Free Pretrial Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 1 of 66

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-01067-REB-CBS WILLIAM R. CADORNA, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, a Municipal corporation, Defendant.

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

1. DATE AND APPEARANCES The Final Pretrial Conference occurred before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on Monday, April 17, 2006 at 2:45 P.M. in Courtroom A402 of the Alfred Arraj U.S. Court House. Plaintiff and Defendant were represented by: PLAINTIFF' ATTORNEY: S Mark E. Brennan, P.C. P.O. Box 2556 Centennial, CO. 80161 (303) 552-9394 (office) (303) 797-7687 (cell) DEFENDANT' ATTORNEY: S Jack M. Wesoky Asst. City Attorney 201 W. Colfax, Dept. 1108 Denver, CO. 80202 (720) 913-3117 2. JURISDICTION This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff' claims against Defendant under 28 U.S.C. s §§1331 and 1367(a), and is the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2). 3. CLAIMS AND DEFENSES A. Plaintiff' Claims s 1

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 2 of 66

Narrative Summary: As his reward for twenty-seven years of faithful and courageous service as a Firefighter, the City terminated Plaintiff on January 2, 2003 after a fellow firefighter accused him of shoplifting a cookbook from a Safeway store. The City did so even though it knew, or had reason to know, of evidence exonerating Plaintiff. After his termination, Plaintiff applied for age and service retirement, for which he automatically qualified, and also applied to the Denver Firefighters' Pension Board to convert his age and service retirement to a disability retirement due to hearing loss suffered on the job. Plaintiff has never asserted he is physically unable to work as a firefighter. Because a Safeway clerk admitted giving Plaintiff permission to take the cookbook he was accused of shoplifting, the Denver Civil Service Commission (" Commission" Hearing ) Officer (" Hearing Officer" overturned Plaintiff's dismissal. However, the Hearing Officer ) denied Plaintiff reinstatement, or other full relief in lieu of reinstatement. The Hearing Officer limited Plaintiff' back pay to the period between his dismissal on January 2, 2003 and his age s and service retirement on March 13, 2003. The Hearing Officer unlawfully construed sections of the Colorado " hire"firefighters pension statute to prohibit Plaintiff's reinstatement or other old full relief for Plaintiff' indisputably unlawful discharge because Plaintiff is over fifty (50) years s of age and was granted a disability retirement. The Denver Civil Service Commission (" Commission" a final policy-making body of the City, affirmed the Hearing Officer' decision ), s in its entirety, in disingenuous reliance upon a clearly erroneous " finding"(actually, an inadvertent or negligent misstatement by the Hearing Officer) that, contrary to all the undisputed evidence, Plaintiff voluntarily applied for retirement " prior to dismissal" .

2

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 3 of 66

s Separate Enumeration of Claims: Plaintiff' February 28, 2006 Second Amended Complaint (in which he eliminated individual Defendant and his race claims) asserts the following claims: 1) ADEA: Willful Violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq., by terminating Plaintiff and refusing to reinstate him, or otherwise grant him full relief in lieu of reinstatement, for pretextual reasons, and in express reliance upon his age: a) Plaintiff bears the burden of proving by direct or circumstantial evidence that his age or protected conduct was a motivating factor in his termination or in the City' refusal to s reinstate him or otherwise grant him full relief in lieu of reinstatement; b) Plaintiff must, through direct or circumstantial evidence, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that age was a motivating factor in his termination, or in the City' refusal to s reinstate or otherwise grant him full relief for his undeniably unlawful termination; c) Plaintiff relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove that age was a motivating factor in his termination, consisting of evidence that the legitimate business reason offered by the City for his termination (that he committed shoplifting) was known to be false or of dubious validity, yet was seized upon as a pretext for his termination; d) Plaintiff relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove that his age and protected conduct were motivating factors in the City' refusal to reinstate or otherwise grant him full relief s for his undeniably unlawful termination, consisting of evidence that the legitimate business reason(s) offered by the City for refusing to reinstate him or otherwise grant him full relief for his undeniably unlawful termination (that he allegedly retired voluntarily, that he allegedly retired " prior to dismissal" and that his reinstatement or the grant of , 3

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 4 of 66

other full relief after retirement is barred by state statute) are pretextual; s e) Plaintiff also relies upon direct evidence that his age was a factor in the City' refusal to reinstate or otherwise grant him full relief for his undeniably unlawful termination, consisting of the Civil Service Commission' express reliance in its decisions upon his s being over the age of fifty (50) in explaining its refusal to reinstate or otherwise grant him full relief in lieu of reinstatement; 2) ADA: Violation of Title I, 42 U.S.C. §12112, Title II, 42. U.S.C. §12132, and Title V, 42 U.S.C. §12201, et seq., of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, by terminating Plaintiff and refusing to reinstate grant him, or otherwise grant him full relief in lieu of reinstatement, for pretextual reasons, and in express reliance upon his disability: a) Plaintiff bears the burden of proving by direct or circumstantial evidence that his disability or protected conduct was a motivating factor in his termination or in the City' s refusal to reinstate him or otherwise grant him full relief in lieu of reinstatement; b) Plaintiff must, through direct or circumstantial evidence, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his disability or protected conduct was a motivating factor in his termination, or in the City' refusal to reinstate or otherwise grant him full relief for his s undeniably unlawful termination; c) Plaintiff relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove that his disability and protected conduct were motivating factors in the City' refusal to reinstate or otherwise grant him s full relief for his undeniably unlawful termination, consisting of evidence that the legitimate business reason(s) offered by the City for refusing to reinstate him or 4

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 5 of 66

otherwise grant him full relief for his undeniably unlawful termination (that he allegedly retired voluntarily, that he allegedly retired " prior to dismissal" and that his , reinstatement or the grant of other full relief after retirement is allegedly barred by state statute) are pretextual; s d) Plaintiff also relies upon direct evidence that his disability was a factor in the City' refusal to reinstate or otherwise grant him full relief for his undeniably unlawful termination, consisting of the Civil Service Commission' express reliance in its s decisions upon his disability retirement in explaining its refusal to reinstate or otherwise grant him full relief in lieu of reinstatement; 3) §1983 Municipal Liability: For violation by the City of §1983 through deprivation by a final policy-making official or body of his property interest in his employment and liberty interest in his career and reputation without procedural or substantive due process: a) Plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a final policy-making official or body of the City deprived him of his property interest in his employment, liberty interest in his career and reputation, or other constitutional rights or protections without procedural or substantive due process; b) Pre-Termination Constitutional Violations: Plaintiff will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was arbitrarily and irrationally denied adequate pre-termination procedural due process, substantive due process through executive action that was abusive and shocking to the conscience, and other constitutional rights or protections because: i) the City deliberately conducted the investigation of the allegations against Plaintiff 5

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 6 of 66

without complying with its own requirements, standards, practices and customs for the investigation of such allegations and preservation of evidence, including but not limited to using an Assistant Chief instead of trained Human Resources Bureau/Internal Affairs investigators to conduct the investigation and deliberately failing to tape record and transcribe all material witness statements; Moran v. Board of Police Commissioners, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2002); ii) the person(s) conducting the investigation under the direction of senior policymaking officials and attorneys deliberately concealed or downplayed evidence that exonerated Plaintiff, defamed Plaintiff in order to secure his prosecution by a third party, and conspired to secure, and did secure through misrepresentations, fraudulent concealment, and stigmatizing publication of false allegations of criminal conduct, Plaintiff' malicious prosecution and termination without the opportunity for an s adequate pre-termination hearing or adequate relief after a post-termination hearing; Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004); DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003); Moran v. Board of Police Commissioners, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2002); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976); Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990); cf., Parrat v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); iii) Plaintiff was not informed of, or given an opportunity to review, evidence corroborating his story and tending to exonerate him, and therefore did not have a meaningful pre-termination hearing bearing the true hallmarks of minimal procedural or substantive due process; iv) the City considered and used unsubstantiated rumors of misconduct of which Plaintiff 6

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 7 of 66

was never notified as unstated grounds for terminating Plaintiff; v) the persons investigating and recommending termination concealed exculpatory information from the officials approving Plaintiff' termination, or the officials s approving Plaintiff' termination themselves deliberately ignored exculpatory s information; vi) The foregoing acts were not random or unauthorized, but were pursued in concert, as part of a systematic, calculated, premeditated plan to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights through any means, lawful or unlawful, at the City' disposal; s County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). c) Post-termination Constitutional violations: Plaintiff will prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was arbitrarily and irrationally denied adequate post-termination procedural due process, substantive due process through executive action that was abusive and shocking to the conscience, and other constitutional rights or protections because those with policy-making authority, including the Denver City Attorney, Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer, Civil Service Commission Executive Director, and the Civil Service Commission deliberately deprived him of his property interest in his employment, his liberty interest in his career and reputation, and other constitutional rights or protections in at least the following ways: i) Maliciously prosecuting Plaintiff for a trivial crime he did not commit, for which the City would not normally prosecute a citizen under the same circumstances, and securing the cooperation of a third party in Plaintiff' malicious prosecution through s misrepresentations and fraudulent concealment, in order to pressure Plaintiff to 7

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 8 of 66

confess to a crime he did not commit, to pressure Plaintiff into refraining from exercising his constitutional right to appeal his termination through civil proceedings, and to reduce the likelihood of Plaintiff successfully challenging his termination in civil proceedings; Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004); Moran v. Board of Police Commissioners, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2002); ii) Condoning, and thereby ratifying and adopting as policy, the commission of felony perjury and obstruction of justice by a witness or witnesses for the prosecution in the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, thereby infringing Plaintiff' right to fair trial s by jury and due process of law; iii) Senior policy-making officials and attorneys deliberately concealed or downplayed evidence that exonerated Plaintiff, defamed Plaintiff in order to secure his prosecution by a third party, and conspired to secure, and did secure through misrepresentations, fraudulent concealment, and stigmatizing publication of false allegations of criminal conduct, Plaintiff' malicious prosecution, termination, s premature retirement, and denial of reinstatement or other full relief; Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004); DiBlasio v. Novello, 344 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003); Moran v. Board of Police Commissioners, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2002); Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976); Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990); cf., Parrat v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); iv) Gross incompetence and malicious, reckless disregard for Plaintiff' constitutional s rights; v) Refusing, in explicit or implied reliance upon unlawful construction, or deliberate and 8

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 9 of 66

willful disregard of, state and federal statutes and constitutional requirements or prohibitions, including the ADA, to clear the opprobrium and shame associated with Plaintiff' unlawful termination for a crime he did not commit or to restore Plaintiff' s s employment and all of his associated property rights and liberty interest in his employment, reputation and career despite his indisputably unlawful termination; Ferraro v. Board of Trustees, ___ F.3d ___, 2001 10CIR 1341, Case No. 00-3261 (10th Cir. 2001); Mitchell v. Moore, ___ F.3d ___, Case No. 98-6446 (10th Cir. 2000); Lovingier v. City of Black Hawk, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 U.S.App. LEXIS 29752 (10th Cir. 1999); Workman v. Jordan, 32 F.3d 475 (10th Cir. 1994); Archuleta v. Colorado Dept. of Institutions, 936 F.2d 483 (10th Cir. 1991); vi) Explicitly, deliberately, willfully, clearly erroneously and unlawfully disregarding all of the undisputed evidence available to them or in the record, in deliberate and willful disregard of state and federal statutes and constitutional requirements or prohibitions, including the ADA, in order to avoid reinstating Plaintiff or otherwise grant him full relief for his unlawful termination; Ibid. vii) Refusing to restore Plaintiff' employment and all of his associated property rights s and liberty interests in his employment, reputation and career in reliance upon willfully fraudulent invention of an alleged disputed issue of fact (concerning the date of Plaintiff' application for retirement) of which Plaintiff had no notice during any s post-termination proceedings and which was never a disputed issue of material fact prior to the Commission' final decision affirming the Hearing Officer' Decision; s s Ibid. 9

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 10 of 66

viii)

Knowingly and fraudulently relying upon an undisputedly false, obviously

inadvertent or grossly negligent statement or " finding"of " fact"by the Hearing Officer, that was undeniably unsupported by any evidence of any kind, to deny Plaintiff full restoration of his property interest in his employment or his liberty interest in his career and reputation; Ibid. ix) Failing to clear, and further perpetuating, the opprobrium and shame associated with Plaintiff' termination for a crime he did not commit by refusing to restore Plaintiff' s s employment and all of his associated property rights and liberty interests in his employment, reputation and career, leaving him in the same position he would have been in had he not appealed his termination and, therefore, in the eyes of his family, friends, former colleagues and the community, still terminated and ostracized from the Denver Fire Department despite his unlawful termination, and thereby also violating his constitutionally protected right to intimate association; Patel v. Searles, 305 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2002); x) The foregoing acts or omissions were not random or unauthorized, but were pursued in concert, as part of a systematic, calculated, premeditated plan to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights through any means, lawful or unlawful, at the City' s disposal. B. Defendant' Defenses s In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes three claims for relief - First that the Defendant City discriminated against him on the basis of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (" ADEA" 29 U.S.C. § 61, et seq.; Secondly that the City ) 10

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 11 of 66

discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of the disability in violation of the Americans with Disability Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 12112, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and thirdly that the City deprived Plaintiff of a property interest and liberty interest without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. .§ 1983. 1. Age Discrimination Claim

Defendant denies it discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his age in either its action in terminating him for misconduct or in the denial of reinstatement of Plaintiff to his position as firefighter after the date of March 15, 2003 after his disciplinary termination was reversed by a Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer. With regard to his termination for misconduct, the Plaintiff must show that the City' s action was because of his age. Plaintiff cannot show that age played any factor in the determination to discipline Plaintiff. Plaintiff can present no evidence of similarly situated individuals who were treated differently or that Defendant' motivation in its disciplinary s termination of Plaintiff was pretextual, i.e., a cover up for age discrimination. Further with regard to the disciplinary termination, because that termination was overturned through the City' administrative appeal process through the Denver Civil Service s Commission, Plaintiff was not in fact terminated. With regard to the age discrimination and claim involving the failure to fully reinstate Plaintiff to his position as firefighter after his termination was reversed, because Plaintiff voluntarily retired from the Denver Fire Department first through an Age and Service Retirement and then a Disability Retirement, he is foreclosed from being reinstated. He substituted his right

11

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 12 of 66

to a job or reinstatement for a right to collection of retirement pension benefits. He voluntarily severed his employment relationship with the fire Department With respect to Plaintiff' claim that there was direct evidence of age discrimination s because of a state statute, the statute does not discriminate on the basis of age. The operation of the statute is based on the retired status of the former firefighter not on his/her age. Plaintiff' s status as a voluntarily retired firefighter foreclosed his reinstatement to the Fire Department after his retirement. Also, after Plaintiff' retirement his only vehicle for returning to the fire department was s through reapplication. Under the safe harbor provision of the ADEA, 22 U.S.C. § 623 (j)(1), because Denver had an age restriction for firefighter applicants (no older than 30 ) in effect on March 3, 1983, Plaintiff has no claim for refusal to reinstate which is the same as refusal to rehire. 2. Disability Discrimination

With respect to the disability discrimination claim that Plaintiff was disciplinarily terminated because of his disability must fail because at the time of the disciplinary order of dismissal, none of the decision makers knew of Plaintiff' alleged disability, a hearing loss. s Additionally, there will be no evidence that Plaintiff was disciplinary terminated because of his hearing loss or that the reason given for termination was a pretext for discrimination based on a disability. In fact, Plaintiff' disability was unknown at the time of the disciplinary order of s termination. With respect to Plaintiff' claim that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of s disability when he was not reinstated fully to the position of firefighter, as noted above with 12

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 13 of 66

respect to the age discrimination claim, Plaintiff voluntarily retired first through age and service retirement and then through disability retirement which foreclosed his ability to be fully reinstated. He substituted his right to collect a pension benefit for his right to be a firefighter. Additionally, Plaintiff will be unable to prove that his hearing loss is a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act or that he is disabled in the major life activity of working because of his hearing impairment. The only evidence the Plaintiff has is of a hearing loss discovered after his voluntary retirement from the Denver Fire Department. Plaintiff will be unable to demonstrate that he is disabled in the major life activity of working, assuming that working is a major life activity. As with his age discrimination claim, Plaintiff cannot show that any state statute prevented him from being reinstated because of his disability, but rather because he elected to take disability retirement, a voluntary act. 3. Due Process Claim

Plaintiff' claims both a substantive due process violation and procedural due process s violation. Defendant denies that Plaintiff was deprived of either substantive or procedural due process rights and states that Plaintiff had all of the procedures to which he was entitled. As to the procedural due process claim, as a City employee Plaintiff was entitled to pretermination and post-termination due process. With respect to the pre-termination due process, he was entitled to notice of the charges against him, a description of the evidence and to a pretermination meeting or hearing. He had all of those rights and, in fact, gave his explanation as to why he should not be disciplined for his conduct of which he was accused. Thus, Plaintiff had all of the pre-termination process to which he is entitled. 13

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 14 of 66

Additionally, with respect to the pre-termination process, that issue has been litigated in an administrative forum, before the Denver Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer, who, after an adversary hearing ruled that Plaintiff had sufficient pre-termination process which decision has not been appealed. Thus under the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) Plaintiff is barred from raising that issue here or in the alternative that the issue has been decided adversely to him. With respect to the post-termination process, Plaintiff exercised all rights available to him including having a full blown adversary hearing before a neutral hearing officer of the Denver Civil Service Commission and then appealed that decision to the Civil Service Commission as a whole. Still unsatisfied, the Plaintiff has now appealed the Commission' s decision on certiorari review to the Denver District Court. This is a complete and sufficient posttermination process to remedy any of the errors or substantive or procedural which Plaintiff alleges or claims. That Plaintiff is unsatisfied with the result of the post-termination process does not make that post-termination process violative of Plaintiff' right to procedural or substantive s due process of law. With respect to Plaintiff' claim that he was deprived of a liberty interest, without due s process of law, Plaintiff was entitled to " name clearing hearing" Plaintiff had that name a . clearing hearing before the hearing officer of the Denver Civil Service Commission and thus was not deprived of a liberty interest without due process of law. As to Plaintiff' claim for violation of substantive due process of law, because Plaintiff s had all appropriate procedures, his substantive due process claim must fail. Additionally, Plaintiff cannot show that any of the conduct of any government actor is so outrageous as to 14

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 15 of 66

shock the conscience of the Federal District Judge as required to show and prove a substantive due process violation. Plaintiff apparently bases his substantive due process claim on the fact that he is unsatisfied with and critical of the Civil Service Commission' proceedings. However, s Plaintiff' termination, of which he is so critical, was overturned in the Civil Service s Commission hearing and thus, he was not " terminated." Because Plaintiff' " s name was cleared" through the Civil Service Commission proceeding, Plaintiff has no substantive due process violation claim. With respect to Plaintiff' claim that his substantive due process was violated by what he s alleges as an erroneous improper determination ruling or opinion by the Civil Service Commission, such is not conscience shocking as it is, at best, " judicial error." Additionally, Plaintiff had or has the ability to appeal that determination. That the Commission ruled that Plaintiff could not be reinstated to the position of firefighter because of his retirement, does not amount to a substantive due process violation. As a matter of law such is not conscience shocking. As to Plaintiff' damages, Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages by failing or s refusing to seek employment. Damages are the result of his own actions and conduct. Also, Plaintiff has either failed to exhaust all administrative remedies required or failed to complete all conditions precedent to the bringing of this action, particularly receipt of a right to sue letter as required before this action can be brought. 4. STIPULATIONS

15

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 16 of 66

1.

Plaintiff is and was at all relevant times a resident of Jefferson County, Colorado.

Plaintiff served as a Firefighter for, and member of the classified service of, the Denver Fire Department commencing July 1, 1976. 2. Plaintiff's date of birth is October 31, 1952. 3. Defendant City and County of Denver (" City" is a municipal corporation and local ) government established and existing pursuant to Article XX, §6, of the Constitution of the State of Colorado. 4. The Civil Service Commission of the City and County of Denver (" Commission" is ) and was at all relevant times an agency of the City and County of Denver established and existing under provisions of the Charter of the City and County of Denver and, pursuant thereto, has final decision-making and policy-making authority concerning the discipline of members of the classified service, including Denver Firefighters. 5. Plaintiff William Cadorna is or was : (a) a "citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §1983; (b) an "employee" of the City and County of Denver within the meaning of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq., (c) an " employee"within the meaning of Title I, 42 U.S.C. §12112, Title II, 42. U.S.C. §12132, and Title V, 42 U.S.C. §12201, et seq., of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794. 6. Defendant City and County of Denver is a municipal corporation, local government, "person" and "employer" subject to this court's jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq., and Title I, 42 U.S.C. §12112, Title II, 42. U.S.C. §12132, and Title V, 42 U.S.C. §12201, et seq., of the Americans with Disabilities 16

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 17 of 66

Act, and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff' claims against the City under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1367(a), and is the proper s venue for Plaintiff' action against the City under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2). s 7. The City is an "employer" and "public entity" within the meaning of Titles I and II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12112 and 12132, and a " program or activity receiving federal financial assistance"within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C §504. 8. On October 24, 2003, Plaintiff filed a timely charge of, among other things, age and disability discrimination, and unlawful retaliation, with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concerning his termination on January 2, 2003. 9. On September 27, 2004, Plaintiff again filed a timely charge of, among other things, age and disability discrimination, and unlawful retaliation, with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concerning the Denver Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer' January 30, 2004 Decision and Order. s 10. During his employment by the City, Plaintiff was not terminable at will, but was protected from discipline or termination by civil service appeal rights, a collective bargaining agreement, and due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. 11. Plaintiff possessed a property and liberty interest in his employment as a Denver Firefighter that was protected by the procedural due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. 12. In 2002, Plaintiff worked at Denver Fire Department Station 27 in Montbello. Lt. Frank Hoffman (" Hoffman" commanded one of the units assigned to Station 27 and had ) 17

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 18 of 66

supervisory authority over Plaintiff. Assistant Chief Joe Hart (" Hart" commanded the District ) in which Station 27 is located, and had supervisory authority over Hoffman and Plaintiff. 13. On Saturday, December 7, 2002, Plaintiff was on duty. He and his colleagues on Tower 27 went to the Safeway grocery store (No. 0141) at 4884 Chambers Road, Denver, Colorado ("the Safeway store") to shop for groceries that morning, but received an emergency call requiring them to leave the store immediately. In answering the call, Plaintiff left the store with a copy of the "Colorado Colore" cookbook ("the cookbook"). 14. Hoffman did not ask Plaintiff why he had left the store with the cookbook. 15. On Saturday, December 7, 2002, Hoffman reported to Hart that he had seen Plaintiff leave the Safeway store with a copy of with a cookbook. 16. On December 8, 2002, Hart went to the Safeway store, interviewed Safeway Clerk Kevin McKee (McKee" and spoke with Safeway Store Manager Mike Brown (" ), Brown" ). 17. On December 10, 2002, Brown signed a criminal complaint, completed or delivered to him by Denver Police Officer Charles W. Jones, accusing Plaintiff of shoplifting the cookbook on December 7, 2002. 18. In speaking with Brown prior to Brown' signing of the criminal complaint against s Plaintiff, Hart did not show Brown the written statements of the three Denver Firefighters. 19. Hart obtained written statements from the three Firefighters manning Tower 27 with Plaintiff: Frank Hoffman, Gil Lettig, and Russ Dobson. None of the written statements obtained by Hart from Hoffman, Lettig, or Dobson states that Plaintiff shoplifted the cookbook. Hoffman and Dobson stated that they saw Plaintiff leave the Safeway Store carrying the cookbook. Dobson said in his statement that he " noticed Bill carrying a book in his arms." 18

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 19 of 66

20. The December 10, 2002 criminal complaint against Plaintiff does not identify Kevin McKee as a witness. 21. The Safeway store contains numerous surveillance cameras that were in operation on December 7, 2002. 22. Safeway retains any surveillance videos made in the Safeway store for thirty days before re-using them, and makes them available to law enforcement upon request. 23. As of December 8, 2002, Safeway had in its possession all of the videotapes made by any surveillance camera in the Safeway store at any time during the preceding 30 days. 24. As of January 2, 2003, Safeway had in its possession all of the videotapes made by any surveillance camera in the Safeway store at any time during the preceding 30 days. 25. Safeway Store Manager Mike Brown had access to the surveillance video system for the Safeway Store. 26. Asst. Chief Joseph Hart conducted the investigation of the allegation that Plaintiff took a cookbook from Safeway. 27. Joe Hart was not assigned to the Fire Department Human Resources Bureau in 2002 or 2003. 28. On December 13, 2002, the Denver Fire Department served Plaintiff with a written Contemplation of Disciplinary Action. 29. Fire Chief Roderick Juniel recommended to Manager of Public Safety Tracy Howard that Plaintiff be dismissed from the Denver Fire Department. 30. On January 2, 2003, Manager of Public Safety Tracy Howard entered a Departmental Order of Disciplinary Dismissal dismissing Plaintiff from the Denver Fire Department. 19

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 20 of 66

31. In January, 2003, Plaintiff timely appealed the Manager of Safety' January 2, 2003 s Departmental Order of Disciplinary Dismissal to the Denver Civil Service Commission. 32. Prior to January 2, 2003, Plaintiff did not submit a petition for retirement to the Board of Trustees of the Denver Firefighters'Pension Fund. 33. At the time of the Manager of Safety' January 2, 2003 Departmental Order of s Disciplinary Dismissal, Plaintiff qualified for age and service retirement because he met the age and years of service requirements for such a retirement. 34. After the Manager of Safety' January 2, 2003 Departmental Order of Disciplinary s Dismissal, Plaintiff submitted his first written petition for age and service retirement. 35. On March 13, 2003, the Board of Trustees of the Denver Firefighters'Pension Fund approved Plaintiff' application for age and service retirement, effective March 13, 2003. s 36. On April 14, 2003, the Denver Firefighters' Pension Fund Board sent the Denver Civil Service Commission a letter informing it of its approval on March 13, 2003 of Plaintiff' s petition for age and service retirement, effective March 13, 2003., That April 14, 2003 letter has been in the Commission' possession, in Plaintiff' Civil Service Commission personnel file, s s since its receipt by the Commission in April, 2003. 37. The Denver Fire Department employee(s) responsible for administering Denver firefighter pension applications in February and March, 2003 advised Firefighters submitting age and service retirements of the potential tax advantages of a disability retirement. 38. After January 2, 2003, personnel of the Denver Fire Department responsible for administering Denver firefighter pension applications advised Plaintiff of his retirement options,

20

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 21 of 66

including the possibility that he might qualify for a disability retirement that could result in more favorable tax treatment of his pension than an age and service retirement. 39. After the Manager of Safety' January 2, 2003 Departmental Order of Disciplinary s Action, Plaintiff submitted a written petition to the Denver Firefighters'Pension Fund Board to convert his age and service retirement to a disability pension based upon hearing loss. 40. On or about April 25, 2003, the Denver Firefighters' Pension Fund Board approved Plaintiff' petition for disability retirement and changed his retirement status to disability s retirement. 41. On or about June 3, 2003, the Denver Firefighters'Pension Fund sent the Denver Civil Service Commission a letter informing it of its approval of Plaintiff' petition for disability s retirement. That June 3, 2003 letter has been in the Commission' possession, in Plaintiff' Civil s s Service Commission personnel file, since its receipt by the Commission in June, 2003. 42. On May 7, 2003, the Denver City Attorney'Office tried Plaintiff in Denver County Court on the allegation of shoplifting . The May 7, 2003 criminal trial ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree upon a unanimous verdict. It was scheduled for retrial. 43. In June, 2003, Safeway Store Manager Mike Brown provided a written statement that, in December, 2002, an employee brought him a copy of the cookbook Plaintiff had been accused of shoplifting. The cookbook contained Plaintiff' name, " s badge number" and other , identifying information. Brown also stated that he removed the page containing Plaintiff' name s and other identifying information from the cookbook, and returned the cookbook to the store' s shelves for resale. 44. In July, 2003, the Denver City Attorney dismissed the charges against Plaintiff. 21

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 22 of 66

45. In the proceedings before the Hearing Officer, the City contended that Plaintiff' s retirement after his disciplinary dismissal foreclosed his reinstatement or back pay beyond the effective date of his age and service retirement. 46. During the hearing, neither party argued or presented any evidence that Plaintiff applied for age and service retirement " prior to dismissal" . 47. On January 30, 2004, the Hearing Officer issued his decision. He reversed the Manager of Safety' disciplinary termination of Plaintiff. The Hearing Officer found that the s City had failed to sustain its burden of proving that Plaintiff was guilty of the misconduct upon which the Manager of Safety based Plaintiff' disciplinary dismissal. s 48. The Hearing Officer did not reinstate Plaintiff or grant him back pay for any period after March 15, 2003. 49. At the time of the Hearing Officer' Decision on January 30, 2004, there was no s evidence in the record before the Hearing Officer that Plaintiff applied for age and service or disability retirement prior to January 2, 2003. 50. Plaintiff timely appealed the Hearing Officer' Decision to the Commission. s 51. The Commission issued its decision affirming the Hearing Officer' Decision on May s 20, 2005.

5. PENDING MOTIONS On March 1, 2006, both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court struck Defendant' Motion for Summary Judgment due to its length, but permitted Defendant to re-file s a shorter Motion for Summary Judgment on March 8, 2006. 22

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 23 of 66

Response Briefs are due April 21, and Reply Briefs are due May 2, 2006. 6. WITNESSES A. Plaintiff' Non-Expert Witnesses s

Plaintiff will call the following non-expert witnesses: 1. Plaintiff William R. Cadorna, 5503 S. Moore St., Littleton, CO. 80127, (303) 979-4769, to testify concerning any and all matters at issue in this proceeding; 2. Sandra L. Cadorna, 5503 S. Moore St., Littleton, CO. 80127, (303) 979-4769, to testify concerning all relevant matters of which she may have knowledge, including without limitation: the economic losses and mental anguish suffered by Plaintiff and his family as the result of his termination and prosecution; 1. Kevin P. McKee, 16199 E. 48th Ave., Denver, CO. 80239, no number listed; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: his knowledge of the finding of a "Colorado Colore" cookbook containing Plaintiff's identifying information in Safeway Store 0141; the investigation of Michael Brown's misconduct by Safeway's Security Dept.; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning allegations against Plaintiff or proceedings stemming therefrom; 2. Asst. Chief Steven J. Garrod, Denver Fire Department Human Resources Bureau, 745 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO. 80204, (720) 913-3413, Asst. Chief, Human Resources/Internal Affairs, June 2001-May, 2003, to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: City or Fire 23

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 24 of 66

Department investigative policies and procedures; the investigation of allegations against Plaintiff; the prosecution of Plaintiff; the dismissal of charges against Plaintiff; his view that Plaintiff' termination was not undertaken in compliance with City policies and procedures, s and was premature; communications with or between Defendant or representatives or employees of Defendant or Safeway concerning allegations against Plaintiff or civil or criminal proceedings stemming therefrom; communications among Fire Department managers concerning Plaintiff; the administration of age and service or disability retirements by Plaintiff and other old hire Denver Firefighters; 3. Jeff Adkins, Safeway, Inc. Security Dept., 6900 S. Yosemite St., Englewood, CO. 80012, 303-843-7600, to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; Safeway' methods of surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of s misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 4. David Schuetz, 11085 N. Cottontail Lane, Parker, Colorado, 80138; (303) 904-0301; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with witnesses having information concerning allegations of theft by Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of s 24

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 25 of 66

surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 5. Jim Stein, Safeway, Inc. Security Dept., 6900 S. Yosemite St., Englewood, CO. 80012, 303-843-7600; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with witnesses knowing information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of s surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft 6. Denver Police Officer C.W. Jones, Serial No. 92073, Denver Police Dept., 1331 Cherokee, Denver, CO. 80202, (720) 913-2000; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: his investigation of the allegation of theft by Plaintiff from Safeway Store 0141; his communications with representatives or employees of Defendant or Safeway concerning the allegations against Plaintiff; Denver Police Department standards, policies, practices and procedures for the investigation or prosecution of shoplifting; the actions he took in response to the allegations against Plaintiff, and the actions he would have taken had he been fully informed of all the evidence;

25

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 26 of 66

7.

Firefighter Craig Hopp, DIA Fire Station 1, 8525 Newcastle St., Denver, CO. 80249, (303) 342-4265; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: his observation of hostile conduct and statements by Lt. Frank Hoffman and other officers or firefighters toward Plaintiff; his observation of Plaintiff's shopping and cooking habits;

8.

Ida Roberts, Benefits Manager, Denver Fire Department, 745 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO. 80204, (720) 913-3413, to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which she may have knowledge, including without limitation: the administration and operation of the Denver Firefighters Pension Fund; Communications among Denver Fire Department personnel or other City employees, including the City Attorney' office, s concerning Plaintiff' application for retirement after his termination; Plaintiff' pension and s s benefits applications or their processing; Calculation of Plaintiff' lost earnings or benefits; s the administration of age and service or disability retirements by Plaintiff and other old hire Denver Firefighters;

9.

Karen McNeil, 1625 S. Birch St., Apt. 403, Denver, CO. 80222; (303) 759-9322; former benefits coordinator, Denver Fire Dept., to testify concerning all relevant matters of which she may have knowledge, including without limitation: the administration and operation of the Denver Firefighters Pension Fund; Plaintiff' pensions and benefits applications or their s processing; Communications among Denver Fire Department personnel or other City employees, including the City Attorney' office, concerning Plaintiff' application for s s retirement after his termination; Calculation of Plaintiff' lost earnings or benefits; the s

26

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 27 of 66

administration of age and service or disability retirements by Plaintiff and other old hire Denver Firefighters; 10. Alfred " Fred"DeFeo, 9730 W. Dakota Ave., Lakewood, CO. 80226; (303) 988-8525; former City Fire Dept. Human Resources/Internal Affairs/Arson Investigator, to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: City or Fire Department investigative practices, policies and procedures; the investigation of allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with other people, including but not limited to Denver Fire Department personnel, concerning Plaintiff or allegations against Plaintiff; communications between City employees and employees of Safeway or other persons concerning allegations against Plaintiff, or civil or criminal proceedings involving Plaintiff; 11. Lt. Rob Brady, Denver Fire Department Human Resources Bureau, 745 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO. 80204, (720) 913-3413; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: his observation, investigation or protest of hostile conduct by Lt. Frank Hoffman toward Plaintiff; punishment of Lt. Frank Hoffman for hostile conduct toward Plaintiff; City or Fire Department investigative practices, policies and procedures; the investigation of allegations against Plaintiff; the prosecution of Plaintiff; the dismissal of charges against Plaintiff; communications with or between representatives or employees of Defendant and employees of Safeway or others concerning criminal allegations against Plaintiff, or civil or criminal proceedings stemming therefrom; the administration of age and service or disability retirements by Plaintiff and other old hire Denver Firefighters; 27

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 28 of 66

12.

John A. Criswell, Hearing Officer, Denver Civil Service Commission, 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 810, Denver, CO. 80203; (303) 864-1664; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: the evidence and arguments presented in Plaintiff' Civil Service Commission case; the factual s basis, legal basis, formulation, and language of the Hearing Officer' Decision in Plaintiff' s s Civil Service Commission case; actions taken by the Hearing Officer or the Commission to verify or correct the Hearing Officer' misstatement of fact in his Decision; the Hearing s Officer' decisions or Commission decisions in other disciplinary cases involving other s Denver Dept. of Public Safety employees, including but not limited to James Turney;

13.

Earl Peterson, Executive Director, Denver Civil Service Commission, 1570 Grove St., Denver, CO. 80204-1930; (720) 913-3370; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: the evidence and arguments presented in Plaintiff' Civil Service Commission cases; the factual basis, s legal basis, formulation, and language of the Hearing Officer' Decision in Plaintiff' Civil s s Service Commission cases; actions taken by the Hearing Officer or the Commission to verify or correct the Hearing Officer' misstatement of fact in his Decision; the factual basis, legal s basis, formulation and language of the Commission Decision in Plaintiff' cases; s Documentation concerning Plaintiff' appeal of his termination or retirement applications in s the Commission' files; communications between or among Commission staff, Commission s members, the Hearing Officer, the City Attorney, other City employees or officials, Safeway officials or representatives, or anyone else, concerning any matter related to Plaintiff' Civil s Service Commission cases or other litigation concerning Plaintiff' termination or Civil s 28

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 29 of 66

Service Commission cases; the Hearing Officer' decisions or Commission decisions in other s disciplinary cases involving other Denver Dept. of Public Safety employees, including but not limited to James Turney; the administration of age and service or disability retirements by Plaintiff and other old hire Denver Firefighters; 14. Brian Kellogg, Senior Personnel Analyst, Denver Civil Service Commission, 1570 Grove St., Denver, CO. 80204-1930; (720) 913-3370; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: the evidence and arguments presented in Plaintiff' Civil Service Commission cases; the factual s basis, legal basis, formulation, and language of the Hearing Officer' Decision in Plaintiff' s s Civil Service Commission cases; actions taken by the Hearing Officer or the Commission to verify or correct the Hearing Officer' misstatement of fact in his Decision; the factual basis, s legal basis, formulation and language of the Commission Decision in Plaintiff' cases; s Documentation concerning Plaintiff' appeal of his termination or retirement applications in s the Commission' files; communications between or among Commission staff, Commission s members, the Hearing Officer, the City Attorney, other City employees or officials, Safeway officials or representatives, or anyone else, concerning any matter related to Plaintiff' Civil s Service Commission cases or other litigation concerning Plaintiff' termination or Civil s Service Commission cases; the Hearing Officer' decisions or Commission decisions in other s disciplinary cases involving other Denver Dept. of Public Safety employees, including but not limited to James Turney; the administration of age and service or disability retirements by Plaintiff and other old hire Denver Firefighters;

29

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 30 of 66

Plaintiff will call the following non-expert witness to testify via videotaped deposition: 15. Michael S. Brown, 2250 West Dahlia Drive, Phoenix, Arizona, 85029; (602) 993-1330; former Asst. Store Mgr., Safeway Store 0141, to testify via video deposition concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: his perjury at the criminal trial of Plaintiff; his obstruction of justice consisting of the destruction and concealment of exculpatory evidence in order to assist the prosecution of Plaintiff; his investigation of theft by Plaintiff, or his assistance in the termination or prosecution of Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway employees concerning allegations against Plaintiff or proceedings related thereto; Safeway' s methods of surveillance, and documentation; Plaintiff may call the following non-expert witnesses: 16. Asst. Chief Kelley S. Caldwell, Denver Fire Department, 745 W. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO. 80204, (720) 913-3413, to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: City or Fire Department investigative policies and procedures; the investigation of allegations against Plaintiff; the prosecution of Plaintiff; the dismissal of charges against Plaintiff; communications with or between Defendant or representatives or employees of Defendant or Safeway concerning allegations against Plaintiff or civil or criminal proceedings stemming therefrom; communications among Fire Department managers concerning Plaintiff; 17. Jose Aguilar Ortiz, 2641 California St., Huntington Park, CA. 90255; former Safeway Store employee, to testify by telephone concerning all relevant matters of which he may have 30

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 31 of 66

knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; how he came into possession of a copy of the cookbook bearing Plaintiff' name and identifying s information in Store 141 in December, 2002 18. Michele L. Ibanez, 16199 E. 48th Ave., No. 311, Denver, CO. 80239, (303) 307-9651; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which she may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; her knowledge of the finding of a "Colorado Colore" cookbook containing Plaintiff's identifying information in Safeway Store 0141; her attempts to reach Plaintiff in order to return the book to him; her transmittal of the book to another Safeway employee; the investigation of Michael Brown's misconduct by Safeway's Security Dept.; her knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning allegations against Plaintiff or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' s methods of surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 19. Ronald L. Martinez, 221 S. Balsam, No. 201, Lakewood, CO. 80226, (303) 205-0234; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his knowledge of the finding of a "Colorado Colore" cookbook containing Plaintiff's identifying information in Safeway Store 0141; his transmittal of the book to another Safeway employee; the investigation of Michael 31

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 32 of 66

Brown's misconduct by Safeway's Security Dept.; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning allegations against Plaintiff or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution s of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 20. Thomas Brennan, Shrinkage Manager, Safeway, Inc., 6900 S. Yosemite St., Englewood, CO. 80012, 303-843-7600; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: the handling of returned, misplaced or damaged merchandise in Safeway Stores; 21. Larry Rodriguez, Safeway, Inc., 6900 S. Yosemite St., Englewood, CO. 80012, 303-8437600; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with witnesses having information concerning allegations of theft by Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of s surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 22. Doug Martinez, Safeway, Inc., 6900 S. Yosemite St., Englewood, CO. 80012, 303-8437600; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning 32

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 33 of 66

matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with witnesses having information concerning allegations of theft by Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of s surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 23. Clinton Eads, Safeway, Inc., 6900 S. Yosemite St., Englewood, CO. 80012, 303-8437600; to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with witnesses having information concerning allegations of theft by Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of s surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 24. Michael Boylan, Office of the General Counsel, Safeway, Inc. 5918 Stoneridge Mall Road Pleasanton, California 94588-3229, to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with witnesses having information 33

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 34 of 66

concerning allegations of theft by Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of s misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 25. Chuck Kerns, Business Agent, UFCW Local 7, 7760 W. 38th Ave., Wheatridge, CO. 80033; (303) 425-0246; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff, Michael Brown, or the allegations against Plaintiff; his communications with witnesses having information concerning allegations of theft by Plaintiff; his knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of s surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 26. Melissa Herrera, Steward, Safeway Store 141, UFCW Local 7, 7760 W. 38th Ave., Wheatridge, CO. 80033; (303) 425-0246; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: calls to the Safeway Ethics Hotline concerning matters related to Plaintiff; Michael Brown; the allegations against Plaintiff; her communications with witnesses having information concerning allegations of theft by Plaintiff; her knowledge of information bearing on allegations of theft by Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and Safeway 34

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 35 of 66

concerning such allegations or proceedings stemming therefrom; Safeway' methods of s surveillance, documentation, investigation or prosecution of misconduct by employees or customers, including theft; 27. John Redmond, Office of the City Attorney, 201 W. Colfax, Dept. 1207, Denver, CO. 80202, (720) 913-8050; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: the investigation of criminal allegations against Plaintiff; the prosecution of Plaintiff; the dismissal of charges against Plaintiff; communications with or between representatives or employees of Defendant and others concerning criminal allegations against Plaintiff or civil or criminal proceedings related thereto; Michael Brown' admitted commission of perjury and obstruction of justice and the s City' failure to prosecute Brown; s 28. Jose Aguilar, current address and telephone number unknown, former Safeway Store employee, to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: how he came into possession of a copy of the cookbook bearing Plaintiff' name and identifying information in Store 141 in December, 2002. s 29. Donald T. Wasko, Attorney-at-Law, Hughes Clikeman & Assoc., 4155 E. Jewell Ave. Suite 500, Denver, CO. 80222, (303) 758-0680; to testify concerning all non-privileged and relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: the investigation of criminal allegations against Plaintiff; the prosecution of Plaintiff; the dismissal of charges against Plaintiff; communications between representatives or employees of Defendant and others concerning allegations against Plaintiff or proceedings related thereto; his communications with representatives or employees of Defendant or Safeway 35

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 95

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 36 of 66

concerning criminal allegations against Plaintiff or civil or criminal proceedings related thereto; 30. Capt. Jerome Fleming, DIA Fire Station, 8525 Newcastle St., Denver, CO. 80249, (303) 342-4265; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: his observation, investigation or protest of hostile conduct by Lt. Frank Hoffman toward Plaintiff; punishment of Lt. Frank Hoffman for hostile conduct toward Plaintiff; the investigation of criminal allegations against Plaintiff; the prosecution of Plaintiff; the dismissal of charges against Plaintiff; communications with or between representatives or employees of Defendant or Safeway concerning criminal allegations against Plaintiff or civil or criminal proceedings stemming therefrom; his observation of Plaintiff's shopping and cooking habits; 31. Firefighter Harold Hughes, DIA Fire Station, 8525 Newcastle St., Denver, CO. 80249, (303) 342-4265; to testify concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: his observation of hostile conduct and statements by Lt. Frank Hoffman and other officers or firefighters toward Plaintiff; his observation of Plaintiff's shopping and cooking habits; 32. Rod Juniel, address and telephone unknown, to testify as an adverse witness concerning all relevant matters of which he may have knowledge, including without limitation: City and Denver Fire Department policies concerning discipline of Firefighters; policies, practices and procedures followed by the City in investigating wrongdoing by City employees; any and all information he considered or needed in making the decision to approve Plaintiff' s termination or other disciplinary actions involving Plaintiff or ot