i: will -, 4 ?111951551 1 Michael Hoffman, Bar No. 162496 Ronald D. Arena, Bar No. 218421 FELEB 2 Amy c. Hirsh, Bar No. 246533 ALAMEDACOUNTY ARENA HOFFMAN LLP 3 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520 SEP 28 20113 4 f?lg?lg?3_l4l4 Facsimile: (415) 520-0446 6 Attorheys for Plaintiff 1 I 5 mhoffman@arenahoffman.com BLAKE WENTWORTH 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 1 FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 9 RENE C. DAVIDSON COURTHOUSE 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 i - s4 12 BLAKE WENTWORTH, CASE NO. 3 I 13 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: 1 vs. 1 14 1. FEHA Harassment REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 2. FEHA Discrimination 15 and DOES 1?50, 3. FEHA Retaliation 4. Failure to Engage in FEHA 16 Defendants. Interactive Process 5. Failure to Provide FEHA 17 - Reasonable Accommodation 6. Withholding Personnel File 18 and Wage Records 19 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 20 21 Plaintiff Blake Wentworth (?Plaintiff?) alleges as follows: 22 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 23 1. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, an 24 individual and resided in Alameda CoUnty, California. 25 2. Defendant Regents of the University of California 26 . is a legal corporation, recognized by Article IX, Section 9 of the 27 California Constitution, which administers the public trust known 28 COMPLAINT 1. the University of California. At all times relevant, UC is and has been an ?employer,? within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Govt. Code UC has done business in Alameda County at all times relevant. 3. Plaintiff has exhausted all statutory preconditions to bringing this lawsuit by filing an administrative charge against UC with the Department of Fair Employment Housing He requested and received a ?Right to Sue? notice and commenced this action within one year of receiving such Right to Sue notice. 4. Venue is proper in this Court because: events giving rise to the action occurred in Alameda County; Plaintiff was harmed in Alameda County; and Plaintiff resides in Alameda County. Damages in the action exceed the Court?s jurisdictional minimum Of $25,000. 5. Plaintiff_does not know the true names and capacities of Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each Doe Defendant is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this Complaint, and Plaintiff?s injuries and damages were proximately caused by their respective acts and omissions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND DISABILITY 6. Past sexual harassment by administrators and faculty has sparked reactions at college campuses. HoWever, academics across the country have decried misguided reforms which allow for the destruction of careers through false, distorted, and/or exaggerated claims. See W. Greeley, ?How the Sex Harassment Cops Became Speech Police,? Wall Street Journal (Feb. 19, 2016) (discussing discharge COMPLAINT 2, Prof. Teresa Buchanan); Law School Faculty, ?Rethink Harvard?s Sexual Harassment Policy,? Boston Globe (Oct. 15, 2014); E. Volokh, ?Open Letter from 16 Penn Law School Professors,? Washington Post (Feb. 15, 2015). Feminist scholar Janet Halley criticized nevised Title IX harassment procedures as ?defective on every knawm scale i 1 of equal procedural treatment of the parties and due process.? Once a professor is branded a ?harasser? in the media or opinion, he or she is unlikely to find work as a teacher 1 popular again. 7. University faculty have also been targets of anonymous charges and gossip campaigns for decades. To safeguard misconduct allegations are reviewed and adjudicated by academic senates at most universities. 1? UC adopted APM 015 and 016, which i preserve academic freedom, set a code of conduct, and prov1de for Academic Senate hearings before discipline and discharge. harassment is prohibited by law and UC policy. Nevertheless disciplining or terminating a professorAcademic Senate hearing under Bylaw 336. harassment do not strip UC faculty of the right to full and review under UC Bylaw 336. Allegations of Sexual a before right to sexual fair 8. UC hired Plaintiff in 2012 as an assistant professor in the Department of South Southeast Asian Studies at the University of California at Berkeley academic credentials and teaching experience at, among others, University of Chicago and Yale University. Chair praised him in 2015 for having ?all excellent? student evaluations and a ?strong and steady rise? in enrollment. He has distinguished the His SSEAS Department 9. Plaintiff rates highly on published student evaluations: love his generosity, passion, and his good preparation for each COMPLAINT 3. lecture?; ?Best professor I have had at Cal"; I love Prof. Wentworth He is awesome. Always there to help, actually cares about his students, and very loving?; ?If I could major in Blake Wentworth, I would! In5piring professor, incredible support system. He cares about his students more than I have ever seen before?; ?One of the most supportive professors I?ve had at Cal, he cares a ton about his students.? In December 2014, a senior auditor wrote to the SSEAS Chair, Jeffrey Hadler ("Hadler"), and praised Plaintiff's ?caring and positive method with the students,? adding that he ?was extremely positive with each and every one of them.? His letter concluded: have been a Senior Auditor at Cal for 11 years and I feel that his teaching style puts him at the top of all the classes I have audited.? 10. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with depression and bipolar disorder, both of which qualify as FEHA disabilities. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, an estimated 2.5% of adult Americans are affected tn! the condition; public figures include Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, Carrie Fisher, Russell Brand, Demi Lovato, Jane Pauley, Dick Cavett, and Richard Dreyfuss. 11. In 2014, Plaintiff?s condition required more.treatment, therapy, and prescription medication. However, Plaintiff continued to teach a full schedule of classes, maintain his office?hours, and 1 honor his academic commitments. He also remained on track to meet the requirements for tenure consideration. i 12. UC policy gives the Department Chair (Hadlei) primary responsibility to grant or deny accommodations, engagejin a good faith dialogue for accommodations, and implement accommodations; he i or she must maintain confidentiality on a need to know basis. '1 COMPLAINT 4. HADLER DISMISSED ERIN CLAIM OF BEING 13. Erin Bennett (?Bennett?) enrolled in UCB as a graduate student in fall of 2014 to study comparative literature; not an SSEAS student. she was Plaintiff had not met her before then. On September 11, 2014, after the term began, Bennett emailed Plaintiff requesting independent study in Tamil language. informed and believes that Bennett requested independent Plaintif is study because: she lacked basic written skills in Tamil and needed remedial instruction for a comparative literature program; and she lacked sufficient course credit to maintain fellc funding and believed this was easier way to satisfy her 14. Bennett fell behind in her work. According to sent to Plaintiff during the fall of 2014, she put off or Tamil work because she was ?overwhelmed? by other matters she was ?swamped? with other class work; she intended to dictionary and translation practice on [her] own so [she] >wship :onditions. emails she cancelled writing: do ?more can be more prepared for class?; she ?didn't get as much translation work done on the story as [she] would have liked?; she was ?feeling very overwhelmed with work from [her] other classes and didn't get to translating this week?; and she wanted to study more for exams. On November 5, 2014, Bennett wrote to Plaintiff: other ?I?m so sorry to do this again, but I'm swamped tomorrow meeting with a professor in the afternoon, special seminar that I want to attend then as well, and dad is arriving from Milwaukee for a visit. The semester is getting incredibly busy! Thanks for understanding.? 15. On November 6, 2014, Plaintiff replied to Bennett: ?Okay - but we do need to attend to the parameters of the independent study, if you want credit for the class. We can discuss COMPLAINT 5. meeting during reading week or the like to make up for it.? Theinext day, on November 7, 2014, Bennett emailed Plaintiff and stated ?decided to drop the independent study course.? Consiste her emails throughout the term, she had ?too much on [her now and want[ed] to explore other paths.? Bennett wrote was ?grateful for [Plaintiff?s] time and the academic gui l6. for lack of sufficient academic credit. Plaintiff is inf believes that Bennett being ?overwhelmed? with her studie jeopardized FLAS funds. even after contact with Plaintiff Bennett never advised Plaintiff that she viewed any words as inappropriate, unprofessional, or unwelcome. She neve him that their conversations or work interfered with her made her uncomfortable- 17. Later in November 2014, Hadler notified Plainti anonymous with him; Hadler would not disclose details or the identi student. anonymous complaint ruining his career. Plaintiff denied Plaintiff became highly distressed by the prospect that she nt'with plate thet she dahce.? Plaintiff is informed and believes that, when Benpett .dropped independent study, she jeopardized FLAS fellowship funds ormed and 5 further ended. or deeds advised studies or i ?1 )1 an complaint was lodged by a student who was ?uncomfortable? tytof the of an any form of improper behavior. Hadler apologized in a reply for increasing his anxiety: ?a student raised concerns no formal grievance has been filed (thankfully) nothing official seems to be happening. So I gave you that vague warning speech and increased your anxiety. I apologize for that.? 18. Hadler approved Bennett?s independent study in September. Plaintiff later learned that Bennett allegedly told Hadler that she dropped independent because Plaintiff made her ?uncomfort COMPLAINT 6. able.? 19. Hadler met with Bennett on December 4, 2014. He wrote to Plaintiff that evening: at last met with your student and should discuss the meeting with you. Nothing new consider it an official chastening.? Hadler concluded by inviting Plaintiff to meet for an alcohol beverage: ?Let?s grab something decaffeinated when you are available.? He said later: ?There?s nothing there." Consistent with policy, Plaintiff disclosed his diagnosis to Hadler on December 9, explaining his reaction to the anonymous 1 20. Bennett did not initiate a complaint against Pl UC. As her emails show, Bennett claimed to be ?uncomfori :laim. Laintiff to :able? in an effort to save her funding and excuse her academic challenges. Hadler dismissed the Bennett matter and took no further action. HADLER CALLED OPHD DAYS AFTER LEARNING PLAINTIFF WAS HOSPITALIZED 21. On February 3 and 5 of 2015, Plaintiff missed two classes in a state of intense emotional distress and depression. According to Hadler's notes, he allegedly received a call on February 5 from ?a physician, calling from a hospital in Palo Alto,? advising that Plaintiff was ?unable to come to work.? Hadler received another call that day from an unidentified person, who ?discussec a ?family tragedy? and said Blake was in the hospital.? Hadler?s motes state that he received an ?upbeat? call on Friday, February 6,]advising i that Plaintiff would return to work next week. Hadler wrote that i the absence was ?a legally protected disability issue?; ?e wrote two weeks later that he was ?dealing with an assistant p?ofessor in 1 the midst of a major crisis, precipitated by personal issues that exacerbated an existing condition.? 3 22. On Saturday, February 7, two days after Hadler learned of Plaintiff?s hospital stay, UC records state that Hadler ?teferred COMPLAINT 7. .to quit.? 1 [Bennett?s] issue? to the UC Office for Prevention Harasp Discrimination offering ?very general? allegati Plaintiff allegedly made Bennett ?uncomfortable? back in As confirmed in December 2014, Hadler knew that ?nothing ment ons that November. official? was warranted for Bennett dropping independent study. But once Plaintiff exhibited ?legally protected? disability Hadler quickly resurrected Bennett?s meritless assertions as a pretext to build a file on Plaintiff and get rid of a disabled profe 23. Plaintiff returned to work and resumed teaching of February 9 for undergraduate and graduate courses; he the term. Yet on February 10, Hadler sent a ?generic Plaintiff?s students, soliciting ?concerns? about him. his reviews confirm, Plaintiff rated highly among student conceded in April 2015 that Plaintiff had ?all excellent" evaluations. In the face of the positive reviews, Hadler the absence of responses to his ?generic email? on Fe as unfair proof that Plaintiff was not doing his job. Ev student responses, Hadler wrote on February 10, ?It?s inc apparent that [Plaintiff] should be removed from teaching. 24. On February 17, Hadler wrote that Plaintiff ?se getting worse and [is] unable to fulfill duties. But doe Hadler wanted him out. On February 18, Hadler that Plaintiff ?looks very bad, sick and puffy.? Hadler Plaintiff that he was ?very worried" about his condition Plaintiff to apply for a disability accommodation (refere diagnosis). Plaintiff responded with transparency, discl medication and authorizing contact with his doctor (per COMPLAINT 8. ssor. the week completed email? to owever, as s. Hadler student papered bruary 10 en without reasingly ems to be not want wrote wrote to and urged ncing the osing his policy giving Hadler primary reSponsibility on disability accommodations for SSEAS faculty). To Hadler?s ire, Plaintiff would not quit. 25. UC did not conclude that Plaintiff was unfit to teach or unable to fulfill his duties. he submit to-an examination. UC did not seek his doctor? UC did not perform or reqUest that 3 opinion. RETALIATION AFTER PLAINTIFF COMPLAINED OF DISCRIMINATION 26. Hadler met with Plaintiff on April 7, 2015. According to Hadler?s notes, Plaintiff expressly told Hadler that ?he being harassed and discriminated against" due to ?vague without naming accusers or giving real details.? In the these facts, Hadler wrote that Plaintiff is ?delusional.? retaliated by issuing written discipline to Plaintiff on Discipline For Missing Work During A Known Hospitalization 27. As described above, Hadler knew that Plaintiff classes for treatment he clearly regarded as related to disability. Hadler disciplined Plaintiff for missing two and failing to meet an administrative deadline on Februar 28. Hadler falsely accused Plaintiff of being impai work. Yet he also criticized Plaintiff for arriving ?ver a department reception for which you had agreed to bring 29. UC cited Hadler's memo as grounds to fire Plain Discipline For Bennett?s Meritless Charge - Initiated By 30. In November and December of 2014, Hadler found allegations of being ?uncomfortable? as unworthy of an OP He dismissed the substance, offered to meet Plaintiff for gave Plaintiff an ?official chastening" and took no actio is the one? omplaints face of Hadler April 14. missed two laintiff?s classes 3 and 5. red at late to drinks.? tiff. Hadler Bennett?s HD charge. a drink, for months. Two days after Hadler became aware of Plaintiff? stay, he developed an urgency to report Bennett?s meritle COMPLAINT 9. 5 hospital 1 35 claim OPHD on a Saturday. Hadler criticized Plaintiff in the memo 1 regarding Bennett as pretext to harass Plaintiff and pressure him to quit. UC later cited Hadler?s memo as grounds to fire Plaintiff. Discipline For Jane Doe?s1 Exit From SSEAS - Driven By Hadler 3l. Hadler criticized Plaintiff for his work with a graduate student, Jane Doe. Records show that Hadler viewed Ms. Doe as a poor student and directed Plaintiff to drive her out of SSEAS. 32. Hadler wrote to Plaintiff: Doe] is aggravating And yet it upsets us when the people we loathe fail to grovel before our magnificence. Welcome to my life. now but it certainly won't hurt you in the future. It will bother you And having a fine excuse to wash your hands of [graduate advisor?s] future jetsam will be cause for rejoicing.? that Ms. Doe was a ?loser? and ?should be banished? from 33. On December 16, 2014, Hadler wrote to Plaintiff SSEAS gave a ?block grant? to Ms. Doe ?to either finish and leave with dignity, finish a brilliant thesis and sti as a miracle cure, or not finish her thesis and get boote the time Ms. Doe asked Plaintiff for assistance, she ackn procrastinating on the thesis (?really something I've bee off for too long?) and worried that her failure to comple thesis after four years would end her financial aid. Had the head graduate advisor gave vivid directions to Plaint [Y]ou should not feel any obligation to work with her. She's the legacy of the old regime1 I?me you to scrape some of those lampreys off! Jeff Plaintiff references individuals with pseudonyms unl she previously disclosed the information in a public foru COMPLAINT 10. Hadler wrote to Pla intiff SSEAS. that er thesis ck around By owledged putting te the ler and iff: ass he or dear blake (and jeff), 1 i 4 .1 time to take away'the dross from the silver! good luck, [Prof. (emphasis added)2 Both of them told Plaintiff, ?She needs to-go.? 34. Hadler?s retaliatory memo of April 14 falsely states that he advised Plaintiff to give Ms. Doe ?some reasoned comments on her work, demonstrating your conscientious and principled character as a mentor.? pretext to harass Plaintiff and pressure him to quit. UC cited Hadler?s memo as grounds to fire Plaintiff. Hadler lied, confirmed in his emails to Plaintiff, as later warning For Touching Unidentified Students Which Hadler Endorsed 35. In June 2014, Hadler made a veiled remark sugge Plaintiff appeared too close and friendly with a student SSEAS event. Plaintiff emailed Hadler and asked whether crossed the line with a student?? Dr. Hadler replied in Nb, of course not! There are amusing stories sting that at an he ?ever writing: from Rhetoric and Anthropology but as far as I know SSEAS professors tend to stick t5 affairs with graduate students, as nature intended (getting us, inter alia, [Prof. and Prof. (emphasis added) 36. In Hadler?s retaliatory memo of April 14, he cr Plaintiff for allegedly ?touching? unidentified students; the alleged ?touching? is described as unwelcome or inapp The discipline was a pretext: Hadler acknowledged that had appropriate boundaries; regardless, he endorsed facul ?affairs? with graduate students and paramour nepotism in 2 A lamprey is a parasitic, jawless, blood?sucking eel iticized none of ropriate. laintiff :y having SSEAS. To ?take away the dross from the silver? means applying intense furnace heat to ore and removing the waste to extract silver. COMPLAINT 1 l. 37. Knowing Plaintiff's diagnosis and past reactioh to vague accusations, Hadler left most assertions anonymous and conclusory in his April 14 memo (besides Bennett and Ms. Doe). Compounding Hadler?s malice, he wrote to others that Plaintiff was ?paranoid? and expressed ?paranoia? that people are ?out to get him. email accompanying, Hadler urged Plaintiff to take ?medical leave.? CONCEALED RECORDS, AND HUNT FOR II In an 38. OPHD functions under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to address sexual harassment, discrimination, and sexual violence on campus. OPHD is not a general faculty police force. 39. UC revised its Sexual Harassment and Sexual Vic Policy in 2014 and 2015. ?The individual(s) accused of conduct violating the Polic provided a copy of the written request for Formal Invest: otherwise given a full and complete written statement of allegations.? statement of the harassment allegations. request to disclose all charges lodged with OPHD. alence According to both versions of the policy, :y shall be -gation or the UC failed to provide a full and complete written UC refused Plaintiff?s 40. According to the UC Sexual Harassment policy, all charges of harassment require an offer of ?Early Resolution? befcre any formal investigation. UC demanded that Plaintiff submit to a formal investigation without pursuing Early Resolution. 41.. OPHD must investigate and report on sexual harassment charges within 60 days. eight months trying to dig up dirt on Plaintiff and bury Working closely with Hadler, OPHD spent him. 42. Determined to get rid of Plaintiff, Hadler solicited and seized upon false, distorted, and exaggerated accusations or gossip as a pretext to harass Plaintiff and coerce him to resign. On COMPLAINT 12. April 15 and 22 of 2015, Hadler hosted OPHD sessions in which time Hadler invited attendees to make anonymous and complaints regarding Plaintiff. Documented examples incl a.According to OPHD, Plaintiff allegedly asked unidentified student ?innocuous questions such as, ?Where find jeans to Hadler and OPHD characterized Plain questions about buying jeans as ?unprofessional conduct." SEAS, at petty ude: an do I can tiff?s b.The UC Faculty Code of Conduct guarantees academic freedom. A syllabus on post?structuralism included texts by Michel Foucault and Georges Bataille (common in academia). Plaintiff shared his concern with students that some graphic passages in the texts might be uncomfortable. Hadler and OPHD characteri zed the discussion of authors and their texts as ?unprofessional conduct.? c.On occasion, Plaintiff brought his dog, Herbert, to campus and walked the dog, which helped ease his stress. Hadler and OPHD characterized walking the dog as ?manipulative behavior.? d.Plaintiff spilled coffee on himself before a class. OPHD cited criticism against Plaintiff for allegedly wearing shorts in class after spilling coffee on his pants. e. Plaintiff has previously discussed Burning Ma context of lectures on utopianism. Students also occasio him about drugs or intcxicants and any relation to South. philosophy and religion. Hadler and OPHD criticized Plai allegedly discussing Burning Man, drug use, and other sub ?unprofessional conduct.? in the nally ask Asian itiff for jects as blamed Plaintiff for criticizing Ms. Doe?s work and her exit from SSEAS, even though Hadler wanted Ms. Doe out of the program and referred to her in extremely derisive language. COMPLAINT 13. g.Alleged1y making ?personal? comments, such as ?you should use a fountain pen? and ?a comment about her eyeglasses.? 43. in unidentified classes at unknown times. UC cited anecdotes by anonymous students about inbidents During the investigation process, UCB students contacted SSEAS to share their positive class experiences and rebut criticism of Plaintiff?s teaching. Neither SSEAS, nor OPHD, nor UC interviewed any of these students to hear their accounts and specific facts. OPHD deemed it ?irrelevant.? UC denied Plaintiff?s requests to disclose the classes when%the alleged incidents occurred to allow Plaintiff to idehtify students in the same classes who could refute the criticism). 44. wage records to him upon request for inspection and copying. Code 31011; Labor Code 226, 1198.5. By statute, UC must disclose Plaintiff?s personneh and Govt. Even though Plaintiff faces accusations aimed at ending his teaching career, UC denied 1 his request for his personnel file and continues to do 50.; i GUTIERREZ EMAILS PLAINTIFF TO THEN REPORTS HIM TO OPHD 45. SSEAS. 46. 1 Kathleen Gutierrez (?Gutierrez?) is a graduate stpdent in She identifies Hadler as her academic advisor in SSEAS. Plaintiff?s office was near the graduate student office. Gutierrez developed a cordial, friendly relationship witi him. She discussed personal matters with Plaintiff, such as her breakup with a boyfriend and her relationships with men. 1 Gutierrez never told I Plaintiff that their conversations interfered with her studies or made her uncomfortable. She never told Plaintiff that sis viewed his words or deeds as inappropriate, unprofessional, or unwelcome. 47. with Plaintiff on campus. COMPLAINT On or about February 17, 2015, Gutierrez went for a walk She knew Plaintiff was in the midst of a 14 stressful time in his personal life. discussing personal, social, and academic topics. expressed romantic interest in her. They spent about two hours Plaintiff never 48. On February 23, 2015, Gutierrez emailed Plaintiff and asked him to meet her for coffee off campus. On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff met with Gutierrez at a coffeehouse she requested; the discussion was social. Later that day, on February 27, Plaintiff thanked Gutierrez for the friendly, supportive conversation in his time of personal stress. Thanks for the kind message, Blake. I?m glad we got to discuss life in Herbert?s good company. This is your time to do you. (emphasis in original). Gutierrez replied by email to Plaintiff: 49. According to UC, after spring break in 2015, Gutierrez told Hadler about meetings with Plaintiff on February 17 and 27. After Hadler and OPHD solicited criticism of Plaintiff on April 15 and 22, Hadler persuaded Gutierrez to report Plaintiff tc 50. Notwithstanding Gutierrez?s email, she alleged meetings with Plaintiff on February 17 and 27 amounted tc ?sexual advances? and sexual harassment. Plaintiff met denied the allegations, described what happened, and proc emails documenting Gutierrez?s invitation and follow up. 51. On October 8, 2015, OPHD reported that Plainti? sexually harass Bennett. With respect to Bennett, the rep have ended there. ?unprofessional conduct? toward Bennett. OPHD has no aut police faculty in this manner; OPHD reported the ?unprofe conduct? to Vice Provost for the Faculty. COMPLAINT 15. OPHD. that her unwelcome ith OPHD, uced the did not ort should OPHD instead asserted that Plaintiff engaged in hority to ssional 52. Although Gutierrez and Plaintiff had differing accounts of the meetings on February 17 and 27 (also refuted by Gitierrez?s emails), OPHD found that, ?more likely than not,? Plaintiff made an unwelcome ?sexual advance? toward Gutierrez. MORE HARASSMENT, UNAUTHORIZED SUSPENSION, THREATENED DISCHARGE 53. Between November 2014 and March 2016, no one at any findings which would prevent Plaintiff from teaching UC made Instead, UC faculty and employees harassed Plaintiff based on his disability to coerce his resignation and threatened to discharge him: a. According to UC and Bennett?s statements in public, she ?was very upset about the lack of [an finding? and ?dropped out of the program? because of the OPHD report Ii.e., not due to Plaintiff?s conduct). Even though Bennett was not sexually harassed, UC blamed Plaintiff for Bennett?s alleged reaction to OPHD's report on her meritless complaint. UC faulted Plaintiff when her department allegedly ?had to pay off? the FLAS fellowship. b. On March 24, 2016, SSEAS sent a letter to Vice Provost, published in the Daily Californian on March 31, claiming falsely that OPHD allegedly ?dismissed or shut down? six of seven purported student complaints. The Daily Californian repdrted that Plaintiff was the object of the SSEAS letter. Seven had not lodged harassment complaints. Bennett?s complaint for lack of merit. OPHD ?dismissed or shut down? SSEAS sent the letter as a pretext to ruin Plaintiff?s reputation and pressure him to quit. c. Under UC policy, only the Chancellor may authorize paid leave. On Sunday, March 27, 2016, SSEAS Department faculty came to Plaintiff?s home unannounced and directed him to take paid leave a suspension ?without the Chancellor?s authorization. The 1 1 I . COMPLAINT . 16. leave was a pretext to stain Plaintiff?s teaching reputat students and remove a disabled professor from teaching in d. The SSEAS Department placed Plaintiff in a ion among SSEAS. false light of being suspended for sex harassment and safety concerns. On April 11, 2016, UC spokesman Dan Mogulof falsely implied to the media that the decision pertained to safety. and March 2016, UC and SSEAS allowed Plaintiff to teach no ?safety? issue. e. Despite refusing to disclose his personnel OPHD materials, UC disclosed a ?confidential? OPHD report Plaintiff to the public in late March 2016. or used pseudonyms except for Plaintiff. favorable to Plaintiff. Between November 2014 there was UC aimed to smear Plaintiff in the media. file and regarding UC redacted all names UC redacted the content The OPHD report was posted in web media. UC aimed to smear Plaintiff in the media on a pending matter. f. In April 2016, UC threatened Plaintiff?s cischarge based on anonymous anecdotes that he came to work ?high on drugs? and ?impaired? in close proximity to his hospitalization in 2015. The stories were false. Regardless, UC knew that Plaintiff had a FEHA disability, showed of anxiety and depression, and took prescription medication with potential side effects. No one from UC ever bothered to investigate any connection between the alleged perceptions and Plaintiff?s disability and treatment. 9. The UC Faculty Code of Conduct prohibits professors from making an ?intentional misrepresentation of personal a statement of position of the University or any of its a UCB professor Harsha Ram was quoted in the San Francisco on March 28, 2016: find their testimony [Bennett and very credible. Frankly, I doubt whether at this point th COMPLAINT 17. views as gencies.? Chronicle utierrez] are are any faculty members left in the departments affected who question their veracity.? Then, on April 11, 2016, Dr. Ram partieipated in a campus rally, staged by Bennett, Gutierrez, and their Attorneys, for the stated purpose of having Plaintiff fired. Dr. Ram took the stage and said, ?So we as faculty want to say: we believe you, Erin and Kathleen.? Dr. Ram did-not investigate any complaints against Plaintiff; he had no authority speak for UCB or faculty, nor to imply knowledge of such incidents. He is a Bennett advisor. Dr. Ram has not been disciplined for disparaging Plaintiff on campus and in the media on March 28 and April 11. Instead, UC threatened to discharge Plaintiff for ?disparage[ing]? Dr. Ram?s sctolarship. h. Based on UC's records, Plaintiff is informed and believes that SSEAS Prof. Jacob Dalton continued Hadler's campaign to ruin Plaintiff?s reputation and get rid of him by soliciting criticism about Plaintiff after the staged rally on April 54. Other examples of harassment and discrimination ll. exceed the scope of the pleading and will be uncovered during discovery, once UC discloses records that Plaintiff is entitled to receive. 55. On May 27, 2Gl6, UC agreed that, ?if the issue before us had simply been sexual harassment alone,? Plaintiff would not be discharged. Instead, UC asserts that the other anonymous complaints of ?unprofessional conduct,? contrived by Hadler and OPHD, justify his termination. The Vice Provost is prosecuting Plaintiff before the Academic Senate, yet is still concealing records and names from Plaintiff, aiming to impair his defense and hide FEHA violations. OPHD TACTICS AFTER PLAINTIFF COMPLAINED OF 56. On April 19, 2016, a week after the rally stage Bennett, Gutierrez, and their attorneys, OPHD emailed the COMPLAINT 18. BIAS i by Vice Provost listing alleged ?unprofessional conduct? by Plaintiff. OPHD's authority is limited to conduct which constitutes harassment, discrimination, or sexual violence. sexual OPHD acknohledged that the information ?does not fall under the purview of The agency never gave Plaintiff an opportunity to rebut anyiof the 1 anonymous ?unprofessional conduct? allegations. 1 i 57. On April 22 and May 13 of 2016, Plaintiff notified the Vice Provost's office of the disability harassment. by opening another OPHD investigation against him on May 16, UC responded 2016. 58. Nicole Hemenway (?Hemenway?) took Plaintiff?s classes and asked him to serve as her advisor for her senior thesis 5 with graduate school applications. Plaintiff agreed. She a cordial, friendly relationship with him. matters to him, such as her relationship with her boyfrie invited personal dialogue. Hemenway asked Plaintiff for to a healthcare provider. She continued to correspond wi asked for academic assistance months after graduating in nd, nd assist developed She confided personal She; a referral i thghim and Ma; 2015. 59. In November 2014, Plaintiff became highly distressed when Hadler notified Plaintiff of the anonymous complaint. remarks from Hadler, Plaintiff asked Hemenway if she had about his behavior toward her. not acted inappropriately. On November 22, Hemenway emai ?If they were concerned that our relationship was possibl inappropriate, they should have expressed concern and car and my well?being, and presented it as that concern. It's failure in society when the main concern around sexual as lawsuit and bad publicity.? (emphasis in original). She COMPLAINT 19. I 1 als 0 Based on concerns She aSsured Plaintiff that he had led him: becoming for me alserious sadlt is a -realized that UC's complaint process was grossly unfair accused and that she could easily fabricate a harassment What if I went to [Department Chair] and said [the head graduate advisor] came onto me just because I f?lt like stirring shit up? That?s such a despicable thought, and that?s exactly what they?re doing. (emphasis added). 60. Despite learning of the complaint against Plair November 2014, Hemenway continued to seek his academic as in 2015?2016. Contrary to later allegations, Hemenway cc Plaintiff in February 2015 that their work together was Thank you for your endless encouragement and for investing time and energy in me. My dedication is largely fueled by your encouragement. 'Your support made me feel a lot better when I was feeling low last semester, so let me know i: I can return the favor at all. (emphasis added). 61. From March to May of 2015, Plaintiff met and co with Hemenway to provide guidance, encouragement, ideas, for her senior thesis. On April 1, she wrote to Plaintif for his help to get an extension on her thesis deadline ?Yikes! commencement: I have tickets booked to go to America May 15th?June 8th.? SSEAS denied the extension. with Plaintiff's help and encouragement, she finished by She wrote to Plaintiff, thanking him for his assistance. 62. Hemenway graduated on May 18, 2015. Aided by guidance and advocacy, Hemenway received an SSEAS Departm for her submission and was invited to give the student sp commencement; she wanted to attend and give the speech. the claim: tiff in sistance nfirmed to roductive: rresponded and edits asking ntil after antral However, Way 15. Laintiff?s ent award each at She asked, Plaintiff to pose with her for a commencement photo, taken by her COMPLAINT 20. father and at her request. Hemenway emailed the photo t; Plaintiff later that day, subject line ?Graduation picture!? i 63. After Hemenway graduated from UCB, she continu?d to email Plaintiff during 2015 and 2016, asking him to assist with graduate fellowship applications and recommendations. She also asked him to help rewrite the honors thesis of May 2015, to be submitted as her writing sample for graduate school editing the work she had turned in earlier). UC faculty members have no obligation to edit the paper of a former student who no longer attends the university. Nonetheless, Plaintiff prepared handwritten edits of the previously submitted paper. He also wrote recommendations on Hemenway?s behalf during 2015 and 2016. She thanked Plaintiff for his help. 64. Hemenway never advised Plaintiff that she viewed any words or deeds as inappropriate, unprofessional, or unwelcome in any manner. She never advised Plaintiff that their conversations interfered with her studies or made her uncomfortable. 65. OPHD is subjecting Plaintiff to another investigation, claiming that he sexually harassed Hemenway, ?prevented? her from completing the thesis {which earned an SSEAS award), and failed to timely rewrite her graduate school writing sample (after she left UCB). The OPHD charge also claims that Plaintiff spoke of personal issues and forced Hemenway to leave the country ?immediately after graduation? in order to avoid Plaintiff. The aforementioned emails and photo refute the claim, yet OPHD continues to harass Plaintiff. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (FEHA Harassment) I 66. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates herein byireference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65, COMPLAINT 21 . inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 67. At all times relevant, UC was an ?employer,? as dbfined by FEHA. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an ?employed,? as I defined by FEHA. At all times relevant, Hadler and Dr. Dalton were ?supervisors? of UC, as defined in Cal. Govt. Code 1292 were acting-in that capacity. At all times relevant, the of UC employees, such as Dr. Ram, was undertaken in the scope of their employment and ratified by DC. 68. As set forth above, UC harassed Plaintiff based disability. The conduct described herein constitutes sev pervasive harassment in violation of Govt. Code 12940, 69. A substantial motivation for all of said incide Plaintiff?s disability and/or his perceived disability. were aware of his disability or, if ignorant, acted on th allegations and pretexts of individuals harboring disabil Hadler). I 70. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result described above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to substantial losses in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictions of this Court. The amount of damages shall be proven at 71. The aforementioned acts and omissions of UC wer oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious. UC ratified th its agents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary pursuant to Civil Code 3294 in an amount to be proven a 72. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs, includi witness fees, attorney's fees, and interest, pursuant to 12965(b). Plaintiff demands such costs, fees, and inte COMPLAINT 22. 1 and- conduct ourse and on his era and et seq. was The actors false ity bias i the acts suffer 1 minimum trial. willful, acts of d%mages irial. ng?expert Govt. Code rest. GONG SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FEHA Discrimination) 73. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 72, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 74. A substantial motivation for said adverse actions was Plaintiff?s disability and/or perceived disability, including but not limited to removal from class, written discipline, punitive leave, suspension, and threatened termination. The actor aware of his disability or, if ignorant, acted on false 5 and pretexts of actors harboring disability bias 75. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result described above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to substantial losses in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictiona of this Court. The amount of damages shall be proven at were llegations adler). the acts suffer 1 minimum trial. 76. The aforementioned acts and omissions of UC were willful, oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious. its agents. UC ratified the acts of Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code 3294 in an amount to be proven at trial. 77. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs, including expert witness fees, attorney?s fees, and interest, pursuant to 12965(b). Govt. Code Plaintiff demands such costs, fees, and interest. 78. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to vacate Plaintiff?s suspension and reinstate all of his academic and teaching duties, pursuant to Govt. Code 12970(a). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (FEHA Retaliation) 79. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates herein by reference COMPLAINT 23. each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 78, i inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 80. Plaintiff engaged in FEHA protected activity by opposing FEHA harassment and discrimination, described above, in 2015 and 2016. Additionally, the Chancellor suspended Plaintiff on June 8, 2016, pending review and hearing by the Academic Senate. 81. A substantial motivation for the adverse action described herein was Plaintiff?s disability and/or perceived disability, including but not limited to removal from class, punitive leave, written discipline, suspension, and threatened termination. The actors were aware of his disability or, if ignorant, acted bn false I allegations and pretexts of actors harboring disability biab Hadler). i 82. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to substantial losses in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictions of this Court. The amount of damages shall be proven at 83. The aforementioned acts and omissions of UC we: oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious. UC ratified tr its agents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary pursuant to Civil Code 3294 in an amount to be proven a 84. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs, includi witness fees, attorney's fees, and interest, pursuant to 12965(b). Plaintiff demands such costs, fees, and inte 85. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling De vacate Plaintiff?s suspension and reinstate all of his ac teaching duties, pursuant to Govt. Code 12970(a). COMPLAINT 24. suffer ll minimum trial. ?e iillful, 1e acts of damages trial. ng expert Govt. Code rest. 1 fendant to ademic and FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Engage in FEHA Interactive Process) 86. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates herein by ?eference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 thrOng 85, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 87. As described above, UC regarded Plaintiff as disabled in some respect for the purpose of imposing discipline and threatening his discharge. Before citing Plaintiff?s disability as grounds for imposing discipline and threatening his discharge, UC had engage in a good faith interactive dialogue and determine a duty to whether a reasonable accommodation may ameliorate perceived critic;sm and enable Plaintiff to perform the essential functions of Bob. UC failed to engage in the interactive process, in violation I of FEHA. 88. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the acts 1 described above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum 1 of this Court. The amount of damages shall be proven at trial. 89. The aforementioned acts and omissions of UC were willful, oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious. UC ratified the acts of its agents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code 3294 in an amount to be proven at trial. 90. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs, including expert witness fees, attorney?s fees, and interest, purSuant to Govt. Code 12965(b). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Plaintiff demands such costs, fees, and interest. u. (Failure to Provide FEHA Reasonable Accommodation). 91. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates herein by 1 reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 throughi90, COMPLAINT 25. inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 92. As described above, UC regarded Plaintiff as disabled in some respect for the purpose of imposing discipline and threatening his discharge. imposing discipline and threatening his discharge, UC had reasonably accommodate Plaintiff to ameliorate perceived and enable him to perform the essential functions of his failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff. 93. described above, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to job. Before citing Plaintiff?s disability as grounds for a duty to criticism UC As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result cf the acts suffer substantial losses in excess of the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum of this Court. The amount of damages shall be proven at 94. oppressive, fraudulent, and/or malicious. its agents. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to exemplary trial. The aforementioned acts and omissions of UC were willful, UC ratified the acts of damages pursuant to Civil Code 3294 in an amount to be proven at trial. 95. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs, including expert witness fees, attorney?s fees, and interest, pursuant to Govt. Code 12965(b). Plaintiff demands such costs, fees, and interest. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Withholding Personnel Records and Wage Records) 96. Plaintiff re?alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 95, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 97. wage records to him upon request for inspection and copying. Code 31011; Labor Code 226, 1198.5. On April 22, 20 Plaintiff requested that UC produce his personnel file an< COMPLAINT 26. By statute, UC must disclose Plaintiff?s personnel and Govt. 16, i wage records for inspection and copying. UC continues to refuse. 98. Plaintiff prays for an order compelling UC to produce i Plaintiff's personnel and wage records for inspection anb copying, I and for an injunction prohibiting UC from withholding sahd records in the future. entitled to an award of $750 for refusal to comply. 4 Pursuant to Labor Code 226(f), Plaintiff is also PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Blake Wentworth prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: (1) proven at trial, damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and anguish- (2) (3) (4) and proper. proven at trial, I I I I damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and anguishn (2) (3) Defendant to vacate Plaintiff?s suspension, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION i I (FEHA Harassment) For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be including lost earnings, benefits, ind general For an award of punitive damages; For an award of attorneys? fees and costs; For such other and further relief as the Court deems just SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FEHA Discrimination) For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be including lost earnings, benefits, and general For an award of punitive damages; For injunctive relief, including an order compelling reinstate his academic and teaching duties, and send curative notices; (4) COMPLAINT For an awardlof attorneys? fees and costs; 21 (5) For such other and further relief as the Court and proper. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (FEHA Retaliation) deems just (1) For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including lost earnings, benefits, and general damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and anguish; (2) For an award of punitive damages; (3) For injunctive relief, including an order Defendant to vacate Plaintiff?s suspension, reinstate and teaching duties, and send curative notices; (4) For an award of attorneys? fees and costs; (5) For such other and further relief as the Court and proper. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Engage In FEHA Interactive Process compelling is academic deems just (1) For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven? at trial, including lost earnings, benefits, and general damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and anguish; (2) For an award of punitive damages; (3) For an award of attorneys? fees and costs; (4) For such other and further relief as the Court and proper. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION deems just (Failure to Provide FEHA Reasonable Accommodaticn) (1) For an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including lost earnings, benefits, and general damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and anguish; COMPLAINT 28. 1 (2) For an award of punitive damages; 2 (3) For an award of attorneys? fees and costs; 3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Withholding Personnel and wage Records) 5 (1) For an order compelling Defendant to produce Plaintiff?s 6 personnel and wage records; 7 (2) For an award of $750 in penalties; 8 (3) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just 9 and proper. 10 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 11 Plaintiff requests and makes demand for a trial by iury. 12 Dated: Se tember 28, 2016 13 Michael Hoffman 14 Ronald D. Arena ARENA HOFFMAN LLP 15 Counsel for Plaintiff 16 BLAKE WENTWORTH COMPLAINT 29.