 4.0% 6% 85.9 10.0% 6% o $ % CHANGE FY12 TO FYll Budget % CHANGE FY12 TO FY11 FY 2012 Budget Esl Actual REVENUES Passenger Fares $ Other Operating Revenue 18,258,384 $ 9,517,918 Subtotal Operating Revenue 27,776,302 17,092,486 $ 9,763,077 26,855,563 9,401,004 16,865,106 16,812,263 (0.3%) (2%) 9,559,529 10,576,246 10.6% 13% 11% $ 26,571,332 $ 26,424,635 $ 27,388,509 TDA Sales Tax 26,143,501 23,121,725 25,481 ,758 25,481,758 28,298,797 11.1% TransNet 10,072,781 10,511 ,496 9,191,604 9,734,072 10,110,057 3.9% FTA 15,939,203 7,529,062 18,729,641 17,282,678 14,765,717 (14.6%) (21%) STA o o o 2,972,551 5,900,000 2,972,551 4,919,122 65.5% (17%) NIA (100%) (100.0%) (100%) $ Revenue at Risk Non-recurring Federal Grants (ARRA) 863,334 Other State and Federal Subtotal Grants Revenue $ 58,518,819 Investment Income Gain on Disposal of Capital $ Asse~ Subtotal Other Nonoperating Rev. TOTAL REVENUES $ $ $ o (5,900,000) o 4,763,524 250,000 250,000 o o 434,269 460,000 400,000 400,000 56,121,059 $ 58,493,693 53,832,627 $ 54,113,003 $ 304,429 123,214 99,000 98,175 100,000 o 15,530 18,000 13,000 o 304,429 $ 138,744 $ 117,000 $ 111,175 $ 10% (13%) 0.0% 1% 1.9% (100.0%) (100%) 100,000 $ 86,599,550 $ 80,826,933 $ 80,801 ,335 $ 82,656,869 $ 85,982,202 4.0% 6% EXPENSES 22,443,923 $ 21,981,286 6,857,472 (28 .9%) (29%) Employee Benefits 12,708,266 11,619,769 5,887,241 6,258,137 4,519,207 (27.8%) (23%) Professional Services 15,306,060 12,871 ,344 15,150,217 12,760,779 15,456,668 21.1% 2% Materials and Supplies 8,361 ,448 7,322,301 8,309,337 6,447,565 8,463,662 31 .3% 2% Ulilities 1,867,895 1,809,660 1,904,398 1,820,494 1,965,126 7.9% 3% Casualty and Liability 3,304,456 3,241 ,373 2,965,421 2,945,371 3,398,676 15.4% 15% Salaries & Wages $ Taxes Purchased Transportation $ 9,645,911 $ 9,651,041 432,875 434,620 616,172 496,664 634 ,431 27.7% 3% 14,124,981 15,444,564 33,156,029 34,837,006 39,511,551 13.4% 19% 616,184 500,344 13.7% (8%) 432,060 717,942 (376,318) (366,126) Leases and Rentals 469,462 463,112 499,900 390,067 Workers' Comp 555,991 1,675,415 1,100,000 Advertising and Misc, Expense Reclass/Reimbursements $ 568,659 (1,391 ,000) 2727.3% 5% 517 ,550 32.7% 4% 860,641 1,000,000 16.2% (9%) 2.5% (6%) (49,199) (1 ,325,000) Debt Servioe 1,459,585 1,368,550 1,387,600 1,268,000 1,300,000 Contingency o o 887,925 o 3,180,200 NIA 258% $ 78,186,910 $ 85,982,202 10.0% 6% $ $ TOTAL EXPENSES $ 81 ,090,684 $ 78,583,811 $ 80,801,335 ANNUAL SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $ $ 5,508,866 $ 2,243,122 o 4,469,959 o • FY 2011 Budget as adopted on June 17, 2010 Operiltil19 Bud get Sumrnary 23 1 Law Offices of William N. Woodson, III, APC WILLIAM N. WOODSON, III, SB# 73224 2 E-Mail: wnwoodson3@gmail.com 1807 Edelweiss Drive 3 Cedar Park, TX 78613 Telephone: 760.353.6645 4 Facsimile: 512.358.4759 5 Attorney for PLAINTIFF VIRGINIA MOELLER 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH COUNTY 10 VIRGINIA MOELLER, CASE NO. 37-2013-00067620-CU-WT-NC 11 Plaintiff, 12 Judge: Dept.: Jacqueline M. Stem N-27 vs. 13 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, 14 DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, 15 16 17 18 Defendants. DECLARATION OF SUSAN V. LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION DATE: April 17, 2015 TIME: 1:30 p.m. DEPT.: N-27 Action Filed: Trial Date: September 19,2013 August 7. 2015 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Law Offices of 28 Willliam Woodson, III, APC. 1 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD fN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR fNTHE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 I, the undersigned SUSAN V. LOCKWOOD state that this Declaration is in opposition to 2 Defendant's motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication of issues. 3 1. I am personally aware of the matters stated herein, and if called as a witness in this matter 4 could and would competently and truthfully testify to these things. As to certain other 5 matters, I am informed and believe those things to be true, and on that basis testify to those 6 things on "information and belief." 2. I am a former employee of North County Transit District. [NCTD] I have worked for 7 8 NCTD twice during my 34 year career since graduating from college in 1981. The first 9 time was from December 1984 to December 1988 when I was hired as an Analyst to work 10 for the Maintenance Department. I left NCTD voluntarily at the end of calendar year 1988 11 to take a higher level position with the City of San Marcos where I remained from January 12 1989 until April 2000. I then returned to NCTD as the Manager of Safety & Risk and 13 worked for the District essentially in that capacity from April 2000 to November 2011. I 14 left at that time to take the position of Manager of Risk & Claims for San Diego 15 Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) where I am still working currently. I took a $13,000 16 per year pay cut to work for MTS, but am so much happier in this job due primarily to the 17 conduct of Mr. Matthew Tucker, the Executive Director ofNCTD. While I've had raises 18 since my departure from NCTD, I am currently about $3,500 lower in salary than when I 19 left NCTD nearly 3 Yz years ago. 3. My position title changed a few times during my second 11 Yz year period at NCTD; 20 however, my pay grade always remained the same. From 2003 to 2010, I was the Manager 21 22 I of Safety, Risk & Training where I supervised the Bus Operator new hire and refresher 23 training programs. My title was then changed again during the restructuring of 2010 when 24 First Transit took over as the fixed route bus operations contractor. Sometime that year, 25 my title was changed to Manager of Safety, Risk & Insurance because the training aspects 26 of my job had been outsourced. 27 Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, III, APC 4. The following are some of the incidents I recall where Matthew Tucker was being deceptive, dishonest, discriminating, or otherwise didn't follow established NCTD policy. 2 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 a. Vista Transit Center Fatal Shooting Incident -On September 14,2009, Mr. Tucker 2 called a group of management personnel into the conference room adjacent to his 3 office, and began expressing his displeasure over the staff s reaction to a fatal 4 shooting that had occurred the preceding late Friday night (September 11, 2009) at 5 the Vista Transit Center. On that night, a contract Heritage Security Officer shot 6 and killed a belligerent, but unanned patron. Mr. Tucker said that he was very 7 upset, and showed his displeasure by the tone of his voice, and the content of his 8 speech, that several of us "didn't show up" when the page went out about the 9 shooting. In fact, apparently only Mr. Tucker himself and theLight Rail Manager, 10 Walt Stringer, came to the scene. Mr. Tucker said he was particularly disappointed 11 in David Papworth, Manager of Security, and Tom Kelleher, Manager of 12 Marketing for not making an appearance that night. Mr. Tucker then asked Wayne 13 Penn, Manager of Rail Systems Safety and me to independently prepare what he 14 referred to as "After Action Reports," which he said should include interviews of 15 all staff involved. Mr. Penn and I couldn't figure out why Mr. Tucker was asking 16 us to prepare these reports "independently" of each other, nor was it explained why 17 this was being requested of us, except that our belief was that Mr. Tucker was on a 18 "witch hunt" and wanted Mr. Penn and me to be the "heavies." In addition, Mr. 19 Penn and I both felt that Mr. Tucker was issuing a "divide and conquer" maneuver 20 to see which of us could handle the assignment better. Mr. Penn's position and 21 mine were not in the same chain of command, and the idea of assigning this 22 particular task to us for "independent" reports simply did not make any sense. 23 b. The following day Mr. Penn and I asked Mr. Tucker if we could accomplish the 24 assignment together for efficiency reasons, and Mr. Tucker expressed his 25 disappointment, but reluctantly agreed. We submitted our reports to him about a 26 week later than he wanted. He expressed his displeasure over that and was visibly 27 Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, III, APC disappointed when we reported that we felt all staffhad handled the situation appropriately. Despite oUr report exonerating staff, Tom Kelleher and David 3 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY · JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION L . 1 Papworth left the organization fairly soon thereafter. Tom Kelleher was replaced 2 by a much younger blonde woman named Sara Benson who had been one of 3 several Marketing Department staff. She lasted less than a year in the position 4 before being demoted by Mr. Tucker for saying something to the press that Mr. 5 Tucker believed she shouldn't have. She then left NCTD. 6 c. Violation of Existing Resolution 78-14 - NCTD became a revolving door with 7 countless turnovers the entire 2 years and 11 months that I worked under Mr. 8 Tucker. Many of the positions turned over several times. Mr. Tucker would 9 single-handedly hire and fire many of these positions, including when he brought 10 Alex Wiggins on board in 2010 and promoted him a couple of times, bringing him 11 up to second in command at the District within 18 months. As far as any of us 12 could tell, this was done without any posting of the positions given Mr. Wiggins. 13 Mr. Tucker even settled a lawsuit with an older female employee, Kim Stone, 14 which alleged that when he hired Mr. Wiggins to be the Paratransit Services 15 Manager over Kim in 2010, he committed age and gender discrimination. Kim 16 Stone had been given her layoff notice when Mr. Wiggins was hired, but was 17 plainly more qualified than Mr. Wiggins to take over the Paratransit Manager 18 position. Mr. Wiggins was then inexplicably given another promotion and didn't 19 even end up filling the Paratransit Manager position. 20 d. Mr. Tucker's relentless (and often knee jerk) hiring and firing of staff was in direct 21 violation of Resolution 78-14 that had been in place at the time because those who 22 lost their jobs were not given any rehire rights. In many cases, the employees who 23 replaced those who were separated were substantially younger females, such as 24 Virginia Berman, Bridget Hennessey, Laynie Weaver, Brittany Donachie, Vira 25 Villareal, and Dierdre Jardine to name a few. I can say that with the exception of 26 Ms Villareal, all of the successors were well under the age of 40. Moreover, they 27 replaced male and female employees who were well over the age of 40. Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, III, APC e. All Hands Meetings from 2009 through 2011 - Mr. Tucker would generally hold 4 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 three or four "all hands" meetings each year where he would update management 2 staff on the reorganization and provide a new organizational chart at many of them. 3 I believe there were 5 or 6 versions of a new organizational chart during my just 4 under 3 years of working with Mr. Tucker. I likened his meetings to "scolding 5 sessions" because they seemed to get more negative as time went on. He also liked 6 to pick on certain people at the meetings. Tim McCormick, in particular, became 7 one of his favorite people to ridicule at the meetings. (Tim was eventually 8 terminated along with Lane Fernandes on the same day sometime in 2012.) This 9 open humiliation and bullying of various people showed me that Mr. Tucker was 10 capable of the harshest treatment of his subordinates, and as will be seen, 11 eventually included me. 12 f. Events that Led to My Resignation - In July 2011, my supervisor, Richard 13 Hannasch, the then Chief Financial Officer, came to me and indirectly let me know 14 that my department was now under scrutiny for being further "reorganized." We 15 had already lost 5 of our 8 person staff through layoffs in 2009 and 2010, and I 16 knew that the buzz word "reorganized" meant that more "layoffs" were coming. I 17 put layoffs in quotes because in reality, these actions were not what is usually 18 meant by the word layoff. When management layoffs occurred at NCTD, the 19 positions were not being eliminated; rather, people were. The jobs were almost, 20 without fail, simply tweaked in name only to make it look like a layoff. Mr. 21 Hannasch asked me to draft a staffing plan for the ensuing year, as he said he was 22 "seeing signs" that further cuts were being planned for my department. He did not 23 tell me who was planning these further cuts. I spent a lot of time, including 24 weekends, developing the staffing plan justifying why I should be allowed to retain 25 two employees under me in my department. I submitted the plan to Mr. Hannasch 26 in the latter part of July 2011. Mr. Hannasch told me in around September 2011 27 Law Offices of 28 WilliamN. Woodson, III, APC that when he had shared my proposal of how my department could look, with a justification on the hours needed for the work, Mr. Tucker merely tossed the 5 DECLARATION OF-SUSAN LO-CKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 proposal aside and told Mr. Hannasch that his mind was already made up on what 2 he (Mr. Tucker) planned to do with the Risk Department. 3 g. On Thursday, August 4,2011, Mr. Tucker called me into his office and told me that 4 he was planning another reorganization which would be announced at an All Hands 5 meeting on Friday, August 12,2011. Mr. Tucker told me that he had decided to 6 give me "a try supervising the Rail Systems Safety Manager, Wayne Penn." Mr. 7 Penn was my same grade and was NOT being demoted, and was not in my chain of 8 command reporting through Mr. Hannasch to Mr. Tucker. Mr. Tucker told me this 9 was to be done on a "trial basis for one year" to see how I do. I asked him what the 10 options would be for me after the year was up, and he gave me an evasive answer 11 and wouldn't look me in the eyes. I knew this meant nothing but trouble for me. I 12 called Mr. Hannasch on my way home from work and related to him my 13 conversation with Mr. Tucker to see ifhe knew what was going on. Mr. Hannasch 14 told me he knew nothing about these plans for me and Mr. Penn despite the fact 15 that Mr. Hannasch, the CFO, was my direct supervisor, while Mr. Penn's direct 16 supervisor was Tom Lichterman, the Chief Operating Officer. 17 h. On August 12, 2011, the All Hands meeting was held at the Oceanside Civic 18 Center Library. Mr. Tucker passed out the newest organizational chart on that date 19 which indeed showed me supervising Wayne Penn, and yet my position was now 20 listed as "Interim Manager of Safety, Risk & Insurance" while Wayne's was still 21 listed as "Manager of Rail Systems Safety." I was completely blindsided by this 22 and was approached by several employees later that day questioning what the 23 organizational chart meant. The experience was both awkward and unsettling, and 24 demonstrated to me that Mr. Tucker was, consistent with several other signs I had 25 seen up to this point, deceptive and dishonest. Mr. Tucker gave a sort of "pep talk" 26 at that meeting attempting to assure everyone that the new organizational chart he 27 passed out that day was the one we were going to stay with. He said that all the Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, Ill, APC non-performers had either already been let go or had received their layoff notices. 6 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 This made me feel even more uncomfortable because some of those who had 2 received layoff notices were sitting in the room, including Ms. Jini Moeller, the 3 Plaintiff in this lawsuit. It was embarrassing that people like Ms. Moeller had been 4 referred to as non-performers. Adding to my discomfort in this meeting (and an 5 irony to this circumstance) is that none of us had received performance evaluations 6 in more than 2 years since Mr. Tucker came on board. Moreover, none of these 7 alleged "non-performers" had been placed on a performance improvement plan 8 letting them know that they even had performance issues and giving them an 9 opportunity to correct those performance issues before subsequent action, such as a performance based layoff, was to be taken. 10 11 1. Later that same day, Mr. Tucker decided to criticize the workers' compensation 12 program relating to costs incurred. He began drilling Richard Hannasch and Ryan 13 Bailey about it. They contacted me, gave me the questions they needed answers to, 14 and I provided reports and answers. I began a two week vacation the following 15 week. I recall speaking with Mr. Hannasch while on the road on August 15, 2011 16 for more than an hour discussing follow-up items with him. I also called Wayne 17 Penn a few days later to discuss the organizational chart that showed I would be 18 supervising him. Mr. Penn told me that he planned to speak with Mr. Tucker that 19 week and explain why it didn't make sense for me to supervise him. I told Mr. 20 Penn I agreed with his plan, and told him I was fine with the idea of trying to 21 dissuade Mr. Tucker ofthis change in the organizational chart. Meanwhile, Mr. 22 PeM informed me he was looking for new job opportunities as he wanted to leave 23 NCTD. (Mr. PeM ended up leaving NCTD in December 2011.) 24 J. When I returned to the office on August 29, 2011, Richard Hannasch came into my 25 office and told me that while I'd been gone, he had himself received his layoff 26 notice. In addition, my remaining two staff who had both received layoff notices in 27 early August had interviewed for and were hired for 3-year limited term clerical Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, III,APC positions with NCTD's positive train control project. They left the Risk 7 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 Department in early September and lasted in their new jobs for approximately 18 2 months before being let go on the same day. [Both individuals are older women in 3 their 60's who informed me they had had every intention of remaining in their new 4 jobs for the promised 3 year period. Their names are Kathy Herr and Jacque 5 Myers. They were both separated sometime in 2013.] 6 k. On or about August 30, 2011, Mr. Tucker called me into his office and told me I'd 7 be reporting to Alex Wiggins effective immediately. He also told me during that 8 same meeting that he wanted me to set up liability claim files on all claims that are 9 received directly by First Transit. I explained that this was inefficient and made no 10 sense when NCTD could and should tender the claims handling directly to First 11 Transit. I also told him I no longer had the subordinate employees I had earlier to 12 support this additional work assignment. He didn't listen to me, and gave me that 13 directive anyway. I felt I was being set up for failure given that he had taken my 14 staff away and was now significantly increasing my duties and responsibilities. 15 With all the uncertainty going on, I began looking for a new job over Labor Day 16 weekend 2011. I was on second interviews with both MTS and the Riverside 17 County Office of Education when I received an offer first from MTS. I gave my 18 resignation notice on October 11, 2011 and began my new job with MTS on 19 November 7,2011. 20 l. Around this same time, Reed Caldwell came up with a ridiculous new "seating 21 chart" which placed certain employees in offices based upon their pay grades. This 22 caused more angst and dismay among staff because it didn't make any sense where 23 they were planning to place the employees. Fortunately for me, I left before I 24 would have had to pack up my office and move. I had been in one of the larger 25 offices on the first floor my entire 11 'li years with NCTD. It made no sense to 26 move offices simply because there were other employees at NCTD with a higher 27 grade than mine. That was the basis they were making for the size of the offices. I Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, III, APC heard things got even worse after I left with two people being crammed into one 8 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY nJDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADnJDICATION 1 office (such as Ramona Edwards and Mindy Smith) who had always had their own 2 offices before in their many years with NCTD. 3 m. Incident Involving Linda Barber and her Impending Demotion - Mr. Tucker made 4 Linda Barber the "Interim HR Manager" after Jane Arnold retired in November 5 2010. Sometime in mid to late 2012, I received an email from Mark Spedding 6 (former NCTD HR Manager) saying he had seen ajob posting in "Transit Talent" 7 for an HR Manager at NCTD which had appeared earlier in the year. Mark shared 8 this news with me and Steve Vigil in HR, who was still with NCTD at that time. 9 Steve Vigil then spoke with Linda Barber, who by then had been made the full HR 10 Manager title, and was no longer "interim" in that position. Ms. Barber admitted to 11 Mr. Vigil that she knew nothing about the job posting in the national transit 12 recruitment publication. Ms. Barber told Mr. Vigil who shared it with me, that Ms. 13 Barber was unaware Mr. Tucker or anyone else in management over her was 14 displeased with her work or that they were planning to replace her. When she 15 questioned her supervisor, Ryan Bailey, the then CFO, who replaced Mr. 16 Hannasch, about it, it was reported by Ana Shields (also in HR) that Ryan Bailey 17 merely walked away without giving her an answer. A month or two later Linda 18 Barber was demoted back to Benefits Administrator, and Mr. Tucker brought 19 Karen Tucholski on board. Ms. Barber was in her mid 50s at the time, and she 20 retired tess than a year after that. Ms. Tucholski appears to be in her late thirties, or 21 early forties when she was hired. 22 n. [ was very aware that the same thing would have happened to me (an older female) 23 had I remained with NCTD. Mr. Tucker has an established pattern of replacing 24 older women with younger employees. Here are a few that come to mind: 25 1. was in her early 30'; 26 27 Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, III, APC Julie Austin, who was in her 50's was replaced with Bridget Henessey, who 11. Linda Barber, in her mid 50's, was replaced with Karen Tucholski, in her early 40's; 9 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 111. Kim Stone, approximately 60, with Alex Wiggins, in his mid 40's; 2 IV. Jill McNaughton, who was about 60, with Suheil Rodriguez, who was in her 3 30's; 4 v. Diane Hessler, who was in her 50s, with Brittany Donachie, who was in her 30's. 5 6 7 informed me that she was demoted from being Matt's Executive 8 AdministratorlBoard Clerk sometime in 2013 to a general Administrative 9 Assistant/Board Clerk position. She told me that when Mr. Tucker delivered the 10 news to her in his office, she started to tear up. He commented that he doesn't 11 understand why she was so upset when after all she's "on the tail-end of her career, 12 and wasn't looking for any challenges." I believe Jill was 60 or 61 at the time and 13 had fully intended to continue working until she reached Medicare age of 65~ Not 14 being able to take it anymore, she retired in May 2014. She was forced to move 15 offices at least 3 times before she resigned, her last being a small cubicle on the 16 first floor. 17 p. Angela Miller - Ms. Miller was NCTD's Chief Information Officer during my 18 latter years with NCTD. This is a position she had held before Mr. Tucker arrived. 19 At one point in September 2011, I attended a going away party for Richard 20 Hannasch. Angela Miller also attended and informed us at that function that Mr. 21 Tucker had mentioned to her that she "ought to dye her hair" to get rid of the grey 22 streaks in it, that she would "look younger" that way, and it would "help her 23 career." By this remark, Mr. Tucker was once again telling staff that he valued a 24 "younger look" at work. 25 26 27 Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, m,APC o. Jill McNaughton's Demotion - I have kept in touch with Jill since I left NCTD. Jill q. Conclusion - During my 2 years and 11 months working under Matthew Tucker at NCTD, I became aware of numerous deceptions and dishonest moves by Mr. Tucker based on my own personal observations, as well as based on what other NCTD employees who I believe to be reliable and trustworthy have told me. My 10 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 1 opinion on this subject is based on both my own experiences of what I saw, what I 2 heard, what was said to me, and what I said to others, as stated earlier in this 3 declaration. I believe Mr. Tucker's reputation is that he is capable of 4 misrepresenting the truth in order to serve his own personal biases, his own 5 personal likes and dislikes, and specifically to further his desire to rid NCTD of the 6 older female employees who he successfully forced to move on, myself included, 7 based on their age. By "older female employees" here, I don't mean female 8 employees who were merely over forty years of age, but rather female employees 9 who were over fifty years in age or higher. I observed Mr. Tucker cause several 10 such employees to leave NCTD, either by intimidation, or outright layoff, only to 11 see them replaced as stated earlier in this declaration by substantially younger 12 females. My opinion on this subject is shared by several other employees at 13 NCTD; hence, my belief that MR. Tucker's reputation at NCTD is true -- that he is 14 "anti-females over 50 years in age," and that he will, and did do everything he 15 believed he could get away with to reduce that particular population at NCTD. 16 17 I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this ~ ~'1 18 Declaration was executed this 19 California. 20 21 d. {;; day of March, 2015 at ~iVJ~ 0 eo u,cdJ Susan V . Lockwood 22 23 24 25 26 27 Law Offices of 28 William N. Woodson, III, APC 11 DECLARATION OF SUSAN LOCKWOOD IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH COUNTY BRANCH VIRGINIA MOELLER, Plaintiff, vs. NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, DOES 1 through 5, inclusive Defendants. ------------------------------- / No. 37-2013-00067620 CU-WT-NC DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW O'NEAL TUCKER Taken at San Diego, California Thursday, March 12, 2015 Reported by Marleen A. Campbell, CSR Certificate No. 7554 1 I N D E X 2 3 DEPOSITION OF: 4 MARCH 12, 2015 MATTHEW O'NEAL TUCKER 5 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. WOODSON PAGE 4 8 9 E X H I BIT S 10 FOR PLAINTIFF 11 1 NCTD Chart 2; 31 pages 61 12 2 NCTD Actions from the October 13, 2011 Regular Board Meeting; 17 pages 76 3 NCTD Revised Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program; 6 pages 94 4 Letter dated September 12, 2012, to Karen Tucholski from Angela Miller; 2 pages 134 5 Letter dated December 7, 2011, to Virginia Moeller from Matthew Tucker; Severance Agreement and General Release of Claims; 6 pages 165 6 NCTD Invites Application for the position of Civil Rights Officer; 3 pages 168 MARKED 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Witness signature page 189 25 Reporter's certificate page 190 Page 2 1 A. I can only speak within the context of an 2 understanding the bus service had been trimmed. 3 Understand that I was new to the District, and I'm 4 walking into a financial situation that was relatively 5 unprecedented in terms of the scale and scope. 6 not know the individuals at the District at all. 7 was no one at the District that I had previously met. 8 There was no frame of reference for me other than just 9 dealing with the issues at hand. 10 I did There To specifically address your question as relates 11 to the process, the process -- assuming whatever point 12 we got into the actual discussions of layoffs, that was 13 the responsibilities of the respective direct reports 14 and the department managers to determine what functions 15 would or would not be needed, what positions were or 16 were not needed, and how essential that function was to 17 the District in the context of where we were today and 18 going forward into the future. 19 Q. So if I were to say to you that records reveal 20 that five individuals, 21 chosen for layoff after you arrived, 22 the choice of those people and/or their functions was 23 made by managers under you and not you? 24 MR. WATSON: 25 MR. WOODSON: let's say, from Department X were you would say that It's vague and ambiguous. Okay. Page 56 1 2 MR. WATSON: Incomplete hypothetical. BY MR. WOODSON: 3 Q. You may respond. 4 A. Again, my directive to the staff was to go and 5 look at their functions, 6 done, 7 justify retaining, given the nature of the financial 8 situation at the District. for which they had already and to identify what positions that they could 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. I didn't have a framework to be able to 11 12 ascertain who was doing what within the District. Q. Did you at some point obtain that framework 13 before, say the end of 2011, where you could know enough 14 about a position or a situation where you could choose 15 who was laid off, who wasn't? 16 MR. WATSON: 17 THE WITNESS: Vague and ambiguous. And I can't answer that question 18 because you would have to be able to present to me 19 specific cases -­ 20 BY MR. WOODSON: 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. Obviously, if someone directly reported to me, I 23 could make a determination about that person. 24 quite a bit of functions in the District for which I 25 would not know what the employee does day to day or not, There are Page 57 1 so I cannot answer 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. -- that question broadly. 4 Q. Okay. 5 broadly. 6 Let me ask you a question a little more Are you able to say that the board -- now, not 7 Matt Tucker -- the board made no decision for any 8 particular individual to be laid off, true? 9 A. True. 10 Q. Okay. 11 It was either you or someone below you who made those choices, 12 A. right? I can't -- I can't agree. In the context of the 13 proposed recommendations for reductions, my direction to 14 the staff was to identify the positions. 15 people. You know, Not the not names of individuals and other 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. -- identify positions for which they felt, given 18 where we are, that they could not make a business 19 justification to retain. 20 21 Q. I just wanted to narrow the So, again, it was either you or someone under you who made those decisions, 24 25 Understood. universe down. 22 23 Okay. MR. WATSON: right? Misstates his testimony. III Page 58 1 2 3 4 BY MR. WOODSON: Q. Well, you said that you would kn o w about your direct reports, A. right? My response is that I gave the direction to my 5 direct reports to identify within their respective 6 divisions and department which positions that they could 7 not justify retaining, given the financial situation and 8 the business model transition that the District was 9 undertaking. 10 11 Q. So are you aware of any recommendations that were made by Mr. Hannasch for layoff? 12 A. I don't understand. 13 Q. Well, 14 I think you've said that your management below you made those determinations, right? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Did Mr. Hannasch make any recommendations to you 17 18 to lay anyone off? A. I assume Mr. Hannasch did make recommendations 19 because all division chiefs or direct reports to me made 20 recommendations. 21 Q. Do you remember any of his recommendations? 22 A. No, not specifically, I do not remember his 23 recommendations. 24 Q. Do you remember any generally? 25 A. Not generally. Other than the fact, you know, I Page 59 1 2 3 it is or not. Q. Okay. Let me ask you: Did Ms. McNaughton serve as your executive assistant at some point? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And from 2009 up to what point? 6 A. I cannot answer the time period question. 7 Q. You don't know how long she -­ 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. -- was your executive assistant? 10 A. I don't know the dates off -- I don't know the 11 dates, off of the top of my head. 12 question. 13 14 Q. Okay. I can't answer the Do you know whether Suheil Rodriguez was an administrative assistant to you or Ms. McNaughton? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you don't know the dates. 17 A. No, 18 Q. Do you have reason to believe that this was not 19 20 21 22 I do not. correct as of December 2009? A. I don't have reason to believe that it is or is not correct. Q. Okay. Take a look at the next page. It appears 23 to be the same sort of chart regarding you and your 24 executive assistant, but this one has the administrative 25 assistant as Debbie Gianni. Do you see that? Page 63 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. You do know who Ms. Gianni is? 3 A. I cannot recall Ms. Gianni. 4 Q. Okay. My understanding of these charts reveals 5 that at some point Ms. McNaughton was both the clerk of 6 the board and your executive assistant; is that correct? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. And what were her duties as your executive 9 10 assistant? A. To manage my incoming and outgoing mail. To 11 manage all of my needs, whether it be travel, scheduling 12 issues, supporting the day-to-day needs of the board, 13 development of board agendas, items along that line. 14 Q. Okay. You mentioned some board-related 15 responsibilities. Would that fall under her duties as 16 clerk of the board or as your administrative assistant? 17 A. Clerk of the board. 18 Q. Okay. So she had duties that related to both 19 clerk-related stuff and then Matt Tucker related stuff, 20 right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. But in those two capacities, she was 23 completely an employee of the District, not the board, 24 right? 25 A. Correct. Page 64 1 2 Q. Okay. Were there times when -- well, let me ask it a different way. 3 Can you tell me, rough and dirty, how much was 4 clerk and how much was Matt Tucker administrative 5 assistant sort of stuff? 6 A. No. What I can tell you is that prior to my 7 arrival and the financial issues of the District, there 8 were two separate positions. 9 primarily on the board to support a person retired. 10 given our financial situation, we could not justify 11 adding an additional position. 12 Q. Okay. And Ms. McNaughton focused And my understanding is that 13 Ms. McNaughton is no longer at the District; is that 14 correct? 15 A. Ms. McNaughton is retired. 16 Q. Okay. 17 And And did you speak to her about her retirement? 18 A. 19 well. 20 Q. I sent her an email thanking her and wishing her That's not what I was getting at. I'm talking 21 about a verbal discussion between you and Ms. McNaughton 22 where she talked about her retirement. 23 A. I don't understand the question. 24 Q. Did she speak to you about retirement? 25 A. Yes. Page 65 1 Q. What did she say? 2 A. She said she was going to retire. 3 Q. Did you tell her at some point that you were 4 going to tryout Suheil Rodriguez as the admin assistant 5 instead of her? 6 A. I don't recall that conversation. 7 Q. Do you recall a conversation where she breaks 8 into tears about the idea of what duties you were going 9 to have her continue to fulfill? 10 11 A. I recall a couple of occasions where Ms. McNaughton cried. 12 Q. In discussions with you? 13 A. In discussions with me and maybe and maybe not 14 15 16 related to work issues. Q. Okay. Well, I'm not interested in the ones not related to work issues. 17 Do you recall an instance where you and 18 Ms. McNaughton were talking about her work duties and 19 responsibi l ities when she goes to tears? 20 A. I can't recall one way or the other. I do 21 believe there was a conversation in which Ms. McNaughton 22 cried, but I don't recall whether or not it occurred at 23 the time that we may have discussed any changes in who 24 would perform what duties. 25 Q. Didn't you tell her at some point, I'm gonna try Page 66 1 Suheil Rodriguez as my administrative assistant, 2 Ms. McNaughton begins to cry? 3 MR. WATSON: 4 THE WITNESS: and Do you deny that? Asked and answered. My comment is I don't remember the 5 details of the conversation with Ms. McNaughton -­ 6 BY MR. WOODSON: 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. -- so I can't speak to -­ 9 Q. All right. 10 Understood. Did you say to her at some point when you were 11 discussing work-related issues, "What are you crying 12 about? 13 not looking for any new challenges, are you?" 14 say something like that to her? You're at the end of your career anyway. You're Did you 15 A. I do not ever recall making that statement. 16 Q. Do you deny making it? 17 A. I do not recall ever making that statement. 18 Q. Okay. 19 You did give Ms. Rodriguez the duties of your administrative assistant, didn't you? 20 A. I believe we did. 21 Q. Why? 22 A. Significant volume of work that was 23 undertaking -- one of the things that I had begun the 24 process of doing was assuming a lot of hands-on work 25 myself to be performed in furtherance of implementing Page 67 1 business improvements for the District. 2 For example, the District did not have a formal 3 set of policies and procedures adopted by the board that 4 would set a framework for operations and what staff 5 could and could not do. 6 I took the personal lead in advancing that 7 project. 8 projects like that, 9 help those projects be implemented. 10 11 12 Q. And over time, as I took the lead in advancing it required additional support to And that's the reason you gave Suheil Rodriguez Ms. McNaughton's administrative duties? A. In terms -- my response was that there was a 13 significant amount of work requirement being done on the 14 board, clerk side -­ 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. -- and there was a significant amount of work 17 from the administrative side of the shop. 18 dictated what we needed to do in terms of resource 19 assignment. 20 21 Q. The workload So you didn't think Ms. McNaughton was able to handle that increased workload? 22 A. No, 23 Q. And did you tell her that? 24 A. As I stated to you previously, prior to my 25 arrival, I did not. those functions were separated, and two -- and Page 68 1 exception of executive director and general counsel, 2 would be subject to. 3 4 Q. Did the drafting of the new ordinance, which I think was Ordinance 4 -­ does that ring true to you? 5 A. I don't keep up with the number of ordinances 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. -­ but it was a new ordinance. 8 MR. WOODSON: There was a new ordinance, and I'm 9 going to give you some paperwork on that. 10 This is Exhibit 2, we'll call it. 11 (Exhibit 2 was marked.) 12 13 BY MR. WOODSON: Q. Let me ask you if you recognize the agenda for 14 the board being on top. 15 to the actual ordinance itself was this policy No. 19 16 that's dated the same day in 2002 -- or almost the same 17 day, about a week later, I guess. And then I think the precursor 18 Do you notice that? 19 MR. WATSON: 20 21 He's still on the first page. BY MR. WOODSON: Q. Do you recognize the paperwork here as being 22 part of the occasion of implementation of the new 23 ordinance that you've been talking about? 24 25 A. This information appears consistent with what we would have communicated -­ Page 76 1 Q. 2 A. 3 meeting. 4 Q. 5 Okay. as the actions resulting from a board That's my main question. Did it seem to you that one of the effects of 6 this ordinance is to vest in you personally ultimate 7 responsibility for all personnel decisions? 8 A. No. 9 Q. What oversight, if any, do you understand by 10 enacting this ordinance there was to be over your 11 decisions regarding personnel matters? 12 A. My perspective in terms of when we implemented 13 this ordinance and the human resources manual was to 14 bring the District in compliance with the standard 15 practices for both public and private entities. 16 have a legally compliant human resources manual and 17 process that is both transparent, available to all 18 employees, and ensures that all employees are provided 19 due process. It's to 20 The process for developing an HR manual did not 21 significantly include me spending time with the details 22 of what was written and included in the policy. 23 my perspective, coming into the District and not seeing 24 any evidence of a consistent application of policies and 25 procedures with individuals and departments making So from Page 77 1 amongst numerous individuals throughout the District, to 2 include me, in terms of responsibility for administering 3 the employee handbook. 4 5 Q. pursuant to that manual? 6 7 MR. WATSON: Vague and ambiguous. Calls for a legal opinion. THE WITNESS: 8 9 But don't you have ultimate authority, even And my response would be the reason that we would have an employee manual is so that 10 even the executive director would not be in the position 11 of having to make arbitrary independent positions. 12 It is intended to establish a framework of 13 consistent operations. 14 we made sure that we had an HR function, 15 reason I wanted to have in-house day-to-day legal 16 counsel so that such matters would not become matters 17 for which the executive director would have to be 18 involved. 19 BY MR. WOODSON: 20 Q. 21 It's the very same reason that the very same Would you turn to page 3 of policy No. 19? You see paragraph 1? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Has this been changed since you've been there? 24 A. I'm not aware of whether or not it has been 25 changed. Page 79 1 2 3 4 5 Q. SO as far as you know, referred to in that paragraph, A. As far as I understand, it is currently written. Q. you still have the power right? the paragraph reads as That is all I can speak to. Well, it actually gets re-enacted -- if you look 6 at the last few pages of this exhibit. 7 same subject matter, 8 speak, as of January 15th of 2015? It is this very is it not, being re-upped, so to 9 A. I don't know what page you are on. 10 Q. The very last page. Take a look at the very 11 last page. 12 not the very last, but the second to the last, by 13 Mr. Mark Packard, Mr. Matt Tucker, and whoever general 14 counsel is. 15 someone else. 16 Should be a page that's signed -- I'm sorry, I'm not sure if that's Ms. Tucholski or Do you see that signatures page? 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 Q. If you look up to paragraph 1, under "other 19 duties and responsibilities," it says, "the executive 20 director," et cetera, et cetera, and then in paragraph 1 21 basically says, 22 terminate employees in accordance with NeT ordinance No. 23 4 policies, rules and regulations." "including authority to hire and 24 You continue to have that ultimate authority? 25 MR. WATSON: You left out "applicable law." Page 80 1 MR. WOODSON: 2 law" as well. 3 BY MR. WOODSON: Okay. True, it says, "applicable 4 Q. But it gives you ultimate authority, doesn't it? 5 A. It gives me authority within the framework of 6 our business operations. And my response would be 7 is, generally speaking, almost any CEO would have that 8 level of authority in terms of it, but I don't believe 9 any CEO would be responsible for actually administering 10 discipline or being involved in discipline for every 11 activity that would be -- that would be undertaken 12 within the District. 13 Q. 14 15 16 Understood. Nobody has that much time. But you do have the power to do it as you choose, A. right? No, I have the responsibility for ensuring that 17 a structure, policies and procedures and people are in 18 place, so that their work can be carried out. 19 the role of the CEO. 20 That is My role is not to be the HR manager, or the 21 chief operating officer, or the chief financial officer. 22 My role is to ensure that the day-to-day operations of 23 the business are conducted in a manner consistent with 24 the expectations of the board of directors. 25 Q. Okay. Did you, from time to time, participate Page 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 for Mr. Wiggins. Q. promotions? A. 10 I don't recall the nature of every position that Mr. Wiggins had at NCTD. Q. Well, I'm not asking you every position he had. My question is a little more refined. 8 9 Do you recall specifically giving him other Do you recall any promotion you gave Mr. Wiggins after he was hired at NCTD? A. I don't recall the specific -- to be able to 11 speak to as a fact of what that position was or how that 12 occurred, 13 have to be historical documents available for someone to 14 validate that one way or the other. 15 16 17 Q. so I cannot speak to it other than there would Okay. So at some point in your process of engaging in layoffs, did you reach financial stability? A. My response is, in the process of undertaking 18 the comprehensive actions that the District identified, 19 combined with the economy reaching a point of stability 20 and beginning to grow, 21 stability. the District achieved financial 22 Q. When was that? 23 A. I can't give you the specific date of when that 24 25 occurred. Q. Give me a rough date. Page 91 1 A. I would estimate around 2011 time period is when 2 we started to look outward and believe that we had 3 reached a point of stability. 4 5 Q. And did you report the financial condition and when I say "you," I don't mean Matthew Tucker. 6 Did the District report its financial condition 7 consistently from the time you showed up in late 2008 to 8 today? 9 A. I believe your question is vague for me. 10 Q. Okay. My understanding is that from time to 11 time -- and I see these documents allover the Web, and 12 I'm going to show you some of them 13 documents are published on the Web periodically for this 14 or that reason, some of it's fiscal year ending, blah, 15 blah, blah, here's our financial picture, and then 16 here's one that's projected, or guesstimated, or however 17 it's put there, different ways of reporting the 18 financial status of the District. 19 20 21 various financial Are you aware of that fact? A. There were not different ways. There are different ways of reporting budgets. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. And at different points in time, budget 24 projections and assumptions are trued up to the reality 25 of what occurred, which changes what happens from a Page 92 1 2 3 4 financial result, either positively or negatively. Q. And as I understand it, there is, as you point out, budgeted and then there is actual, A. Beyond just budget and actual, right? there are things 5 that occur for which one could not assume would occur. 6 For example, when the state eliminated state transit 7 assistance, no one could assume that it would come back 8 and at what shape and form and amount that would be. 9 Q. Did it come back? 10 A. Yes, 11 Q. When was that? 12 A. I 13 Q. But before 2011? 14 A. I 15 Q. Okay. 16 17 18 19 20 21 it did. don't recall the specific year. don't recall the specific year. You're saying to me, however, that you think that it was 2011 when the turnaround occurred? A. I believe it's when we believed that we had achieved a level of financial stability. Q. Okay. When you say "stability," tell me what you mean. A. "Stability" means is that we were able to 22 project balanced budgets that didn't require service 23 reductions, or fair increases. 24 25 Q. Okay. your staff, To what degree did you rely on others, for example, or perhaps professionals, to Page 93 1 prepare the financial data that's reported on the Web? For example, in documents like what I'm going to 2 3 mark Exhibit 6 here -- we might as well take a look at 4 Exhibit 6 5 suggested possible numbering, but what are we actually 6 on? no, it's not 6 either. 3? 7 THE REPORTER: 8 MR. WOODSON: 9 (Exhibit 3 was marked.) 10 MR. WOODSON: 11 MR. WATSON: 12 13 This was a 3. Okay. Let me mark that for you. Did you get one, Tim? No. BY MR. WOODSON: Q. My first question is: Who prepares a document 14 like these first two pages, for example, of Exhibit 6 -­ 15 I'm sorry. 16 A. 3. Well, these types of financial documents have 17 quite a few inputs. 18 process of revenue that comes in. 19 Most of the inputs start with the So, for example, the vast majority of revenue is 20 derived from the -- well, local sales tax and federal 21 funding. 22 comes through that we receive from either our federal 23 representatives or through primarily our MPO, SANDAG, 24 association of government. 25 revenues from local-generated sales tax from combination So there is a federal funding projection that We also get an estimate of Page 94 1 of both the county and from SANDAG. 2 Those form the basis for the starting point of 3 our budget because those are external revenues for which 4 we have no control. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q. But who's putting that information together to ultimately publish it on the Web? A. I was chief financial officer, 100 percent responsible for development of the budget. Q. Okay. So in 2014, let's say year ending 2014, June 30, 2014, who was that person? Mr. Bailey? 11 A. I would have to -­ 12 Q. You'd have to look at the org chart? 13 A. I would have to be able to look at something 14 15 that could give me assurance in my answer. Q. Okay. But assuming it's Mr. Bailey, if I'm 16 correct, that's what the org charts show, 17 together this document. 18 Tucker and say, will you bless this before I post it on 19 the Web? 20 A. Then would he run it by Matt Well, in the course of developing -- there are a 21 couple of documents here. 22 financial report. 23 he would put One is a comprehensive annual So in the course of putting together some of 24 these documents auditors would review, there are also 25 reviews -- there's reviews of SANDAG, of NCTD's budget Page 95 1 as well. 2 So the budget goes through the reviews by the 3 board of our budget. 4 multiple time points and by multiple folks to ensure 5 that the budget is reflective of the revenues and has 6 reasonable assumptions about expenses. 7 Q. Okay. So the budget is reviewed at But ultimately, do you have to look at 8 this information to say, yes, it's okay, or do you leave 9 that to them and say, if they've blessed it, I don't 10 11 need to look at it again? A. 12 13 Again, you've -­ MR. WATSON: "blessed." 14 THE WITNESS: 15 different documents. 16 BY MR. WOODSON: 17 18 19 Vague and ambiguous as to the term Q. Yes. Again, you have given me two One of them you do and one of them you don't? A. Well, one document is a it is a 20 backwards-looking document that is subject to an 21 independent audit firm. 22 Q. Which one is that? 23 A. That is the comprehensive annual financial 24 report. 25 audited results. I believe these are represent -- represent Page 96 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. Okay, so that is not something for which I could 3 4 go into the auditor and say make that number bigger. Q. Okay, got it. Let's take a look at page 2 of 5 this exhibit. 6 understand is being shown on this page. 7 terms again, assuming you're talking to a junior high 8 school kid. 9 A. Well, And let me have you tell me what you Just in general from a practical point of view, from a CEO 10 perspective, when it relates to revenues, given that the 11 vast majority of revenues are derived from local sales 12 tax or state sources that are based upon tax 13 assumptions, those numbers are numbers that the county 14 makes an estimate, SANDAG makes an estimate, and in 15 general, our estimate is that estimate. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. So I would have no basis other than if I decided 18 to be, perhaps, more conservative in terms of estimating 19 revenues. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. In terms of revenues, one could argue that the 22 chief executive could make -- have input on fair 23 revenue, but our board's policy is to assume 24 conservatively in the development of the budget. 25 So on revenues, that would mean you would assume Page 97 1 a lower forecast of number rather than a higher forecast 2 of revenues. 3 During the period that I've been here, I have 4 generally always accepted the recommendation of the 5 chief financial officer because the basis of his 6 information would likely be for more informed than what 7 mine would be. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. Other operating revenue or ancillary revenues All right. 10 that are driven by contracts, 11 contracts, those are not things for which I have the 12 ability to say, you're going to get more this year. 13 Q. Okay. for example, advertising What I've heard you say just now is you 14 have very little interest in, nor power, nor occasion to 15 change numbers that are given to you by other sources of 16 that information, both in the NCTD and perhaps auditors. 17 18 19 A. I didn't say that. I have a great deal of interest in the amount of revenues Q. No, but not in changing the numbers that are 20 reported. 21 thing is sound financially. 22 position nor interested in changing this information. 23 A. I know your job is to make sure that the But you're not in the Again, as it relates to this specific document 24 associated with the budget that would be adopted in the 25 near term, you receive a revenue forecast from other Page 98 1 parties for which you include as your revenue forecast. 2 Q. Right. 3 A. Would I discuss that question of how -­ sure. 4 Q. All right. 5 Okay. Well, got it. Then on expenses, let's talk in the same way 6 about how expenses are derived and how they get plugged 7 into this form. 8 9 A. Sure. So when you look at specific line items like "professional services" and "purchase 10 transportation," those are big ones. 11 transportation," if you look at actual fiscal year 2011, 12 was about $34 million. 13 $39 million is an example. "Purchase If you look to the right of it, 14 Q. Uh-huh. 15 A. By and large, those represent fixed-price 16 contracts that we have with operating vendors. And so 17 they're driven by service levels, by and large, and so 18 there is not a lot of flexibility if we're going to 19 maintain the service, given that you have a contractual 20 agreement in place. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. Purchase professional services, which could 23 include consulting services and some part of services 24 that I would also probably deem operating would be very 25 similar. They're generally (unintelligible) functions Page 99 1 of service output and prices that have already been 2 agreed upon. Q. 3 Okay. How about, let's bump back up to salaries 4 and wages and employee benefits. 5 arrived at? A. 6 Well, How are those numbers I'll work backwards. Employee benefits is 7 a calculator for which I'm not privy to. So the 8 function of whatever salaries and wages would be would 9 represent a baseline increase from the prior year, 10 whether it be an upward increase in expense or downward 11 increase in expense. 12 Q. Okay. So those numbers, for example, that first 13 category, actual fiscal year 2011, that number is one 14 that's just a matter of looking at the computer, what 15 did we pay salaries and wages in 2011? 16 number and you crank it out and, boom, there it shows 17 up, And there's a right? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. Same for fiscal year -- actual fiscal year 2012 20 and actual fiscal year 2013, those are like from this 21 electronic source to this file, 22 room for messing with that number, 23 24 25 A. right? And there's no I guess. True? These should be audited financial results based upon the closeout of that fiscal year. Q. And then as I understand this form, the category Page 100 1 "annual surplus or deficit" is simply a matter of doing 2 the arithmetic between the expenses and the income. 3 A. Uh-huh. 4 Q. Is that true? 5 A. Uh-huh. 6 Q. Okay. And then over under the category 7 "approved budget for fiscal year" -- oh, you said 8 "uh-huh." You have to say "yes." 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. All right. Under the "approved budget for 11 fiscal year '14," do you see that column, 12 budget for fiscal year '14"? "approved 13 A. Yeah. 14 Q. Tell me what's going on there, because I see a 15 dash and there's some places where you'd expect numbers 16 but there are no numbers. A. 17 18 What's going on? Well, if you see, from what I can glean from it, it just shows a balanced budget for that fiscal year. 19 Q. Okay. And tell me how that works. If you have 20 no 21 have no indication that things are going to go greatly 22 d i fferent from what we prognosticate regarding 2014, you 23 can show this balanced budget for that year, and that's 24 what we've got here. 25 let me see if I can finish the sentence. A. Yes. If you NCTD is required to have a balanced Page 101 1 or that I could effect a change without communicating 2 and collaborating with my team. 3 Q. Do you remember who on your team you 4 collaborated with in connection with the change of that 5 job function? 6 A. No, I do not. 7 Q. Are you certain you did collaborate with 8 someone? 9 A. 11m certain I did. 10 Q. Do you remember an employee by the name of 11 Angela Miller? 12 A. Yes, I do. 13 Q. Do you remember what her job function was? 14 A. IT. 15 Q. Information technology? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And in that position, just give me a broad 18 19 20 stroke of the sort of duties that she had. A. She was responsible for our information technology services. 21 Q. Which includes your computers -­ 22 A. Computers, telephones, personal devices, 23 internet. 24 Q. II Personal devices 25 A. Telephones II meaning Page 129 1 Q. that the -­ 2 A. Smartphones, laptops. 3 Q. Okay. Did the District pay for certain 4 management level to have phones? 5 mean Smartphones, Apple phones, anything along those 6 lines, personal devices of some sort. 7 A. Well, And by "phones," I I'm aware that the District provided 8 phones to employees. 9 have an option of either having the District provide or 10 11 I know in my particular case, I me purchasing and receiving a stipend. Q. Okay. Did information technology have any 12 supervisorial or directive power over those personal 13 devices that management had? 14 A. I don't understand what you mean. 15 Q. Well, sometimes when companies provide those 16 devices for their managers, they have certain 17 requirements of how those devices are used, especially, 18 vis-a-vis, personal use or non-business-related use or 19 that kind of thing. 20 had or has that sort of policy? Do you know whether the District 21 A. I don't recall there being policies in place. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. And, 24 Q. Sure. 25 A. That had been reviewed and approved by the I guess -- let me finish. Page 130 1 appropriate authorities within the District. 2 in fact, 3 without any approval 4 Q. 5 A. 6 So there, could have been a policy that IT promulgated Okay. of anyone. I don't have a knowledge that one existed or not -­ 7 Q. All right. 8 A. -- but I'm saying there was no formal policy or 9 10 11 procedure that was appropriately approved by the District that I'm aware of. Q. 12 13 Okay. Got it. Did you ever say to Ms. Miller that she should dye her hair? 14 A. No, 15 Q. Did you see that reported in the news? 16 A. I saw it reported in the news, I did not. yes. And if I 17 recall correctly, that comment came from Heidi Rickey 18 [sic]. 19 Q. Heidi Rockey? 20 A. Rockey. 21 Q. Who says that you allegedly made that comment. 22 Is that what you saw reported? 23 A. To her. 24 Q. Oh, that you said it to her. 25 A. That's what I recall reading in the press. Page 131 1 Q. And that's not my question. But it's a good 2 follow 3 which is, did you ever say to Angela Miller, 4 dye your hair," or something along those lines? 5 A. I'll try and get your answer to this one, "You oughta I recall a conversation with Ms. Miller a number 6 of years ago where, actually, we both, 7 group of other employees, she was talking to me about my 8 hair, and she talked to me about going to get -­ MR. WATSON: 9 10 11 THE WITNESS: in front of a Or lack thereof. Or lack thereof. I had a little bit of hair that day. 12 And we both were talking about what we were 13 going to do to our hair, and we made a comment to each 14 other that were jokes, and that was it. 15 So I can't speak to the exact nature of what was 16 said, but it was -- whatever was said was very innocent 17 by both parties. 18 BY MR. WOODSON: 19 Q. Okay. 20 her hair, 21 include, 22 A. And when you say you made a joke about I want to be clear that the joke did not "You ought to dye your hair." No, I know I never issued a directive or 23 anything along the lines of directing her that she 24 should go and dye her hair. 25 Q. Well, and if you said, "You ought to dye your Page 132 1 hair," that might not be seen as a directive but as sort 2 of a -­ 3 A. 4 I don't recall at all telling her that she ought to do anything. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. I don't recall specifically what we said to each 7 Do you deny saying it? other. Q. 8 All right. 9 Now let me broaden it. Do you remember ever saying to any employee, 10 whether it was Ms. Rockey, or someone else, 11 to dye your hair"? 12 A. I don't recall. 13 Q. Okay. "You ought Again, let me ask you to distinguish 14 between "I don't recall" with "I deny ever saying such a 15 thing." 16 A. I don't recall. 17 Q. All right. Are you aware that Ms. Rockey -- I'm 18 sorry -- Ms. Miller sent a letter of complaint about how 19 she was being treated at the District? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Have you read that letter? 22 A. Some time ago. 23 MR. WOODSON: All right. 24 what purports to be a copy of it. 25 it. Here it is. I want to show you Assuming I can find And I will mark it as Exhibit 4. Page 133 1 BY MR. WOODSON: 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. Urn 4 Q. Do you remember what -- you started to tell me 5 something about what she was hired to do. 6 sure I understood what you were talking about. 7 you do some sort of transition? 8 9 A. And I'm not Helped She was hired primarily to serve in a role to assist in the transition from public operations to 10 private operations, 11 agency with a high level of experience in transit. 12 Q. to support the other needs of the And do you remember her coming to you with a 13 good deal of background in the area that she was to be 14 utilized in? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And do you remember her accomplishing the goal 17 18 19 for which you hired her? A. I think NCTD accomplished a goal for -- of transitioning from public to private operations. 20 Q. While she was there? 21 A. I can't speak to the time period. NCTD 22 accomplished a goal of transitioning from public to 23 private operations. 24 25 Q. Okay. Did you have a lot of discussions with her about business-related matters, do you remember? Page 143 1 2 3 4 A. I had a -- I had lots of discussions with all of my chiefs, so I would assume I had lots of discussions. Q. Did you have many discussions with her about personal matters? 5 A. Could you restate the question? 6 Q. Sure. 7 Did you have many discussions with her about personal matters? 8 A. About personal matters? 9 Q. That is non-business-related matters. 10 A. I don't recall. 11 MR. WATSON: 12 MR. WOODSON: 13 14 15 "Personal" versus "personnel"? Yes. BY MR. WOODSON: Q. I'm sure you understood that I was not saying "personnel," right? 16 A. I assumed you said the latter, "personal." 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. I don't recall the specific discussions. You don't remember any such discussions? But 19 I'm sure that in the course of working close with Julie, 20 Julie and I happened to know each other well, and so I'm 21 sure we had some personal discussions. 22 Q. What do you mean you knew each other well? 23 A. We've known we've gotten to know each other 24 well from the point in time that she was hired. I 25 believe the last time I saw Julie, we had conversation. Page 144 1 Q. The last time you saw her was when? 2 A. Sometime late last year. 3 Q. Okay. 4 5 6 And do you remember joking with her quite a bit during the time that she was employed there? A. I do recall that Julie and I had a very good relationship. 7 Q. Which included joking with each other, right? 8 A. From time to time, yes. 9 Q. Did you tell her quite often that -- use the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 nickname "grandma" with her? A. I don't recall using the nickname "grandma" with her. Q. Do you remember telling her she was used up and a has-been? A. I don't recall specifically using those words in the discussion with Julie at all. 17 Q. Do you deny using them? 18 A. I don't deny using some form of some other words 19 in discussions, but I don't recall the exact format of 20 what you just presented. 21 22 23 Q. Why would you use that kind of language with her? A. Julie and I had a really good relationship. 24 Julie would make comments to me, and Julie liked to have 25 jokes. Page 145 1 2 Q. Did she use what might be seen by some as derogatory comments about you? 3 A. Absolutely. 4 Q. For example? 5 A. I 6 can't give the specifics, but if one were to know Julie, Julie likes to make comments. 7 Q. Derogatory comments. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. But you two were joking with each other; is that 10 what I understand from your 11 A. Again, my testimony is from My -- my Julie and I did 12 share jokes with each other. 13 during the time that we were having those conversations 14 was that Julie definitely did not have any negative 15 intent with any comment that she would say to me. 16 my feeling I could assume someone else maybe would 17 interpret it in a different way, 18 and I 19 way to be demeaning to me, nor any comment that I would 20 ever make to her would be intended to be demeaning to 21 her. 22 Q. but I knew her heart, knew it did not -- that it was not intended in any Do you know that Ms. Moeller, the plaintiff in 23 this case, has testified that Ms. Austin came to her at 24 some point and said something like you said to her, that 25 is, you said to Ms . Austin that she was just an old Page 146 1 used-up has-been and that Ms. Austin asked Ms. Moeller, 2 "Could that be seen as some form of sexual harassment?" Have you heard that Ms. Moeller gave that 3 4 testimony? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Okay. 7 8 Can you think of any reason that Ms. Moeller would make such a thing up? A. I -­ 9 MR. WATSON: 10 going against NCTD? Other than the lawsuit she has 11 MR. WOODSON: Well, that's an argument. 12 THE WITNESS: My comment would be I would not 13 understand why anyone would have -- if such a complaint 14 were ever in fact made, why that complaint would have 15 been lodged with the person responsible for recruitment. 16 BY MR. WOODSON: 17 18 19 Q. Except that she's HR, and you generally complain to HR, right? A. You would generally -- in an organization the 20 size of NCT D, given the structure, 21 report to the human resources manager. 22 Q. Okay. you would make that And Ms. Moeller's testimony actually is 23 is that she spoke to Ms. Arnold about it and does not 24 know what, if anything, Ms. Arnold did. 25 Does that make any impact on your view about the Page 147 1 2 testimony? A. My comment would be, during the period that I 3 worked with Ms. Arnold -- was that she was very direct 4 in her communications with me, and I would be extremely 5 surprised that anyone would make a report of that nature 6 to Ms. Arnold and Ms. Arnold would not communicate 7 directly with me or directly with the board if she had 8 concerns. 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q. What about if Ms. Austin said something like, well, if I have to make it formal, A. I forget about it? can't really respond to the speculation that you're providing me. Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to an employee named Susan Lockwood. Do you remember her? 15 A. Yes, 16 Q. Do you remember her function? 17 A. I believe she was in risk management, our 18 19 20 21 I do. insurance program. Q. Okay. Tell me in a nutshell version, again, junior high school, what risk management does. A. Well, the position was responsible for 22 administering our workers' compensation program. So 23 that would include our claims made by our bus operators, 24 mechanics, other employees, working through to 25 successfully close out those workers' comp, purchasing Page 148 1 transition because, particu l ar l y for us, 2 operating and impact to our customers and the fact that 3 we had made the commitment to our board and to the union 4 and to our employees that we would make sure the 5 employees had a successful transition. 6 Q. Well, from an from your perspective, would you say the 7 managers over the functions had more to do with the 8 choices of folks to layoff than you do? 9 A. Absolutely I would say that. 10 Q. Okay. 11 Ms. Moeller. 12 way? 13 A. No. Let me ask you pointblank about Were you involved in that decision in any With the exception of the fact that her 14 direct supervisor, Jane Arnold, met with me, along with 15 Richard Hannasch, after the decision had already been 16 made by that department to layoff Ms. Moeller. 17 that was my first reference and actually recollection of 18 her name. And 19 And Ms. Arnold had requested that Ms. Moeller be 20 allowed to stay for an additional six months so that she 21 could support the work of the transition as well as 22 vesting in PERS. 23 MR. WATSON: 24 THE WITNESS: 25 PERS, P-E-R-S, capitals. Mr. Hannasch was opposed to that recommendation. Page 106 1 I trusted Ms. Arnold's judgment in terms of the 2 amount of work that would be required from an HR point 3 of view to effect the scale of the transitions that were 4 taking place. 5 authorized her to do so. 6 BY MR. WOODSON: 7 8 Q. But Ms. Arnold was not even employed in the year Ms. Moeller was laid off. 9 10 So I supported a recommendation and A. The decision, Did you know that? from what I recall, for Ms. Moeller to be laid off was made years in advance 11 Q. Ahh. 12 A. -- in terms of when I -- when we received the 13 initial report from the department managers -- and 14 again, I don't recall knowing Ms. Moeller -­ 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. -- until the point in time that Ms. Arnold came 17 to me as part of the list that they had developed. So keep in mind, 18 19 I am the new guy. I don't know these specific employees. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. So I did not know specifically who she had on 22 the list and who she did not. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. Ms. Arnold, as the HR manager, 25 me, spent time with communicated with me, because we were also involved Page 107 1 in labor negotiations with the union. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. So in the course of her doing her normal routine 4 meeting, she made this request to me. 5 Ms. Moeller one way or the other. I did not know 6 Q. Understood. 7 A. I was just asked, because it appeared to me that 8 Ms. Moeller was interested in elevating -- I mean, 9 pardon me, Ms. Arnold was interested in elevating the 10 question to me 11 THE REPORTER: 12 THE WITNESS: Slow down just a little bit. Okay. Ms. Arnold was elevating 13 this issue beyond her supervisor, Mr. Hannasch, directly 14 to me, 15 NCTD by six months. 16 BY MR. WOODSON: to appeal to me to extend Ms. Moeller's time with 17 Q. And you approved that. 18 A. And I approved that. 19 Q. Now, however, we know Ms. Moeller was not laid 20 off until December of 2011, right? And this discussion 21 you say occurred years before then, right? 22 MR. WATSON: 23 THE WITNESS: No. Misstates his testimony. My my statement to you is 24 and again, I don't know the time frame for which 25 Ms. Moeller was supposed to be laid off. I cannot speak Page 108 1 to that. 2 BY MR. WOODSON: 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. I did not know who Ms. Moeller was. 5 Q. All right. 6 A. I received a request from her supervisor to 7 extend her time period by six months. 8 Q. I understand that part. 9 A. That is what I approved. 10 Q. But my understanding from the actual documents 11 is that Ms. Arnold was out of there a couple of years 12 before Ms. Moeller was laid off. 13 correct to you or not? Does that sound 14 A. I can't speak to the time frame. 15 Q. All right. 16 17 18 19 And Mr. Hannasch, you say, was against laying off Ms. Moeller. A. Was against allowing her to have the extended six-month period. Q. Okay. So he was -- basically, if I can cut to 20 the chase, he was in favor of laying her off sooner 21 rather than later. 22 23 24 25 A. As -- he was in favor of maintaining the schedule of laying Ms. Moeller as originally presented. Q. Okay. And as far as you knew, you had never met Ms. Moeller as of that point? Page 109 A. 1 I could not recall who Jini was. 2 was very new. 3 even had been introduced to her; Q. 4 5 And again, I'm sure I may have passed her or maybe I don't recall. When you say you were very new, do you mean this occurred in 2009? 6 A. I believe this conversation occurred in 2009. 7 Q. Okay. 8 2009-­ 9 And so the idea was within six months of MR. WATSON: 10 THE WITNESS: 11 MR. WATSON: 12 I No. No. Misstates his testimony. BY MR. WOODSON: 13 Q. When was she to be laid off? 14 A. No, you're misstating -- my comment was I can't 15 recall the specific date that the layoff was going to 16 occur. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. Okay. And, in general, again, milestones for 19 me, 20 layoff being effected in terms of when were the bus 21 operators being separated from the District? 22 in terms of layoff, I will go back to, was the So a conversation with me in 2009, like in my 23 mindset, would have been that that person would have 24 carried through, assuming that their transition would 25 occur at the same time that the bus operation would be Page 110 1 2 testimony? A. My comment would be, during the period that I 3 worked with Ms. Arnold -- was that she was very direct 4 in her communications with me, and I would be extremely 5 surprised that anyone would make a report of that nature 6 to Ms. Arnold and Ms. Arnold would not communicate 7 directly with me or directly with the board if she had 8 concerns. 9 Q. 10 well, 11 A. 12 13 14 What about if Ms. Austin said something like, if I have to make it formal, I forget about it? can't really respond to the speculation that you're providing me. Q. Okay. Let me direct your attention to an employee named Susan Lockwood. Do you remember her? 15 A. Yes, I do. 16 Q. Do you remember her function? 17 A. I believe she was in risk management, our 18 19 20 21 insurance program. Q. Okay. Tell me in a nutshell version, again, junior high school, what risk management does. A. Well, the position was responsible for 22 administering our workers' compensation program. So 23 that would include our claims made by our bus operators, 24 mechanics, other employees, working through to 25 successfully close out those workers' comp, purchasing Page 148 1 the insurance that was associated with our facilities 2 and operations. 3 4 Those are the kinds of activities she would have been primarily focused on. 5 Q. Okay. And then let me direct your attention to 6 an employee named Wayne Penn. What was his position at 7 or around the time that Ms. Lockwood was the risk 8 management lady? 9 A. He was responsible for safety. 10 Q. "Safety" being, broad stroke, all safety matters 11 related to something? 12 13 A. From what I can glean and recall, it was totally focused just on rail. 14 Q. Okay. And did the two functions, Ms. Lockwoods' 15 and Mr. 16 where they overlapped with each other, or no? 17 18 A. Penn's, have some area where the two coalesced, Organizationally, from what I recall, is that the functions were always separate. 19 Q. Okay. Did you at some point tell Ms. Lockwood 20 something like, 21 chart, and I'm going to make you interim supervisor over 22 Mr. 23 Ms. Lockwood? 24 25 Penn? A. I'm going to publish a new organization Did you ever say anything like that to I don't ever recall having any conversation of that nature with Ms. Lockwood. Page 149 1 Q. Okay. But in 2011, did you tell Mr. Hannasch 2 something like, "No, I'm not gonna lay Vigil off. 3 laying Jini Moeller off," and Mr. Hannasch asks you, 4 "Why Jini Moeller?" and you said to Mr. Hannasch, 5 not a team player." 6 A. 7 that. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. I do deny making such a comment. I'm "She's I never remember making any comment close to Do you deny making such a comment? And I don't 10 really ever recall having conversation with Mr. Hannasch 11 where he was advocating at any point for anything 12 relative to Ms. Moeller. 13 MR. WOODSON: 14 (Exhibit 5 was marked.) 15 THE REPORTER: 16 MR. WOODSON: 17 (Recess taken.) 18 19 Okay. This will be plaintiff's 5. Can we take a break, counsel? Sure. Absolutely. BY MR. WOODSON: Q. All right. Mr. Tucker, we're back on the 20 record. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. I just marked Exhibit 5, and let me just ask you 23 24 25 You understand you're still under oath? to identify that for us, please. A. It's a communication to Ms. Moeller, informing her of her layoff date. Page 165 NORTH coum SIT DISTRICT Aedons fro 8 O&tOb 13, 1811 Ralular Board aadng Board Membn Chrts Orfando Ch./r City of San Marcos Bill Hom BOARD WORKSHOP: W1. Status of Mobility Plan Service Change Impl'ementation - Due to time constraints, the Workshop was not held. The Board will receive a copy of the presentation and a workshop will be held next quarter. Vtce-Ch,ir County of San Diego Merle Packard City of Carlsbad MsrleFllanc City of Del M8I' Jerome Stocks CIty of Encinff,s Ed Gal/O City of Escondido Jim Wood City of Oceanside Dave Roberls City of Solana Beach Sieve Gronke City of Vista &ecutlvt Director/CEQ Matthew O. Tucker General Counsel Paula de Sousa Upcoming Meetings: CONSENT ITEMS: 1. Sole Source On-Call Engineering Services Contract - The Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to: 1) Extend the on-call engineering services contracts of RallPms, HNTB, PDC, BRG and HDR to December 2012. 2. Oceanside Transit Center Remodel Project - The Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to Issue a change order to contract 1,1016-0S in an amount not-te-exceed $372,489, to complete the remodel of the Oceanside Transit Center. 3. Extra-Work Task Order to TransitAmerica Services Inc. - The Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to Issue an extra work task order in an amount not-to-exceed $220,000 to TASI for the removal of industrial turnouts located at the Dickerhoff Spur in Sorrento Valley and the Convair Spur in San Diego and the rebuilding of the turnout located at the San Diego Gas and Electric Spur in Cansbad on the Coastal Rail Line. 4. Approve New Personnel Ordinance - The Board of Directors adopted, Ordinance No.4, which rescinds Ordinance No. 1-78, as amended, Establishes a personnel Merit System, Establishes the AuthOrity and Duties of the Executive Director, and Authorized the Executive Director to rescind and replace Resolution No. 78-1'4. as amended, Resolution 00-05, as amended, and the Compensation Policy and the Compensation Philosophy. by implementing upon completion. a new set Of personnel system rules and regulations (Employee Handbook) that will be effective the first payroll period ,in 2012 which begins December 25. 2011. 5. FY 2012 Non-Represented Employee Classification and Compensation Schedule - The Board of Directors authorized and approved the FY 2012 Executive Non-Represented Classification and Compensation Schedute. Committee Meeting: 11/3/11 at 8:00 am 6. Sole Source Increase and Time Extension to 10003-0$, The Robert Half International IT Staffing Agreement - The Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to Issue a sole source Supplemental Agreement to Board Meeting: increase the value of 10003-05 with Robert Half International (RHI) by 11/17/11 at 2:00 pm $156,000 and to extend the period of performance by one year. A .1f EXHIBIT Meetlng Date: 10/13/11 Z:;:­ DeponentJ'i J, c....\I...r.> r Date2:.\d.:lsRPtr.~ WWW.llBPoIlOQk.OC»( · 7. Exercise Option to Macro Corporation to Prepare Detailed Conceptual Design for Consolidated Transportation and Security Operations Control Center - The Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to exercise an option to the Agreement with MACRO Corporation In a not-to­ exceed amount of $90,000 to prepare a detailed conceptual design for a consolidated transportation and security operations control center. S. Authorize Award for ConstrucUon Management Software Package - The Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to execute a contract In an amount not-to-exceed $200,000 with the finn whose proposal, confonning to the requirements of the RFP, is detennined to be the overall best value to the district. 9. Sole Source Increase Contract Value of 6029-05 to Pacific Railway Enterprises - The Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to increase the contract with Pacific Railway Enterprises (PRE) from $2 million to $5 million for non-reimbursable work. 10. FY 2012 - 1st Quarter Update on Positive Train Control Project - The Board of Directors received a quarteriy report on the Positive Train Control (PTC) Project. I OTHER BUSINESS: . 11. Calendar Year 2012 Chair and Vice-Chair Selectlon Committee - The Board of Directors approved the selection committee for nominating the Chair and Vice-Chair for 2012. INFORMA1l0N ITEMS: 12. Ridership and Perfonnance Update - The Board of Directors received the Ridership and Perfonnance Update. 13. Legislative Updates - The Board of Directors received a report and discussed Legislative matters. STAFF'S ACTION ITEMS: Staff will provide the Board with a copy of the powerpoint presentation related to the Mobility Plan Service Change Implementation. Jim Wood invited the Marketing department representatives to present to the Oceanside City Council information related to supplementing and/or paying for employee transit pass fees. Mark Packard requested staff send infonnation to each city related to railroad work on the coastal corridor. Meeting Date: 10/13/11 2 Meeting Date: 10/13/11 9.5 Meetan Date: 10113111 Policy No. 19 Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director Summary This poficy establishes delegation of authority from the Board to the Executive Director. As a recipient of public funds, NCTD is responsible for ensuring proper expenditure of funds for public purposes for which they are intended , adherence to aU applicable standards as established by federal and state law. regulations issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and full and open competition and equitable treatment of all potential sources In the procurement process. NCTD establishes the following delegation of authority to the Executive Director: General Responsibilities The Executive Director may: 1. Delegate functions delegated by the Board, to NCTD staff when necessary. 2. Execute a contract or contact change order within the parameters of the law and Board direction. 3. Ensure that written contracts and procurement procedures are developed in accordance with FTA requirements delineated in the most current version of FTA Circular 4220, the FTA Best Practices Manual, Callfomla Public Utilities Code Sections 125222, 125223, and 125224, and the California Public Contract Code Sections 20350 et seq. 4. Approve revisions to contracts and procurement pOlicies and procedures with the exception of procurement polices established in this resolution. 5. In the event of emergency or an exigent circumstance, take all necessary actions to prevent Significant unnecessary loss to NCTD or a shut-down of public services, or to address a situation threatening the health or safety of persons or property, including, but not limited to, authorization to contract with a contractor or consultant on a sole source basis, consistent with applicable state or federal law without prior approval from the Board. In the event such an emergency or urgent need occurs, the Executive Director will consult with the Chair of the Board, promptly communicate all actions taken to the Board members. and submit a report to the Board at Its next regular meeting in order to obtain ratification for those actions, in accordance with, all applicable prOvisions of law, including but not limited to the requirements of California Public Contract Code Section 22050. 6. Approve all design plans, improvement projects. specifications, and estimates for authorized capital :<.5 Policy No. 19 - Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director (continued) 7. Execute all right-of-way property transfer documents, Including, but not limited to, rights of entry. licenses. leases, deeds, easements, escrow instructions, and certificates of acceptance. 8. Reject all bids or proposals and suspend the competitive procurement process. 9. Provide the final detennination to persons or finns filing a protest regarding NCTD's procurement or contracting process or procedures. 10. Accept reimbursement from any entity for services perfonned by District personnel or from other public agencies granted the use of District on-call contracts. 11. Award a contract if the initial contract value does not exceed $100,000 and Is consistent with the Board-adopted budget. 12. Amend a contract of any value consistent with the Board adopted budget if the amendment does not exceed $50,000, singular or cumulative value, and if the amendment does not involve a major change in scope unless the amendment costs are reimbursable by a third party and an agreement for reimbursement is In place, in which event, the amendment may be of any value. 13. Not amend a contract which was originally awarded at a value of $100,000 or less if the amendment increases the contract value over $100,000 in value or authorize the award of a task order under an on-call contract if the value of the task order exceeds $100,000. 14. Report contract amendments made in accordance with item 12 to the Board of Directors on a quarterly basis. 15. Award extra task purchase orders to any purchased transportation contractor for work which was not covered under the basic scope of the contract, val'ued at not more than $50,000 and with an annual aggregate total not to exceed $200,000. 16. Award contracts or purchase orders of any value when District funds are reimbursed by a third party, the procurement was conducted in accordance with approved procedures, and an agreement for District reimbursement is in place. 17. Sign a memorandum of understand. memorandum of agreement, or interagency agreement along with general counsel and the respective Division Chief if the document involves ministerial business transactions and if the annual committed value does not exceed $100,000 or, regardless of the value. if the expenditure of District funds is reimbursable. Accept a contract for services of District staff of any value If the services are reimbursable. 18. In accordance with Section 935.4 of the California Government Code, approve settlements for liability and workers compensation claims that do not exceed $50,000 and forward a claim of any amount to the Board of Directors for consideration and action as may be appropriate. 2 Date adopted: October 18, 2012 L.8St revised: NJA Policy No. 19 - Delegation of Authority to the Executive DIrector (contInued) 19. Execute all documents required by any local, state, or federal agency that provide operating or capital funds for District use, including, but not limited to, TDA claims, STA claims, RTIP submittals, and FTA grant applications. Other Duties and Responsibilities The Executive Director shall be responsible for management of all aspects of NCTD operations on a day to day basis, subject only to the policy direction of the Board. The Executive Director's duties and responsibilities shall include: 1. Supervision of all department heads, departments, and employees (except for general counsel who reports directly to the Board) including sole authority, except as the Executive Director may delegate to staff, to hire and terminate NCTD employees in accordance with applicable law and NCTD poliCies, rules, and regulations; 2. Responsibility for overall management of employee relations matters; 3. .Establishment of a proposed set of short-range goals and a proposed action plan for developing and Implementing medium- and longer-term goals for the organization, to be presented to the Board for review and consideration annually. 4. Assisting the Board in community and public relations matters; 5. Monitoring, managing, and overseeing the District budget and the District's revenues and expenses; 6. Overseeing timely development and presentation to the Board of annual proposed budgets; 7. Assuming overall responsibility for management of staff and In guiding NCTD towards its Board-approved goals; 8. Assuring that NCTD's financial affairs are properly managed, accounted for, and audited. and that appropriate reports thereon are made to the Board and to others as required by law; 9. Conferring with legislative liaisons regarding legislative matters; monitoring, reporting on, and making recommendations on legislative activities; 10. Attending all regular and special meetings of the Board and of Board committees and subcommittees as requested. assuming overall responsibility for p reparation and presentation of all agendas and staff reports; 11. Meeting with the city councils and managers of each of the member agencies of NCTD, and with the County Board of Supervisors and its Chief Administrative Officer; 12. Representing the Board and staff in contacts and communications with the public, member agencies. and other outside agencies and organizations with respect to transit matters and NCTD issues. within the scope of Board policies and programs; 3 Date adopted: October 18. 2012 Last revised: N/A ~.7 Policy No. 19 - Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director (continued) 13. Such other and further activities as the Board may from time to time direct; 14. Such other and further activities as the Executive Director detennines necessary to competently and professionally carry out his job. For additional infonnation on the Executive Director's responsibilities, please refer to NeTD's Ordinance Number 4. APP~ Boa cf)Jkr- Id/tV20/~ hair/Da -Ex-ec-u~-"ve--"D"'-ire-c'-';ttH-~---c--=O~Y~---/6-T/~L~~'~ /2-­ I() .. J$-,b/~ Date 4 Date adopted: October 18, 2012 Last rlIvlsed: NlA NORTH COUNTY TRANSit DISTRICT Board Policy No. 19 Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director Summary This policy establishes delegation of authority from the Board to the Executive Director. As a recipient of public funds. NCTD is responsible for ensuring proper expenditure of funds for public purposes for which they are intended. adherence to all applicable standards as established by federal and state law. regulations issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). and full and open competition and equitable treatment of all potential sources in the procurement process. NCTD establishes the following delegation of authority to the Executive Director: General Responsibilities The Executive Director may: 1. Delegate functions delegated by the Board. to NCTD staff when necessary. 2. Execute a contract or contract change order within the parameters of the law and Board direction. 3. Ensure that written contracts and procurement procedures are developed in accordance with FTA requirements delineated in the most current version of FTA Circular 4220, the FTA Best Practices Manual. Califomia Public Utilities Code Sections 125222, 125223. and 125224, and the California Public Contract Code Sections 20350 et seq. 4. Approve revisions to contracts and procurement pOlicies and procedures with the exception of procurement polices established in this resolution. 5. In the event of emergency or an exigent circumstance. take all necessary actions to prevent significant unnecessary loss to NeTD or a shut-down of public services, or to address a situation threatening the health or safety of persons or property, including. but not limited to, authorization to contract with a contractor or consultant on a sole source basiS, consistent with applicable state or federal law without prior approval from the Board. In the event such an emergency or urgent need occurs, the Executive Director will consult with the Chair of the Board, promptly communicate all actions taken to the Board members, and submIt a report to the Board at its next regular meeting in order to obtain ratification for those actions. in accordance with all applicable provisions of law, including but not limited to the requirements of Califomia Public Contract Code Section 22050. 6. Approve all design plans, improvement projects. Date adopted: October 18. 2012 Last revised: October 17, 2013 specifications, and estimates for authorized capital Board Policy No. 19 - Delegation of Authority to the ExecutIve Director (continued) 7. Execute all right-of-way property transfer documents, including, but not limited to, rights of entry, licenses, leases, deeds, easements, escrow instructions, and certificates of acceptance. 8. Reject all bids or proposals and suspend the competitive procurement process. 9. Provide the final determination to persons or firms filing a protest regarding NCTD's procurement or contracting process or procedures. 10. Accept reimbursement from any entity for services performed by District personnel or from other public agencies granted the use of District on-call contracts. 11. Award a contract if the initiall contract value does not exceed $100,000 and is consistent with the ,Board-adopted budget. 12. Amend a contract of any value consistent with the Board adopted budget if the amendment does not exceed $50,000, singular or cumulative value, and if the amendment does not involve a major change in scope unless the amendment costs are reimbursable by a third party and an agreement for reimbursement is in place, in which event. the amendment may be of any value. 13. Not amend a contract which was originally awarded at a value of $100,000 or less If the amendment increases the contract value over $100,000 in value or authorize the award of a task order under an on-call contract if the value of the task order exceeds $100.000. 14. Report contract amendments made in accordance with item 12 to the Board of Directors on a quarterly basis. 15, Award extra task purchase orders to any purchased transportation contractor for work which was not covered under the basic scope of the contract, valued at not more than $50,000 and with an annual aggregate total not to exceed $200,000. 16. Award contracts or purchase orders of any value when District funds are reimbursed by a third party, the procurement was conducted in accordance with approved procedures, and an agreement for District reimbursement is in place. 17. Sign a memorandum of understand, memorandum of agreement, or interagency agreement along with general counsel, and the respective Division Chief if the document involves ministerial business transactions and if the annual committed va'lue does not exceed $100,000 or, regardless of the value, if the expenditure of District funds is reimbursable. Accept a contract for services of District staff of any value if the services are reimbursable. 18.ln accordance with Section 935.4 of the Califomia Govemment Code, approve settlements for liability and workers compensation claims that do not exceed $50,000 and forward a claim of any amount to the Board of Directors for consideration and action as may be appropriate. 2 Date adopted: October 18, 2012 Last revised: October 17, 2013 Q . \0 Board Policy No. 19 - Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director (continued) 19. Execute all documents required by any local, state, or federal agency that provide operating or capital funds for District use, including, but not limited to, TDA claims, STA claims, RTIP submittals, and FTA grant applications. 20. Award licensing. maintenance or support contract renewals for hardware or software to extend the coverage period from the original equipment manufacturer for an amount not to exceed $100,000 per item per year being renewed. This applies to hardware or software licensing, maintenance or support agreements previously procured according to standard and approved procedures. Other Duties and Responsibilities The Executive Director shall be responsible for management of all aspects of NCTD operations on a day to day basis, subject only to the policy direction of the Board. The Executive Director's duties and responsibilities shall include: 1.. Supervision of all department heads, departments, and employees (except for general counsel who reports directly to the Board) including sole authority, except as the Executive Director may delegate to staff. to hire and terminate NCTD employees in accordance with applicable law and NCTD policies, rules, and regulations; 2. Responsibility for overall management of employee relations matters; 3. Establishment of a proposed set of short-range goals and a proposed action plan for developing and implementing medium- and longer-term goals for the organization, to be presented to the Board for review and consideration annually. 4. Assisting the Board in community and public relations matters; 5. Monitoring, managing, and overseeing the District budget and the District's revenues and expenses; 6. Overseeing timely development and presentation to the Board of annual proposed budgets; 7. Assuming overall responsibility for management of staff and in guiding NCTD towards its Board-approved goals; 8. Assuring that NCTD's financial affairs are properly managed, accounted for, and audited, and that appropriate reports thereon are made to the Board and to others as required by law; 9. Conferring with legislative liaisons regarding legislative matters; monitoring, reporting on, and making recommendations on legislative activities; 10. Attending all regular and special meetings of the Board and of Board committees and subcommittees as requested, assuming overall responsibility for preparation and presentation of all agendas and staff reports; 3 Date adopted: October 18, 2012 Last revised: October 17, 2475,024 5,833.788 ! 90,470,437 1.000.1m l,lm,lm 5,738,m $ 95,586,871 $ U,l78,677 1,000000 ~731,~ l,lm,ooo'S 1"OOO,Im $ $ (5,738,!S11 Adu.n 7.1" 13.2l6 -82.6% -100.0% DETAIL Rlrwnues Passen~r Fare. Othlr Oper.ltlna Revenues Subtotal epe...u". ""...nue TDASlle.T.. Tnmsnel ITA STA Other State and Federal SubtoCaI Grams Revenue Investment InCX)lTle Galn/(toss)on Disposal of Capital Assets SulIWIaI Nan-Opemina ""ven_ TOTAl. REV£HUES EXPENSES Salaries & WIP' Employ•• Benefits Wolters' Compensation Insurllnce Profe»lonai Services Materials & Supplies Utilities Casualty & liability Tae5 Purdlased Transportation Advertlsl", & Mlsallaneous Expense Redass/Relmbursements Debt Service lease. & Rental. toTAL EXPENSES ...,.... COntInpncy ANNUAL SUPl.US (DEFICTT) ""0111 5/(0) Conltngency ANNUAL SUPW5 (DEFICT1) ~98J,75Z 25,091,968 9,772,OIi1 17,361,'3D7 2,972,551 227,759 55,431\646 5Z.AI7,79!I 3O,U7,7!M !2.31U,OII5! 23,462,971 11,OU,258 16,716,6(8 6,243,365 31,644,678 11,484,1m 12,342,039 5,771.888 36,227,563 11,484,000 l.2,875,5811 5,771,888 12.764,592 471,742 (3,841,0201 (471,477) S1c!B:IIl1 57,C35,202 61,2>42,605 66,359,019 s,m,m 110,038 110,038 1lO,IB8 uo,038 91,410,437 ~5II6,IJ11 5,4.1~V46 7.1" 7,634,,436 8,53l,m 4,641,891 1.874,992 1.348,042 28.2l6 35.5" .1D.DjC; 4.1,824,121 5,146,943 225,1m 19,396,868 B,787,SlA 2,082.845 3,450,n7 592,OOS 44,907,170 839,D1D 839,01D 157,DlS !19c!!!1) 3)2,564 m,16t 1.40,875 83,249 nA,UA !!;745,962 81,894,1i91 9O,W,125 l,299,UO 463,830 (503,259J 1,4Ol,264 455,849 540,187 6,656,785 3,798,901 2SO,O!I4 16,2Il2,921 6,748,677 1.836,534 3,224,256 416,640 43,061,001 805,178 (309,738) 1,194,470 516,476 71,543,001 8O,9Z1,4116 14,4OI,lM ~1'0,437 6,1Il,9545 7,9I!6,195 5;7!I,931 1,000.000 9,199,1J76 S,882,270 6,596,288 3,805,815 896,242 3,447,779 1A.622,® 6,728,351 1.740,m 2,n1,246 4(fI,rn 39,670,822 422,423 (273,672) 384,274 2.()'l(; 1D.822.794 $ (2,754,2791 -20.3% -7.3% ~969 189,199 143,365 12.568,644 6,385,819 1,684,301 2,315,546 455,n4 34,557,645 19,295,1m 22S,1m 17,995,615 8,902,192 2.061,325 3,450,717 569,108 (1OO,1m) 1,212.500 514,522 11.4DD, ' 0.0 2.0 5.0 16.5 22.0 30.0 4.0, 4.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 5.5. 4.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 22.0 "18.0 18.0 ' 18.0 15.0 15.0 6.0 16.0 ',:u:. ~ 20;0 ;,;', ,; f ~O ' Contracts and Procurerrent I '~ 5:0 5.0 " 5.0 5.0 5:0 5.0 CormUllcations and Business Dewbpment ;:' ~ ".· 23.0 22.5 24.5 24.0 23;0 15.0 9.8 14.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 11.0 Real Estate Rail Ser.1ces Capital ProjeCt Construction •. ,-:oa 2.0 10.0 DC 11.5 12.5 12.0 11.0 8;0 9.0 ' .0 14.0 12.0 0.0: 0.0 0.0: General Management To12l 606.0 61 5.0 5.0 613.5 599.0 0.0 : 4.0 4.0 9.0 11.0 14.0 151 .0 Source: Nero Budget DocUlTl6nts Nole 1: As II result of SlIverlll organizational structure ch, -, s, prior data has been restated to make it compM8b1e to the current ye/lr. Reeders of this schedule should be aware tit, . .. comparison of the informlltion cants/ned llbove does not lend itself to compllrison wfth previously published budget . ments. Note 2: PrIor to June 30, 2010, Nero direclly employ8d C First Transit to assume responsibifily for staffing bus operate 1 operators. Effective July 1, 2010, Nero contracted with ,~. Note 3: Prior to June 30, 2011, NerD directly employed ·_·; h·,:/e and fecility employees. Effective July 1, 2011, NCro contrac1ed'M1h First Transit to assume responsibifily for staft . Ihe Vehicle Malntenance and Facility Weintenance. 3,G r September 12,2012 Ms. Karen Tu~skl Manager of Human Resourc&s North County T'ran$ll DislIfct 610 Mission Avenue OceanSIde. CA 92054 Ro: Re$lgnatJon Ms. TucholskL I want 10 II:sI thank the Board ror the opportunity to wOO; for the constl1uenb of North County. I feel fhat a1t6r live )"&MS. we made II mar1 Companies> Transportation ::> KL Executiye Search. LLC > Job: Manager of Human Resources Job: Manager of Human Resources x Send Message to KL Executive Search, LLC From Personal Message ~ This posting has expired and is no longer available. Browse Similar Jobs: Human Resources - Generalists Human Resources - Management Human Resources RecruitroentlStaffine Human Resources - ALL CATEGORIES Jobing Description httD:J/sandieao.loonQ.com/manaqer·of-hlrn arHesourcesflolY3206OO2 If you see this field leave it blank. [S"end I Your email has been sent! 113 M!WIQ8I' of Human Reecuce5 Job 31412015 Kl. Executive Search, on behalf of its client, North County Transit District (NCTD) in Oceanside California is recruiting an experienced and skilled HR professional to serve as NCTDs Manager of Human Resources. Reporting to the Chief Financial Officer, the HR Manager is responsible for all aspects of human resources including recruitment, compensation and benefits, employment, training and development, EEOC and the organizations drug and alcohol testing program and employee services. Also supports labor relations functions ofNCTD. NCTD is looking for a strong "hands-on" manager capable of motivating and leading a staff of four (4) professionals. NCTD seIVices are a vital part of the San Diego regional transportation network. NCTD moves more than 12 million passengers annually by providing public transportation for North San Diego County. The family of transit services includes the BREEZE bus system, the COASTER commuter rail service, the SPRINTER light rail line and the LIFf Paratransit system. NCTD employs nearly 700 people, including more than 100 direct employees and nearly 600 contract employees. Skills I Requirements Bachelors Degree in business administration, human resources management or a related field. Ten years experience as a human resources professional including five years as a manager. Equivalent combinations of education and experience may be acceptable. Sa1lary and benefits are attractive and NCTD offers excellent opportunities for growth and development. Close this window Contact Us 3019464445 3019460455 fax Send Message Open Jobs This company does not have more jobs Work at Home ­ No Fee weeklymarks.com $37-$47/hr Real Work at home Job Requirements: Must Have Computer. Jobs (Hiring Now) jobsinyourarea.co 892 Jobs Available In Your Area. Eam $8 - $65 per Hour. Hiring Now! Oil & Gas Industry Jobs rlgzone.com Important Notes If you would like to be considered please e-mail your resume with a letter of interest to KL Executive Search, LLC Tel: 301-946-4445 Email: Browse Oil & Gas Industry Jobs. Upload Your Resume Today! US Postal Jobs (Hiring) postalexam473.com Starting Salary Is $51,000 a Year. No Experience Necessary. Start Now! Apply Online careerboutlque.com Complete Your Online Application Today. Start Your New J ob Tomorrow! htIn:ffMnrliMn.ldli rlIl.com/mar.aoer-of-hum an-resourcesJiobl3206002 2/3 r 31412015 MlI18g6r at HLman ResotJ'Ce5 Job Jobs For Seniors candofinance.com/SeniorEmployment Senior Employment Opportunities. Find Companies Hiring Now! • about us careers ~ advertise • • partners privacy ~ protect yowself ~ ©1999-2015 Jobing.com, LLC. All rights reserved. • Share This Page Jobing.con1 Login Don't Have An Account? Sign up. Email • Enter Email... Password • Enter Password ... Forgot password? Need Help? Share This Page ~412015 Job Buletin NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Invites applications for the position of: NORTH COUNTY TRANS" DISTRICT Human Resources Generalist SALARY: $26.99 - $40.48 Hourly $4,677.40 - $7,016.10 IMonthly $56,128.80 - $84,193.20 Annually OPENING DATE: 09/19/13 CLOSING DATE: 10/13/1311:59 PM DESCRIPTION: DEFINITION The Human Resources Generalist perfonns a variety of professional level administrative, technical and analytical duties in support of District Human Resource functions Including: recruitment, benefits administration, employee relations, training, recordkeeping/administration, and general human resource activities. All duties are to be performed, at the highest level of quellty, and with emphasis on providing exceptional service to intemal and extemal customers. Distinguishing Charactedst!cs This position is distinguished by the perfonnanca of a full range of professional human resource duties as assigned, worit'.V nrNRI'ml Antiobs.com/nctdldefaul t.cfm?acti on: ioobulleli n&J 001 D= 729814 1/2 31412015 Job BLJIe!in c·ctttrc,f!s/Uc.nlts PHR CertifICation desired, but not required. Possession of and the ability to maintain a Califomla driver's :lIcense, Class C, and a satisfactory driving record for the last nve years. Maintain compliance with the District's poUcy regarding Connlct of Interest and Ethics. Gena,,1 Raqulrements Strong knowtedge of principles and practices of human resource administration in the areas of employment, compensation, benefits, employee relations, and training. Experience wor1etid Interests Try Premium tor free . ' ,Ill Human Resources Generalist Get ahead with Job Seeker Premium North County Transit District - Greater San Diego Area .. Get salary range for thiS Job See whO's viewing yo", profile Posted .';27 days " g., Other Details Start your fre. trial B Job description DEFINITION The Human Resources Generalist performs a veriety of professional level admlnlstrntiv8, technical and analytical duties in support 01 District Human Resource functions Including: recruitment, benefits administration, employee relations. training, recorokaeplng/edministration, end general human resource activities . All du1les are to be performed at the highest level' of quality, and with emphasis on providing exceptional service to intemal and external' customers . How's your Job search experience on Llnkedln? S.ndf••dbac:k Shant the opportunity Know someone who would be Interested in this Job? Share It with your nelmrk. DistinguIshing CharactaristJC3 This posilioo is distinguished by the performence of a full range of professional ht.rnan resource duties as assigned. worl.\JSl:!A Posl8d 11 d a,,; agl1 Greater San Diego Area Posted 12 days ago ' .... ~IL Sr Human Rr.sources Generaliat SenIor Human Resources Genar"lIst Greater New YOOI City. PosleIOIJ 21 oay. "go t-11~~ . lnlUport Chattanooga, Tennessee. m~ W:r;tlil1utor) D. C Metro Human RfHlourcea Generalist Coventry PO$led 12 deys ego Posted 28 days ago Human ResourC8S Generalist Human Resources Generalist - Bilingual Lexington. Kentucky Area Posled 11 days ago i~sbm Sacramento, CA Posted 26 days ago View all Jobs like this' About Careers AdV'lrtising Linked I" COfporation f!:) 2015 Tailln! Solutions User Agreemenl hIfno; ·/Iwww.llnkP.Clin.comllobs2lvlewf7445311 Sales ~uijons Privacy Policy Small Business M Choices Mobile Language Community GUIdelines Upgrad 1 to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After 2 , a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged documents have located. 3 ,' Responding Party is informed and believes that responsive non-privileged documents have never 4 existed. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 6 Any and all DOCUMENTS that reflect or relate to any statements made by any PERSON 7 relating to any allegations of harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation reasonably construed as 8 being based on gender and/or age, made by PLAINTIFF at any time, including but not limited to 9 written statements of witnesses, notes of interviews with witnesses, tape recordings of any and all 10 . oral statements and/or interview of witnesses, transcriptions of any tape recordings of any and all 11 oral statements and/or interview of witnesses, reports regarding the results of any and all 12 I investigations and/or correspondence. 13 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 14 Objection. The nwnber of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 15 the sole purpose of harassing Responding party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impermissibly 16 compound. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Subject 17 to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After 18 a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged documents have located. 19 Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive non-privileged documents have never 20 existed. 21 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All DOCUMENTS that evidence, support, refer or relate to YOUR contention, if any, that 23 YOU conducted an adequate investigation into the complaints or allegations PLAINTIFF has 24 made of discrimination and/or retaliation. 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 26 Obj ection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 27 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impermissibly ~EWlS BRISBOIS BlSGAAAD &!MIHUP AITOIM'I' AI "'" 28 compound. Incorrectly assumes facts. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCf'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c::. Ll 1 product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 2 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged 3 documents have located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive non­ 4 privileged documents have never existed. 5 I REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15 6 All DOCUMENTS that evidence, relate or refer to any witness interviews conducted 7 during YOUR investigation into the complaints or allegations PLAINTIFF made ofharassment, 8 discrimination and/or retaliation. , 9 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: ! 10 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 11 the sole purpose ofharassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impennissibly 12 compound. Incorrectly assumes facts. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work 13 product doctrine. SUbject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 14 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged 15 docwnents have located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive non­ 16 . privileged documents have never existed. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All DOCUMENTS that evidence, relate or refer to any factual findings made in connection 18 19 with YOUR investigation into PLNNTIFF'S complaints or allegations of harassment, 20 . discrimination and/or retaliation. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 21 22 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 23 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impennissibly 24 compound. Incorrectly assumes facts. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work 25 product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 26 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged 27 documents have located. Responding Party is informed and believes that responsive non- LEWIS 28 privileged documents have never existed. BRISBOIS 8ISGAARD &MHUP A!1OIfjM AI 1M , r DEFENDANT NORTH COUN1Y TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF ~S • 1 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 2 Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING to, RELATING to, reflecting or memorializing 3 any and all investigations into any complaints or allegations of age or gender discrimination or 4 retaliation made against Mr. Matthew Tucker, including complaints and/or allegations made by 5 individuals other than the PLAINTIFF.",I [see footnote below] 6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 7 Objection. The number ofrequests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 8 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Violative of 9 the attorney-client privilege. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 10 evidence. Violative of privacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, 11 and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, no 12 responsive documents have been located. Responding Party is informed and believes that 13 responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody or control. 14 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 15 Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING to, RELATING to, reflecting or memorializing 16 any investigation into suspected or actual misconduct relating to age discrimination, gender 17 discrimination, or retaliation regarding Mr. Matthew Tucker. '" 18 SUP£,LEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 20 understood: This request is in violation offue Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the Court ordered 21 that this request is "out," and as such, no further response is required. In addition, Responding 22 Party reserves its current objections and preserves its previous objections to this request. 23 /II 24 1/1 25 /II 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAAAD StlMlHllP A~ ... r1.Mlt DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfrON OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c: I ..... • 1 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: 2 All DOCUMENTS that summarize, constitute, memorialize, discuss, mention, comment 3 upon or othetwise refer to any complaint by a current or former employee ofNCTD regarding. 4 Mr. Matthew Tucker regarding age discrimination or retaliation. 5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 6 7 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Unintelligible 8 as phrased. Violative of the attorney-client privilege. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the 9 discovery of admissible evidence. Violative ofprivacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the 10 foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent search and 11 reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiffs lawsuit, no responsive documents have been located. 12 Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive documents have never been in its 13 possession, custody or control. 14 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All DOCUMENTS that constitute, relate to or concern any and all conununication between 15 16 YOU and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing regarding each and every 17 person who ever complained about Mr. Matthew Tucker regarding age or gender discrimination or 18 retaliation. 19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 20 21 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Unintelligible 22 as phrased. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Violative 23 ofprivacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 24 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiff's DFEH 25 complaint and right to sue letter, no responsive documents have been located. Responding Party is 26 informed and believes that responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody or 27 control. LEWIS 28 / / / BRISBOIS BlSGAARD &~UP ~"'- DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENfAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF <7 1 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 2 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, memorialize, discuss, mention, comment upon or 3 : otherwise refer to any complaint by a current or former employee ofNCTO, filed in either state of 4 federal court against NCTO and which complained in any way about Mr. Matthew Tucker. • I 5 .SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 6 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 7 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Unintelligible 8 as phrased. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Violative of 9 privacy rights. Violative ofthe attomey·client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Non· 10 privileged documents are public record and equally available to Plaintiff. Subject to and without 11 waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent 12 search and reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiffs complaint and the complaint of Kim Stone 13 which is being produced by Responding Party, no other non-privileged responsive documents 14 have been located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that other non-privileged 15 responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody or control. 16 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION NO. 29: 17 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, concern, or relate to any communication between YOU 18 and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding each and every 19 person who ever complained about Mr. Matthew Tucker regarding age or gender discrimination or 20 retaliation at any time. '" 21 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION NO. 29: 22 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 23 understood: This request is in violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the Court ordered 24 that this request is "out," and as such, no further response is required. In addition, Responding 25 Party reserves its current objections and preserves its previous objections to this request 26 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: 27 LEWIS All documents that evidence, support, refer or relate to any claim made to the Federal 28 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by any current or fonner employee ofNCTD for BRISBOIS BlSGAARD Ik~UP N1IOIN'S N 1M DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINfIFF ':S.~ 1 gender or age discrimination, or retaliation against NCTD for the period of January 1,2009 2 through the present. 3 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 0: 4 Objection. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 5 request is understood: This request is in violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the 6 Court ordered that the request be narrowed by removing the term "sex" and the phrase "internal or 7 external." Plaintiff has instead broadened the request and not narrowed the request as ordered. 8 The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for the sole purpose of 9 harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. hnpermissibly compound. 10 Unintelligible as phrased. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 11 evidence. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Violative 12 of privacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 13 request is understood, as to Matthew Tucker: After a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, other 14 than Plaintiff's lawsuit, no responsive documents have been located. Responding Party is 15 infonned and believes that responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody or 16 control. 17 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 18 All documents that evidence, support, refer or relate to any claim, whether internal or 19 external, by any current or former employee ofNCTD for gender or age discrimination, or 20 retaliation against NCro for the period of January 1,2009 through the present that refer to or 21 make reference to Matthew Tucker. II< 22 1SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 23 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 24 understood: This request is in violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the Court ordered 25 that this request is "out," and as such, no further response is required. In addition, Responding 26 I Party reserves its current objections and preserves its previous objections to this request. 27 / / / LEWIS BRISBOIS BlSGAARD 8dMlHUP ~IJ_ 28 / / / DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENrAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF () ~. -, 1 I REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION NO. 44: All organization charts for the NCTD from the time ofthe arrival of Mr. Matthew Tucker 2 3 ' to today's date. 4 ' i SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: 5 , Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 6 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. unintelligible. 7 Overbroad. unduly burdensome and oppressive. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the 8 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to 9 the extent the request is understood: Responding Party has previously produced. responsive 10 organization charts to Plaintiff (bates nos. NCTD1972-2533). All responsive organization charts 11 not previously produced will be produced by Responding Party. 12 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: 13 Any and all DOCUMENT known as EEO-3 forms for the years 2008 through today's date. 14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: 15 Objection. The number ofrequests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 16 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 17 objections, and to the extent the request is understood: Responding Party will produce all 18 responsive uEEO-4" forms in Responding Party's possession, custody or control. 19 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: 20 Any and all emails PLAINTIFF sent to any of YOUR management employees at any time 21 since January 1,2000 regarding or relating to age or gender discrimination. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: 23 Objection. The nwnber of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 24 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 25 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Violative of privacy rights of third parties. Unduly 26 burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 27 evidence. Lacks specificity and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. SUbject to and LEWIS BRISBOIS BlSGAARD &~1lP AI1tJjtftl>JlJtH 28 without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCl'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c: l() 1 diligent search and reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiffs lawsuit, no responsive documents 2 have been located other than emails that generally mention employment issues that have already 3 been produced. Responding Party is informed and believes that additional responsive documents 4 have never been in its possession, custody or control. 5 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: 6 All documents generated by YOU since the arrival of Mr. Matthew Tucker described as 7 your fmancial statements, both audited and unaudited, financial projections, financial assumptions, 8 I proposed budgets, and documents showing unrestricted oet assets up to and including January 9 2013. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: 11 Obj ection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 12 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 13 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Unduly burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Lacks specificity and constitutes an 15 impermissible fishing expedition. This request still must be more narrowly tailored. "Documents 16 showing unrestricted net assets" is an unintelligible and overbroad phrase and has absolutely 17 nothing to do with this age/gender discrimination case and such a request is not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the 19 foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: Responding Party has previously 20 produced 1,477 pages of documents related to its financial condition, which it believes are 21 responsive to Plaintiffs request as follows: 22 NCTD'Production Document DeSCription Respon~ to Dlsc~ry ~~~ 23 NCTD 0000495 NeTD FYll Business Plan Initiatives (35 pages) 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NeTD 0000531 NCTD FYll Business Plan Update (slide­ show) (19 pages) 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: PrOjections, financial assumptions, budgets 24 25 26 27 LEWIS BRISBOIS BlSGAARD 8I:!!MlHUP ~"'IUW 28 DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCI"S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF ~. \ \ NCTD 0000551 1 NCTO FYll SWOT Analysis assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 ! NCTD 0000558 NCTD FYll Business Plan date June 2010 4 I NCTD 0000566 NCTD FY Business Plan - Executive Summary 7 8 NCTD 0000580 9 10 11 NCTD 0000587 12 NCTD Business Plan - Review of District's Enabling legislation, Mission, Vision & Goals NCTD 0000590 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 NeTD 0000607 I 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets I 72: Projections, financia.1assumptions, budgets assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial projection, financial (1975-2009) assumptions, proposed budgets 72: ProjectIons, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD Business Plan - Current Orcanlzational Status: Financial Outlook, Ridership & Revenues, Peer Group Assessment, Breeze Bus Comparisons, COASTER Commuter Rail Peer Comparison, SPRINTER light Rail Peer Comparisons, Customer Feedback, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, 2010 SWOT Analysis 70: Financial proJection, financial NCTD Business Plan - FY 2011 Business Plan Initiatives I 70: Financial projection, financial NCTD Business Plan - Historical Milestones 13 19 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets S 6 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: PrOjections, financial assumptions, budgets 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAAAD &~UP " " " ' " " AI """ DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 5. ,~ 1 2 NCTD 0000647 NCTD Agen~ Profjl~ and Trans~ortatlon Brleflng dated AUBust 27, 2010: Mission & Vision, Current Business Model for Service Delivery, Key Org. Facts - 2010 Revenues and Expenses, Public/Private Ownership I includes "What precipitated decision to consider contracting for bus operations?" financial alternative analysis, contract and legal analysis, and financial review conclusions, cost comparison over 7 years, organizational Impact of contracting on employment distribution/budget comparison with estimated total savings from contracting, federal funding, and positive train control (PTC) (or rail expansion projects) including cost estimates. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000685 NCTD Budget UDdate MaTch 19, 2009: 5­ Year Outlook, Revenue History and Projections, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Previous Budget Actions (including reduced FTE). 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000700 NCTD Oeerating Budget and Cae1tal Im~rovement Program FY 2Q13: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Disting,uished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary with actuals for FYlO and FYll, the budget for FY12, year end estimate for FY12 and budget for FY13, Operating Expense by Division and Department, Budget Assumptions, Debt Overview, Operational Statistics, Personnel Summary, longRange Financial Plan - 5 Year Outlook, Divisions Budgets. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAARD &lMIHUP A~All.1W DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUcrrON OF DOCUMENfS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 NCTD 0000800 2 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NCTD OR!ratlng Budget ind Cagital ImRrovement Program FY 2012: Includes Operating Budget/Statistics (expenses, revenue, fare structure, expense/revenue account structures), Revenue and Expense Reports (revenue by transit mode 2010 actual, 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, 2012 budget); (expenses by division and department 2009 actual, 2101 actual, 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, 2012 budget), DetaJled Department Budgets (includes departments 130, 150, 155, 230, 260,261,270,280,290,300,310,320, 330,335,337,340,350 [Human Resources), 360, 365, 370, 400, 510, 520 FY10 actual, FYll budget, FYll Y/E estimate, FY12 budget), Capital Improvement Program Analysis 2012­ 2016. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCID Oeerating Budget and CaRita I Imerovement Analllsis FYll: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary for FY2008 actual, FY2009 Actual, FY210 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimated actual, FY2011 budget [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, communications/outreach/customer service, finance/administration, rail operations, bus operations/planning/safety, Capital Improvement Program Analysis including impact on operating budget for FY20ll, FY2012, FY2013, FY2014 and FY20l5, Appendix including fare structures, community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial I assumptions, proposed budgets I 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NeTD 0000953 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOO BISGAAAD 8c~U:P NIOIIfft"'~ DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 NCTDOOO1059 NCTD Oe~rating Budget f2r FY 201Q !nd Caeltal Imerovement Program for 2010· 2014: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, policy and strategic development, operations, administration and finance, service planning; Capital Improvement Program AnalYSis Including impact on operating budget for FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0001165 NCTD Oeerating Budget for FY 2009 and CaJ;!ltallmerovement Prosram Analllsis 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2009-2013: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Div,ision Budgets including , general management, operations, and administration and finance, Capital Improvement Program Anal,ysis including impact on operating budget for FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and community profile. 24 25 26 27 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAAAD aHIHUP ..u1aIRAllJIIIN 28 DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c;,,? 1 NCTD 0001405 NCTO Amended Operating Budget for FY2ooS: Includes operating budget/statistics, revenue and expense reports, detailed department budgets, expense summaries by department, capital improvement program analysis. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NeTD 0001802 NCTO Operating Budget Statistics: Includes FY2008 actual, FY2009 actual, FY2010 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimate actual, FY2011 budget. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0001815 NCTO Revenue and Expense Reports: Includes 2009 actual, 2010 budget, 2010 Y/E estimate, 2011 budget. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 "REVISED" REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: All documents relating to the financial condition ofNCTD since the hire of Mr. Matthew 12 13 Tucker, including but not limited to your financial statements, both audited and unaudited, 14 projections, financial assumptions, budgets, documents showing unrestricted net assets, 15 spreadsheets, calculations and other documents, showing referencing, relating to or concerning 16 such financial condition. 17 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: 18 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 19 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 20 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Unduly burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably 21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Lacks specificity and constitutes an 22 impermissible fishing expedition. This request must be more narrowly tailored. This request is in 23 violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as Plaintiff has not changed one word from the 24 original request and therefore has not narrowed the request as ordered. As such, no further 25 response is required and Plaintiff has waived the right to pursue this request. Subject to and 26 without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: Despite the 27 fact that no further response is legally required due to Plaintiffs failure to narrow the request LEWIS 28 / / / BRISBOIS BISGAAAO &&\fIHUP AI1CAIE'IS A11o'1N DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTI TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 5 \ \ lP 1 pursuant to Court order, Responding Party has previously produced 1,477 pages ofdocuments 2 related to its financial condition, which it believes are responsive to Plaintiffs request as follows: 3 NCTD Production Document Description Responds to Discovery Request 4 NCTD 0000495 NCTD FYll Business Plan Initiatives (35 pages) 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000531 NCTD FYll Business Plan Update (slideshow) (19 pages) 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000551 NCTD FYll SWOT Analysis 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000558 NCTD FYll Business Plan date June 2010 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000566 NCTD FY Business Plan - Executive Summary NCTD 0000580' NCTD Business Plan - Review of District's Enabling Legislation, M ission, Vision & Goais 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000587 NCTD Business Plan - Historical Milestones (1975-2009) 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000590 NCTD Business Plan - Current Organizational Status: Financial Outlook, Ridership & Revenues, Peer Group Assessment, Breeze Bus Comparisons, COASTER Commuter Rail Peer Comparison, SPR'INTER Light Rail Peer Comparisons, Customer Feedback, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, 2010 SWOT Analysis 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets I 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAAAD &SMlHUP A~AJlMI DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 NCTD 0000607 NCTD Business Plan - FY 2011 Business Plan Initiatives 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000647 NCTD AJlen~ Profile and TransR0rtatlon Briefing dated August 2Z. 2010: Mission & Vision, Current Business Model for Service Delivery, Key Org. Facts - 2010 Revenues and Expenses, Public/Private Ownership includes "What precipitated decision to consider contracting for bus operations?" financial alternative analysis, contract and legal analysis, and financial review conclusions, cost comparison over 7 years, organizational Impact of contracting on employment distribution/budget comparison with estimated total savings from contracting, federal funding, and positive train control (PTC) (or rail expansion projects) Including cost estimates. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000685 NCTD Budget Ul2date March 19. 2009: 5­ Year Outlook, Revenue History and Projections, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Previous Budget Actions (including reduced FTE). 70: Financial proJection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000700 NCTD Ol2erating Budget and Cal2ital Imerovement Program FY 2013 : Includes a Government Finance Officers AssociatIon 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Oisting,uished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary with actuals for FY10 and FYll, the budget for FY12, year end estimate for FY12 and budget for FY13, Operating Expense by Division and Department, Budget Assumptions, Debt Overview, Operational Statistics, Personnel Summary, LongRange Financia l Plan - 5 Year Outlook, Divisions Budgets. 25 26 27 LEW1S 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAARD & NIH UP AIIOIHI'S 0'_ DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 NCTD 0000800 NCTD Oeeratlns; BudKe~a!l~ ,aeital Im~rovement Program FY 2012: Includes Operating Budget/Statistics (expenses, revenue, fare structure, expense/revenue account structures), Revenue and Expense Reports (revenue by transit mode 2010 actual, 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, 2012 budget); (expenses by division and department 2009 actual, 2101 actual, 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, 2012 budget), Detailed Department Budgets (includes departments 130, 150, 155, 230, 260, 261, 270, 280, 290, 300, 310, 320, 330,335,337,340,350 (Human Resources], 360, 365, 370,400, 510,520 FYlO actual, FYl1 budget, FYll Y/E estimate, FY12 budget), Capital Improvement Program Analysis 2012­ 2016. 70: Financial projection, financial assumpt1ions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000953 NCTD O~eratinB Budget and Caeital Imerovement Anaillsis fYl1: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary for FY2008 actual, FY2009 Actual, FY210 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimated actual, FY2011 budget (operating expenses, changes In net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, communications/outreach/customer service, finance/administration, rail operations, bus operations/planning/safety, Capital Improvement Program Analysis including impact on operating budget for FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, FY2014 and FY2015, Appendix including fare structures, community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72 : Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I I 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 I BRISBOIS BISGAARD 8dMIliUP AIIClIM'd Al ....., DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCf'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfrON OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 NCTDOO01059 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NCTO Oe~r.i!llng Budl!t for FY 201Q and Ca(:!itallm~rovement Program for 2010­ 2014: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, policy and strategic development, operations, administration and finance, service planning; Capital Improvement Program Analysis including impact on I operating budget for FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets I 12 13 NCTD 0001165 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NCTO Oeerating Budget for FY 2009 and Program Anal:llsls 2009-2013: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, operations, and administration and finance, Capital Improvement Program Analysis including impact on operating budget for FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and community profile. Ca~itallm~rovement 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAAAD 8dMIHUP _AI"'" DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF \' 1 NCTD 0001405 NCTP Amended Operating Budget for FV2008: Includes operating budget/statistics, revenue and expense reports, detailed department budgets, expense summaries by department, capital improvement program analysis. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0001802 NCTD Operating Budget Statistics: Includes FY2008 actual, FY2009 actual, FY2010 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimate actual, FY2011 budget. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0001815 NCTD Revenue and Expense Reports: Includes 2009 actual, 2010 budget, 2010 VIE estimate, 2011 budget. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: 12 Any and all DOCUMENTS showing the age, gender, and racial makeup of your 13 employees from the year 2000 through today's date. * 14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUcnON NO. 86: Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiffis overly burdensome and for 15 16 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Overbroad as to time. The Court has ordered 17 that this request is overbroad and is limited to 2008 forward. Not reasonably calculated to lead to 18 the discovery of admissible evidence, as PlaintifTmay not present disparate impact evidence at 19 trial because disparate impact theory is not pleaded in her complaint. (Rosenfeld v. Abraham 20 Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., 226 Cal. App. 4th 886.) Not reasonably calculated to lead to the 21 discovery of admissible evidence, as race is not at issue in this case. This request remains 22 overbroad in asking for "Any and all DOCUMENTS." Subject to and without waiving the 23 foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent search and 24 reasonable inquiry, other than the EE04 forms being produced, no responsive documents showing 25 the "gender, and racial makeup of your employees from the year 2000 through today's date" have I 26 been located. Responding Party is informed and believes that responsive documents have never 27 been in its possession, custody or control. LEWIS 28 III BRISBOIS BlSGM.RD &5MlHUP A~A11J11J1t DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF \ S.Q " 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: 2 All spreadsheets or other DOCUMENTS setting forth the dates ofbirth, dates of hire, job 3 titles, and dates of tenrunation of all NerD employees who were separated from their 4 employment for any reason between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, inclusive. [you may 5 redact the names of the employees] 6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: 7 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 8 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 9 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Violative ofprivacy rights of third parties. Unduly 10 burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 11 evidence, as Plaintiff may not present disparate impact evidence at trial because disparate impact 12 theory is not pleaded in her complaint. (Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., 13 226 Cal. App. 4th 886.) Lacks specificity and constitutes an impennissible fishing expedition. 14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 15 understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive documents showing the 16 "dates of birth, dates of hire, job titles, and dates oftennination of all NCTD employees who were 17 separated from their employment for any reason between January 1,2009 and December 31, 18 2011" have been located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive documents 19 have never been in its possession, custody or control. 20 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: 21 All spreadsheets or other DOCUMENTS setting forth the dates ofbirth, dates of hire, and 22 job titles of all persons hired by NerD to replace the employees who were separated from their 23 employment between January 1, 2009 and December 31 2011, inclusive. [you may redact the 24 names of the employees] 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: 26 Objection. The number ofrequests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 27 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as LEWIS 28 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Violative of privacy rights of third parties. Unduly BRISBOIS BISGAAAD alMlHUP AIIQIINE'tOA.a.-t DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTlFF S.Q~ -- - -- ---- - - - - - - 1 burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 2 evidence, as Plaintiff may not present disparate impact evidence at trial because disparate impact 3 theory is not pleaded in her complaint. (Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., 4 226 Cal. App. 4th 886.) Lacks specificity and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. S Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 6 understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive documents showing the 7 "dates of birth, dates of hire, and job titles of all persons hired by NCTD to replace the employees 8 who were separated from their employment between January 1,2009 and December 312011" 9 have been located. Responding Party is informed and believes that responsive documents have 10 never been in its possession, custody or control. 11 12 DATED: February 25,2015 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 13 14 15 16 17 By: Timothy J. Watson Ryan P. Garchie Attorneys for Defendant NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 lEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAARD &MHUP A1IOIM'J1 /IJ ...... DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 5 .~~ 1 VERIFICATION 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 4 SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF and know its contents. 3 5 0 I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on infonnation and belief, and as to 6 those matters I believe them to be true. ~ I am Chief Administrative Officer of North County Transit District, a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for 8 that reason. 7 I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. 9 10 o 11 12 The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on infOImation and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be tJlle. o 1 am one of the attorneys for , a party to this action. 13 Such party is absent from the county where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am infonned and believe and on that 14 ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. 15 16 Executed on February 25, 2015, at Oceanside, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 17 18 19 Karen Tucholski 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS BRISBOIS BlSGAARD &'MHuP A~All.-w 28 Moeller· NC'TD's Supplemcnllli One.doc RcsponSC3 (0 Plaintiffs RFP, Set DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF .' t 1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Virginia Moeller v. North County Transit District 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My business address is 701 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101. 5 On February 25,2015, I served the following document(s): 6 DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 7 8 I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax 9 nwnbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): SEE SERVICE LIST 10 11 The documents were served by the following means: 12 l&I (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order and agreement of the parties to accept serve bye-mail or electronic transmission, I provided the document(s) listed above by electronically mailing to the addresses listed below. No error was received within a reasonable time after the transmission, not any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 13 14 15 I!lI declare under penalty ofpeIjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia that the foregoing is true and correct. 16 Executed on February 25,2015, at San Diego, California. 17 18 19 lsi LQreen von Stockhausen Loreen von Stockhausen 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBotS BlSGAARD 8dMIHIJP AIIJIJIN 28 hereby. The fact that Responding Party has responded to or objected to any demand or a part -DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 5.~ 1 thereof should not be taken as an admission that Responding Party admits or accepts the existence 2 of any facts set forth or assumed by such demand, or that such response or objection or document 3 i or thing produced constitutes relevant or admissible evidence. The fact that Responding Party has 4 responded to part or all of any such demand is not intended and shall not be construed to be a 5 waiver by respondent of all or any part of any objections to any such request made by Plaintiffs. 6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: 8 Organization charts for alllnfonnation Technology or Information Services departments or 9 divisions from the calendar year 2008 forward to today's date. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: 11 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 12 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the 13 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to 14 the extent the request is understood: Responding Party has previously produced responsive 15 organization charts to Plaintiff (bates nos. NCTD1972-2533). All responsive organization charts 16 not previously produced will be produced by Responding Party. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 18 Any and all DOCUMENTS pertaining to any investigation(s) by YOU or at YOUR 19 direction into any allegations of harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation reasonably construed 20 as being based on gender and/or age, made by PLAINTIFF at any time, including but not limited 21 Ito written statements of witnesses, notes of interviews with witnesses, tape recordings of any and 22 ! all oral statements and/or interview of witnesses, transcriptions of any tape recordings of any and 23 all oral statements and/or interview of witnesses, reports regarding the results of any and all 24 investigations and/or correspondence. 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 26 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 27 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impermissibly LEWIS 28 compound. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Subject BRISBOIS BlSGAARD &NltHLP AIItlOI 1 I to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After 2 a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged documents have located. 3 ' Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive non-privileged documents have never I 4 existed. REQ~ST 5 6 FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Any and all DOCUMENTS that reflect or relate to any statements made by any PERSON 7 relating to any allegations of harassment, discrimination andlor retaliation reasonably construed as 8 being based on gender andlor age, made by PLAINTIFF at any time, including but not limited to 9 , written statements of witnesses, notes of interviews with witnesses, tape recordings of any and all 10 ' oral statements andlor interview of witnesses, transcriptions of any tape recordings of any and all 11 IIoral statements andlor interview of witnesses, reports regarding the results of any and all 12 investigations andlor correspondence. 13 SUITLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: I 14 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 15 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impennissibly 16 compound. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Subject 17 to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After 18 a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged documents have located. 19 Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive non-privileged documents have never 20 existed. 21 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: All DOCUMENTS that evidence, support, refer or relate to YOUR contention, if any, that 23 YOU conducted an adequate investigation into the complaints or allegations PLAINTIFF has 24 made of discrimination andlor retaliation. 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: 26 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 27 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impennissibly LEWIS 28 compound. Incorrectly assumes facts. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work BRISBOIS 8ISGAARO &!MIHUP AnClANl"tlAllJ1N DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c.:: Ll • 1 product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 2 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged 3 documents have located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive non4 privileged documents have never existed. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15 6 All DOCUMENTS that evidence, relate or refer to any witness interviews conducted 7 during YOUR investigation into the complaints or allegations PLAINTIFF made ofharassment, 8 discrimination and/or retaliation. 9 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: 10 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 11 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impennissibly 12 compound. Incorrectly assumes facts. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work 13 product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 14 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged 15 documents have located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive non16 privileged documents have never existed. 17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 18 All DOCUMENTS that evidence, relate or refer to any factual findings made in connection 19 with YOUR investigation into PLAINTIFF'S complaints or allegations of harassment, 20 discrimination and/or retaliation. 21 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 23 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad, impemrissibly 24 compound. Incorrectly assumes facts. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work 25 product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 26 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive non-privileged 27 documents have located. Responding Party is informed and believes that responsive non- LEWIS 28 privileged documents have never existed. BRISBOIS 8ISGAAAD &:MIHUP AIIOItIM "IAN DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c::s • 1 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 2 Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING to, RELATING to, reflecting or memorializing 3 any and all investigations into any complaints or allegations of age or gender discrimination or 4 I retaliation made against Mr . Matthew Tucker, including complaints and/or allegations made by 5 individuals other than the PLAINTIFF . ",I [see footnote below} 6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: 7 Objection.. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 8 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party . Vague and ambiguous, overbroad . Violative of 9 the attorney-client privilege . Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 10 evidence.. Violative of privacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, 11 and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, no 12 responsive documents have been located.. Responding Party is informed and believes that 13 responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody or control. 14 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 15 Any and all DOCUMENTS PERTAINING to, RELATING to, reflecting or memorializing 16 any investigation into suspected or actual misconduct relating to age discrimination, gender 17 discrimination, or retaliation regarding Mr. Matthew Tucker.· 18 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: 19 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 20 understood: This request is in violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the Court ordered 21 that this request is "out," and as such, no further response is required. In addition, Responding 22 Party reserves its current objections and preserves its previous objections to this request. 23 /II 24 /II 25 /II 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAARD &&\fIl..HJP AI1OIH'IS ~IIJMI DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF C I ..... 1 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUcrION NO. 24: 2 All DOCUMENTS that summarize, constitute, memorialize, discuss, mention, comment 3 upon or otherwise refer to any complaint by a current or fonner employee ofNCTD regarding. 4 Mr. Matthew Tucker regarding age discrimination or retaliation. 5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 6 7 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Unintelligible 8 as phrased. Violative of the attorney-client privilege. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the 9 discovery of admissible evidence. Violative of privacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the 10 foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent search and 11 reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiffs lawsuit, no responsive documents have been located. 12 Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive documents have never been in its 13 possession, custody or control. 14 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 15 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, relate to or concern any and all communication between 16 YOU and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing regarding each and every 17 person who ever complained about Mr. Matthew Tucker regarding age or gender discrimination or 18 retaliation. 19 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: 20 21 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Unintelligible 22 as phrased. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Violative 23 of privacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 24 request is understood: After a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiffs DFEH 25 complaint and right to sue letter, no responsive documents have been located. Responding Party is 26 infonned and believes that responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody or 27 control. LEWIS 28 / / / BRISBOIS BlSGAARD aMHUP -"'­ DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c!7 1 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 2 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, memorialize, discuss, mention, comment upon or 3 otherwise refer to any complaint by a current or former employee ofNCTD, filed in either state of I 4 federal court against NCTD and which complained in any way about Mr. Matthew Tucker ... I 5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: 6 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 7 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Unintelligible 8 I Ias phrased. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Violative of 9 I privacy rights. Violative ofthe attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Non10 privileged documents are public record and equally available to Plaintiff. Subject to and without 11 waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent 12 search and reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiffs complaint and the complaint ofK.im Stone 13 which is being produced by Responding Party, no other non-privileged responsive documents 14 have been located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that other non-privileged 15 responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody or control. 16 REVISED REQUEST FOR _P RODUCfION NO. 29: 17 All DOCUMENTS that constitute, concern, or relate to any communication between YOU 18 and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding each and every 19 person who ever complained about Mr. Matthew Tucker regarding age or gender discrimination or 20 retaliation at any time .... 21 22 I SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 23 understood: This request is in violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the Court ordered 24 that this request is "out," and as such, no further response is required. In addition, Responding 25 Party reserves its current objections and preserves its previous objections to this request. 26 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: 27 LEWIS All documents that evidence, support, refer or relate to any claim made to the Federal 28 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by any current or former employee ofNCTD for BRISBOIS BlSGAARD as\4IHUP NIOIIHMNVfIII DEFENDANr NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAJNTIFF '5.~ 1 gender or age discrimination, or retaliation against NCTD for the period of January I, 2009 2 through the present. 3 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 0: 4 Objection. SUbject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 5 request is understood: This request is in violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the 6 Court ordered that the request be narrowed by removing the term "sex" and the phrase "internal or 7 external." Plaintiff has instead broadened the request and not narrowed the request as ordered. 8 The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for the sole purpose of 9 harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, overbroad. Impermissibly compound. 10 Unintelligible as phrased. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 11 evidence. Violative of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Violative 12 ofprivacy rights. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the 13 request is understood, as to Matthew Tucker: After a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, other 14 than Plaintiffs lawsuit, no responsive documents have been located. Responding Party is 15 informed and believes that responsive docwnents have never been in its possession, custody or 16 control. 17 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 18 All documents that evidence, support, refer or relate to any claim, whether internal or 19 external, by any current or former employee ofNCTD for gender or age discrimination, or 20 retaliation against NCTD for the period of January I, 2009 through the present that refer to or 21 make reference to Matthew Tucker.... 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: 23 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 24 understood: This request is in violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as the Court ordered 25 that this request is "out," and as such, no further response is required. In addition, Responding 26 Party reserves its current objections and preserves its previous objections to this request. 27 III 28 III DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF ~. a -, • 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: All organization charts for the NCTD from the time of the arrival of Mr. Matthew Tucker 2 3 to today's date. 4 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: 5 Objection. The number ofrequests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 6 the sole purpose ofharassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous, unintelligible. 7 Overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the 8 discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to 9 the extent the request is understood: Responding Party has previously produced responsive 10 organization charts to Plaintiff (bates nos. NCTD1972-2533}. All responsive organization charts 11 not previously produced will be produced by Responding Party. 12 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: 13 Any and all DOCUMENT known as EEO-3 forms for the years 2008 through today's date. I 14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: 15 Objection. The number ofrequests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 16 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing 17 objections, and to the extent the request is understood: Responding Party will produce all 18 responsive HEEO-4" forms in Responding Party's possession, custody or control. 19 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: 20 Any and all emails PLAINTIFF sent to any of YOUR management employees at any time 21 since January 1, 2000 regarding or relating to age or gender discrimination. 22 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57: 23 Objection. The nwnber of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 24 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 25 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Violative ofprivacy rights of third parties. Unduly 26 burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 27 evidence. Lacks specificity and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. Subject to and LEWIS 28 without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a BRISBOIS _AJ_ BlSGAAAD SlND"H1P DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF < l/) 1 diligent search and reasonably inquiry, other than Plaintiffs lawsuit, no responsive documents 2 have been located other than emails that generally mention employment issues that have already 3 been produced. Responding Party is informed and believes that additional responsive documents 4 have never been in its possession, custody or control. 5 REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: 6 All documents generated by YOU since the arrival of Mr. Matthew Tucker described as 7 your financial statements, both audited and unaudited, financial projections, financial assumptions, 8 proposed budgets, and documents showing unrestricted net assets up to and including January 9 2013. 10 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70: 11 Obj ection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 12 the sole purpose ofharassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 13 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Unduly burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Lacks specificity and constitutes an 15 impermissible fishing expedition. This request still must be more narrowly tailored. "Documents 16 showing unrestricted net assets" is an unintelligible and overbroad phrase and has absolutely 17 nothing to do with this age/gender discrimination case and such a request is not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the 19 foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: Responding Party has previously 20 produced 1,477 pages of documents related to its financial condition, which it believes are 21 responsive to Plaintiff's request as follows: 22 NCTO'Production Document D~5crfptlon Respon~ to D,isc~R~~ 23 NCTD 0000495 NCTO FYll Business Plan Initiatives (35 pages) 70: Financial projection, finanCial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, 24 25 budgets I ~-----------+--------------~--~--~~--~------~----------------~ 26 27 LEWIS NCTD 0000531 NCTO FYll Business Plan Update (slide­ show) (19 pages) 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: PrOjections, financial assumptions, budgets 28 BRISBOIS BISGAAAD &~UP ~ ...rLMN DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAlNTIFF ? \\ 1 NCTD 0000551 NCTD FY11 SWOT Analysis NCTD 0000558 NCTD FYll Business Plan date June 2010 NCTD 0000566 NCTD FY Business Plan - Executive Summary NCTD 0000580 NCTD Business Plan - Review of District's Enabling legislation, Mission, Vision & Goals NCTO 0000587 NCTO Business Plan - Historical Milestones (1975-2009) 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72 : Projections, financial assumptions, , budgets 4 5 6 7 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 NCTD 0000590 NCTD Business Plan - Current Organizational Status: Financial Outlook, Ridership & Revenues, Peer Group I Assessment, Breeze Bus Comparisons, COASTER Commuter Rail Peer , Comparison, SPRINTER LIght Rail Peer Comparisons, Customer Feedback, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & I Threats, 2010 SWOT Analysis NCTO 0000607 I NCTD Business Plan - FY 2011 Business 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Pian Initiatives I 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Finan.cial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets I 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: ProJections, flnancfal assumptions, budgets 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAAAO 81NlHLlP Anca-tMAtL.o1W DEFENDANT NORTII COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 5. \~ - 1 2 NCTD 0000647 NCTO Agen~ Profile and Transl!!ortatlon Briefing dated August 27, 2010: Mission & Vision, Current Business Model for Service , Delivery, Key Org. Facts - 2010 Revenues and Expenses, Public/Private Ownership includes "What precipitated decision to consider contracting for bus operations?" financial alternative analysis, contract and legal analysis, and financial review conclusions, cost comparison over 7 years, organizational Impact of contracting on employment distribution/budget comparison with estimated total savings from contracting, federal funding, and positive train control (PTC) (or rail expansion projects) including cost estimates. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000685 NCTD Budget UDdate March 19 1 2009: 5­ Year Outlook, Revenue History and Projections, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Previous Budget Actions (including reduced FTE). 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000700 NCTO Oeerating Budget and CaRita I Iml!!rovement Program FY 2Q13: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary with actuals for FYIO and FYll, the budget for FY12, year end estimate for FY12 and budget for FY13, Operating Expense by Division and Department, Budget Assumptions, Debt Overview, Operational Statistics, Personnel Summary, longI Range Financial Plan - 5 Year Outlook, Divisions Budgets. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets I 3I , I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I 22 23 24 25 26 27 lEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &lMIHUP A~A''''''' 28 DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCf'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINIIFF 1 I NCTD 0000800 , 2 3 I I 4 5 6 NCTD Oe!rating Bydget Ind Cagltal 70: Financial projection, financial Imgrovement Program FY 2012: Includes . assumptions, proposed budgets I Operating Budget/Statistics (expenses, 72: Projections, financial assumptions, revenue, fare structure, expense/revenue budgets account structures), Revenue and Expense I Reports (revenue by transit mode 2010 actual, 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, 2012 budget); (expenses by division and department 2009 actual, 2101 actual, 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, 2012 I budget), Detailed Department Budgets (includes departments 130, 150, 155, 230, 260,261,270,280,290,300,310,320, 330, 335, 337, 340, 350 [Human Resources], 360, 365, 370, 400, 510, 520 FYlO actual, FYll budget, FYll Y/E estimate, FY12 budget), Capital Improvement Program Analysis 2012­ 2016. I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NCTD 0000953 NCTO Ogerating Budget and Cagltal Imerovement Analllsis FYll: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary for FY2008 actual, FY2009 Actual, FY210 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimated actual, FY2011 budget [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, communications/outreach/customer service, finance/administration, rail operations, bus operations/planning/safety, Capital Improvement Program Analysis including impact on operating budget for FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, FY2014 and FY201S, Appendix induding fare structures, community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72 : Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 25 26 27 'LEWIS 28 BRISsas BISG.AAAD &9>AlHllP AIIOIM\S Id VIW DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAt RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAlNTIFF 1 NCTDOOO1059 NCTD O~erating Budget for EX 2010 ind Cagltal Iml!rovement Program for 2010· 2014: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets Including general management, policy and strategic development, operations, administration and finance, service planning; Capital Improvement Program Analysis Including Impact on operating budget for FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0001165 NCTD Ogerating Bu~get for FY 2009 and Ca~ltallmerovement Proaram Analllsis 2009-2013: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, operations, and administration and finance, Capital Improvement Program Analysis Including impact on operating budget for FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAAAD & NIH UP ~.A'1JfN DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DlSTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF C;\C":> 1 NCTD 0001405 moos: Includes operating 2, budget/statistics, revenue and expense reports, detailed department budgets, expense summaries by department, capital improvement program analysis. I 3 I 4 NeTD 0001802 5 6 NCTO 0eerating Budset Statistics: Includes FY2008 actual, FY2009 actual, FY2010 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimate actual, FY2011 budget. I I 7 NCTD Amended O~eratlng Budge! fgr 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets I NCTD 0001815 8 NCTO Revenue and Exeense Re~orts: Includes 2009 actual, 2010 budget, 2010 Y/E estimate, 2011 budget. 9 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: ProJections, financial assumptions, budgets 10 11 "REVISED" REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: 12 All documents relating to the financial condition ofNCTD since the hire of Mr. Matthew 13 Tucker, including but not limited to your financial statements, both audited and W1audited, 14 projections, fmancial assumptions, budgets, documents showing unrestricted net assets, 15 spreadsheets, calculations and other documents, showing referencing, relating to or concerning 16 such financial condition. 17 SUPPLEMENT AL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72: 18 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 19 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 20 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Unduly burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably 21 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Lacks specificity and constitutes an 22 impermissible fishing expedition. This request must be more narrowly tailored. This request is in 23 violation of the Court's February 5, 2015 order, as Plaintiff has not changed one word from the 24 original request and therefore has not narrowed the request as ordered. As such, no further 25 response is required and Plaintiff has waived the right to pursue this request. Subject to and 26 without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: Despite the 27 fact that no further response is legally required due to Plaintiffs failure to narrow the request LEWIS 28 II/ BRISBOIS BISGAARD & NIH UP AIlI;)IH"fO AI 1M DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCf'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 pursuant to Court order, Responding Party has previously produced 1,477 pages of documents 2 related to its financial condition, which it believes are responsive to Plaintiffs request as follows: 3 NCTD Production 4 NCTO 0000495 I 5 Document Description Responds to Discovery Request NCTO FYll Business Plan Initiatives (35 pages) 70: Financial projection, financial budgets 6 7 NCTD 0000531 NCTD FYll Business Plan Update (slide· show) (19 pages) NCTO 0000551 NCTO FYll SWOT Analysis assumptions, proposed budgets budgets NCTO FYll Business Plan date June 2010 NCTO 0000558 assumptions, proposed budgets budgets NCTO FY Business Plan· Executive Summary NCTO 0000566 15 16 NCTO 0000580 , 18 19 NCTD Business Plan· Review of District's Enabling Legislation, Mission, Vision & Goals NCTD 0000587 NCTO Business Plan ~ Historical Milestones (1975-2009) 24 2S 26 assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial prOjection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 21 23 • 70: Financial projection, financial I budgets 20 22 70: Financial projection, financial 72: Projections, financial assumptions, 13 17 70: Financial projection, financial 72: Projections, financial assumptions, 11 14 assumptions, proposed budgets budgets 10 12 70: Financial projection, financial 72: Projections, financial assumptions, 8 9 assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, NCTD 0000590 NCTD Business Plan - Current Organizational Status: FinancIal Outlook, Ridership & Revenues, Peer Group Assessment, Breeze Bus Comparisons, COASTER Commuter Rail Peer Comparison, SPRINTER Light Rail Peer Comparisons, Customer Feedback, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats, 2010 SWOT Analysis 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BISGAAAD &SMlHUP ATlOIN'oO" lMI DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 NCTD 0000607 NCTD Business Plan· FY 2011 BusIness Plan InitIatIves 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000647 NCTD Agen~ Profile and Transe2rtatlon Briefing dated August 2Z 1 2010: Mission & Vision, Current Business Model for Service Delivery, Key Org. Facts - 2010 Revenues and Expenses, Public/Private Ownership includes "What precipitated decision to consider contracting for bus operations?" financial alternative analysis, contract and legal analysis, and financial review conclusions, cost comparison over 7 years, organizational impact of contracting on employment distribution/budget comparison with estimated total savings from contracting, federal funding, and positive train control (PTe) (or rail expansion projects) including cost estimates. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000685 NCTO Budget UlZdate March 191 2009: 5­ Year Outlook, Revenue History and Projections, Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Previous Budget Actions (including reduced FTE). 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: PrOjections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0000700 NCTD OlZerating Budget and Caeital ImersrLement Program FY 2013: Includes a Government Finance Officers AssociatIon Disting,uished Budg,et Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary with actuals for FY10 and FYll, the budget for FY12, year end estimate for FY12 and budget for FY13, Operating Expense by Division and Department, Budget Assumptions, Debt Overview, Operational Statistics, Personnel Summary, LongRange Financial Plan - 5 Year Outlook, Divisions Budgets. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 ., 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAARD &SMlHUP ~Arl)W DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAlNTIFF 1 11 NCTD 0eeratlng Budget and ~Rftal 70: Financial projection, financial Im~rovement Program FY 2012: Includes assumptions, proposed budgets Operating Budget/Statistics (expenses, 72: Projections, financial assumptions, revenue, fa re structure, expense/revenue budgets account structures), Revenue and Expense . Reports (revenue by transit mode 2010 actual, 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, I 2012 budget); (expenses by divIsion and department 2009 actual, 2101 actual, I 2011 budget, 2011 Y/E estimate, 2012 budget), Detailed Department Budgets (Includes departments 130, 150, 155, 230, 260,261,270,280,290,300,310,320, 330,335,337,340,350 [Human Resources), 360,365,370,400,510,520 I FYlO actual, FYll budget, FYll Y/E estimate, FY12 budget), Capital Improvement Program Analysis 2012­ 2016. 12 I NCTD 0000800 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NCTD 0000953 NCTD OJ;!erating Budget and Caeital Im~rovement Anaillsis FYll: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, Operating Budget Summary for FY2008 actual, FY2009 Actual, FY210 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimated actual, FY2011 budget [operating expenses, changes In net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary), Division Budgets including general management, communications/outreach/customer service, finance/administration, rail operations, bus operations/planning/safety, Capital Improvement Program Analysis including impact on operating budget for FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, FY2014 and FY2015, Appendix including fare structures, community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 25 26 27 lEWIS 28 , BRISBOIS _AI.. . BISG~D 8ts-.tIHUP DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCf'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 1 NCTDOO01059 NCTO OE!~rit!ng Budg!t for FY 2010 and Cal!ltallml!rovement Program for 2010­ 2014: Includes a Government Finance Officers Associatioh Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, OperatIng Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, policy and strategic development, operations, administration and finance, service planning; Capital Improvement Program Analysis including impact on operating budget for FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, FY2013,and FY2014, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and community profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets NCTD 0001165 NCTO Oeerating Budget for FY 2009 and Caeitallmerovement Program Anal)lsis 2009-2013: Includes a Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to NCTD, I Operating Budget Summary [operating expenses, changes in net assets, revenues, budget assumptions, operational statistics, debt overview, personnel summary], Division Budgets including general management, operations, and administration and finance, Capital 'Improvement Program Analysis including impact on operating budget for FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013, Appendix including monthly salary ranges, hourly wage schedule, fare structure and comm unity profile. 70: Financial projection, financial assumptIons, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS BRISBOIS BlSGAARD 8tS'vtIHUP AI1OIM'IS AI _ 28 DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRlCT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINITFF " " 1 NCTD 0001405 Nerp Amended Operating Budget for FV2008: Includes operating 2 budget/statistics, revenue and expense reports, detailed department budgets, expense summaries by department, capital improvement program analysis. 3 4 5 NCTD 0001802 Includes FY2008 actual, FY2009 actual, FY2010 budget, FY2010 Y/E estimate actual, FY2011 budget. 6 7 NCTD Operating Budget Statistics: NCTD 0001815 Nero Revenue and Expense Reports: Includes 2009 actual, 2010 budget, 2010 YIE estimate, 2011 budget. 8 9 70: Financial proJection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, budgets 70: Financial projection, financial assumptions, proposed budgets 72: Projections, financial assumptions, I budgets 10 11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86: 12 Any and all DOCUMENTS showing the age, gender, and racial makeup of your 13 employees from the year 2000 through today's date .... 14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION NO. 86: 15 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 16 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Overbroad as to time. The Court has ordered 17 that this request is overbroad and is limited to 2008 forward. Not reasonably calculated to lead to 18 the discovery of admissible evidence, as Plaintiff may not present disparate impact evidence at 19 trial because disparate impact theory is not pleaded in her complaint. (Rosenfeld v. Abraham 20 Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., 226 Cal. App. 4th 886.) Not reasonably calculated to lead to the 21 discovery of admissible evidence, as race is not at issue in this case. This request remains 22 overbroad in asking for "Any and all DOCUMENTS." Subject to and without waiving the 23 foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is understood: After a diligent search and 24 reasonable inquiry, other than the EE04 forms being produced, no responsive documents showing 25 the "gender, and racial makeup of your employees from the year 2000 through today's date" have 26 been located. Responding Party is informed and believes that responsive documents have never 27 been in its possession, custody or control. LEWIS 'BRISBOIS BlSG.AARD !5MlHUP ~"IJW 28 /// DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF \ S.Q. " . 1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: 2 All spreadsheets or other DOCUMENTS setting forth the dates of birth, dates of hire, job 3 titles, and dates of tennination of all NCID employees who were separated from their 4 employment for any reason between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, inclusive. [you may 5 redact the names of the employees] 6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88: 7 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 8 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as 9 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Violative of privacy rights of third parties. Unduly 10 burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 11 evidence, as Plaintiff may not present disparate impact evidence at trial because disparate impact 12 theory is not pleaded in her complaint. (Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., 13 226 Cal. App. 4th 886.) Lacks specificity and constitutes an impennissible fishing expedition. 14 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 15 understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive documents showing the 16 "dates of birth, dates of hire, job titles, and dates oftermination of all NCTD employees who were 17 separated from their employment for any reason between January I, 2009 and December 31, 18 2011" have been located. Responding Party is infonned and believes that responsive documents 19 have never been in its possession, custody or control. 20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: 21 All spreadsheets or other DOCUMENTS setting forth the dates of birth, dates ofhire, and 22 job titles of all persons hired by NCTD to replace the employees who were separated from their 23 employment between January 1, 2009 and December 31 2011, inclusive. [you may redact the 24 names of the employees] 25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89: 26 Objection. The number of requests propounded by Plaintiff is overly burdensome and for 27 the sole purpose of harassing Responding Party. Vague and ambiguous. Unintelligible as LEWIS 28 phrased. Overbroad as to time and scope. Violative of privacy rights of third parties. Unduly BRISBOIS BlSGAAAD aMHUP AIIOIH'r'I AI LAllI DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCfION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF S .~~ " 1 burdensome and harassing. Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 2 evidence, as Plaintiff may not present disparate impact evidence at trial because disparate impact 3 theory is not pleaded in her complaint. (Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., 4 226 Cal. App. 4th 886.) Lacks specificity and constitutes an impermissible fishing expedition. S Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent the request is 6 understood: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no responsive documents showing the 7 "dates of birth, dates of hire, and job titles of all persons hired by NCTD to replace the employees 8 who were separated from their employment between January 1, 2009 and December 31 2011" 9 have been located. Responding Party is informed and believes that responsive documents have 10 never been in its possession, custody or control. 11 12 DATED: February 25,2015 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 13 14 15 16 17 By: Timothy J. Watson Ryan P. Garchie Attorneys for Defendant NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS BRISBOIS BlSGAAAO &MHUP A1lCIIf'" ..... DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF , d r 1 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Virginia Moeller v. North County Transit District 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My business address is 701 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101. 5 On February 25,2015, I served the following document(s): 6 DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF 7 8 I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax 9 numbers and e-mail addresses, ifapplicable): SEE SERVICE LIST 10 11 The documents were served by the following means: 12 l!I (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order and agreement of the parties to accept serve bye-mail or electronic transmission, I provided the document(s) listed above by electronically mailing to the addresses listed below. No error was received within a reasonable time after the transmission, not any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 13 14 15 ~I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 16 Executed on February 25, 2015, at San Diego, California. 17 18 19 lsi Loreen von Stockhausen Loreen von Stockhausen 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LJEWlS 28 BRISBOIS BI5GAARO 811MIHIlP """""'AJ_ DEFENDANT NORm COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF ~. 2'3 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Virginia Moeller v. North County Transit District 3 William N. Woodson, III, Esq . . LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM N. WOODSON, III, APC 4 I 1807 Edelweiss Drive Cedar Park, TX 78613 5 Tel: (760) 535-6645 Fax (512) 358-4759 6 wnwoodson3@gmail.com Counsel for Plaintiff VIRGINIA MOELLER 7 WiUiam M . Crosby, Esq. 8 13522 Newport Avenue, Ste. 201 Tustin, CA 92780-3707 9 Tel.: (714) 544-2493 Fax: (714) 544-2497 10 e-mail wcrosbv@.W;lliamcrosbylaw.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff VIRGINIA MOELLER 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS BlSGAAAD &!MI-IUP ~ATVfIf DEFENDANT NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO REVISED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF c::: ~/" SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NORTH COUNTY MINUTE ORDER DATE: 02/10/2015 TIME: 01 :46:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Jacqueline M. Stern CLERK: Michael Gartand REPORTERlERM: Not Reported BAILIFF/COURT AliENDANT: DEPT: N-27 CASE NO: 37-2013.oo067620-CU-WT-NC CASE INIT.DATE: 09/19/2013 CASE TITLE: Moaller va. North County Transit Dlstrlct[IMAOED] CASE CATEGORY: Clvll- Unlimited CASE TYPE: Wrongful Termination EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) APPEARANCES The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on February 5, 2015, and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well 8S the evidence presented , now rules 88 follOWS: On February 5, 2015, the Court heard and conlldered PlafntlW8 discovery motion and the opposition thereto, and the Court made various rulings on Plaintiff's Requests for Production. The Court took under 8ubmlalon Requests Nos. 86, 88 and 89 and now rules that Plaintiff's motion II granted In part as to those requests as the documents sought are directly relevant to her causa. of aetton. Kowever, Request No. 88 Is overbroad and Is thus limited 10 the years 2008 and forward. In addition, employee nam•• are to be redacted from the documents produced by Defendant. No sanctions are awarded. Judge Jacqueline M. Stem DATE: 0211012015 Page 1 Calendar No. MINUTE ORDER DEPT: N-27 0398- HIl;-G9L The third retraction demand from NeTD, and our response I inewsource 312912015 About Awards I Search Thi s Site... Contact Board of Dire ctors V()lJr Horne Partners J inewsource.",~ • Donate! (iovprnmpnt Behind th e story JOURNALISM FOR THE COMMON GOOD v()lJrTrlxPs V()lIr Ft Itl I rp V()lIr Hprllth Rt Srlfptv The thir d retraction demand fro rn NeTD, and our respo nse Poste ~ on Oct 30. 2013 The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response by Brad Racino I inewsource NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT \'\IE A~'JVE PEOPLF www.gonctd.com ; Dear Mr. Kado, Dear Mr. Archer, We repl'esent the North County Transit District (NCTD) This letter responds to you r October 28, 2013, letter. and its Executive Director, Matthew Tucker. Consider these responses to each of your points raised and please respond if there are any further questions or Taxpayers and KPBS's rea ders are entitl ed to accurate, concerns. unbiased reporting offacts with respect to public agencies and their conduct. NCTD respects and PQ.!.nts You Raised: welcomes such reporting. Unfortunately, that is not what anyone got with Brad Racino's October 23, 2013 article provocatively entitled; "War on Women Over 40'; 1. "It has become increasingly apparent that Mr. Lawsuit Claims Age, Gender Bias At NCTD." agenda regarding NeTD and its Executive Director, Racino has some personal animosity toward and Matthew Tucker... " It has become increasingly apparent that Mr. Racino has some personal animo sity toward and agenda regarding Mr. Racino has no agenda regarding NCTD or personal NCTD and its Executive Director, Matthew Tucker. That animosity toward Mr. Tucker. Mr. Rac ino's job is to animosity and agenda have manifested in a new low in report newsworthy information about taxpayer-funded filo, - /II(' · 11 lC'cu·C"lOill0/... ?n\l\ll'V"'II"4cnnJnrv"llm~ntc;::f\Nnrk0t.?nR~::at 0,. t=n <:: Of) "'ir rr o/, i 0", ~ i 0 .... The third retraction demand from NeTD. and our response I inewsource 312912015 the October 23 article and an October 24, 2013 related government entities includ ing NCTD. piece in which Mr. Racino blatantly misrepresents and manipulates the fact s and insults and offends variou s The issues that have arisen out of NCTD since we began female NCTD employees as part of his apparent covering the agency in February 2013 warrant public campaign to vilify Mr. Tucker and NCTD. discussion and transparency. NCTD is a ta xpayer­ In the October 23 article, Mr. Racino includes security and oversight of millions of yearly passen gers photographs of two groups of women that are clearly and more than 100 empl oyees. Sel-ious concerns fUlldec! government entity responsible for the safety, intended to create the impression that female regarding the agency's safety practices, secur ity issues, employees older than forty were replaced by younger internal human resources allegations. deficiencies in female employees and that Mr. Tucker had something oversight and lawsuits resulting in settlements funded to do with this supposed replacement. Both by taxpayer dollars are important to our readers, and to implications are blatantly false. Mr. Racino labels the all San Di egans who ride NCTD's buses or trains or fund first group of women as "[w]omen, older th an 40, who its operations with their tax dollars. held the highest positions at NCTD and who: were laid off or demoted under Matt Tucker or resigned as a direct result of his tenure." Immediately under that group of photos. Mr. Racino has placed for obvious contrast photographs of what he describes as "[w]omen recently hired by NCTD." The reader is tempted (and no doubt intended) to assume that each of the younger women were hired to directly replace each of the older women identified above them. However, this is certainly not true. Moreover, in his October 24,2013 attempted 2...... Mr. Racino includes photographs of two groups of women that are clearly intended to create the impression that female employees older than forty were replaced by younger female employees and that Mr. Tucker had something to do with this supposed replacement. Both implications are blatantly false." Neither inewsource !lOt' KPBS created this impl-ession. Instead, inewsource and KPBS are accurately reporting defense of his selection of the seven photographs of women in the second group, Mr. Racino claims that he ch arges made by others. selected women with "top managerial positions." That Virginia Moeller's lawsuit, paragraph 10: "SpeCifically, statement is blatantly false. Mr. Tucker- would prefer certain employees for hire, The top managerial positions at NCTD, from the top down are the: (1) Board of Directors; (2) Executive Director; (3) General Counsel; (4) Deputy General transfer or promotion, ba sed on whether they were of a particular racial group, their age and/or their gender." Virginia Moeller's lawsuit, paragraph 11 : "SpeCifically, Manager; and (5) Chiefs. Only one of the seven women Mr. Tucker, and others acting in concert with him. chose in the group of "recently hired" women has or ever had older employees, and at times, older female employees a top managerial position at NCTD, and she is a Chief. for layoff... " Under the Chiefs are the Deputy Chiefs, and then, Managers and Directors. Three of the seven "recently hired" women Mr. Racino claims have "top managerial positions" have or ha d (because one is no longer with NCTD) management position s at that lowest level (i.e. as managers). The other three of those seven women do not have any kind of managerial position at NCTD, in Kim Ston e's lawsuit. paragraph 34: " .. Defendant, through its managing agents. includ ing but not limited to Tucker, has made discriminatory comments and has engaged in discrirninatory practices concernin g fe ma le employees over the age of forty (40)." having instead lower-level staff positions. Also, despite Mr. Racino's implication to the contrary, one of the women in the group he contrasts with the "over 40" group is herself over 40. It is obviou s to anyone familiar with the NCTD staff that Mr. Racino, in his zeal to tarnish the reputations of Matt Tucker and NCTD, has falsely and misleadingly represented the facts . In addition, Mr. Tucker is the Executive Director of the agency and, according to Policy 19, has nearly unlimited power to hire, fire, demote, promote and create employee positions. Saying he had nothing to do with the "supposed replacements" is in direct opposition to Policy 19. It is also counter to everything we've been told by multiple high-level source s both inside and outside the agency; sources whose accurate and verified It is particularly disturbing that Mr. Racino apparently information has helped inform the bulk of our stories trolled through the Internet to identify a few individuals about NCTD. whose photographs he could use to support his ro. _.11''''' . /I 1__ ...... In:IIO/I'")(\',./,..,..,.,,, .......,,ln .....,.. •• rt"\'-V"Iofc:ol\l\l,...rvOI...,nOQJ~toAOI.? 1="ln 3. "Mr. Racino claims that he selected women with ~ 1 •• ot t r' 0 l'29I2015 The third retraction demanclfrom NeTD, and our response I inewsource personal agenda (including, ba sed on the photo credits, "top managerial positions." That statement is a cite known as smittenbypretty.com), while ignoring blatantly false. The top managerial positions at the majority of persons employed by NCTD whose photographs would not serve Mr. Racino's purpose. A NeTD, from the top down are the: (1) Board of Directors; (2) IE xecutive Director; (3) General preliminary review indicates that of NCTD's current Counse,l; (4) Deputy General Manager; and (5) female employees who were hired after December 2008 Chiefs." (and thus after Matt Tucker's hiring) approximately half are fem ales over the age of 40. Moreover, th e majority Mr. Racino clearly indicated that the women pictured of NCTD's cUrl'ent female employees who were hired held positions in the top 10 percent of the agency by before December 2008, and thus retained after Matt salary. NCTD's sa l'ary data was taken from the California Tu cker's hiring and after the lay-offs, are 40 or older. In State Controller's web site. NCTD supplie s that salary addition, nearly half of NCTD's total current workforce data to the Controller's office. If the data supplied by are female. NCTD to the State of Californi a is inaccurate, please let us know and we will amend our story. Not only do the article and companion piece misrepresent the facts and falsely claim that the "recently hired" women depicted in the article have "top managerial positions," they also fa1lsely imply that Matt Tucker had anything to do with the hiring of those seven women or that he personal ly singled out women "over 40" for layoff. The fact is that Mr. Tucker' was only directly involved in the hiring of one of the seven Furthermore: (1) Board of Directors: According to NCTD Policy 7, any position on the Board of Directors is an unpaid position, aside from the $75 travel stipend paid to each for attending board meetings. Those positions are not staff position s and are irrelevant to the story. recently hired women shown in the article (the one who (2) Executive Director: The Executive Director is the actually does have a top management position) and the women who were laid off were laid off as part of a lay­ su bject of the story. off of over 400 employee s. (3) General Counsel: According to the data supplied by NCTD to the State of California, the pOSition of "General Moreover, none of the lay-off decisions described in the Counsel" did not exist in 2009, 2010, or 2011. That article were unilaterally made by Mr. Tucker . Al l of those position is therefore irrelevant to this story. If the data decisions occurred with the Board's full approval. supplied, to the State is inaccurate, please let us know There also is something disturbing about the fact that and we will arnend our story. none of the seven supposed "top management" recently (4) Deputy General Manager: According to the data hired employees whose photographs Mr. Racino and supplied by iNCTD to the State of California, the pOSition KPBS used are African Amel'ican, whereas Mr. Tucker is of ",f')eputy General Manager" did not exist at the agency African American and is happily married to his African in 2009, 2010, or 2011. That position is therefore irrelevant to this story. If the data supplied t o the State is ina ccurate, please let us know and we will amend our story. American wife with whom he has two children. Mr. Tucker has been personally hurt by the subtle undertones and smears of this article and others by Mr. Racino and KPBS. Nor is the article insulting only to Mr. Tucker. The implications made by Mr. Racino concerning the seven 4. "Despite Mr. Racino's implication to the contrary, one of the women in the group he contrasts with the "over 40" group is herself over 40. It is obvious recently hired employees he chose to depict are very to anyone familiar with the NCTD staff that Mr. demeaning not only to those women but to women in Racino, in his zeal to tarnish the reputations of Matt general. Mr. Racino apparently made no effort to Tucker and NCTD, has falsely and misleadingly determine their qualifications for the positions they represented the facts." hold or to determine the process utilized by NCTD in the hiring of those women. KPBS and Mr. Racino owe an According to the graphic's headline in the inewsource apology to those women as well as to the current and KPBS story, those are phot os of worn en who were employees who were identified in the article as "older "re cently hired." than 40." Those women did not want their photos or their name s posted and were shocked to be labeled by Mr. Racino and tagged with misleading and To the extent that you're referring to Manager of Admin istration Vira Villarreal, we do not know her age ~2015 The third retraction demand from NeTD, and our response I inewsource inappropriate references from the article with which they now must live, but we have been informed that she recently turned in her three-week notice to the agency and was terminated on the spot by Mr. Tucker. Please provide us The October 23 ar ticle also states that NCTD had not yet reported updated compensation information for the with documentation with respect to her hiring and resignation or termination. positions of the seven women Mr, Racino selected for his group of "older than 40" women. The fact, however, In addition, a recent hire leaving NCTD so soon appears is that NCTD had timely subm itted current employee to be con sistent with the turnover problem we've compensation information to the California State previously reported. Controller' on October 13, 2013 . NCTD could have notified inewsource and KPBS in As for the litigation and personnel matters mentioned in advance of publication that one of the employees had that article, KPBS is clear'ly aware that NCTD cannot left, had either Matt Tucker or Bill Horn agreed to comment on such matters related to current or past comment. However, both refused to comment while the employees. We do, however, note that NCTD will story was prepared . vigorously defend its action s and business practices related to Ms. Moeller's lawsuit and is confident that the factual record will show that Mr. Tucker has conducted himself in a pr'ofessional manner and performed well in dealing with all employees of the District during very difficult fiscal times. We also note that the artide utterly failed to report that the positions of both of the employees mentioned in the article who filed lawsuits were eliminated as part of the tran si tion from publ ic to private operations of the bus system. Over 400 employees - a majority of the NCTD work force ­ were laid off as part of this transition and the vast majority of all employees who were laid off were S. "It is disturbing that Mr. Racino apparently trolled through the Internet to identify a few individuals whose photographs he could use to support his personal agenda (including, based on photo credits, a cite known as smittenbypretty.com), while ignoring the majority of persons employed by NCTD whose photographs would not serve Mr. Racino's purpose." The photos that we used of recent hires and former employees came from the widely used social business website Linkedin.com. offered positions with the private firm that provides bus As you noted, the remaining employee's photo was service for NCTD. Similarly, Mr. Racino's article failed to taken from the website smittenwithpretty.com. report on the fact that NCTD hires qualified persons across all demographic categories. Smittenwithpretty.com is a publicly-accessible blog Mr. Racino also stated that NCTD did not respond to a been wiped of all content, but you are free to use the request for a copy of the settlement of a lawsuit filed by Wayback Machine to verify. Kim Stone, although he neglects to note that KPBS published his article before the ten days had expired in which Nero was permitted to respond to Mr . Racino's Public Records Act request, nor did he note in any Mr. Racino aliso did not ignore the majority of persons employed by NCTD, but rather was led to these seven women through research , interviews and data. published by one of NCTD's own employees. It has since follow-up that NCTD did timely respond to that request wit hin that ten -day period. Zealous, unbiased reporting offacts of legitimate public interest is applauded. Mr. Racino and KPBS, however, have fallen sadly short of that standard in the October 23 article and October 24 follow-up. The First 6. "There also is something disturbing about the fact that none of the seven supposed 'top management" recently hired employees whose photographs Mr. Racino and KPBS used are African American, whereas Mr. Tucker is an African American and is happily married to his African American wife with carte blanche recklessly or intentionally to misrepresent whom he has two children. Mr. Tucker has been personally hurt by the subtle undertones and or mislead in order to serve a journalist's personal smears of this article and others by Mr. Racino and agenda. KPBS." KPBS should assume its responsibility for publishing Mr. There is nothing in our article that in dicates the women Racino's writing of biased, factually incorrect and recently hired were ,in "top management" positions. The intentionally misleading articles . NCTD strongly urges photo array of ol'der women indicates that they had Amendment does not give journalists or publishers . • Ir'\ ·.... ...•• __ .rT'L-_OI ,,~ .....: ... ~ (\ I ""''' __ J. _ _ _ I.: __ nl ""....1 _____ ...J'" rt.r\.L.. _ ._ The third retraction demand from NeTD. and our response I inewsource 312912015 KPBS to take the first step by removing this article from "highest positions" and clffiifies chat description by all sources to which it has been distributed and by using the definition of 90 issuing an apology to Matt Tucker and the women who the State Controller's website . percentile by pay rate from were identified in the photographs as part of Mr. Racino's apparent effort to smear the reputations of For the recentily h ired women, inewsource and KPBS Matt Tucker and NCTD. accurately reported that th ere were no current pay rates posted on the State Controller's website for those Very tru Iy you rs, positions. The state's website says the information will William Archer of had refused to provide comment or provide that be posted in 2014. By the point of publication , NCTD information when requested to do so for this story. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Further, inewsource and KPBS included the job titles of the women recently hired, so readers could assess for NCTO's first retraction demand themselves their organizational positions. and our response Also, to the extent that you are now alleging racism and prejudice in our story, we see no basis for your allegation and find such an assertion offensive to us as a well-established, well-regarded public broadcasting NCTO's second retraction demand agency with supporters and fans of all races, creeds and colors. and our response inewsource staff and KPBS management are offended by these accusations. 7. "KPBS and Mr. Racino owe an apology to those women as well as to the current employees who were identified in the article as "older than 40." Mr. Racino has it on vel"y good authority that many of the women pictured are in no way hurt by this article. 8. "The October 23 article also states that NCTO had not yet reported updated compensation information for the positions of the seven women Mr. Racino selected for his group of "older than 40" women. The fact, however, is that Ncro had timely submitted current employee compensation information to the California State Controller on October 18, 2013." NCTD states it reported that information in a timely fashion on Oct 18, 2013 and the state Controller's website says the information won't be published until 2014. To the extent that we implied that NCTD had not timely submitted the data - we regret the implication and will clarify that section. 9. "KPBS is cleady aware that NCrO cannot comment on such matters related to current or past employees." KPBS is not clearly aware that NCTD cannot comment . ,....,. • 0 o/. ,..,.., .. I A ~ 0 f\\ Ii ". i I 01 ")Nhi ...... 01 'In................. ; ......... 01 ..,,,................ ........ ""01 I""J""­ __ The third retraction demand from NeTD. and our response I inewsource 312912015 on such matters. We are unaware of anything that prevents you from commenting on employee terminations or other litigation . In fact, NCTO's attorneys have made a lot of comments in this letter. To do oLir job as thoroughly and accurately as possible, we must ask for comment. Ms. Moeller's lawyer, William Woodson, commented for our story. We asked NCTO and Chairman Bill Horn to comment, and they declined. We accurately reported as such. 10. "Mr. Racino stated that NeTD did not respond to a request for a copy of the settlement of a lawsuit filed by Kim Stone, although he neglects to note that KPBS published his article before the ten days had expired in which NeTD was permitted to respond to Mr. Racino's Public Records Act request... " In his article, Mr. Racino wrote, "The district did not respond to a request fOl' a copy of the settlement." As of the date of publication, October 23, 2013, NCTD had not responded to a request for a copy of the settlement. The "ten days" mentioned in your statement refers to the time period allotted each agency by state law ­ California Government Code §6253(c) - to determine whether a Public Records Act request "in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency." Since Ms. Stone's lawsuit was settled with taxpayer money, there sho uld have been no question whether or not the records were disclosable, and therefore no delay in handing over those records, according to the previous two sections of the state law: California Government Code §6253(a) clearly states, "Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record.,," California Government Code §6253(b) clearly states, "each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shal l make the records promptly available to any person." In summary, -On October 18, 2013, Mr. Racino submitted a Public Records Act Request through NCTO's website for Ms. Stone's settlement agreement with NCTD. r:. ...... lllr".{l 1~~ ...... ln;'IO/I"')"\I\I,.,"'".,..,.. ..... /n ......... ,....... "' ....... 1\1\1 .......... 0/ o '1n\ . 0....... :Y2912015 The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response I inewsource -On October 21,2013, Mr. Racino followed up on that request with an email to Mr. Byll Shelton, who upon last check was responsible for handling PRA requests . -By publication on October 23,2013, Mr. Racino had not received a response of any sort from NeTD or Mr. Shelton. NCTD delivered the five-page settlement agreement by email seven days after Mr. Racino requested the information, at 3:58pm on Friday, October 25 . 11. " ... nor did he note in any follow-up that NCTD did timely respond to that request within that ten­ day period." For the reasons set forth in response to point 10, Mr. Racino does not feel that NCTD did respond in a timely fashion. 12. "The First Amendment does not give journalists or publishers carte blanche recklessly or intentionally to misrepresent or mislead in order to serve a journalist's personal agenda." The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press to report the news . We at inewsource and KPBS hold that right in the highest regard and with the utmost respect, and never reckless'iy or intentionally mislead, misrepl'esent or serve our own personal agenda. We follow the facts, the research, and the data to the best of our abilities to better inform the public. We did so in the previous 24 articles, we did so in this article, and we will continue to do so in future articles. In this case, inewsource and KPBS accurately reported information from two separate lawsuits, Angela Miller's resignation letter distributed to NCTD Board members, statements from former employee Heidi Rockey, as well as statements from other sources. The artic le was a factual repl'esentation of that information. To the extent that NCTD has any documentation that contradicts anything in our news story, please forward that on or before Friday, Nov. 1, at 5:00pm and we will be happy to review it. 13. "NCTD strongly urges KPBS to take the first step by removing this article from all sources to which it has been distributed and by issuing an apology to Matt Tucker and the women who were identified in the photographs as part of Mr. Racino's apparent i. r. 'r On P ti 0 The third retraction demand from NeTD, and our response I inewsource 3129/2015 effort to smear the reputations of Matt Tucker and NCTD," For the reasons we have set forth, we al'e unaware of any basis to remove any articles or issue any apologies. To the extent that you have any documentation or other responses to correct any errors, if they exist, please forward it to us on or before Friday, Nov. 1, at 5:00pm and we will be happy to review it. If you have any additional information you wish us to consider, p lease provide it to us on or before Friday, Nov. 1, at 5:00pm and we will be happy to review it. -inewsource & KPBS NCTD response, Oct. 30, 5:38 p.m. Dear Mr. Karla: This is in response to your October 30,2013 letter regarding the above-referenced article. We already have provided our substantive response to that article and the October 24, 20 13 companion piece. It is obvious from your letter that it would be fruitless to perpetuate this exchange. We are not going to engage in a "letter war" with KPBS nor litigate any pending cases in the media. Our refusal to engage in allY such ongoing exchange shall not implly any agreement with any positions taken by KPBS nor constitute a waiver of any of NCTO's rights 01- remedies. Very truly your William Archer of I_EWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD SMITH U.P Related Posts • • • • ar on Women Over 40": Lawsuit claims age, gender bias at NCTD • RINTER funds used for buses - and studies • • The third retraction demand from NeTD. and our response I inewsource 312912015 • • • rth County Transit District's revolving door costs big • L_~:!l~:2~ILack of oversight leads to North County Transit problems orth County audit confirms tr-a ining deficiencies with security guards orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • Load more posts ') • orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • Load more posts) • • orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • Load more posts ') The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response I inewsource 3129/2015 • orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • Load more posts ') • • orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • rth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • Load more posts) • North County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • Load more posts J 40, """ held tIwt hig~....t po.j~"".' und., Mo" Tuck.r or • resit..... a ________"War on Women Over 40" - with links • • of oversight leads to North County Transit problems orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards file:IIIC:/Users/Bill%20WoodsorVDocuments/Work%20Related%20FoIders/Moeller,%20VirginialDiscoverylThe%20third%20retraclion%2Odemand%2Ofrom", 10/16 The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response I inEl'Nsource 312912015 North County audit confirms tra ining deficiencies with security guard s orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards North County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • North County audit confirms training defici encies with security guards 40, ""'" held tho highest po.i~on.' under Malt Tucke, 0' • NA'..... a _ _-..... _ _f~_·'_."___ ,,"' ."_ ' , '_"__"War on Women Over 40" - with links • • of oversight leads to North County Transit problems North County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards file:/lIC:/U sers/Bill%20WoodsonlDocumentslllVork%20Related%20Folders/M oeller,%20Vi rginialDiscoverylThe%20thi rd%20retraction%2Odemand%20from", 11/16 The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response I inewsource 312912015 North County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards North County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards rth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • • • • rth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards PRINTER funds used for buses - and studies of oversight leads to North County Transit problems orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards file:/IIC:/Users/Bill%2OWoodsoniDocumentsiWork%20Related%20FolderslMoeller,%20VirginiaiDiscoveryfThe%20third%20retraction%20demand%2Ofrom ... 12116 The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response I inewsource 312912015 • • • orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards B~~;::!~i;sPRINTER funds used for buses - • • and studies ack of oversight leads to North County Transit problems • • • orth County audit confirms training deficiencies with security guards • Load more posts\'~ To comment, please sign in with a name and email! address. Also, please be respectful. Comments are approved prior to posting by the website administrator. 5 Comments Bill and Matt remind me of an old Abbot and Costello routine where they can't tell you "who is on first, what's on second and I don't know is on third". Guess who is Costell0 7 Now NCTD is desperate because they brought in an La entertainment lawyer to intimidate the free press and are hinting at playing the race card. This issue isn't about race it's about gender and age discrimination and a board that is asleep at the switch! I thought the district mission was to provide transportation options for north county not to create drama and sitcoms. Tucker and Horn brag about saving money by laying off 400 people and getting them off the costly Calpers pension system while both of them continue to accrue Calpers Retirement benefits at no cost to either one. fi le:/lIC :/Users/Bi II %2OWoodsoniDocumentsNl/ork%20ReI ated%20Folder s/M oeller,%20Vi rgi ni aiDiscoveryfThe%2Othird%20retraction%20dem and%2Ofrom .. . 13116 The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response I inewsource 312912015 The full board should end the drama and cancel the show buyout the CEO and provide us ta xpayers with a new january show lineup that focuses on providing transportation to North county and not just continuing this stupid drama! REPLY I Robert Savalas i')ovemIJer '::, 20 13 Agree wholeheartedly with the poster above, NCTD is becoming a sideshow, abetted by the arrogance of Brad Racino, who apparently DOES have an axe to grind after Tucker's public humiliation of him on tv in April. Several note s here. The board at NCTD is mostly new. The only holclovers with more than a year experience are Bill Horn, Mark Packard and Ed Gallo. So when you talk about current board deciSions, Hom is the main player. Horn will likely face a challenge during next year's election from former' O'side Mayor jim Wood , so people will finally have a clear choice instead of Horn. Tucke r was brought in to swing the ax e on the drivers, so maybe after 5 years he can collect his pension and leave. He is definitely not a uniteI'. Tucker knows transit, he doesn't know people. As for Mr. Racino, people at NCTD are trying to work, and your incessant requests are actually making this difficult. Sorry, but you're not Woodward or Bernstein , the evidence speaks for itself. You had that dressing down on tv coming, even though it was a mistake by Tucker, because then if just hardened your resolve that much more to endlessly sling requests at an already time-pre ss ed staff. Most of the people at NCTD are good, hard-working people. Go snoop around in Filner's dustbin and let th em get back to work . bradracino ~'] ove rn b er 4, 201 3 Mr.Savalas, Thank you for your input. I'm sorry you feel that I'm annoying the workers at NCTD with my California Public Records Act requests for information about a government agency funded by ta xpayer money. We believe in accountability here , And there's a lot to account for. And I agree with your statement - I am no Woodward or Bernstein. just a reporter trying to bring to light information that is apparently very important to the tens of thousands of people who keep up with our NCTD stories in San Diego. -Brad I<[PLY ,- - - Rob ert Savalas f'!()I; Cmbef 4.2013 Tens of thousands of people? I'd like to do a public records request to see the google analytics report on your page views. Yes, we get that it's a public agency, and ri ght now let's be honest. file:IIIC :/UsersIBill%20WoodsoniDocumentslWork%20Related%20FoldersIMoeller,%20VirginiaiDiscoverylThe%20third%20retraction%20demand%2Ofrom... 14116 ----------------------------------------------------------------------312912015 - - The third retraction demand from NCTO, and our response I inewsource it's an easy "go to" to constantly go after a small public agency. The hatred of government worker' s has never been higher than it is right now. You're not alone, or in the first position on going after NCTD, the former beat reporter for the UT did the same thing prior to leaving the beat last year. If I were you, I'd follow up on some of the details in the comments posted above, there's more of interest there than in five or six of your articles. If you're going to take up everyone's time an d money up at NCTD trying to find the smoking gun, maybe the public would like some value in that, ie some actual stories with meat on the bone, instead of gossipy nonse nse fit for People magazine. RLP LY bradracino hJovernber 4. 20'13 Mr. Savalas, Thanks again for your comment. To answer your concerns: Including a PRA submitted this morning, inewsource has submitted three PRA requests to NeTD since September 1. One request was for five pages of a settlement agreem ent. The second was for a count of emails (not even the email s themselves) over a certain time period. The third was for a copy of a one-page internal memo. I doubt we are taking up "everyone's time and money up at NCTD." Also, our latest story (fit for People magazine) had a combined 6,946 pageviews between the KPBS and inewsource website. That story is one of 25 published since February. So yes, our stories have reached tens of thousands of readers . L.astly, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on what a small public agency is . I see an organization with a half-billion dollar capital budget and a $9 1 million annual operating budget as, at least, mid size. Post a Reply Your email address will not be published . Required fields are marked * Name " Email * Website file:IIIC:/Users/Bill%2OWoodsoniDocumentstVVork%20Related%20FoIders/Moeller,%20VirginialOiscoverylThe%20third%20retraction%2Odemand%20from... 15116 The third retraction demand from NCTD, and our response I illEl'Nsource 3129/2015 Comment You may use these HTMLtagsand attributes: "abbr t itl e="">

< q ci. tC':= "!I> OUI' Partners Our address inewsource San Diego State University School ofJournalism & Media Studies 5500 Campanile Drive, PSFA 361 C San Diego, CA 92182-4561 (619) 594-5100 contact@inewsource.org DIIGOS1ATF UNIVlRSITY © Copyright inewsource. A.bout Alivards Board of Directors Contact Donate' Partners .i) Inewsource i Developmen t ny file:IIIC:lUsers/Bill%20WoodsoniDocumentslWork%20Related%20FoldersIMoeller,%20VirginialDiscoverylThe%20third%20retraction%20demand%2Ofrom... Urlmd 16116 3129/2015 "War on Women Over 40" : Lawsuit claims age, gender bias at NCTD I San Diego news from inewsource Y:klll/WS. 1. ~ff do. ml'J.h . f~ rf ~ ru~ (tCl_1 ' ~ ~'" ,wo"t.d I~"";"-/I. U: .w GatoIt ~ l 1'WI.dtT ";urull\lkr lU ll. 1_ T j, ~;dWIlO( !!lrS-Ih:"C..lllt"'WWI , !"II_ o 10'11 t"'m I'ITlfIlI1ccol ~CrD,u.d~u"JI."", Ii:'fIC,l.a:II ""'~III"IH:f7..t vr.f·Ut!l'~I' "'-"':tj_ byNcn)•• !'ld ..·~ ... :i1. .""' IIqfU\kai ~'''' OI''' I'~ OWI'D~ot • (\""'-11 ''CTO. II. 5 follower s [- -,- -- ] I :'d~l~hcclt'D6Ddt~ IJ)IN<.:J1) hU:w ~MO't:1JEN P'. ...a WOi!~su:.~tMr ""i.NmEd l'ld' JOu #.,.......,.....QIoT..,..,·fr-J I;) !" oc uoul!dJI Mlu,. 21»'1, De~ I ),j" -rUGKtJ... ·· 0( " ~'- ".'CKlJ., I. JMA1T·t1.JCKD ~ £l::;c.::r~ Di.n-cIO(. 'llitN., 'I:-.Drt Pf.Ud of U!T1C M,I" nX:l{ZR hc(. u Iol <'Ic_At1u:.;( ~ ~ f!IR pdDr-1 1M p:"C(tt.t.IW ~Jf.. ...., ~ I.,r!.,!;;e, W'I ..,ir.: 1II;,\heh ' ll lfr«iflCtDr m "r in NCTlJ ~ Inewsource - Whal you can learn.. I", ,,f.,,,,.,.--," :l:i inewsource - Helix: Briggs' Wif.. 17 inpw('ource - KPBS Roundtable 74 bnd .... ~~ f.J1 (VI * :..fuI !lid /J... l1JCKJ.!.Jt wvlild pcdct~rflaln wll'I:Jlf'!ft Co o~ l e pol.Cy _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ r=m:;ra.,. t-..e.I.... wbr;.tv tbty __-.: cf I pull;;; o;lu 'h. 101 Irtei:r~~;;!~Th;' i court' may de~~~~~} ay~:;-;;;!YOU-~:;iu1OUl y~bcrnghea;d unleS$y~'~;-r~e;:i;~)r'r1 within 30 d~y;.-f~-p.adlh~~;o(mati;~ below . You have 30 CI\ LENOA r~ Df.... YS iHlef" thi~ summons and I (~ga l p()pi~rS are served on you ,to rile a wntten (t~~p(,n:)e at thi s COLlft and have a copy ser'Vp.d on thf'; pl~inljtL )\ lette' or phone call will nOI prOlect you . You r writtf:n response must be In proper legal fnun jf you 'Ndlll the court 10 hear your caSe Thelt~ rnny be a c()w1 form that you c(",n use for your re SpOfl!HJ . YOI,! can fino !h~S(:~ COllrl forms and rTlore Info rmat io n 031 Ihe California Couns Online Self-Help C(~nlef \W'Al\v. COUl1iflfo C.:J govlselflleJ{.J). your county l erN lib(a ry. cr 1h e l.()urlhQuse f1e~HeSI y ou It you car;no! pcl), the filing rc(:, ask Ihe court d~rk fnr a l e(;~ Well'.:!';!r form . If you do not file YI)l lr respon$ e Oil t;mQ. yO\J rJl()Y lose the cas e 1),/ defaull. al1u you r wages . money. ;:)nc] pnJperty mi:ty be lake!1 '.\lIth()u! fUlth(::r 'Nornirlg (rorn the court Thef!: ;;HE~ other Ir:gal ft=!quirernents . You rnay Wi~nc to cat: ;:HI aUoHlcy r:oh! away . If you dQ (lot know an atto(ney. you rna',' ''''ant to c('IlI an 8t10: rley ref etrClI :;erVII:e if you [annol rJ(ford an aHornBY, you r':'l(·py' b(~ eligihle fnr (u!p IF.:~JI-II S t~('Jice s from ;:i nonp r(Jfi! l eg a l ~a'!f\:ice:;, program. You (:~)(I IDecil e ti\es~=! rHJfiflflJfit 9'O\)P5 ;':11 !h~. . C~llifofl1la Leg;'11 Sel\'ii:f:.:'~j 'Neb siie (W'.vw. fm".'fle1fJ Ci·.) ftfornia oro) . the Calliornld COi.Jrl~ Online Sf!:lr-Help Center (~""ww co(J(finfo l;tJ .g()v/Se/{help), or by contacting your local r;ourl or coun ly I)~lr 03$~~Octa!lon , NOTE: The courl hi)s a stat;.nory lien for waived fees and COSlS on any $rdlle llj{~n l or t-Hbilration award of $10,000 or rno((~ In 3 civil cuse . The cour\'l5lien musllJe paid before the coun will disrni5s Ihe ca ~e . iAVISO! 1.0 h~w d(~m,)n(}ado. Si no n~!;pO(lr.fe den(ro (Ie 30 (J;a~, fa {;or(e p(Jode (tecH),r en su confra Slfl (!scl.lr.hElr SU version . Lea Ja inlorfTl FH:ion e con(inUf.Jcidn . Tielle 30 DIAS DE (;ALENOARIO despues de que' II! el!(regtJcf1 es(a ci(acion y papeles legales !lam presemar una respues !a par escrilo e" esla c:orff""! y Ilacer que se en/reguR una copia a( dema(Juanfe. Ufltl carra 0 una lItunB(ia tefe/{inica no /0 protegen . SlJ respuesta por e.:.criro jiell8 que t::star en (armata (egal eorrecto si (/esea que proceserr SU cas() en corte . Es poslbie que haya un formulari" que lIsled pueo'i/ US d( polZl Sli re spllesra . Puede encon rrar Cs(o!£/orrnulf:)rioS de fa curre y mas in(orm"clon en el Centro de AyudiJ (h~ las Cortes de CaJifornia (wW\'I.sucode.ca.go'lj, en la tJibliolecc:. (if] {eyes (Ie su condado 0 en If) cortG' qU(~ Ie qllede mas cere(l. Si no (Juede pagar It) I,.:uota de pre~erlracidn, pir.la a; s(Jcrelario de In corte que fa de un formulafto de exench)1l de pago de CUO(i;>S. Si no pre~(-!fifa su rO$pves/CJ a (iempo. puecJe per (Je" 1;1 .. aso por incumpfimien lO y Ii) cnrfe Ie podra quira, $IJ sue /do, liinero y bienes sin Jlla:j fJo\,'e((e,.,cirJ. Hay olros rC(JuisilOS leY(lie!> Es r8co/nen dable que 110rTH? a un c-l bogado inme df3Inn1(1nte Si (/0 conoce u uri atl!JO<3(fl1 , .lJuede lIamar a (m Sf!tVicl4) de remision a ~J,vor;atJos. Si riO puedfJ {Ja gar,:J un abogac/o. flS (JositJ/c-; qtle curl1J'Jla con 10 ::; requisi(os J)c1fa cbl cner -servicios legales QO:JfUltO$ (tf~ [In progri;J ,na c.1e senlielos legales ~in f;"cs de hu:ro. Puedc CnCOfHf'[J( I.):':OS grUjJOS Sill {me:; do Iucn:: ell el Sliio w{-~b Ch31 Calilornid Leual Services. , ('I'N1'N lawhelp:':Jliforn i(l.org), en el C(Ultro (Ie AYlId,) ,1(J IdS Corles de Caliromi(l , (V'rN\....· . 5I.1coI1e.c~ . gQv.l 0 ponit")ndosf,' en con(a CfO con hJ (:011& 0 e/ t c()tegio de ,)boyar/os locales . AVISO: Por ley. (a corle tiefle deree/ltl a ree/am"r /a~ r:uo1l,)S y los cos (os ?,x.mtos por irnpoller till gravamen .~obre cua1quier reclJper(u;ion {Ie ".or, 10,0006 ITh1s de . . . i=jlor r(!cilJicf.3 med;f!llle un acuerdo 0 una conc esioll de arbi!rCJjr: en .un caso d. to:· (jerecllO civil, Tiene que . pagaf el 9r f)'/(Jfrlfl1i de la corle ;Jnles (.te QU~ la corle pllecl8 des€c/)ar el casu. I., j - '--- - - - ----------..--------_._._-- .---_._..-The name and c~ddre5s of the cour1 is : (ElnomlJm y direcr;ion de la corte es).' Sl1perior Cou rt of the County or San Diego, North Counly Branch 325 S Melrose Drive. Vist a, CA 92083 Slate or California, -------_._-------_._-----------._- -­ CA5€ N\JMBEr< Ithi'3°7-2<{1'2:00052989-CU_OE_NC __._________.__ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ .__. The name. addr ess . ilnd telephune f'lLlm t)er of plaintiffs 'J!lorn,~y. or plail1li1i "N ililout an attorney, is : (EI Ilombre. la (iJreccidn y el n(imero de lelMollo del ilbogado fiel rJerllandanle. 0 (/1':1 Ck.'llli_lflc.fanle que no lien e aiJogado, es). Laura 1. Farris. Lsq.; 2755 Jefferson St, (For'prooToi 209, Carlsb;ld. CA 92lHlg; (760) 729-0152 APR 25 201l DfiTE (Fecho')' Ut;e J\id ic. ~ i CIJUllcil {II Cali'01I,ill !jljM· l00 [Htv . July 1, 20091 \"" ..,,,v.{;.au!ii'lf{1 C.).LPN Laura.J Farri s, Stil te Bar Number 165258 Lesl)'.I, Adams , Slate 13ar Number 272635 2 , J LA \V OFFICES OF LAURA.I. FAHRIS 2755 Jefferson Stree l , Suite 209 , . Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 729-0152 " . .. : '" ..... , . ;:.: ' ::! i"( , C ;;' 4 /\ttomc)' i'or 1>I"inlil"l' Kim Stone 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNlA CO UNTY OF SAN DmeO, NORI'H COUNTY BRANCH 10 1.1 KI.f\,1 STONl::. an individual. 12 ) ) CAS E NO" 37 ·2012"()OO52989.CU.OE-NC [General Civil ] Plaintiff ) v, C'Oi\[PLAINT FOR D,t\.f\.1AGES FOR ) NORr H COUNTY TRANSIT DIST RI CT, and ) 14 DOES I Ihrough 20 inclu si ve " Discrimination in violati on of FEi-IA ) ) )5 Defcnclallls, ) ) 16 17 RCQUEST FOR Jurn: TRIAL GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 18 A. 19 I, PI ai Il t itl K)I\i[ STON E (heren !'tel' '' PLA IN T I H" 'j is, anei at HII ti Illes rnenl ioned here in 20 lIa s, 2) times re!e\'Cll1t hereto employed by Defenclililt North CO Ullly Tr(llisil DistricI , 22 ;111 indilidunl residing ill Ihe County ofSn/l Diegu, S Idle o/'C',i1iJ'omia PLAINTIFF 7 WilS at al) De fcnda n t North County Trans i t District (he l'cil fter "J)e fendant" or" "N CTD") is, and (II al it illlts menliolled herei n was , anelltil), subjec t 10 suit under th e Ca lifornia Fair ElllployrnelHand 24 25 Housing Act, C.'a fi/ornio , 1 C/m'(!l'I7l1zerli ( 'ode, Sectio l1 12900 el seq (he reinafter "FEHA"), PI(lin(iff is i gnoran t of the tr ue names iIi Oil \\Ith the Once PLMNTlI:r learned that her po sition '"itll NeTD was being eliminated dut' to she began ac[ively ~eare hing forJob opportull it ies within NerD PLAfNTI FF \"'a nted 14 outsolIn.:ing, 15 to remain "'iih NCTD I() i' her CliPERS I·eti rt'me n!. along w ith her sa la l'Y and benetits p i n['0 ITnati011 and bel it: f. NCTD was to Ilwintoi n (l" Re- Emplovmellt Li st" (0 include tile name s oC regulal' ernpio'.'ees "Ill) havc bee n li1id off, li sted ill tile order or' 011 the lisl r'c)!' one yeal unle ss soonel ,\ccolding to inrl)l'll1atioll Clnel bel icf, PI . \INflj·T \V,IS to be 1)l aced on the rc­ On or aro und April 28 : 2010: PLAINl'II:'F spoke with TU CKER about her 24 ernpll)),IllClll S(' .' eUej~(\I ; 5: . Sl~ ]C'J C.. / !:o:;,,.tl. (.A '.);lfJlb COMPUIINT On tVh1 Y 6, 20 I0, PLAlNTIFF \Vas interviewed Cor the ,vlanager of Service Qual it y 17 . 2 ,Inc! Acc l:ss ibilit y pusition by" pcmcl that includeci IV1CCORMICK, /\Ialle Ha ynes (th e dep,lrling J i\1anager 4 Human l"Zesolirces re presenta tiv e, Vi rginia Moeller. PL.AINTIFF ansl\c rccl all questions presented 5 cln el "' J..AINT rJT I7 have A DA c:\ pericllcc. I~ ADA issue:;; . While PLAINTIFF h,ld t'\perit'nce with lhe .~D:\, she did nol believe 19 IIhich 1I',lS conlirill<::d lw ARNOLD . PLAINTI Ff, (I~'l(!in fel l cOllccrllcd thal ~;he I\'~! " nol hired for 2(J the posil i on, despite he r lJ\'Crllhclming qu::liilil':lliul1s, because 01' her s by relert' llce ~ll! d i·t' -a" eges each and c'wr)' pren:d i ng Paragraph of til is Complaint as if' full y set I~) rth herein. 12 IJ 14 15 16 17 IR J 6. De I'cllcla lll cJ id not offer fJ I,A INTI FF th e pu., i(ion 0 f Manager of Sen'irc QUill i ty ;li t uted or C:uli/(lI'nia G(II'ernfl1Cnl Code Sec tion 38 . PLf\INTIFF !\S (l proxillWle re su lt th e W\"l) I1gCuI (le ts of Defe ndants, and eneh 01 thelTl , ha s been harllled in lhat sh e has sulTcred and will co ntinue [0 suffe r actllal , co nse qli en ti a I, and i llC i den (11 Ii na nc iaI losses, inc luci iII g wi thou t Ii 111 i tation loss 0 rill COllle, sa 1(1 ry and beller-lts.. and the intangible lo ss 27 or 12940, subsec tion (a). or emplo ymenl-rel ated op portunities for gro\vth in Iter fi eld nnd damage [0 he r professional reputation , all in 5 (,(,45 FAX, 512 ." H . 4 7 5~ March 20, 2015 VIA EMAIL and U.S. MAIL Tim.watson@lewisbrisbois.com; Ryan.garchie@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Tim Watson Mr. Ryan Garchie Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP 701 B St., Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92021 RE: Virginia Moeller vs. North County Transit District; Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production, Set One; Meet and Confer Letter Re: Documents Ordered Turned Over By the Court. Dear Mr. Watson and Mr. Garchie: This will serve as Plaintiff's attempt to "meet and confer" regarding your failure to tum over documents ordered turned over by the court. As you know, Ms. Moeller served requests for production asking for certain statistical evidence on the demographics of the population ofNCTD between 2000 and the present. At the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel production of the documents, the court narrowed the request to the years 2009 to the present, and granted Plaintiff's motion. Despite the court's order, which is attached, your client failed to provide the infOimation ordered to be produced. That information was to be provided no later than 14 days after the court's order. You have not only failed to provide the information, but as highlighted in Ms. Tucholski's deposition, for the first time in your Supplemental Response you have claimed that the documents are not in your client's possession, and have never been in your client s possession . This is not only a 180 degree turn around based on earlier responses which never made such a claim, but it also flies directly in the face of your statutory obligation to maintain this demographic infol1llation in order to comply with state and federal statutes which prohibit discrimination. Your position was further undemlined by the testimony of Ms. Tucholski at her recent deposition which disclosed that you not only do have this information. but she testified to exactly where it is, and how easy it is to access. She even described a program which exists at the District, which allowed her to almost automatically retrieve the information in order to fill out the EEO-4 form I showed her during her deposition. The court's order stating this information must be turned over also pointed out that this information is "directly relevant" to the Plaintiff's claims. Of course, such infOlmation Mr. Watson; 1"[r. Garchie -2- March 20, 2015 was to be part and parcel of the Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment, as I'm sure you imagined. Your repeated objections during the depositions of both Mr. Tucker and Ms. Tucholski instructing the witness not answer my questions asking the approximate ages of various persons only highlights the dilatory nature of your approach to discovery in this age/gender case. Ms. Tucholski, of course, who professed not knowing about the court's order, signed the verification to the Supplementary Responses and stated thereby that someone "informed" her that NCTD did not have the information, and never had it. Who that person might be, and how and why that person may have so infonned Ms. Tucholski is remains a mystery due to your rather lengthy objections during the deposition along the lines of "attorney client privilege," but wi I.! be explored. For now, you should be assured that Ms. Moeller will pursue all available remedies at her disposal. Should you and/or your client choose to reconsider your refusal to provide the referenced court ordered information, I look forward to hearing about it. In any event, I look forward hearing from you, and to discussing a time frame for further "meet and confer" discussions . Thanks for your attention to these issues. Law Offices of William N. Woodson, HI, APC, William N. Woodson, III By William N. Woodson, III I 8 () 7 E DEL WEI S S D R 1 V E. C E DAR P J\ R K . '1' X 7 8 6 I 1 PHONE : (761J)D5·6645; fAX: (512)358·4759 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NORTH COUNTY MINUTE OR.DER DATE: 02/10/2015 TIME: 01 :45:00 PM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Jacqueline M. Stern CLERK: Michael Garland REPORTERIERM: Not Reported BAILIFF/COURT ATIENDANT: DEPT: N-27 CASE NO: 37-2013.00067620-CU·WT·NC CASE INIT.DATE: 09/19/2013 CASE TITLE: Moeller vs. North County Transit Dlstrict[IMAOED] CASE CATEGORY: Civil· Unlimited CASE TYPE: Wrongful Termination EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) APPEARANCES The Court. having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on February 5, 2015, and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows: On February 5, 2015, the Court heard and considered Plaintiff's discovery motion and the opposition thereto, and the Court made various rulings on Plai ntiff's Requests for Production. The Court took under submission Requests Nos. 86, 88 and 89 and now rules that Plaintiff's motion is granted In part as to those requests as the documents sought are dlrec::tly relevant to her causes of action. However, Request No. 86 Is overbroad and is thus limited to the years 2008 and forward. In addition, employee names are to be redacted from the documents produced by Defendant. No sanctions are awarded. Judge Jacqueline M. Stern DATE: 0211012015 DEPT: N-27 Page 1 Calendar No. MINUTE ORDER Hlm) ClOICl3df15 009S-10G-09L LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LA'N 701 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: 619.233.1006 Fax: 619.233.8627 W'NW.lewisbrisbois. com TIMOTHY J. WATSON DIRECT DIAL: 619.699.4991 TIM.WATSON@LEWISBRISBOIS.COM March 31,2015 File No. 34019.4 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL William N. Woodson, III Law Offices of William N. Woodson, III, APC 1807 Edelweiss Drive, Cedar Park, TX 76813 Re: William Crosby Law Offices of William Crosby 13522 Newport Avenue Suite 201 Tustin, CA 92780 MoeUer v. North County Transit District Dear Bill: This letter addresses Plaintiff's March 20, 2015 "meet and confer" letter. Plaintiffs Delay and Lack of Good Faith Meet and Confer Attempt As an initial matter, NCTD does not believe that the March 20 letter from Plaintiff constitutes a "good faith" meet and confer effort. After being in possession of NCTD's supplemental responses for 23 days, Plaintiff sent a vague letter that fails to specifically identify the request(s) or response(s) in dispute. NCrD's Compliance with the Court's Order Plaintiff's letter misrepresents the Court's order on Plainti.ff's motion to compel. The Court did not order that "information" "be produced." The Court ordered that further responses be provided. NCTD complied with the Court's order in full by timely providing further responses to requests number 86, 88 and 89. Plaintiffs Requests No. 86. 88 and 89 and Your Misrepresentation of Ms. Tucholski's Deposition Testimony While it is somewhat unclear exacUy what responses Plaintiff is taking issue with, NCTD will assume that Plaintiff's letter relates to requests 86, 88 and 89 since the Court's ATlANTA' BEALMONT' BOSTON' CHA.RLESTON· CHICAGO' DAllAS' DEi'MR' FORT LAUDERDALE • HOUSTON' LAQUNTA' LAFAYETTE 'lPSVEGAS' LOS ANGELES • MADlSONC()UIJTY NEWORLEANS • NEWYORK • NEWARK' ORANGE COUNTY' PHLADELPHA • PHOENIX' SACRAIv1ENTO • SAN BERNMaNO • SAN ClEGO • SAN FRANOSCO • SEAffiE • TAMPA' TEMECUA • TUCSON 4839-0788-0733.1 William N. Woodson , III William Crosby March 31 , 2015 Page 2 order was enclosed. As with her prior "meet and confer" correspondence, Plaintiff has failed to include the actual text of her requests in her letter. Request number 86 asked for: "Any and all DOCUMENTS showing the age, gender, and racial makeup of your employees from the year 2000 through today's date." As you acknowledge, the Court limited this request to the years 2008 forward. Plaintiff must examine the actual wording of her request. She asked for documents that contain four categories of information: 1) age; 2) gender; 3) race; of 4) all employees during the selected time frame. Any document that does not contain all four categories is not responsive based on the way in which Plaintiff phrased this request. NTCD timely responded with appropriate objections and indicated that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody or control. Moreover, the Court did not order that we produce the personnel files and payroll records of each individual employee that might contain that separate information for each employee since 2008. The Court also did not require NCTD to create a document that previously did not exist. Request number 88 asked for: "All spreadsheets or other DOCUMENTS setting forth the dates of birth, dates of hire, job titles, and dates of termination of all NCTD employees who were separated from their employment for any reason between January 1, 2009 and December 31,2011, inclusive ..." Again, based on the way in which Plaintiff phrased this request, she is asking for spreadsheets or documents that contain five categor'ies of information about employees: 1) dates of birth; 2) dates of hire; 3) job titles; 4) dates of termination; of 5) all employees during the selected time frame. Any document that does not contain all five categories is not responsive. NTCD timely responded that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody or control. Moreover, the Court did not order that we produce the personnel files and payroll records of each individual employee that might contain that separate information for each employee since 2008. The Court also did not require 'NCTD to create a document that previously did not exist. Request number 89 asked for: "All spreadsheets or other DOCUMENTS setting forth the dates of birth, dates of hire, and job titles of all persons hired by NCTD to replace the employees who were separated from their employment for any reason between January 1,2009 and December 31,2011, inclusive ..." Once again, based on the way in which Plaintiff phrased this request, she is asking for spreadsheets or documents that contain four categories of information about employees: 1) dates of birth; 2) dates of hire; 3) job titles; of 4) all emp'loyees during the selected time frame . Any document that does not contain all four categories is not responsive. NTCD timely responded that no responsive documents are in its possession, custody or control. Moreover, the Court did not order that we produce the personnel files and payro'\l records of each individual employee that might contain that separate linformation for each employee since 2008. The Court also did not require NCTD to create a document that previously did not exist. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH llP • www.lewlsbrlsbols.com 4839-0788-0733.1 William N. Woodson, III William Crosby March 31,2015 Page 3 As you are well aware, the Court indicated at the hearing that there would be no digging through employee's personnel files to find every single paper that may contain one of the various categories. Plaintiff asked for documents containing very specific categories and those documents simply do not exist. The mere fact that Plaintiff may wish that all of this information was in one tidy place does not mean that any such document exists. Legally proper responses have been provided in full compliance with the Court's order. In an attempt to support her letter, Plaintiff completely misrepresents the deposition testimony of NCTO's Chief Administrative Officer, Karen Tucholski. Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Tucholski 's testimony indicated that NCTO "ha[s] this information," that it is "easy to access," and that she can "almost automatically retrieve the information in order to fill out the EE04 form ..." These arguments are both highly misleading and factually incorrect. Moreover, even if Plaintiff were correct, the Court did not order that NCTO create a document or make a compilation of information, nor is NCTO obligated to do so in responding to a request for documents. There are other discovery devices available to the Plaintiff. Ms. Tucholski did testify that she runs a program in order to specifically fill out EE04 forms. Those forms have been produced to you. As you are aware, EE04 forms do not contain: 1) specific ages; 2) dates of birth; 3) job titles; 4) dates of termination; or 5) dates of hire. Contrary to your characterization, Ms. Tucholski's pertinent testimony was as follows: Q. Well, the request says, "provide documents showing the age, gender, and racial makeup of your employees from 2000 forward." You don't have those documents? A. No. MR. WATSON: I'll object in that the response also contains objections which were validated by the court as to it's overly broadsome (sic), and what this document request goes to is eXisting reports showing all -- all employees. It doesn't go to the personnel file or individual records of each and every employee from the year 2000 through today's date. The court wasn't allowing that. LEWIS BI"{ISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP • www.lewlsbrlsbois.com 4839-0788-0733.1 William N. Woodson, III William Crosby March 31,2015 Page 4 MR. WOODSON: Well, I think the court actually put some parameters on it, perhaps 2008 forward -­ MR. WATSON: Even 2008. The court did not indicate that it was requesting NCTD to produce employees' personnel files or other personal data as to each employee. It related to the EE04 forms, it related to reports that would show the age, gender, racial makeup of these employees, and not individual documents which, through extensive labor and diligent work by expending thousands and thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of man effort might be accumulated. (Tucholski depo., pp. 80:20-81 :18) Q. Let's go to 88, ma'am. First note what it asks for. And then you can see the last sentence, "after diligent search," et cetera . A. Yes. Q. The last sentence in that response says, "Responding party is informed and believes that responsive documents have never been in its possession, custody, or controL" Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Is that true? A. Yes. (Tucholski depo., p. 83: 11-22) Q. Well, where is the age of the employees contained? A. In different places. Q. What different places? A. In their personnel file. Q. Okay. That's one place. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP • www.lewisbrlsbois.com 4839-0788·0733.1 William N. Woodson, III William Crosby March 31, 2015 Page 5 A. In the payroll record . Q. I'm sorry? A. In the payroll record. Q. There's a payroll record . Where else? A. It shouldn't be really anywhere else. EEO records, but those aren't individual specific. It's consolidated. Q. Okay. So you have some EEO records that show age, you have some personnel files that show age, and you have some payroll records that show age. A. Yes. Q. How about gender? What different sources are there for the gender information? A. It would be the same sources. Q. Okay. And for the race? A. The same sources. Q . Dates of hire? A. The same sources. Q. Job titles? A. Same sources. Q. Dates of termination? A. The same sources. (Tucholski depo., pp. 85:4-86:6) Q. Okay. Drop down to 89. A. Okay. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP • www.lewlsbrisbois .com 4839-0788-0733.1 William N. Woodson, III William Crosby March 31, 2015 Page 6 Q. This request asks for you to provide certain information on individuals that were hired to replace employees. And I can anticipate a response that, no, we never replaced anyone that was laid off. You follow me? A. I understand what you're saying, yes. Q. Did you do that? Did you do that stuff that you just described? A. To the best of my ability, yes. Q. Where did you look? A. Variety of different sources, files -­ Q. And you concluded -­ A. -- payroll record. Q. -- no such documents had ever existed? MR. WATSON: Did you get her response? He kind of stepped on it. MR. WOODSON: Oh, I'm sorry. THE REPORTER : She said "files" -­ THE WITNESS: Files, personnel files, payroll records. BY MR. WOODSON : Q. Are you finished? A. Yes. Q . And did you find any information that should be turned over? LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGMRD & SMITH LLP • www.lewlsbrisbois.com 4839-0788-0733.1 William N. Woodson, III William Crosby March 31,2015 Page 7 A. No, I did not. (Tucholski depo., pp. 86:9-87:25) Ms. Tucholski did not testify that the numerous categories of information Plaintiff has requested, which are not in the EE04 forms, are "easy to access." She testified that there is a report that pulls the information specific to EE04 forms (which, as noted above are "not individual specific"): Q. Okay. So there's a specific report in payroll that will disgorge the information required by the EE04 form. A. Yes. (Tucholski depo., p. 89:6-9) Plaintiff repeatedly refers to "information." Asking for "information" is for Special Interrogatories. Requests for Production of Documents are for documents that are in existence. As you know, Plaintiff chose not to pursue her motion to compel as to the special interrogatories. Besides the numerous objections that have been, and would be asserted, to such a burdensome and oppressive request, Plaintiff's opportunity to seek this "information" has long since been abandoned. Finally, for purposes of summary judgment, the Court must adhere to the allegations of the Complaint. As such, this information is of no value to any opposition to summary judgment as the complaint is devoid of any disparate impact allegations. The Court will be required by law to rule that any alleged disparate impact evidence in opposition to NCrD's motion for summary judgment is inadmissible because disparate impact theory is not pleaded in her complaint. NCTD has complied with the Court's order. There is no legal basis for any further action in connection with Plaintiff's requests for production. If you disagree and can more specificaUy articulate your basis we are happy to continue this discussion. If you have any legal authority supporting Plaintiff's position, please provide it to us at your earliest convenience . Very truly yours, Timothy J. Watson of LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP • www.lewlsbrisbois.com 4839-0788-0733.1 LLP William N. Woodson, III William Crosby March 31, 2015 Page 8 TJW:rpg LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP • www.lewlsbrlsbols.com 4839-0788·0733.1