Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 4

(Part 2 - to p. 100 forward)

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

Document 88-5

Filed 08/05/2005

Page 1 of 26

Multi-PageTM
Page 100

him.

2
3 4
5

A. Q. A.

Captain Swart? Correct. That I had been measured for the ballistic vests

and that I was upset about it because of the fact that I was pregnant and that my measurements weren't going to be accurate, so I didn't understand why the measurements had been taken to begin with. Q. A. Did he say anything in response? He said, "Wayne wasn't supposed to be measuring

6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

females." Q. A. Okay. Did he say anything else? I'm sure there was more to

Not that I remember.

the conversation, but that's what stands out. Q. So as you sit here today, those are the only

things you recall?
A.

Yes.
Okay. Now, you spoke, then, to -- you spoke to

Q.

Brian Neus, right?
A.

Yes.
Was that sometime thereafter?

Q.
A.

Yes.
Why did you speak to Brian Neus after you spoke

Q.

to Captain Swart? A. To tell Brian what had happened.

Case LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI 88-5PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514 2:04-cv-00320-PGR Document Filed 08/05/2005 Page 2 of 26

Multi-Page TM Page 101 Q. Okay. Do you recall where you and he were when

you told him?
3 4

A.
Q.

No.
Can you tell me everything that you now recall

telling him and what he said to you? A. It was along the same lines of what I had told I didn't understand why I was being

Captain Swart.

measured because the measurements weren't going to be accurate.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. A. Q.

Okay.

And he responded what?

That he wasn't supposed to be measuring females. Do you recall anything else that you said to

Brian Neus or he said to you? A. Q. No, not that I remember. All right. Okay. I want to make sure that I've

got the documents that I need to have here. Okay. Let's -- oh, excuse me. Let me mark

that as next in order. (Exhibit 5 marked for identification.) Q. Exhibit No. 5 is a charge of discrimination.

A.
Q. this? A. Q.

Yes.
Now, did you -- when did you decide to file

In August of '03. Just before you actually prepared it or went
Document 88-5

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI

PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514
Filed 08/05/2005 Page 3 of 26

Multi-Page TM

Page 110
1

Let me mark the next exhibit. (Exhibit 8 marked for identification.) Q. Okay. This is a -- an e-mail?

2 3 4 5

A.
Q.

Yes.
It says from Bobbie to Brian Neus?

6
7 8 9

A.
Q.

Yes.
And it's dated 9/16/2002 at 2:49 p.m. And it

looks like - - i s this from your private e-mail address? A. Q. I was already on my leave, so yes. Okay. And it was to Brian Neus at his State,

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

State e-mail address, correct?

A.
Q.

Yes.
Okay. It says, "Upon your request, I am

providing the following information regarding Sergeant W. Corcoran's assignment to obtain measurements for replacement body armor." talking about, right? And that's the vest we're

A.
Q.

Yes.
When did Brian Neus make this request?

A. written. Q.

On or just before that date that that memo was

21 22 23 24 25

Okay.

The next paragraph, the second sentence,

third line from the top, says, "I do not recall whether or not other officers were present." That was your

recollection at the time; there were no officers present

LEA, SHERMAN & Document Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 4 of 26

Multi-Page TM Page 111
1

in the briefing room? A. Q. A. Apparently, yeah, at that time. Is your memory different today? I remember there were people that were in and

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

out of the room, yes. Q. Okay. But you don't recall whether any officers

were present when the actual measurement went on? A. Q. Staying in the room, no, I do not recall. Okay. It says, "As he was already "-- next

line, second -- next line it says, "As he was already obtaining the measurements and no inappropriate contact was occurring, I did not object to the measurements being taken." Now, those are the words you used back on

September 16th of 2002; is that right?
A.

Yes.

Q. A. Q.

Okay.

And that's in fact true, right?

That I had written that? No. That no inappropriate contact was

occurring. A. I don't believe that the way the breast

measurements were taken was appropriate, so -Q. Well, let me put it to you this way: You were

an officer at the time, on leave but an officer for the Capitol Police at the time you wrote this e-mail, correct?
A. M' hum.

LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR Document 88-5 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 5 of 26

Multi-Page TM Page 112
1

Q.
A.

Is that -Yes.

2 3 4 5

Q.

-- "yes"?

A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked by your supervising sergeant,

Sergeant Neus, to provide you with a memo --

A. Yes.
8 9

Q.

-- correct?

A. Yes.
Q. And you recognize, do you not, that you have an

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

obligation to be accurate when you report to your supervisor, true?

A. Yes.
Q. And you recognize that you have a duty to be

accurate when you report to your supervisor, true?

A. Yes.
Q. And what you wrote at that time was that "no

inappropriate contact was occurring," correct? A. Q. A. Q. Yes, that is what -Those --- I wrote. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Those are the words that

you chose, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. And that's the information you chose to provide

LEA, SHERMAN & Document Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 6 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005 (602)257-8514

Multi-Page TM

Page 113
1

to your supervising sergeant in September of 2002?
A.
Q.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Yes.
And you did not object to the measurements being

taken at the time they were being taken,- isn't that true?

A. Q.
A.

Per that memo, yes. What does that mean, "per that memo"?
It means that at that time when I had written

this memo, I was already on leave.

Q. A.

What difference does that make? It makes a big difference, because I wanted my

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

extended leave with my baby. Q. Oh, so you mean -- you're not suggesting that

you've now lied to your supervising sergeant because you wanted an extended leave, are you? A. The -- what is written in this memo is not

accurate is what I'm saying. Q. So what you've now testified to is that you lied

to your supervising sergeant at the time you provided him with this memo upon his request? MS. BAGDON: Q. A. Objection, asked and answered.

BY MS. STATON: Answer it again. That this memo is not accurate? Yes, it's not,

you're right. Q. A. It is correct -- so it is -It's inaccurate.

LEA, SHERMAN & Document ( 0 )7 of 264 62 5-5 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 2 7 8 1 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM
Page 114
1

Q.

Let me get the question out. So it is now your testimony that on

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Q.

September the 16th of 2002 you lied to your supervising sergeant?
MS. BAGDON: Objection.

BY MS. STATON:

Go ahead.

MS. BAGDON: Q. BY MS. STATON:

Form.

Go ahead. You have to answer. I'm telling you that.

MS. BAGDON: A. Q.

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

The memo is inaccurate. BY MS. STATON: Okay.

And by the term

"inaccurate," you mean you lied? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Not accurate is what I'm saying. It's not truthful? Inaccurate. Tell me -Well, it's a play on words. No. I --

You understand what truth means?

A.
Q.

Yes.
You understood, when you took an oath here to

tell the truth, you understood what that meant?

A.
Q.

Yes.
You understand what the word means, correct?

A.
Q.

Yes.
Is this truthful?

Case LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI 88-5PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514 2:04-cv-00320-PGR Document Filed 08/05/2005 Page 8 of 26

Multi-Page TM

Page 115
1

A.

No.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Q.

All right. And the reason you wrote the

untruthful memo is because you wanted extended leave? A. Anything I had reported in the past had never

been looked into. Q. Move to strike as not responsive. MS. STATON: Could you read my question again, please. A. Q. A. Q. There were several reasons -Wait. - - s o can I answer the question? Let her read the question back, and you can

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

answer the question -A. Q. Okay. -- that I've posed.
(Question read.)

A. Q.
A. Q.

No, that's not the only reason. Is that one of the reasons?
That is one of my reasons, yes. Okay. So you felt it was to your benefit to

get -A. Q. At that time. - - a t that time to get extended leave, right?

Is that right? A. As one of my reasons.

LEA, SHERMAN & Document (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 9 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM
Page 116
1

Q. right?
A.

Okay.

I mean, because you were having a baby,

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

That's why you wanted the extended leave?

Yes.
Okay. And because it was to your benefit to

Q.

have extended leave, that's why you wrote this untruthful memo? A. No. Because when it was originally reported,

which was several months prior, nothing had been done, so at that time, with the timing of getting ready to have my baby, I didn't see it in my best interests or my family's, to come forward. MS. STATON: please. Read her answer back for me,

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

Read my question and then the answer. (Record read.)

Q.

Okay.

Well, you've told me that one of the

reasons that you wrote the memo was because you wanted the extended leave?
A.

Yes.
All right. And now you say that another reason

Q.

is because nothing had been done? A. Q. lie? MS. BAGDON: Q. BY MS. STATON: Objection. Is that - - i s that true? To my knowledge, nothing had been done. So because nothing had been done, you decided to

LEA, SHERMAN & Document ( 0 )10 - 26 62 5 81 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 2 7of5 4 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 117
1

MS. BAGDON: Q. BY MS. STATON:

Form. I mean, is that the answer?

2 3 4 5

A.

I felt that if I came forward on this date, I

was going to have my part-time taken away and my extended leave. Q. Okay. The last paragraph - - o r second to last

paragraph says, "I did not take offense to Sergeant
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Corcoran's comments as such comments have been made several times before in a joking manner." Did I read that correctly?
A.

Yes.
Okay. Those are the words you chose?

Q.
A.

Yes.
Those are the words you sent to Sergeant Neus,

Q. correct?
A.

Yes.
Okay. And you said that "such comments have

Q.

been made several times before in a joking manner." By whom?
A. Q. A. Q.
A.

Comments had been made by Jim Warner. I'm sorry? By Jim Warner. To you?
Yes.

Q.

And how many -- and tell me when you reported

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 2 7of5 4 ( 0 )11- 1 6 2 5 8 26 Document Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 118 that situation to a supervisor?
A.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I did not.
Why not? Jim and I were friends outside of work.
I'm sorry?

Q. A.
Q.

A.

Jim and I were friends outside of work, and his

comments did not offend me. Q. Okay. So when Jim Warner made the statement

about the size of your breasts in comparing them to drink-cup sizes, you were not offended? A. He didn't compare the size of my breasts to He had made comments about my breast

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

drink-cup sizes.

size, and no, they did not offend me. Q. Okay. So -- now, Jim Warner, what was his

position? A. He started as an officer and then promoted to a

sergeant. Q. At the time he made those comments to you, is he

a sergeant? A. Q. No. Okay. I believe he was an officer. So at the time he made those comments, he

was a colleague of yours?
A.
Q.

Yes.
And he made joking comments about the size of

your breasts? LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI
Document 88-5

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514
Filed 08/05/2005 Page 12 of 26

Multi-Page TM
Page 119
1

A.

Yes.
And you weren't offended?
No.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

And you never reported him?
No.

Q. A. Q.

That's correct, you never reported him? That's correct, I never reported it. All right. If it's all right with you, I've got

about another 20 minutes, and then we could take lunch, or do you want to take lunch now? A. It doesn't matter. MS. STATON:
can -MS. BAGDON: MS. HUDSON: MR. BIDDLE: MS. STATON: Sure. Sure. Sure. -- stop? All right.

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

Can we go 20 minutes and then I

Q.

Ma'am, I want to talk to you about another part It's on Exhibit 7., And it's

of the notes that you wrote the EEOC.

and it's the second page Bates-stamped WBC-305. the last paragraph.
A.

Yes.
Second to last paragraph. I want to start

Q. there.

It says, "Sergeant Corcoran to date continues to

visit the Arizona State Government Complex including areas

LEA, SHERMAN & Document (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 13 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 120
1

only active Capitol Police Officers are supposed to have access to." Okay. The time you wrote this was around

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

August of 2003 when you gave it to the EEOC. Now, you had been back to the Capitol Police for, what, about a month before you actually -A.

Yes.
-- went to the EEOC? It -- and you're letting the EEOC know that

Q.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Wayne Corcoran would continue to come back to the State complex after he had already left the State employment?
A.

Yes.
All right. How many times after he left State

Q.

employment did he come back to the complex? A. Q. A.
Q.

I had heard of two. How many had you personally seen? None.
All right. Now, on July 22nd of 2003 --

A.
Q. A. Q.

Oh, yes.
Okay? So can I correct that to one incident -Sure, absolutely.

A. Q.

-- that I have personal knowledge of. Okay. So let me make sure I understand. You

·

25

heard that he came back to the State complex, including

LEA, SHERMAN (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR& HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 14 of 26 Document Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 121 areas only active police officers are supposed to have access to --

3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A.
Q.

Yes.
- - i s that right? But you never saw those --

him being in a position where only active police officers are supposed to have access to; is that right?

A.
Q.

I never saw him, no.
Okay. You did see him at the -- back at the

State complex, but this is in a parking lot, right?

A.
Q. correct?

Yes.
Citizens have a right to go to a parking lot,

A.
Q.

Yes.
I mean, you don't have to be an active police

officer to be where he was on July 22nd of 2003, do you?

A.
Q.

No.
Okay. So you said that "Sergeant Corcoran,

evidently wise to the fact that his Capitol Police activities are still being talked about, approached me in the parking lot." What do you mean by "evidently wise to

the fact his Capitol Police activities are still being talked about"? A. Well, when he made the comment of he wanted to

talk about what was going on. Q. And did he say anything more than he wanted to

LEA, SHERMAN & Document ( 0 2 7 826 6 2 15 of 1 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page) 5 - 5 4 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 171
1

incidents that had occurred where I felt that I was being retaliated against, Shelley felt that she was being retaliated against. Q. What incidents did you share with Jay that you

2

3
4

5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

felt were examples of retaliation? A. Things such as schedule changes, notes that had

been put in my box from my supervisor that other officers weren't getting the same notes over the same issue. That

I felt like there was a division and that I was not on the favored side, and I was concerned about that. talked about possibly quitting. Q. Any other issues of retaliation that you can I had

recall discussing at that meeting?

A.
Q.

Not that I can recall.
Let me ask you real briefly. When you said you

told him that you were thinking about quitting reminded me of something. In the 1998 investigation, I believe you

told the investigator that you were planning to obtain employment with DPS. Do you recall telling the investigator that?

A.
Q.

No.
Was it ever your plan to move from Capitol

Police over to DPS? A. Q. Possibly after my dad had left, yes. Had you been contemplating going to any other
Document 88-5

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI

PHOENIX, ARIZONA ( 0 ) 5 - 5 4 622781
Filed 08/05/2005 Page 16 of 26

Multi-Page TM Page 172
1

police department during the time of the 1998 investigation?

2 3
4 5

A.
Q.

No.
You -- going back to the issues of perceived

retaliation that you discussed with Mr. Swart, you mentioned schedule changes. What schedule changes are

6
7 8

you -- were you referring to? A. There was an incident -- when I was working for

9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

Brian Neus and I was working my part-time status, he had determined that since I was a corporal and most corporals didn't sit in buildings, that he would use me as a supervisor, And shortly after the announcement was made that he was moving to graveyard sergeant and that Hollis Corey was becoming my sergeant, he had put me on patrol on Saturday and then in a building on Monday. So I had called to ask what the thought process was behind it. decision to do so. And he stated that it was his

And when I asked, because I only

worked two days a week, then 50 percent of the time I would be in a building, if he saw that that would be fair. And he said I chose to work part time, so in

21
22 23 24 25

essence that's just how the schedule is. And he also stated that Brian was wrong to not have utilized me and put me in a building.

LEA, SHERMAN & Document Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 17 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005 (602)257-8514

Multi-Page TM Page 175
1

the favored side? A. Q. time? A. I believe that there was a division with Shelley That's what I felt, yes. Okay. What sort of division was there at that

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

and I to some of the other officers.
Q. Based on what?

A.

Based on treatment, based on lunches that

officers were having together, based on conversations that were had or not had. Q. And what was your perception as to why you and

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

Shelley were not being included? A. I didn't know. I just knew that that was

occurring. Q.

I didn't know why.

Did you perceive at that time that there was any For instance,

other larger division among management?

between Jay Swart and the chief, Andy Staubitz? A. Did I feel that there was a division?

Q. Yes. A.
Q.

No.
Did you feel that there was a division between

Jay Swart and some of the officers?

A.
Q.

No.
All right. Let me ask you about -- you have

said now that you don't specifically recall talking about LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI
Document 88-5

Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR

PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514
Filed 08/05/2005 Page 18 of 26

Multi-Page TM

Page 176
1

notes in your box during the meeting you had with Jay and Shelley at his house and that that might have occurred later. What notes in your box are you referring to? A. There's a memo that was put in my box asking me

2 3 4 5

to -- that I hadn't signed the memo book, so to please sign the memo book. So within a short period of time I signed the memo book, and then a week or so after signing the memo book, I went back and looked at the memo book and noticed that there were also other people that hadn't signed it, so I'd asked them if they had gotten talked to or had a memo put in their box saying, you know, make sure you sign the memo book, and their answers were no. Q. Was this note in your mailbox, was that any sort

6
7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

of discipline?
A.
Q.

No.
Do you know if it went in your personnel file?

A. Q. that?
A.
Q.

I don't know. Did you receive any suspension as a result of

21
22 23 24 25

No.
Did you receive a negative performance

evaluation based on that? A. That was not documented in my performance

evaluation, no.

LEA, SHERMAN & HABESKI PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 19 of 26 (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR Document 88-5 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM Page 177
Q. Were there any changes made to the

conditions of your employment at all based on that memo in your box? A. No. But I was concerned that I was the only one

that had received it and no one else had been talked to. Q. Why did you feel it necessary to go check up and

determine whether other officers had received the same
8

note? A. Because I had -- I figured that that's -- that I

9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

was being picked on. Q. Okay.

A.

And so I felt the need to go and either confirm

or realize that, no, I was wrong. Q.
A. Q. A. Q.

Who was the note from?
My sergeant at the time. And who was that? Hollis Corey. And do you have any reason to believe - - o r what

basis do you have for believing that Hollis Corey was retaliating against you for something? A. He was short with me and not as friendly as he

21
22 23 24 25

used to be. Q.
A.

Anything else?
No.

Q.

Were there any other notes in your box that you

LEA, SHERMAN & Document (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 20 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 178
1

felt were retaliatory?

2

A.
Q.

No.
So when you spoke before about notes in your

3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

box, you were -- you should have said "note"? A. Q. Should have said "note." Okay. Going back to your meeting at Jay's house

with Shelley Hebets present, you said that one of the things you discussed was issues that you felt were retaliation toward you. Did Shelley Hebets talk about

things that she felt were retaliation against her? A. Q. I believe she did. Do you recall any of those?

A.
Q.

No.
Did -- when you talked about the issues that you

felt were retaliation against you, did Jay Swart make any comment either to agree or disagree with your assessment? A. Q. I don't remember him making any comment. Did any of the three of you talk about

filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC?

A.
Q.

No.
Did any of the three of you at that meeting talk

about filing -- potentially filing a lawsuit? A. Q. No. Not that I remember.

What did you expect the result of this meeting

to be?

LEA, SHERMAN & Document Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA (602)257-8514 Filed 08/05/2005 Page 21 of 26

Multi-Page TM

Page 187
1

other shifts were run by officers that leads you to the conclusion that this assignment of you to Saturday and Sunday was retaliation?

2 3 4 5

A.
Q.

No.
And was there anything about that schedule

6
7 8

change that then led you to believe that Wendell Grasee or Jay Swart had been retaliating against you in attempting to change your light-duty schedule?

9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20

A.
Q.

No.
Okay. Any other retaliation that we haven't

discussed?

A.
Q.

No.
Your complaint alleges that you were subjected

to repeated jokes and comments regarding your breasts since complaining about Sergeant Corcoran. happen? A. Q. The jokes were made by Jim Warner. And you were not offended by those, I believe Did that

you testified earlier?

A.
Q.

Yes.
Do you have any reason to believe that Chief

21
22 23 24 25

Staubitz told Warner or put Warner up to making those comments?

A.
Q.

No.
When -- I'm going back to the -- what Ms. Staton

LEA, SHERMAN & Document (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 22 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM Page 223 Q. Other than what you've already testified about,

are there any other examples of how you feel that Chief Staubitz directed or condoned this retaliation
4

against you?

5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A.
Q.

No.
And assuming for this question only that Chief

Staubitz did direct or condone this retaliation against you, what do you think was his motivation to do that? A. Q. A. Q. For me to quit. And why do you think he'd want you to quit? I was one less problem in the agency. And tell me every reason, including anything

anybody's ever told you or any documents that you've seen written, that would lead you to that conclusion? A. Just the little things, the schedule changes,

the -- things that weren't getting done to other officers. Q. And did Chief Staubitz change your schedule? I

thought you said -A. Q. No, he didn't. Okay. So you don't really have any proof that

he was motivated to get rid of you, correct? A. Q. Correct. Did Chief Staubitz ever make an offensive joke

to you, a joke that you felt was offensive?

LEA, SHERMAN & Document (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONA Page 23 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 224
A.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

No.

Q.

Did he ever make a comment, not just a joke but

a comment to you that you felt was offensive?
A.

No.

Q.

And when I say "offensive," I mean either in a

sexual-connotation way or a racial or national connotation or anything like that; is that still the same answer? A. Q. breasts?
A.

Yes,it's the same answer. Did he ever make a comment regarding your

No.

Q.

In the -- I wanted to move into something else

real quick because it was something that you said to -- or you testified to earlier that I didn't really understand. You said you felt you were alienated at work. complaint it says that at least.
A. M' hum.

In the

Q. A.

How did you feel you were alienated at work? Lunches that were taking place among other

officers, backups that were slow to respond, situations like that.
Q. And do you think Andy Staubitz had anything to

23
24 25

do with that?

A. Q.

I don't know. You don't know one way or the other, do you?

LEA, SHERMAN ( 0 247 826 622 - 1 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR& HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONAPage) 5 of 5 4 Document Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM
Page 226 do with the fact that you're Hispanic?
A.

Yes.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Q.

And in what way?

Tell me all the ways that you

believe that. A. Shelley and I are the only Hispanic female I have not seen anybody else

officers within the agency.

subjected to what we've been subjected to. Q. You've never been terminated, have you, from

employment at Capitol Police?
A.

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

No.

Q.

Shelley was never terminated from her employment

there either, was she?
A.

No.

Q. A.

Jim Warner was terminated, wasn't he? I believe he resigned in lieu of termination.

Q.
A.

And Brian Neus was terminated, wasn't he?

Yes, he was.
Are they Hispanic?
No.

Q.
A.

Q.

Okay.

I wanted to ask you about this a little

bit more because we've already talked a lot about it, but a couple of questions about your placement in the Industrial Commission building.
A. Q. Okay. I'm trying to figure out the issue here, and I

LEA, SHERMAN & Document (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONAPage 25 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005

Multi-Page TM

Page 227
1

think -- tell me if I'm right -- your issue with this is that basically 50 percent of your time, because you were working a 20-hour-a-week shift, was spent in the building and that the policy was that a person wasn't supposed to spend more than 20 percent of their time in the building. Does that wrap it up pretty well? A. The issue was the amount of time in the

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

building, yes, and the other issue was corporals weren't working in buildings unless they had asked to work in buildings. Q. status?
A.

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

Were there any other corporals on part-time

No.

Q.

The other person who you mentioned before that

was on part-time status, what was her name? A. Q. A. Q. Amelia? A. Q. A.
Q. A.

When? Oh, okay, there's more -During which time? -- than one. I was hoping there wasn't.

Anita. Anita. M'hum.
When was she on part-time status? She was on part-time status after she returned

LEA, SHERMAN & Document (602)257-8514 Case 2:04-cv-00320-PGR HABESKI 88-5 PHOENIX, ARIZONAPage 26 of 26 Filed 08/05/2005