Daniel Snyder, OSB No. 783856 LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER · PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT Law Offices of Daniel Snyder Attorneys At Law 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97205

PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT Law Offices of Daniel Snyder

Attorneys At Law 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 241-3617 Fax (503) 241-2249

Daniel Snyder, OSB No. 783856 [email protected] Carl Post, OSB No. 061058 [email protected] John Burgess, OSB No. 106498 [email protected] LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone: (503) 241-3617 Facsimile: (503) 241-2249

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION MARIANNE MONSON,

Plaintiff, v. PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE, a public college organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, ALEXANDER BALDINO, and FRANK CHAMPAIGNE,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00554 COMPLAINT UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT ACTION Title VII Discrimination, Retaliation and supplemental state law claims JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:18-cv-00554-HZ Document 1 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 23




I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff brings this action to remedy violations of Plaintiff’s statutory rights

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq;, as well as

supplementary state claims. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief as well as compensatory damages,

attorneys’ fees and costs.

II. JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question

jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, civil rights jurisdiction.

3. Plaintiff requests this Court invoke its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367 with respect to all causes of action based on Oregon statutory provisions or

common law as the state claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal

claims.

4. On March 24, 2017, Defendant PCC received notice of Plaintiff’s tort claims

against it.

5. All preconditions to jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 have been

satisfied.

a. On May 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed charges of employment discrimination

and retaliation concerning defendants with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

(BOLI), case number EEMSX170516-10626, for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 and Oregon Unlawful Employment Practice.

b. On May 19, 2017, BOLI co-filed a charge with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charge number 38D-2017-00530C.

c. On January 4, 2018, BOLI issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter for case

number EEMSX170516-10626.

d. On February 6, 2018, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter for

charge number 38D-2017-00530C.





e. This lawsuit was filed within 90 days of the issuance of notice of suit

rights or closure letters from the EEOC and BOLI.

6. Venue is in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the

claim arose in this Judicial District.

III. PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Marianne Monson (hereafter “Plaintiff”) is a citizen of the United States.

At all times material, Plaintiff worked for Defendant Portland Community College in

Multnomah County, Oregon.

8. Defendant Portland Community College (hereafter “Defendant” or “Defendant

PCC”) is public college organized under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place

of business in Oregon.

9. At all times material, Defendant Alexander Baldino was and is an investigator

employed by Defendant.

10. At all times relevant, Defendant PCC’s employees and supervisors, as their

conduct is alleged herein, were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the

Defendant.

11. At all times material, Defendant Frank “Jon” Champaigne was a student at

Defendant PCC, has engaged in aiding and abetting discrimination by helping, assisting, or

facilitating the commission of an unlawful employment practice, promoting the accomplishment

thereof, help in advancing or bring it about, or encourage, counsel or incite as to its commission.

IV. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Plaintiff has been discriminated and retaliated against by Defendant PCC on the

basis of gender, sex, religion, and for whistleblowing.

13. Plaintiff is a female. Plaintiff’s religious affiliation is the Church of Jesus Christ

Latter Day Saints (hereafter “LDS”).





14. Plaintiff has an undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University (BYU).

Plaintiff has been awarded both a Master’s Degree in Creative Writing and a Master’s Degree in

Teaching from Pacific University.

15. Prior to the events which are the subject of this complaint, Plaintiff taught

advanced English and writing courses (WR 122 and English 315) at the BYU Hawaii campus.

Those advanced classes prepare students for college writing, persuasion, research, and rhetoric.

16. Plaintiff is also a published author. Her works include literature for children, one

or more of which reference her LDS faith.

17. On September 24, 2006, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant PCC as a part-time

instructor by PCC. Plaintiff taught Creative Writing (WR 241/244) and Composition/Literature

introductory courses (WR 115 and WR 121) for Defendant PCC.

18. Until Plaintiff was terminated from employment by Defendant PCC, Plaintiff had

always received positive performance reviews from PCC managers. Plaintiff also had positive

PCC student reviews.

19. In October 2015, Plaintiff received the last performance review she received from

Defendant PCC before Defendant PCC terminated her employment. In the October 2015 review,

Alison Apotheker, Chair of the English Department, wrote: “Marianne is professional and

respectful of her students…Marianne is well-spoken, humorous, and actively engaged through

body language and gesture…Marianne is very active in the department, serving on several

English Dept. committees…Marianne is professional and timely in communications I’ve

observed.”

20. In 2016, a freshman PCC student, Frank “Jon” Champaigne (“Champaigne”),

enrolled in Plaintiff’s WR 121 course. While Champaigne was Plaintiff’s student, he

demonstrated a consistent pattern of arriving late for class. Champaigne also frequently left

lectures, walking out of class before class had ended. Champaigne also engaged aggressive and

disruptive behaviors such interrupting lectures, making loud noises when leaving class, loudly





pushing chairs out of the way, and slamming the classroom door. Champaigne also sought out

Plaintiff’s literary publications, many of which deal with religious themes. Champaigne later told

Plaintiff’s colleagues that Plaintiff’s publications were of poor quality.

21. On Monday, June 20, 2016, the first week of classes, Champaigne arrived one

hour late to class.

22. On Monday, June 27, 2016, Champaigne again arrived one hour late to class.

23. On Wednesday June 29, 2016, Champaigne had an after-class one-on-one

conference with Plaintiff in which Plaintiff asked Champaigne how the class was going for him.

Champaigne replied that he “hated it.” Champaigne told Plaintiff that she was a horrible teacher,

that the class was a complete waste of his time, and that he was learning nothing. Plaintiff calmly

told Champaigne that if he did not like the class that perhaps the class was not a good fit for him.

Plaintiff also told Champaigne that she had concerns about his behavior in class. Champaigne

told Plaintiff that he tried to take an honors class from a male faculty member, Chris Edwards,

who he referred to as “someone with a Ph.D.,” but it did not work out with his schedule and now

he was “stuck” with Plaintiff’s class. To Plaintiff’s best knowledge, Chris Edwards is a

Communication Studies instructor employed by Defendant PCC and is not a member of the

English Department. Champaigne told Plaintiff that he planned to seek permission from the head

of the English Department not to fulfill the attendance requirement for Plaintiff’s class and turn

in the required work instead. Plaintiff told Champaigne that class attendance was a department

requirement, but that Champaigne was welcome to meet with the department head. Champaigne

then told Plaintiff that he had looked at her online profile, which lists Plaintiff’s undergraduate

degree as being from Brigham Young University. He said that he looked at her work online and

it was poor quality. Champaigne told Plaintiff, “I pay your salary and I have a say in how your

class is run.” At the conclusion of the June 20, 2016 meeting, Champaigne said he was going to

follow through on contacting the head of the English Department to get permission not to attend

class.





24. After the June 20, 2016 meeting, Plaintiff assumed that Champaigne would no

longer be attending her class. Plaintiff subsequently sent Champaigne an email in which she

wrote the suggestion that taking an online class might be a good option for him if he wanted to

avoid the class attendance requirement.

25. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff sent an email to Melissa Manolas, Co-Chair of the

English Department, reporting Plaintiff’s interaction with Champaigne. Manolas replied with the

recommendation that Plaintiff fill out Defendant PCC’s “Student of Complaint” form. Manolas

told Plaintiff that if Champaigne continued with her course, then Plaintiff should have another

meeting with him and enter into a behavior contract with Champaigne.

26. As directed by Manolos, Plaintiff prepared and submitted the first of two Student

of Complaint forms to PCC about Champaigne. Plaintiff later submitted a gender discrimination

complaint to Defendant Alexander Baldino (“Baldino).

27. On June 29, 2016, Champaigne told his landlord, Brian King (“King”), that he

was taking a class at PCC from an instructor named “Marianne Monson.” Champaigne told

King, “I shouldn’t have to listen to a girl with just a bachelor’s degree and no industry

experience.”

28. King later reported to Plaintiff Champagne’s June 29, 2016 comments about her.

King also told Plaintiff that Champaigne had, on a previous occasion, volunteered to King that

Champaigne had a felony conviction on his record. Plaintiff had valid safety concerns about how

Champaigne would behave when he saw her again in person.

29. Plaintiff reported Champagne’s comments to King to Angie Berdahl, Division

Dean. Plaintiff told Dean Berdahl that she was concerned that Champaigne was a misogynist,

and that his disrespect for women defined many of his interactions with Plaintiff.

30. On Tuesday, July 5, 2016, Melissa Manolas, Department Head, sent an email to

Plaintiff. In that email, Manolas wrote that Champaigne would be offered the option of finishing

the term in an online class, which she assumed he would probably take.





31. Plaintiff spoke with Elissa Rust, English Department faculty, about Champaigne.

Rust told Plaintiff that she was asked to have Champaigne in her D2L course. Rust told Plaintiff

that she sent an email to Champaigne introducing herself. Rust told Plaintiff that Champaigne

sent her a “very aggressive email” in reply and Rust refused to have him in her class.

32. On Wednesday, July 6, 2016, Champaigne was absent from Plaintiff’s class.

33. On Friday, July 8, 2016, Plaintiff graded Champaign’s first major essay and

determined that the essay was minus “C” work according to her standard grading rubric.

Because Plaintiff wanted to avoid criticism by Champaigne over the grade, Plaintiff asked

Manolas to invite other colleagues in the English Department to grade Champaigne’s essay

anonymously. Independently and without knowledge of the situation, those department

colleagues, including Dana Harker, all arrived at the same grade (C or C-). After receiving this

feedback, Plaintiff provided Champaigne with a grade of C- on the essay.

34. Although Champaigne had a pattern of engaging in aggressive behaviors in class

such as pushing chairs, slamming doors, etc., before Plaintiff had his essay graded by her

colleagues. However, after Champaigne received the C-grade, that behavior increased in

intensity. It was obvious to Plaintiff that Champaigne was upset, resentful, obsessive, and

vindictive.

35. On Monday, July 11, 2016, at 8:00 a.m., Plaintiff met with PCC Dean Cheryl

Scott to discuss Champaigne’s behaviors. Dean Scott also met separately with Champaigne. On

July 11, 2016, Champaigne came to Plaintiff’s class one hour late.

36. On Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Plaintiff was absent from the college on an

approved day off. Dana Harker taught Plaintiff’s class as a substitute instructor that day.

Champaigne sent an email to Plaintiff in which he wrote that Harker had “insulted him.”

37. On Friday, July 15, 2016, Harker sent an email to Plaintiff in which she wrote,

“After class he [Champaigne] asked me if I wanted to read his writing and I plainly told him

‘no.’ He was insulted and said that I get paid to read student’s essays and wasn’t interested in





looking at work in my spare time… Overall, he was manageable during class time but I was

quite blunt with him during the break and after class. Perhaps it was a lesson in humility,

although that’s doubtful.”

38. On Monday, July 18, 2016, Champaigne attended Plaintiff’s class, but left

frequently. Champaigne also interrupted the lecture several times. During one of those

interruptions, Champaigne said that pornography was a great outlet and said that he highly

recommended “kink.com.” Plaintiff observed that Champaigne’s comments made several

students in class appear uncomfortable. Plaintiff was also uncomfortable and was offended by

Champaigne’s reference to pornography and kink during class.

39. Beginning July 19 through July 24, 2016, Champaigne sent Plaintiff multiple

emails responding to the feedback on his essay. Champaigne challenged every single comment

Plaintiff made and accused her of grading his essay with bias. The volume of these emails and

the tone of these emails was something Plaintiff had never experienced before. Plaintiff felt

threatened and intimidated. In response, Plaintiff informed Champaigne that her colleagues

confirmed his grade. Champaigne replied that the opinions of the other instructors were likewise

invalid and that those instructors were unable to “understand a complex set of ideas.”

Champaigne wrote, “Your colleagues are just as [sic] more of the same. The [sic] are not prolific

authors, and have written nothing of consequence; if I am wrong, show me.”

40. By Friday, July 22, 2016, Champaigne’s emails became increasingly aggressive

and insulting. As the emails continued arriving, Plaintiff began to feel concerned for her safety.

Champaigne’s emails became increasingly disconnected with reality. Champaigne wrote that

other students in class “hate him,” and that he actually enjoyed one class session “because he

basically controlled it.” Champaigne wrote, “The rules of logic do seem to be perpetually

suspended in the ‘universe’ in which you live; The implication, while highly offensive, does do a

fantastic job of illustrating your misunderstanding of concepts within my writing -- which are not

my fault -- just because they are not explicitly stated; It is clear to me that your grading is





motivated by bias, at least at this point: based on all evidentiary claims, stated herein; Maybe

most students accept your reasoning, but I just happen to be smarter than a ‘ten year old retarded

kid... [and] I bet he would still have some questions.’ (Rogan); This basic misunderstanding

perfectly illustrates the reason you’re not understanding (sic) my writing; During class,

especially, you don’t seem like a professional writer; you performance, lectures, and instruction

is sub-par; while, that is not something that you may be willing to accept; those are the facts, as I

see them; I am not understanding why you guys, as instructors, cannot understand a complex set

of ideas; You responded...with something that was, obviously, a thinly veiled threat --which is

fine, just means you're more motivated now.” These statements did not make sense to Plaintiff,

nor fit with any of the reality of the classroom. Plaintiff became increasingly concerned about his

lack of rational thinking about the situation.

41. On Friday, July 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second Student of Concern Report

regarding Champaigne in which Plaintiff wrote, “In response to his graded essays, Jon has been

harassing me by sending me incessant emails, insulting me, my intelligence, teaching, and

making incredibly rude and inappropriate comments…This situation is causing me a great deal

of anxiety as the tone and demands of his emails are both hostile and aggressive.” Plaintiff

forwarded Champaigne’s emails to the PCC Department of Student Development and to

Manolas.

42. On Friday, July 22, 2016, because Plaintiff was concerned by the tone of

Champaigne’s emails, Plaintiff requested that Champaigne not attend class on Monday, July 25,

2016, and meet with Dean Scott instead.

43. On Monday, July 25, 2016, shortly before class started, because Plaintiff had not

heard from Administration regarding the second Student of Concern Report, Plaintiff engaged in

whistleblowing. Plaintiff called campus security and requested that they occasionally pass by her

classroom just in case Champaigne tried to attend class and became violent. Plaintiff made this

request as a safety precaution to protect the students and her. Because of previous experience,





Plaintiff believed her request for security observation at Rock Creek to be a completely valid and

standard practice. Notifying campus security is a routine practice when an instructor has a safety

concern. Plaintiff did not request that campus security be present in her classroom or be visually

obvious outside. Plaintiff did not want any of the students to be aware of the presence of

security. Plaintiff did not tell any student that Plaintiff had called security. On Monday, July 25,

2016, Champaigne did not attend class.

44. On July 25, 2016, at 9:11 a.m., about eleven minutes into her class, Ryan Aiello,

Dean of Student Development, sent Plaintiff an email stating that Champaigne did not pose a

threat and should be allowed to attend the class, even though Plaintiff had not excluded

Champaigne and Dean Aiello had not conferred with Plaintiff about the problems Champaigne

presented. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff sent an email response to Dean Aiello in which she

reported gender discrimination. Plaintiff wrote, “I’m happy to call your cell later today, but I’m a

bit baffled by your response. I have taught for PCC for ten years and have never experienced

anything like this. At this point, I feel harassed and abused by a student in my classroom. I

received more than a dozen emails from him over the weekend--all of them insulting,

demeaning, demanding, and extremely rude/borderline abusive. This is causing me a great deal

of anxiety and I should not have to deal with this type of abusive behavior from a student in my

work environment. I have never asked for a student to be removed from my class and I am doing

so now. I need my request to be respected and handled appropriately. It is my understanding that

after a Student of Concern Report is filed, the student must complete a behavioral contract if he

wishes to return to the classroom; if that contract is broken, and he can be removed. Please

identify the steps involved with remedying this situation as I do not want to deal with ongoing

harassment at my workplace.”

45. On July 25, 2016, after exchanging email communications, Dean Aiello spoke

briefly by telephone with Plaintiff. Dean Aiello reiterated his position that Champaigne was a

behavior management issue that Plaintiff needed to solve. Plaintiff told Dean Aiello that Plaintiff





remained concerned about the level of aggression and harassment Plaintiff was experiencing by

this male student toward her as a woman. Dean Aiello told Plaintiff that he did not know

anything about behavior contracts and having a student removed from a class, which

contradicted what Manolas had told Plaintiff. Dean Aiello’s uncaring tone and words left

Plaintiff feeling unsupported by administration, Dean Aiello dismissed Plaintiff’s concerns

without ever having spoken with her in person, or without being present in the classroom to see

what was transpiring there. Dean Aiello did not offer to deescalate the situation, and only

dissuaded Plaintiff from having a Behavioral Clarification Meeting with Champaigne, which

Manolas had suggested as the next step.

46. On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, at 8:00 a.m., Plaintiff sent an email to Cheryl

Scott, Dean of Instruction, Angie Berdahl, Division Dean, Melissa Manolas, Department Head,

and Ryan Aiello, Dean of Student Development, requesting an immediate response regarding

Champaigne’s behavior. Plaintiff wrote, “Is there anyone who is on campus today with whom I

might be able to meet? This is an extremely stressful situation and I’ve never dealt with anything

like it. I need more support and clarification around procedures than I’m currently receiving. I

know it’s summer term and few people are on campus, but from my perspective this is a crucial,

time-sensitive issue.”

47. On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., Champaigne arrived late for class.

Champaigne opened a laptop and did not pay attention to the lecture. Plaintiff asked Champaigne

to close the laptop. Champaigne was rude and dismissive of Plaintiff’s request. Champaigne

inexplicably walked out of class in the middle of class for a long time, then after Champaigne

returned to class, he left class early.

48. On July 27, 2016, at 8:54 a.m., Plaintiff also sent an additional email to Dean

Aiello in which Plaintiff wrote, “Can you please clarify what is the Student Code of Conduct? I

cannot imagine that it involves berating a professor, repeatedly spamming, or insulting them. As

I mentioned before, I would call this harassment. I do not want him in my class and I would like





further clarification around what my rights to a safe workplace environment are. If he is going to

come to class, I want someone else in attendance there to ensure that he remains in compliance

with expected behaviors and norms.”

49. On July 27, 2016, at 9:12 a.m., Plaintiff sent another email notifying Dean Aiello

that this was a stressful situation and she needed support.

50. On July 27, 2016, at 5:13 p.m., Dean Aiello responded to Plaintiff’s request by

email. He wrote that Plaintiff’s department head, Manolas, would handle Plaintiff’s request.

51. On July 27, 2016, at 10:32 p.m., Manolas responded by email. Manolos wrote that

she was available to speak with Plaintiff by telephone the following morning.

52. On Thursday July 28, 2016, Plaintiff called Manolas, who recommended that

Plaintiff set up a joint meeting with Champaigne, either Dean Aiello or with Manolas, and

Plaintiff. Manolas said that PCC would work out a behavior contract and help Champaigne

become successful through the end of the term. Plaintiff immediately reached out to Champaigne

by email and requested a meeting with him for early the next week.

53. On Saturday, July 30, 2016, Plaintiff was informed by Angie Berdahl, Division

Dean, via email, that Champaigne would no longer be attending Plaintiff’s class. Dean Berdahl

wrote that Plaintiff was to submit all of Champaigne’s work to Dean Berdahl so Dean Berdahl

could submit his grade for the term. Plaintiff submitted Champaigne’s work to Dean Berdahl as

directed. Dean Berdahl assessed the work and assigned a grade to Champaigne without

consideration of his lack of attendance, despite the stated policy on the syllabus. Dean Berdahl

later told Plaintiff that despite all of Dean Berdahl’s precautions to give Champaigne what he

wanted, Champaigne later challenged the grade that Dean Berdahl gave him.

54. Although Plaintiff was disappointed not to have the opportunity to work through

the situation with Champaigne and come to resolution, after Champaigne stopped attending

class, the learning environment was much more positive.





55. On Friday, September 23, 2016, Plaintiff suffered retaliation from reporting sex,

gender, and religious harassment and discrimination. Dean Berdahl sent an email to Plaintiff

notifying her that her course assignment for winter term would be restricted to one class, instead

of the usual two classes. Plaintiff was not given any reasons other than her email statement “due

to the way you handled this situation.” Plaintiff was punished for something that had not been

investigated or the situation looked into by anyone, and without hearing Plaintiff’s side of the

facts, thereby denying her due process.

56. On September 23, 2016, Plaintiff was also assigned additional training for

working with and dealing with “problem” students by Dean Berdahl. Dean Berdahl also wrote

that Plaintiff’s course would be observed in the fall and that course evaluations would be

requested.

57. On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, after the fall 2016 term began, Plaintiff was

informed by the Office of Equity and Inclusion, through Baldino, Senior Equity Investigator, that

an investigation of Plaintiff would begin. Plaintiff was not told what the investigation was about.

It appears that Baldino is an inactive Oregon lawyer. Champaigne told Baldino that he was a

Mormon. Champaigne made an official complaint to Defendant PCC and accused Plaintiff of

discriminating against him on the basis of lack of religion.

58. On September 27, 2016, Dean Berdahl told Plaintiff that her second class was

taken away from her due to the investigation, which is completely different than what Dean

Berdahl wrote in the September 23, 2016 email and is also different from what Dean Berdahl

wrote in a subsequent, October 3, 2016 email. Plaintiff made repeated requests to Dean Berdahl

to present her side of the situation. Those requests were dismissed. Plaintiff was informed via

email by Dean Berdahl that Plaintiff would have an opportunity to present her side after the

Office of Equity and Inclusion concluded its investigation.

59. On October 3, 2016, Dean Berdahl sent Plaintiff another email in which Dean

Berdahl wrote, “It has been brought to my attention that you may not fully understand the reason





for my email of September 23rd (sic)...The decision to provide you with one class was based

solely on our concerns with your interactions with (sic) and emails to the student during summer

term.”

60. On Monday October 3, 2016, Baldino met with Plaintiff on one occasion for one

hour on Rock Creek Campus. During Baldino’s single meeting with Plaintiff, Baldino did not

ask Plaintiff one question regarding race, nor did he inform Plaintiff that she was being

investigated for racial discrimination. Plaintiff was uninformed that Champaigne’s racial identity

was anything other than Caucasian. Champaigne did not visually present as an identifiable

minority and Plaintiff never considered him as such. Champaigne did not inform Plaintiff of his

racial identity. Baldino did not ask Plaintiff anything about her background of racial equity work

or involvement or previous experience working with minority students or students of color.

61. During his investigation, Baldino consciously failed to talk to any the students

who presented statements concerning Plaintiff. In his report, Baldino states that he spoke with

“witnesses” regarding Plaintiff’s decision to call public safety. Baldino reported that an unnamed

witness said it was “horrible” and became emotional and that Champaigne reported feeling like

“an uppity negro who needs to do what white folks tell him to do.” Plaintiff had no desire for

any of her students to even be aware of their presence. Plaintiff’s desire to have campus security

aware of the situation was merely precautionary, and was never intended to intimidate any

student in any way. Baldino appears to have been leading the witnesses to make these statements

based on his distortion of the facts involved.

62. In his investigation, Baldino did not bother to do any social media searches on

Champaigne. Attached as Exhibit A is Champaigne’s Facebook profile page, which shows a

gentleman wearing a wig and pointing to a book with the caption “Says you’re a little b*tch right

here.”

63. On Saturday, October 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant PCC’s

Office of Equity and Inclusion that Plaintiff had been discriminated against on the basis of





gender. Plaintiff wrote, “Plaintiff does not know if he stayed in my class simply to be able to

continue harassing me; Plaintiff also do not know if his harassment was related to my gender, but

it certainly felt that way. Plaintiff would like this incident looked into as Plaintiff do not want to

deal with harassment at my workplace and Plaintiff do not want other female teachers to have

this experience.” Plaintiff’s October 8, 2017 complaint was assigned to Baldino, who summarily

dismissed the gender complaint without investigating it. He did not interview Plaintiff about her

complaint.

64. On Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Baldino, sent an email in which he wrote,

“Based on the information in you (sic) provided in your complaint I do not believe that there is

sufficient link to legally protected classes or legal harassment to be investigated by my office.”

Plaintiff had released to Defendants all of Champaigne’s threatening emails to Defendant PCC,

notified Defendant PCC of Champaigne’s misogynistic statements, and told Defendant PCC that

Plaintiff was genuinely concerned for his safety as a female to the extent that Plaintiff sought the

intervention of campus security. Plaintiff wrote Baldino that Champaigne said, “I shouldn’t have

to listen to a girl who has a bachelor’s degree and zero experience in the field.”

65. On Wednesday, October 19 and Wednesday, November 2, 2016, Plaintiff

completed both four-hour training courses at the Rock Creek and Sylvania that management

specified Plaintiff should take. In those courses, the de-escalation strategies and procedural

knowledge Plaintiff had requested during the middle of the investigation were presented to her.

66. During the November 2, 2016, training, Charisse Loughery, Office of Student

Development, said in the class on dealing with challenging students that part of the job of the

Office of Student Development includes: “working collaboratively with you and explaining

expected behavior,” and “providing specific strategies.” Ms. Loughery advised, “If there is a

safety concern, call public safety. You should not have to assess the level of threat.” All of this

directly contradicted the utter lack of support Plaintiff experienced from Ryan Aiello, Dean of





Student Affairs, as well as the instructions from Melissa Manolas, Department Head, that her

calling campus security was an inappropriate response.

67. On Wednesday, November 16, 2016, Plaintiff met with Angie Berdahl, Division

Dean, and Karol Ford of Defendant’s Human Resources Department, to respond to the actions

taken to reduce her winter term course load. Plaintiff told them that Plaintiff had not received

adequate support from Defendant PCC when Plaintiff clearly asked for it and needed it. Plaintiff

told them in the assigned training, Plaintiff learned additional strategies for dealing with problem

students of Champaigne’s type, but this information was not presented in time for it to be helpful

in this situation. Like most part-time faculty, Plaintiff has never received training in FERPA.

68. On November 16, 2016, Defendant PCC began a second investigation of Plaintiff,

this one focused on professionalism and FERPA violations.

69. On Thursday, November 17, 2016, Plaintiff was informed via a report received by

email that Baldino determined Plaintiff’s treatment of Champaigne was “due to his membership

in one, or more, protected classes.” Baldino wrote that Plaintiff’s report of “use of ‘threat’

toward Plaintiffs more likely than not racially coded language” although Plaintiff did not know

that Champaigne was a racial minority. In his report, Baldino acknowledged, “Given that this

occurred during summer term there was not as much support on campus to assist (Plaintiff).

(Plaintiff) did request support and meetings and they were not all immediately granted.”

70. Several weeks ahead of time, Angie Berdahl, Division Dean, scheduled two dates,

November 18, 2016, and December 2, 2016, to observe Plaintiff’s classroom, a requirement

based on the September action. Dean Berdahl cancelled both observation dates.

71. On Wednesday, December 21, 2016, the day after Plaintiff submitted her final

grades for the term, but before the student course evaluations had been finished or could be

requested, Plaintiff received a telephone call at her home from Dean Berdahl. Dean Berdahl

informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff was terminated immediately. Plaintiff was not given any advance

notice of termination.





72. Plaintiff was not given a due process hearing before Plaintiff was terminated to

discuss a proposed termination. Both of Baldino’s investigations were carried out with an utter

lack of due process. According to the terms of Plaintiff’s assignment rights, tenure, and the

collective bargaining agreement, Plaintiff was to be given a warning and given one term to

improve before termination which did not occur.

FIRST CLAIM FOR ELIEF (Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Procedural Due Process)

(Against Defendant Portland Community College)

73. Plaintiff alleges all prior relevant paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

74. Plaintiff had a proper right to continued employment with Defendants.

75. Defendants, while acting under color of state law, violated Plaintiff’s procedural

due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of

America and extended to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by terminating Plaintiff’s

employment without (a) providing prior notice of the charges against her, (b) without providing

prior notice of the sanctions being considered, (c) without providing Plaintiff an opportunity to

refute the charges and (d) without providing her with a pre-termination hearing. Defendants did

not provide Plaintiff a fair opportunity to be heard prior to terminating her employment.

76. The action taken by Defendants to deny Plaintiff a hearing, thereby denying

Plaintiff an opportunity to show that the discipline was not for cause. The action was made in

bad faith and with the intent to harm Plaintiff’s fundamental right to pursue her livelihood.

77. Defendants’ actions represented official policies, practices, customs, and usages

of Defendants.

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered lost income and benefits, and will continue to suffer lost income and benefits, including

pre-judgment interest, all to her economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial.





79. As a further direct and proximate result of that conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and

will continue to suffer from emotional distress and is entitled to an award of compensatory

damages.

80. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees,

expert fees, and costs incurred herein.

81. To the extent any amount awarded to Plaintiff is for damages occurring prior to

the entry of judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest at the legal rate

from the date the damage occurred until the date of judgment.

82. Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest on all damages, costs, expenses, and

fees from the date of judgment until the date paid.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Title VII Gender, Sex, and Religious Discrimination – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2)

(Against Defendant PCC)

83. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

84. At all material times, Defendant PCC was an employer within the meaning of

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

85. Defendant PCC discriminated against Plaintiff with respect to the terms and

conditions of her employment because of her sex and gender, to wit female and her religion,

LDS. Defendant PCC changed the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment based upon

her status as a female and LDS member, selectively enforced policies or practices to the

detriment of Plaintiff because of her sex, gender, and religion, subjected her to a hostile work

environment.

86. Defendant PCC’s conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

87. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of Defendant PCC violated 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2.





88. As a result of Defendant PCC’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered,

and continues to suffer, economic and non-economic damages. Plaintiff is entitled to damages,

attorney fees, costs, and interest as alleged below.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Oregon Sex, Gender, and Religious Discrimination – ORS 659A.030)


89. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

90. Defendant PCC is an “employer” within the meaning of ORS 659A.001(4) and

ORS 659A.030.

91. Defendant PCC discriminated against Plaintiff with respect to the terms and

conditions of her employment and terminated her because of Plaintiff’s sex, gender, and religion

92. Defendant PCC’s conduct violated ORS 659A.030.

93. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant PCC

violated ORS 659A.030.

94. As a result of the Defendant PCC’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff

suffered, and continues to suffer, economic and non-economic damages. Plaintiff is entitled to

damages, attorney fees, costs, and interest as alleged below.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Title VII Retaliation – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3)


95. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

96. Defendant PCC retaliated against Plaintiff because she opposed discrimination

based on her sex, gender, and religion

97. Defendant PCC’s conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

98. The Court should enter an order declaring that Defendant PCC violated 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2.





99. As a result of Defendant PCC’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered,

and continues to suffer, economic and non-economic damages. Plaintiff is entitled to damages,

attorney fees, costs, and interest as alleged below.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS Chapter 659A.199 – Whistleblower)

100. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

101. Plaintiff reported to Defendant PCC conduct that Plaintiff believed was evidence

of a violation of state or federal law, rule, or regulation.

102. Defendant PCC discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of the report

made by Plaintiff. Defendant PCC’s actions violated ORS 659A.199, are an unlawful

employment practice, and caused Plaintiff economic and noneconomic damages.

103. As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other

relief set forth below.

104. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, including but not limited to, a declaration

that Defendant PCC violated Plaintiff’s statutory rights, reinstatement, and an injunction

prohibiting further discrimination and retaliation.

105. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for past lost wages and benefits and future lost

earnings, benefits, and lost earning capacity, and other compensatory damages for past and future

pecuniary losses. Plaintiff should be awarded economic damages in an amount determined fair

by a jury.

106. Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff

for emotional distress and other nonpecuniary losses in an amount to be proved at trial. Plaintiff

should be awarded non-economic damages in an amount determined fair by a jury.

107. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated

ORS 659A.199.





SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Wrongful Termination)

108. Plaintiff realleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

109. Defendant PCC’s conduct, as alleged, was in retaliation for Plaintiff assertion of

Plaintiff's state and federally protected rights to work in an environment free from

discrimination, harassment, and otherwise hostile work environments, and as such constitutes a

wrongful discharge under state common law.

110. Plaintiff’s remedies under state and federal statutory law do not constitute a

complete remedy for the damage Defendant has inflicted.

111. As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other

relief set forth below.

112. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to, a declaration

that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s statutory rights, reinstatement, and an injunction prohibiting

further discrimination and retaliation.

113. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for past lost wages and benefits and future lost

earnings, benefits, and lost earning capacity, and other compensatory damages for past and future

pecuniary losses. Plaintiff should be awarded economic damages in an amount determined fair

by a jury.

114. Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff

for emotional distress and other nonpecuniary losses in an amount to be proved at trial. Plaintiff

should be awarded non-economic damages in an amount determined fair by a jury.

115. To the extent any amount awarded to Plaintiff is for damages occurring prior to

the entry of judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the legal rate

from the date the damage occurred until the date of judgment.

116. Pursuant to ORS 20.107, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and

expert witness fees.





117. Plaintiff is entitled to post judgment interest on all damages, costs, expenses, and


EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

(Defendant PCC and Defendant Baldino)

118. Plaintiff realleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

119. Defendants intended to cause, or knew or should have known that its conduct

would have caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

120. Defendants’ conduct did in fact cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

121. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous and was extraordinarily beyond the bounds

of socially tolerable behavior.

122. Pursuant to ORS 20.107, Plaintiff is entitled to recover Plaintiff's reasonable

attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees.

123. Plaintiff is entitled to post judgment interest on all damages, costs, expenses, and


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff prays for the following judgment against Defendants and each of them, jointly

and severally:

1. A sum which will fully compensate Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s non-economic

damages in a sum that is just as determined by a jury;

2. A sum which will fully compensate Plaintiff for Plaintiff's economic damages in a

sum that is just as determined by a jury;

3. Equitable relief, including but not limited to, reinstatement if Plaintiff so chooses;

4. Liquidated damages;

5. Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements incurred herein;

6. Plaintiff’s attorney fees; and

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





Plaintiff demands a trial by Jury. Dated: March 30, 2018

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER s/ Daniel Snyder Daniel Snyder, OSB No. 783856 [email protected] Carl Post, OSB No. 061058 [email protected] John Burgess, OSB No. 106498 [email protected] Tel: (503) 241-3617 / Fax: (503) 241-2249 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff


mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Daniel Snyder, OSB No. 783856 LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER · PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT Law Offices of Daniel Snyder Attorneys At Law 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, Oregon 97205