Stonum v. County of Kern et al

Filing 76

TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/1/2018. Each party is granted 14 days from the date of this order to file objections to the same. Each party is also granted 7 days thereafter to respond to the other partys objections. If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this court. (Thorp, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DYWANE C. STONUM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:16-cv-01076-DAD-JLT

v.

TENTATIVE PRETRIAL ORDER

COUNTY OF KERN,

15

Defendant.

16
On July 30, 2018, the court conducted a final pretrial conference in this action. Plaintiff

17
18

Dywane C. Stonum appeared telephonically on his own behalf, and Michael E. Lehman appeared

19

as counsel for defendant County of Kern. Having considered the parties’ joint pretrial statement

20

and the views of the parties expressed at the conference, the court issues this tentative pretrial

21

order.
Plaintiff has brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title

22
23

VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., alleging claims of race discrimination and retaliation during

24

his employment with the Kern County Department of Human Services between April 2013 and

25

January 2014. Defendant disputes that plaintiff’s termination was based upon racial

26

discrimination, retaliation, or anything other than plaintiff’s performance.

27

I.

28

JURISDICTION/VENUE
Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction is not contested.
1

1
2

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is not contested.
II.

JURY

3

Plaintiff previously notified the court that he wished to waive his right to a jury trial, and

4

in a scheduling order issued July 14, 2017, the court accepted plaintiff’s jury waiver. (Doc. No.

5

43 at 2 n.1.) Defendant did not demand a jury trial. (See Doc. No. 28.) Therefore, the trial will

6

be conducted as a bench trial.

7

III.

8
9

UNDISPUTED FACTS
1.

Plaintiff was employed by the County of Kern in the Department of Human

Services between April 2013 and January 2014.

10

2.

Plaintiff’s race is Black or African American.

11

3.

Plaintiff was not hired by Kern County as a Social Service Worker.

12

4.

Plaintiff is no longer employed by Kern County.

13

5.

All named individual defendants (previously dismissed from this suit) were

14

employees of the County of Kern during the time periods in which plaintiff was employed in the

15

Kern County Department of Human Services.

16

6.

Tracy Selph is the Assistant Program Director for the Kern County Department of

17

Human Services.

18

IV.

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

19

1.

Whether plaintiff’s termination was motivated by racial discrimination.

20

2.

Whether plaintiff’s termination was motivated by retaliation.

21
22

V.

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE
The court does not encourage the filing of motions in limine unless they are addressed to

23

issues that can realistically be resolved by the court prior to trial and without reference to the

24

other evidence which will be introduced by the parties at trial. Any motions in limine the parties

25

elect to file shall be filed no later than 21 days before trial. Opposition shall be filed no later

26

than 14 days before trial and any replies shall be filed no later than 10 days before trial. Upon

27

receipt of any opposition briefs, the court will notify the parties if it will hear argument on any

28

motions in limine prior to the first day of trial.
2

1

VI.

2

SPECIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION
Special factual information as required under Local Rule 281(b)(6) is not applicable to

3

this action.

4

VII.

RELIEF SOUGHT

5

1.

Plaintiff seeks reinstatement to the position of Human Services Technician.

6

2.

Plaintiff seeks a new interview and interview panel for Social Services Worker I

7

position.

8

3.

9
10

days = $273,199.56 (as of July 23, 2018, before estimated offset adjustments of about
$54,345.06).

11
12

4.

5.

6.
VIII.

POINTS OF LAW

against the defendant, County of Kern.

19

1.

20

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for race
discrimination under Title VII.

21

2.

22

The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for retaliation under
Title VII.

23
24

Plaintiff seeks any other damages or relief the court deems appropriate.

The claims and defenses arise under federal law. All of plaintiff’s claims are brought

17
18

Plaintiff seeks punitive and/or exemplary damages for malicious and intentional

acts of discrimination and retaliation in the amount of $2,000,000.

15
16

Plaintiff seeks removal of adverse reviews, ratings, and interview panel scores

from his employee file.

13
14

Plaintiff seeks lost wages and benefits accruing at about $164.38 per day x 1,162

Trial briefs addressing the points of law implicated by these remaining claims shall be
filed with this court no later than 7 days before trial in accordance with Local Rule 285.

25

ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOT EXPLICITLY

26

ASSERTED IN THE PRETRIAL ORDER UNDER POINTS OF LAW AT THE TIME IT

27

BECOMES FINAL ARE DISMISSED, AND DEEMED WAIVED.

28

/////
3

1

IX.

2
3

None.
X.

WITNESSES
Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A. Defendant’s witnesses shall

4
5

ABANDONED ISSUES

be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by the other.

6

A.

The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose,

7

including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:

8

(1)

9

The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the
purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at

10

the pretrial conference, or

11

(2)

12

The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering
party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.

13

B.

Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial,

14

the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of

15

the unlisted witnesses so the court may consider whether the witnesses shall be

16

permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted unless:

17

(1)

18

The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the
discovery cutoff;

19

(2)

20

The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of
the witness;

21

(3)

If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

22

(4)

If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony

23
24
25

was provided to opposing parties.
XI.

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES, AND SUMMARIES
Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits are listed in Attachment C. Defendant’s proposed exhibits

26

are listed in Attachment D. However, as the court explained at the final pretrial conference, the

27

parties’ exhibits must be described with sufficient specificity (e.g. including dates and/or Bates

28

stamped discovery numbers) so as to leave no doubt among the parties and the court about the
4

1

nature of the exhibit being offered into evidence. The parties are directed to submit amended

2

exhibit lists within 14 days of the date of this order.

3

No exhibit shall be marked with or entered into evidence under multiple exhibit numbers,

4

and the parties are hereby directed to meet and confer for the purpose of designating any joint

5

exhibits. All exhibits must be pre-marked as discussed below. At trial, joint exhibits shall be

6

identified as JX and listed numerically, e.g., JX-1, JX-2. Plaintiff’s exhibits shall be listed

7

numerically and defendants’ exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. All exhibits must be pre-

8

marked. The parties must prepare three (3) separate exhibit binders for use by the court at trial,

9

with a side tab identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder

10

shall have an identification label on the front and spine. The parties must exchange exhibits no

11

later than 28 days before trial. Any objections to exhibits are due no later than 14 days before

12

trial. The final exhibits are due September 13, 2018. In making any objection, the party is to set

13

forth the grounds for the objection. As to each exhibit which is not objected to, it shall be marked

14

and received into evidence and will require no further foundation.

15

A.

The court does not allow the use of undisclosed exhibits for any purpose,

16

including impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:

17

(1)

The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the

18

purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably

19

anticipated, or

20

(2)

21
22

The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the
proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.

B.

Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall promptly

23

inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the

24

court may consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received

25

unless the proffering party demonstrates:

26

(1)

The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;

27

(2)

The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their

28

existence; and
5

1

(3)

The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically

2

possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the

3

proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably

4

available for inspection by the opposing parties.

5

XII.

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

6

Plaintiff and defendant may use the following discovery documents at trial:

7

1.

8

Set one, plaintiff’s request for production of documents and defendant’s responses

to plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one.

9

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and defendant’s responses

10

to plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents (in re: plaintiff’s request for production

11

of documents, set one).

12

3.

Set one, special interrogatories to plaintiff and plaintiff’s responses to special

13

interrogatories, set one.

14

XIII.

15
16

None.
XIV. STIPULATIONS

17
18

None.
XV.

19
20

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS
None.

XVI. SETTLEMENT

21

On June 22, 2018, the parties participated in a settlement conference with Magistrate

22

Judge Jennifer L. Thurston presiding. The case did not settle at that time and the parties have

23

been unable to reach a resolution of this matter. No further settlement conference will be

24

scheduled or required by the court absent a joint request for such conference by the parties.

25

XVII. JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

26

The parties concur that an agreed statement of the facts is neither feasible nor advisable.

27

/////

28

/////
6

1

XVIII. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES

2
3

None.
XIX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS
Plaintiff welcomes the court’s appointment of an impartial expert witness to testify to the

4
5

nature and quantity of plaintiff’s damages. Defendant believes appointment by the court of

6

impartial expert witnesses is not advisable, and that there should be no limitation of the number of

7

properly disclosed expert witnesses.

8
9

The court declines to appoint an impartial expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 706. No motion for a court-appointed expert witness is currently pending before the

10

court. Moreover, the court notes that the purpose of Rule 706 is to assist the court or the

11

factfinder in analyzing complex issues, and not to assist parties in proving their cases. The court

12

finds that none of the issues here are so complex as to warrant appointment by the court of an

13

impartial expert witness.

14

XX.

15

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is not an attorney licensed to practice in any jurisdiction.

16

Should plaintiff later obtain an attorney, or one is appointed by the court, plaintiff would seek

17

reimbursement of legal and associated fees.

18

XXI. TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REDACTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

19
20

No protective order is necessary.
XXII. MISCELLANEOUS

21
22

None.
XXIII. ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE

23

A court trial is scheduled for September 18, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5 before the

24

Honorable Dale A. Drozd. Trial is anticipated to last 3–5 days. The parties are directed to Judge

25

Drozd’s standard procedures available on his webpage on the court’s website.
The parties are to call Judge Drozd’s courtroom deputy, at [phone], one week

26
27

prior to trial to ascertain the status of the trial date.

28

/////
7

1
2
3
4

XXIV. TRIAL BRIEFS
As noted above, trial briefs are due 7 days before trial.
XXV. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER
Each party is granted 14 days from the date of this order to file objections to the same.

5

Each party is also granted 7 days thereafter to respond to the other party’s objections. If no

6

objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this court.

7

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

8

Procedure and Local Rule 283 of this court, this order shall control the subsequent course of this

9

action and shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
Dated:
12

August 1, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

ATTACHMENT A: Plaintiff’s Witnesses

1
2
3
4
5

Adam Dupree
2829 20th Street West
Rosamond, CA 93560
Alecia Lashon Jackson
8401 Dogwood Ave.
California City, CA 93505

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Cordelia Neal
8561 Catalpa Ave.
California City, CA 93505
Craig L. Robbins
785 Tucker Rd., APT G119
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Debbie Spears
8907 Penticton Ct.
Bakersfield, CA 93312

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Debra L. Davis (aka Debbie)
4600 Brewer Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93306
Dena Marie Murphy
3401 Claremont Dr.
Bakersfield, CA 93306
Donald Burke
21047 Santa Barbara Dr., Apt D
Tehachapi, CA 93561

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Donna M. Foster
45135 Parkview Ln.
Lancaster, CA 93535
Dywane Stonum
4725 Panama Lane D3-246
Bakersfield, CA 93313
James A. McClellan
41721 Zinfandel Dr.
Palmdale, CA 93551

27
28
9

1
2
3
4

James Neal, III
8561 Catalpa Ave.
California City, CA 93505
Jayna R. Clark
16193 H St., APT 109
Mojave, CA 93501

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Judith Anne Brown
2300 State Highway 58
Mojave, CA 93501
Karissa Anne Tonoli
21047 Santa Barbara Dr., Apt D
Tehachapi, CA 93561
Kimberly Rae Millovitsch
21312 Woodford Tehachapi Rd.
Tehachapi, CA 93561

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Lorraine D. Kember
20394 Airway Blvd.
California City, CA 93505
Maria Gutierrez
1410 N Oakdale Ave.
Rialto, CA 92376
Marion Santana
217 West E St.
Tehachapi, CA 93561

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Melissa Callison
156 55th W St.
Rosamond, CA 93560
Michael Goulart
12306 Marshfield Way
Bakersfield, CA 93312
Patricia Ann Gable
21119 Kenniston St.
California City, CA 93505
Ramona Faucette
2500 Dore Dr.
Bakersfield, CA 93304

28
10

1
2
3
4

Robert Gibson
1001 17th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Sean Robert Borden
5325 Cangas Dr.
Agoura, CA 91301

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Shannon Lee Oastler
3906 Amherst Forest Rd.
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Sonya Hannon
15601 O St.
Mojave, CA 93501
Tameika Marie Cannon
2600 Brookside Dr., Apt 31
Bakersfield, CA 93311

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Tony Lopez
County of Kern
1115 Truxtun Ave, First Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Tracy Henry
(Unknown at this time)
Kern County Area
Tracy Lynn Selph
803 James St.
Ridgecrest, CA 93555

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11

ATTACHMENT B: Defendant’s Witnesses

1
2

WITNESS

3

1.

Patricia Gable

4

2.

Tracy Selph

5

3.

James McClellan

6

4.

Shannon Oastler

7

5.

Debbie Spears

8

6.

Debra Davis

9

7.

Mellissa Callison

10

8.

Michael Goulart

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12

ATTACHMENT C: Plaintiff’s Exhibits

1
2
3

Document Type

Description

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

Initial Disclosures, Dated July 30, 2017 with Proof of
Service
Defendants Answer To Plaintiff’s Complaint Of Title
VII Retaliation And Discrimination (Disparate
Treatment), Document 28, Dated April 14, 2017
Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15),
Document 26, Dated March 20, 2017
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment On
The Pleadings (Doc No. 29), Doc 37, Dated June 15,
2017
Complaint for Employment Discrimination, Case No.
1:16 CV001076 DAD JLT, Jury Trial, Document 1,
Filed 7/26/16
Dywane Stonum – County of Kern Notes – Beginning
Jun 8, 2013 and Ending Jan 10, 2014. FILE NOTE
Ending Jan 25, 2014.
UTC-GMT Time Conversion Chart

4
5

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

6
7
8

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

9
10

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

11
12

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

13

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

14
15

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

16
17

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

18
19

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

20
21

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

22
23
24

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

25
26

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

27

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

Plaintiff’s Courtesy Notice of EEO Discrimination
Complaint Filing with Kern County – 01/17/2014 to
Robert Gibson, Union Representative, SEIU Local 521,
Dated January 21, 2014
Plaintiff’s Discrimination Complaint Questionnaire To
Kern County Personnel Department – Equal
Employment Opportunity Division (With Attachments) –
Received 4 JAN 17 PM 4:55
KCDHS: Trish Tracy Melissa James (Mojave) Unlawful
Discrimination Impact: BA v MO (Bakersfield v Mojave
locations) – April 1, 2013 – January 3, 2014 (Chart by
Plaintiff)
Kern DHS – Tracy – Trish and James – Impact of
Unlawful Discrimination (Events and Comments
Supporting Diagram by Plaintiff)
Loyola Marymount University – College of Liberal Arts
(Plaintiff’s Bachelor of Arts Degree)
County of Kern – Personnel Department – Cash Receipt
000914 – Dated 1/17/14 for Copy of EEO Division
Complaint Filed with County of Kern
Employee Performance Evaluations for Plaintiff
(04/11/2013, 04/26/2013, 05/13/2013, 05/24/2013)
Biweekly Conference Reports for Plaintiff (06/07/2013,
06/26/2013, 07/22/2013)

28
13

1

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

Kern County DHS – Memo of Concern – July 25, 2013

2

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

Biweekly Conference Report for Plaintiff – 09/12/2013

3

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

4

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

5

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

6
7
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

12
13

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

14
15

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

16
17
18

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

19
20

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

21
22
23
24

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

25
26
27
28

Case Filings

CalWORKS Training Attendance Form – Dated
8/17/2013
Handwritten Note by Human Services Supervisor,
Patricia Gable, 09/12/13.
Biweekly Conference Report for Plaintiff – October 4,
2013
Plan of Action to Catch-Up – S31A – D. Stonum – 1004-2013
Employee Performance Report for Dywane Stonum –
Signed 10/11/2013 – Copy Received 12/13/2013 from
HR
Bi-Monthly Conference Reports (11/1/2013, 11/15/2013)
Conference With Dywane Stonum HST and Trish Gable
HSS – Nov. 18, 2013
Monthly Conference Report for Plaintiff – 12/11/2013
County of Kern – Personnel Department – Human
Services Technician Score for Dywane Stonum –
92.00%, Dated – Postmarked Nov 21, 2012
Certification For Plaintiff From Civil Service
Commission – Human Services Technician I – Mojave –
RE: CERT. #48957 – Interview Appointment, Dated
MAR 1, 2013
Human Services Technician I – East Kern Exam No.
5624 – 08/20/12 (Job Bulletin)
Patricia Cheadle, Director of Human Services – Mojave
Office Visit – E-mail Correspondence With Dywane
Stonum (06/17/2013, 07/08/2013, 09/04/2013,
Plaintiff’s e-mail communications with Kern’s Debbie
Davis, Human Resources Manager, 09/04/2013,
09/27/2013, 09/30/2013) [Racial Discrimination,
Disparate Treatment, Hostile Work Environment,
Unlawful Practices)
Plaintiff’s e-mail communication to Kern’s Debbie
Davis, Human Resources Manager, Unlawful
Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Hostile Work
Environment, 01/16/2014; CC: Pat Cheadle, Director of
Human Services; Robert Gibson, SEIU Local 521
Representative; Debbie Spears, HR Staff Development.
All Documents For the Case of Dywane C. Stonum v.
County of Kern, Case Number 1:16-CV-001076-DADJLT, Reflected In The Court’s Docket and Other Related
Communications From 07/26/2016 through 07/23/2018
and Continuing Until Final Disposition of This Case.
14

1
2
3

Defendant’s Initial
Disclosures
Defendant’s Future
Disclosures

4
5

Plaintiff’s Future Disclosures

6
7
8

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

9
10
11
12

Defendant’s Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

17
18

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

19
20

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

21
22
23

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

24
25

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

26

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

27

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

Defendant’s Initial Disclosures (Subject To Orders of the
Court and Motion in Limine)
Defendant’s Future Disclosures As May Be Ordered Or
Permitted By The Court, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence or Other
Applicable Codes Or Regulations.
Plaintiff’s Future Disclosures As May Be Ordered Or
Permitted By The Court, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence or Other
Applicable Codes Or Regulations.
Plaintiff’s e-mail to Trish (Patricia Gable, Human
Services Supervisor) regarding Tracy wanting portion of
evaluation removed, Gable wanting to shred signed
document, and Plaintiff’s request to speak with
Department Head (Tony Lopez) about his concerns.
Dated Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Defendant’s Documents Produced Responsive to the
Subject Of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel – Document 56
(In Re: Plaintiff’s Request For Production – Set 1)
Kern’s Examination Score 74% To Plaintiff. Social
Service Worker I/II, Postmarked Jan 14, 2013
Kern’s Certification Notice to Plaintiff. Social Service
Worker I/II. Dated NOV 5, 2013,
Plaintiff’s Typing Proficiency Certificate. Net Words Per
Minute 75. Dated 11/12/13. Kern County Superintendent
Of Schools Office.
Kern’s Social Service Worker I/II Exam No, 5691 – Job
Bulletin – 11/05/12
Letter from KCDHS. Plaintiff not recommended for hire
for Social Service Worker I/II position.
Various Correspondence from Plaintiff: To: Debbie
Davis (Complaint of Discrimination and Retaliation
regarding not hiring Plaintiff for Social Service I/II
position) – 12/20/2013 (CC: Debbie Spears, DHS,
Robert Gibson, SEIU, Pat Cheadle, DHS)
Various Emails: Between Plaintiff and Debbie Spears.
Regarding SSWI/II position. Pulling of Panelist packets.
01/02/2014
SIU Ride Along Emails and Schedule for Plaintiff and
Other Kern Employees
Kern’s purported Employee Performance Report for
Plaintiff. Dated 1/3/14. (Gable, Selph)
Change of Employee Status – Effective 1/03/2014
(County of Kern – DHS) for Plaintiff
Various emails between Plaintiff, Gable, Gibson,
Cheadle, Spears, Davis

28
15

1

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

Paystub documents for Plaintiff

2

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

EEOC FOIA Document to Plaintiff

3

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

4
5

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

6
7

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

8

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

9

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Documents Regarding EEOC Number 480-2014-01619C
(Dywane C. Stonum)
Plaintiff’s Retirement Plan Related Documents (while
with County of Kern) (Including Employer Match
Information)
Plaintiff’s Health and Dental Care Related Information
(while with County of Kern)
State of California – Department of Industrial Relations
Related Documents (pertaining to County of Kern)
Plaintiff’s Damage and Loss Claim Information
pertaining to County of Kern

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16

ATTACHMENT D: Defendant’s Exhibits

1
2
3

DOCUMENT TYPE
1.

Employee Performance Reports

2.

Personnel File

3.

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION

Memorandum of Concern

4
5

Employee Performance Reports. One signed by
Plaintiff on June 28, 2013, one signed by Plaintiff on
October 11, 2013, and one provided to Plaintiff on
January 3, 2014.
Personnel file for Plaintiff.

6

10

5.

July 25, 2013 Memorandum of Concern from Patricia
Gable to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Acknowledgment of Acknowledgement of receipt of instructions on how
receipt
to access SEIU Memorandum of Understanding, and
acknowledgement of understanding that he was a
member of SEIU as of April 1, 2013.
Facsimile
June 9, 2014 Facsimile from Plaintiff.

11

6.

Complaint

Internal Complaints of Discrimination from Plaintiff

12

7.

Responses

Internal responses to Plaintiff’s Complaints

13

8.

Investigation Reports

14

9.

Emails

Internal investigations reports related to Plaintiff’s
Complaints of discrimination
• September 4, 2013 email exchange between
D. Davis and Plaintiff in which D. Davis
instructs Plaintiff how to submit complaint of
discrimination.
• September 27, 2013 follow-up email to
Plaintiff from D. Davis stating that D. Davis
had not received any information from
Plaintiff.
• September 30, 2013 email from Plaintiff to D.
Davis stating that Plaintiff would be
attempting to resolve issue through union.
• January 6, 2014 email from Plaintiff to SEIU
regarding Plaintiff’s termination.
• January 7, 2014 email between Plaintiff and
D. Davis regarding Plaintiff’s termination.
• January 16, 2014 email between Plaintiff and
D. Davis in which D. Davis informs Plaintiff
on how a formal complaint is filed with the
county after termination.
• January 30, 2014 email between Plaintiff and
D. Davis in which D. Davis tells Plaintiff that
he will be receiving deferred compensation on
February 7, 2014.
• Various Emails between Gable, Davis, Spears

7
8

4.

9

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17

1

and Plaintiff.

3

10. Records Related
Performance
11. Application

4

12. Notes

2

5
6
7

13. Civil Service Rules
14. EEOC Response

To

Work Plaintiff’s EPRs, Supporting Documentation, and
monthly counseling records.
Plaintiff’s Application for Social Worker Position
Panel’s notes regarding Plaintiff’s performance
during interview and recommendations not to hire.
Civil Service Rule, 1800
August 22, 2014 Response to EEOC from County of
Kern

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18