Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) (PERB 2408H)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

WENSJIU LIU,
Charging Party, Case No. SF-CE-1009-H
v. PERB Decision No. 2408-H
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE January 13, 2015
UNIVERSITY (EAST BAY),
Respondent.

Appearances: Wenjiu Liu, in propria persona; Dawn S. Theodora, University Counsel, for
Trustees of the California State University (East Bay).

Before Martinez, Chair; Winslow and Banks, Members.
DECISION

WINSLOW, Member: This case comes before the Public Employment Relations Board
(PERB or Board) on exceptions filed by Wenjiu Liu (Liu) to a PERB administrative law
judge’s (ALJ) proposed decision (attached). The complaint alleged that the Trustees of the
California State University (East Bay) (CSUEB) violated the Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act (HEERA)' by interfering with Liu’s rights to utilize the grievance
process in violation of HEERA section 3571(a). |

The ALJ dismissed all of the allegations in the complaint, except for the allegation that
CSUEB failed to implement the resolution of a grievance that required a written apology to Liu
for the alleged misconduct of CSUEB Dean Teresa Swartz. With respect to that allegation, the
ALJ concluded that CSUEB interfered with Liu’s right to process grievances on his own
behalf, and ordered the CSUEB to issue the apology.

The Board has reviewed the formal hearing record in its entirety. The record as a

whole supports the findings of facts in the proposed decision, and that decision is well-

‘ HEERA is codified at Government Code section 3560 et seq. Unless otherwise indicated,
all statutory references herein are to the Government Code.

reasoned and consistent with applicable law. We find Liu's exceptions to be not in compliance
with PERB Regulation 323002 and without merit. Accordingly, the Board hereby affirms the
proposed decision and adopts it as the decision of the Board itself.
DISCUSSION
PERB Regulation 32300 governing exceptions to proposed decisions states, in relevant
part:
(a) 	.... The statement of exceptions or brief shall:
( 1) 	State the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or
rationale to which each exception is taken;
(2) 	Identify the page or part of the decision to which each
exception is taken;
(3) 	Designate by page citation or exhibit number the
portions of the record, if any, relied upon for each
exception;
( 4) 	State the grounds for each exception.
(b) 	Reference shall be made in the statement of exceptions only
to matters contained in the record of the case.
( c) 	An exception not specifically urged shall be waived.
The Board need not consider exceptions which do not at least substantially comply with
this regulation. (Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Sander, et al.) (1995) PERB
Decision No. 1111.)
Liu failed to comply with PERB Regulation 32300(a)(2) by failing to state the specific
issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which each exception is taken, failing to identify
any page or part of the ALJ's proposed decision to which any·exception was taken, and failing
2 PERB Regulations are codified at California Code of Regulations, title 8,
section 31001 et seq.
2

to state the grounds for each exception. While Liu cited to the record for some of his
exceptions, he omitted citations to the record for the majority of his exceptions.
Liu's exceptions either have no material relevance to the present case, including his
request that another case in which he was the charging party, (PERB Case No. SF-CE-995-H)
be deferred to arbitration, or concern issues that have already been resolved in Trustees of the
California State University (East Bay) (Liu) (2014) PERB Decision No. 2391-H.
In light of this finding and Liu's failure to satisfy the above-cited requirements, we
hereby deny Liu's exceptions and adopt the ALJ's proposed decision.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this matter, the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-1009-H,
it is found that California State University (East Bay) (CSUEB) violated the Higher Education
Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) section 3571(a) by failing to issue an apology to
Wenjiu Liu (Liu) after that remedy was granted through the grievance process. The remaining
allegations are hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant to sections 3563(h) and 3563.3 of the Government Code, it is hereby
ORDERED that CSUEB, its governing board and its representatives shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Interfering with employee rights to participate in the grievance process.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF HEERA:
1. 	Issue an apology to Liu in accordance with the university president's
adopted June 8, 2012, Faculty Hearing Committee's recommended decision. The apology
must be issued by a college dean or university administrator with a similar or higher standing
than the former college dean, who left the university's employment.
3

2. 	Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post at work locations where notices to employees in CSUEB customarily are posted, copies of .
the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent
of the CSUEB, indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting shall
be maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any
other material. In addition to the physical posting requirement, the Notice shall be posted by
electronic message, intranet, internet site and any other electronic means customarily used by
CSUEB to regularly communicate with its employees in the bargaining unit to which Liu
belonged.
3. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board or the General
Counsel's designee. CSUEB shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by the General
Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order shall be
concurrently served on Liu.
Chair Martinez and Member Banks joined in this Decision.
4

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SF-CE-1009-H, Wenjiu Liu v. Trustees of
the California State University (East Bay), in which all parties had the right to participate, it
has been found that the Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) (CSUEB)
violated the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), Government
Code section 3560 et seq., by failing to issue an apology to Wenjiu Liu (Liu) after that remedy
was granted through the grievance process.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Interfering with employee rights to participate in the grievance process.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF HEERA:
1. 	Issue an apology to Liu in accordance with the university president's
adopted June 8, 2012, Faculty Hearing Committee's recommended decision. The apology
must be issued by a college dean or university administrator with a similar or higher standing
than the former college dean, who left the university's employment.
Dated: --------- TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY (EAST BAY)
By: Authorized Agent
--------------
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.

7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
WENJITJ "JERRY" LIU,
Charging Party,
V.
TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY (EAST BAY),
Res ondent.
UNFAIR PRACTICE
CASE NO. SF-CE-1009-H
PROPOSED DECISION
(November 25, 2013)
Appearances: Wenjiu "Jerry" Liu, in propria persona; Dawn S. Theodora, University Counsel,
for the Trustees of the California State University (East Bay).
Before Shawn P. Cloughesy, Chief Administrative Law Judge.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case alleges that a higher education employer interfered with an employee's rights
in utilizing the grievance process. The employer denied committing any unfair practices, and,
as an affirmative defense, contended that the complaint was, in whole or in part, barred by the
statute of limitations.
On June 14, 2012, Wenjiu "Jerry" Liu (Liu) filed an unfair practice charge (charge)
against the Trnstees of the California State University (East Bay) (CSU). On
September 4, 2012, Liu filed an amended charge which added, among other allegations, that
CSU utilized law enforcement at Faculty Hearing Committee grievance hearings and that
Associate Provost Linda Dobb (Dobb) was assigned to write grievance responses when she
said she would recuse herself from the process.
On December 28, 2012, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB) issued a complaint alleging that California State University, East Bay
(CSUEB) violated Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) section

3571 (a) 1 as interfering with Liu's rights to participate in the grievance process by: stating it
had no intent to withdraw his disciplinary actions or grant his request for tenure and
promotion; hiring a grievance administrator without the authority to respond to Liu's email
messages; authoring grievance responses by someone other than the assigned grievance
administrator; defying Faculty Hearing Committee recommendations by adopting the
recommendations and then failing to take action on them or stalling Liu's arbitration requests;
failing to issue an apology after adopting such a remedy; refusing to adopt a recommendation
of conducting an audit; refusing to withdraw a disciplinary action against Liu; allowing
Associate Provost Linda Dobb (Dobb) to participate as a grievance administrator for
grievances filed against her; utilizing law enforcement at Faculty Hearing Committee
grievance hearings; and refusing to organize Faculty Hearing Committee grievance hearings
because Liu made a typographical mistake in the selection of the type of grievance (contractual
or statutory) he was pursuing.
On January 3, 2013, the hearing was scheduled for April 2 through 5, 2013.
On January 16, 2013, CSUEB answered the complaint, denying any violation of
HEERA, and including affirmative defenses such as the statute of limitations.
On March 5, 2013, Liu filed a request to consolidate his three unfair practice cases:
PERB Case Nos. SF-CE-995-H and SF-CE-1009-H, and PERB Charge No. SF-CE-1021-H.
Complaints had been issued on PERB Case Nos. SF-CE-995-H and SF-CE-1009-H. By
March 15, 2013, a warning letter was issued on PERB Charge No. SF-CE-1021-H. Liu also
requested that the matters be expedited.
On March 15, 2013, a prehearing conference was conducted in Oakland. The motion to
consolidate was denied. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) declined to take any action on
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Government Code.
HEERA is codi£i_ed at Government Code section 3560 et seq.
2

PERB Case No. SF-CE-1021-H as the matter was under the jurisdiction of the General
Counsel's Office and not the Administrative Law Division. The ALJ considered that he was
already expediting the remaining cases in that he had given them priority over other pending
cases.
Formal hearing was conducted from April 2 through 5, 2013. On April 4, 2013, the
ALJ took official notice of all of Respondent's Exhibits as well as the September 14, 2012
testimony of CSUEB Chief of Police James Hodges (Chief Hodges) in PERB Case No.
SF-CE-995-H. Additionally, those parts of Grievances 1 through 43 ofLiu's exhibits which
were admitted in PERB Case No. SF-CE-995-H were also to be admitted in PERB Case
No. SF-CE-1009-H. The ALJ also hereby takes official notice of the May 18, 2012 prehearing
conference transcript in PERB Case No. SF-CE-995-H.2
Motion to Recuse the ALJ
On June 20, 2013, after receiving the dismissal of the allegation in PERB Case
No. SF-CE-995-H which was issued on May 8, 2013, Liu requested the ALJ recuse himself
from issuing a decision on PERB Case No. SF-CE-1009-H. The ALJ allowed CSU until
July 5, 2013 to respond. On June 28, 2013, Liu stated that the ALJ was delaying the matter by
allowing CSU until July 5, 2013 to respond and asked special permission from the Board to
recuse the ALJ. Liu also asked to reopen/rehear both cases. On July 9, 2013, the ALJ declined
to recuse himself and declined to reopen/rehear the case and issued a detailed 16-page mling
with attachments. On July 9, 2013, Liu asked the Board for special permission to appeal the
ALJ's mling. On November 22, 2013, the Board issued its order summarily denying Liu's
2 On May 20, 2013, the ALJ gave the parties an opportunity to object to the admission
of the May 18, 2012 prehearing conference transcript. On this occasion, Liu responded that he
objected to any overlapping of the evidentiary records of SF-CE-995-H and SF-CE-1009-H.
The ALJ took official notice for the purpose of providing a foundation for the expediting of
grievances and the agreed stipulation to changing the character of Grievance 21.
3

"filing" as he did not comply with the requirements of PERB Regulation 32155(c), however,
Liu can include in his exceptions to the ALJ's proposed decision that "certain remarks made by
the ALJ during the formal hearing demonstrate the ALJ's alleged prejudice against him."
(Wenjiu Liu v. Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) (2013) PERB Order
No. Ad-404-H, p. 4.) The ALJ therefore issued this proposed decision in light of the Board's
order, Liu's ability to object as to the ALJ's alleged bias in his exceptions and Liu's
March 5, 2013 request that the proposed decision in this matter be expedited.
Motion to Exclude CSU's Brief
The deadline for the submission of post-hearing briefs was originally set for
May 17, 2013, 3 but was extended to June 14, 2013, and then to July 1, 2013, at the request of
Liu. No reply briefs were scheduled. When the ALJ originally set the briefing deadline, he
stated that the briefs needed to be submitted by close of business with a "proof of service that
day." CSU sent its post-hearing brief in an envelope with a postage machine's postmark of
July 1, 2013 and a proof of service executed by Theodora on the same day. Theodora also sent
a courtesy copy of the post-hearing brief by email to the ALJ and Liu on July 1, 2013 at
7:33 p.m. Liu sent his post-hearing brief by mail with a United States Postal Service (USPS)
postmark on July 1, 2013, but his proof of service by mail did not list the County in which the
declarant resided, the address of the declarant, or a sufficient description of the documents
served. 4 Liu did not send an electronic digital copy of his brief on July 1, 2013.
· During the last day of hearing, Liu advocated for the matter to be submitted without
briefing and transcripts.
4 The proof of service leaves blank the space for inserting the County of residence for
the declarant, leaves blank the space for inserting the residence address or business address of
the declarant, and describes the document as a "Letter by Jerry Liu."
4

On July 13, 2013, 5 Liu filed a motion to "reject" CSU's post-hearing brief as being
untimely because it did not have a USPS postmark and that the proof of service was defective
as it was signed by Theodora who Liu considered to be a party in the case. On July 22, 2013,
CSU responded that Liu's contentions were not supported by PERB Regulations 32212 and
32140(a), or any other precedent, and that its post-hearing brief was timely. CSU argued that
Liu's proofs of service were consistently invalid and left out information required by PERB
Regulation 32140(a)(2), (4), and (5).
PERB Regulations 32212 and 32140(a) provide:
32212. Briefs and Oral Argument. Prior to the close of the
hearing, the Board agent shall rule on any request to make oral
argument or to file a written brief. The Board agent shall set the
time required for the filing of briefs. Any party filing a brief
shall file the original and one copy with the Board agent. Service
and proof of service of the brief pursuant to Section 32140 are
required.
32140. Service (a). All documents referred to in these
regulations requiring "service," except subpoenas, shall be
considered "served" by the Board or a party when personally
delivered, when deposited in the mail or with a delivery service
properly addressed, when sent by facsimile transmission in
accordance with the requirements of Sections 32090 and
32135(d), or when sent by electronic mail in accordance with the
requirements of Section 32091, 32135(d) and 32140(b). All
documents required to be served shall include a "proof of
service" declaration signed under penalty of perjury which
contains the following information: (1) The name of the
declarant; (2) the county and state in which the declarant is
employed or resides; (3) a statement that the declarant is over the
age of 18 years; (4) the address of the declarant; (5) a description
of the documents served; ( 6) the method of service and a
statement that any postage or other costs were prepaid; (7) the
name(s), address(es) and, if applicable; fax number(s) or
electronic mail address(es) used for service on the party(ies); and
(8) the date of service.
5 Liu sent an email to the ALJ on July 2, 2013 stating CSU's post-hearing brief was
untimely. The ALJ directed Liu to submit a proper written motion on the·matter (rather than
an email). PERB Regulation 32190 requires than motions be in writing with a proper proof of
service. Liu finally did so on July 13, 2013.
5

(Emphasis added.)
Liu contends that the ALJ set a date for submission of the post-hearing briefs to be
"postmarked" on July 1, 2013. He cites to the transcripts of the prior proceeding (PERB Case
No. SF CE-995-H) in support of this contention. However, the transcript of the instant
proceeding demonstrates that the ALJ stated that the post-hearing briefs should be mailed by
close of business with a "proof of service that day." Both Liu and CSU submitted their post-
hearing briefs with a postmark of July 1, 2013, and both had proofs of service executed on
July 1, 2013. CSU also sent an email attachment of their brief at 7:33 p.m.
Liu did not establish that CSU's brief was submitted after the close of business on
July 1, 2013. The postmark of a private vendor does not demonstrate that the post-hearing
brief was submitted after close of business and the regulation does not specify that only USPS
postmarks are valid. Additionally, as of July 1, 2013, 6 PERB Regulation 32140(a) no longer
required that a declarant "not be a party to the case" and it was Liu who requested that the
submission date be extended to July 1, 2013. Even if the former regulation applied, Theodora
would not be considered a party, but a representative of a party. On the other hand, Liu' s proof
of service was clearly defective and omitted those sections in the declaration of service
specifically required by the regulation. However, as no prejudice has been demonstrated as to
the admission of the post-hearing briefs (neither party was able to see the other's brief before
they submitted them), and both briefs were mailed or provided to the other party on
July 1, 2013, both post-hearing briefs will be considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
6 Former PERB Regulation 32140(a)(3) provided that the proof of service include "a
statement that the declarant is over the age of 18 years and not a party to the case." (Emphasis
added.)
6

Jurisdiction
CSU is a higher education employer under HEERA section 3562(g). CSUEB is a
university within the CSU system. The California Faculty Association (CFA) is the exclusive
representative of an appropriate bargaining unit of employees, which includes Assistant
Professors, under HEERA section 3562(i). Liu was a higher education employee under
HEERA section 3562(e) and an Assistant Professor employed with CSUEB.
Education Code section 89542.5
Education Code section 89542.5 sets forth the statutory Faculty Hearing Committee
grievance/disciplinary process for academic employees:
(a) The Trustees of the California State University shall establish
grievance and disciplinary action procedures for all academic
employees, including all temporary employees who have been
employed for more than one semester or quarter, whereby all
of the following requirements are satisfied:
(1) Grievances and disciplinary actions shall be heard by a
faculty hearing committee composed of full-time faculty
members, selected by lot from a panel elected by the
campus faculty, which shall make a recommendation to the
president of the state university.
(2) The grievance or disciplinary hearing shall be open to the
public at the option of the person aggrieved or the person
charged in a disciplinary hearing.
(3) Each party to the dispute shall have the right of
representation by a faculty adviser or counsel of his or her
choice and to be provided access to a complete record of
the hearing.
(4) If there is disagreement between the faculty hearing
committee's decision and the state university president's
decision, the matter shall go before an arbitrator whose
decision shall be fmal.
(5) The costs incurred in arbitration shall be paid by the state
university.
7

(b) For purposes of this section, a "grievance" is an allegation by
an employee that the employee was directly wronged in
connection with the rights accruing to his or her job
classification, benefits, working conditions, appointment,
reappointment, tenure, promotion, reassignment, or the like. A
grievance does not include matters, such as the salary structure,
which require legislative action.
(d) If the provisions of this section are in conflict with the
provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached
pursuant to Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of
Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the
memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without
further legislative action, except that, if the provisions of a
memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of
funds, the provisions shall not become effective unless
approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.
(Emphasis added.)
Collective Bargaining Agreement
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 10 sets forth the "Grievance
Procedure" between the CF A and CSU, and provides in pertinent part:
10.1 The purpose of this Article is to provide a prompt and
effective procedure for the resolution of disputes. The procedures
hereinafter set forth shall, except for matters of discipline as set
forth in Article 19 herein, be the sole and exclusive method for
the resolution of disputes arising out of issues covered by this
Agreement and those matters subject to grievance under Section
89542.5 of the Education Code. It is the express understanding
of the parties that these procedures meet or exceed the
requirements of the Education Code pursuant to Government
Code Section 3572.5(3)(b)(l)Y1
7 HEERA section 3572.5(3)(b)(l) provides:
Notwithstanding the inclusion in Section 89542.5 of the
Education Code, except with respect to paragraph (5) of
subdivision (a) of that section, of a provision providing that, if the
statute is in conflict with a memorandum of understanding
reached pursuant to this chapter, the memorandum of
understanding shall be controlling without further legislative
8

action, unless the memorandum of understanding requires the
expenditure of funds, that section, except for paragraph (5) of
subdivision (a) of that section, provides a minimum level of
benefits or rights, and is superseded by a memorandum of
understanding only if the relevant terms of the memorandum of
understanding provide more than the minimum level of benefits
or rights set forth in that section, except for paragraph (5) of
subdivision (a) of that section.
Definitions
10 .2 As used herein:
a. 	The term "grievance" when CFA or an employee(s) is (are) the
grievant shall mean an allegation that the CFA, an employee or
a group of employees have been directly wronged by a claimed
violation, misapplication, or misinterpretation of a specific
term or provision of this Agreement. The term "grievance"
when an employee is the grievant shall mean an allegation that
the employee was directly wronged in connection with the
rights accruing to his or her job classification, benefits,
working conditions, appointment, reappointment, tenure,
promotion, reassignment, or the like, including but not limited
to rights arising under this Agreement. A grievance does not
include matters such as salary structure, which require
legislative action; or the merit pay programs (Post Promotion
Increases and Equity Increases) as defined in Article 31, which
provide for their own binding appeals processes.
b. The term "grievant" or "grievants" shall mean:
1. 	For statutory grievances: any faculty unit employee(s) who
has/have been employed for more than one semester or
quarter who allege(s) s/he/they has/have been directly
wronged as defined in section 10.2a above, either
individually or as a group.
2. 	For contract grievances: any faculty unit employee(s) who
allege(s) s/he/they has/have been directly wronged as
defined in section 10.2a. The term "grievant" shall also
mean the CFA when alleging a grievance on behalf of itself,
or on behalf of a unit member or a group of unit members in
accordance with section 10.2a above. The CFA shall not
grieve on behalf of unit members who do not wish to pursue
individual grievances.
9

c. 	The term "employee" in this Article shall mean a member of
the bargaining unit.
d. 	The term "appropriate administrator" as used in this Article
shall mean the individual who has been designated by the
President to act pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
Article.
Grievance Procedure
Level.I-Campus Level
10.4 A grievant eligible to grieve pursuant to provision 10.2 of
this Article may file a Level I grievance with the President no later
than forty-two (42) days after the event giving rise to the
grievance, or no later than forty-two (42) days after the grievant
knew or reasonably should have known of the event giving rise to
the grievance. In all grievances, the grievant shall state clearly and
concisely on a grievance form:
a. 	with regard to a statutory grievance, the right(s) the grievant
alleges were violated as set forth in provision 10.2a above.
When claiming a violation of the collective bargaining
Agreement, the term or terms of the Agreement alleged to have
been violated, misinterpreted, or misapplied;
[,r ... ,0
10.6 At the time of filing of a grievance by an individual
employee or group of employees the grievant shall make an
election by using the appropriate grievance form between the two
procedures set forth below: (1) Faculty Hearing Committee or
(2) Contractual Procedure. Failure of the employee(s) to make an
election in the appropriate box on the grievance form as between
Faculty Hearing Committee and Contractual Procedure shall
result in the automatic processing of his/her grievance under the
Contractual Procedure. In the cases of grievances filed by the
CF A, the CPA may not, on behalf of itself or an employee or
group of employees, elect to process a grievance under the
Faculty Hearing Committee procedure, but must in all cases
process its grievances under the Contractual Procedure.
10.7 Within fourteen (14) days after the Level I filing as provided
in provision 10.4a. above, the appropriate administrator shall hold
a meeting with the grievant and the grievant's representative, if
any, at a mutually acceptable time at the campus where the
10

grievant is employed. At this meeting the grievant shall fully
present its case, including all relevant facts, arguments and
proposed remedies being sought. In the event that the grievant and
appropriate administrator cannot successfully resolve the
grievance, then the appropriate administrator shall respond in
writing to the grievant no later than fourteen (14) days after the
Level I meeting: Such response shall include a statement of
reasons for any denial of the grievance.
Faculty Hearing Panel and Faculty Hearing Committee Procedures
Appeal to Faculty Hearing Committee
10.11 In the event the grievance is not settled to the grievant's
satisfaction at the Level I meeting or by the Level I response by the
appropriate administrator, the individual employee grievant (or
group of employees) may file a grievance appeal with the
Academic Vice President/Provost[,] President or designee no later
than fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Level I response, for
hearing before a Faculty Hearing Committee composed of full-
time faculty members, selected by lot from a Campus Faculty
Hearing Panel elected by the campus faculty pursuant to the
election procedures set forth above. The grievant shall attach a
copy of the Level I grievance filing and the Level I response
together with any documents presented at Level I.
10.12 Within seven (7) days after the filing of the grievance
appeal as provided in a. above, the Academic Vice
President/Provost or designee and Chairperson of the Faculty
Hearing Panel shall jointly schedule the selection of the Faculty
Hearing Committee. The membership of the Faculty Hearing
Committee shall be selected by lot from the Campus Faculty
Hearing Panel and shall consist of three (3) members and one (1)
alternate. No Faculty Hearing Panel member may serve on a
Faculty Hearing Committee ifs/he has been directly involved with
or a party to matters related to a grievance submitted by the
employee to a faculty hearing. Each Faculty Hearing Committee
shall be appointed and serve on an ad hoc basis until the
Committee has issued its decision on the grievance in question.
Participation on a Faculty Hearing Committee shall be considered
"service" to the campus community for all applicable purposes.
[,r ... ,n
11

10.16 Conduct of the hearing shall be at the discretion of the
Faculty Hearing Committee but shall be open to the public at the
discretion of the person aggrieved.
Presidential Review
10.20 The Faculty Hearing Committee shall provide the President,
the grievant and the grievant's representative (if any) with a copy of
its "\vTitten grievance decision recommendation at the time it is
issued. Within twenty-one (21) days of the President's receipt of
the decision, s/he shall inform the grievant and Faculty Hearing
Panel Chairperson in writing of her/his determination to accept and
implement the recommended decision of the Faculty Hearing
Committee or to reject said determination. In the event the
President determines to reject the recommended decision of the
Faculty Hearing Committee, s/he shall provide a statement of
reasons for said decision.
10.21 If the President rejects a recommended decision of the
Faculty Hearing Committee to sustain the grievance in question,
the grievant mav elect to go before an arbitrator whose decision
shall be final. Such election shall be made by certified mail, return
receipt requested, directed to the Office of Labor Relations in the
Office of the Chancellor within seven (7) days of receipt of the
President's decision. The grievant may also request arbitration by
transmittal by telefax. If telefax transmittal is used, the receiving
party shall fax back a copy of the cover letter with the signature of
the receiving party acknowledging receipt, as well as the date of
receipt. A telefax transmittal request for arbitration shall not be
considered accomplished in the absence of such date and signature
on the cover letter. Failure to request arbitration within seven (7)
days of receipt of the President's decision shall constitute a waiver
of the right to an arbitration hearing, and the President's decision
shall be final and binding. Said arbitration shall be conducted
according to the mies and procedures set forth in Article 10.27
below.
10.22 If the President concurs with a decision of the Faculty
· Hearing Committee to deny the grievance in question, said
decisions shall be final and binding, and not subject to arbitration.
Contractual Procedure
10 .23 If the grievant elects to pursue the Contractual Procedure
(and in all CF A-filed grievances), within fourteen (14) days after
the filing of the grievance, the President shall hold a meeting with
12

the grievant and the grievant's representative,
if
any, at a mutually
acceptable time and location. The President shall respond in
writing to the grievant, no later than fourteen (14) days after the
Level I meeting. Such response shall include a statement
of
reasons for any denial
of
the grievance.
Level II 	Office
of
the Chancellor
10.24 In the event the grievance is not settled to the grievant's
satisfaction at Level 1, the grievant
may
file a Level II grievance
with the Office
of
the Chancellor
no
later than fourteen (14) days
after the Level I was response
....
10.26
If
the grievance has not been settled at Level II, then
within (42) days after receipt
of
the Level II decision or the
expiration
of
the time limits for filing such decision, the CF A,
upon the request
of
the grievant may request arbitration
by
giving
notice to that effect,
...
directed to the designated individual in
the Office
of
the Chancellor. . . . Representation at the arbitration
shall
be by
CFA only.
(Emphasis added.)
Background
CSUEB hired Liu as an Assistant Professor to work in the College
of
Business and
Economics (CBE or College), Department
of
Accounting and Finance (Department), in the
2005-2006 academic year. Professor Micah Frankel (Frankel) is the Department Chair.
Professors Terri Swartz (Swartz) and Jagdish Agrawal (Agrawal) are the CBE Dean and
Associate Dean, respectively. James Houpis (Houpis) and Dobb are the Provost and Associate
Provost, respectively. Mo Qayoumi (Qayoumi) had been the CSUEB University President
until June 30, 2012 and Leroy Morishita (Morishita) started as the University President on
July 1, 2012.
Liu, or CF A on Liu' s behalf, filed approximateIy 4 3 grievances between
November 17, 2010 and June 19, 2012. Dobb, as the Associate Provost, was the "appropriate
13

administrator" designated by the University President to respond to or process grievances on
behalf of CSUEB.
No Intent to Withdraw Disciplinary Actions
On or about June 1 and 6, 2011, President Qayoumi denied Liu tenure and promotion to
Associate Professor. On June 9, 2011, a CFA representative filed a grievance pursuant to the
"contractual procedure" regarding Liu's denial of tenure and promotion. On August 24, 2011,
Provost Houpis issued the final disciplinary letter suspending Liu from September 19 through
December 13, 2011. On September 22, 2011, Liu appealed the suspension to arbitration. In
November 2011, Liu was terminated from CSUEB. In November 2011, CSU University
Counsel Andrea Gunn (Gunn) emailed Liu confirming that he intended to appeal the
termination to arbitration.
On February 21, 2012, CFA sent a letter to Liu stating it was withdrawing its
representation on his contractual grievance from his denial of tenure and promotion. Without
CFA representation, Liu could not proceed to arbitrate his denial of tenure and promotion.
On March 27, 2012, PERB issued a complaint alleging that CSUEB had retaliated
against Liu by, inter alia, denying him tenure and promotion, and suspending and dismissing
him because of his protected activity in violation ofHEERA section 3571(a). On
March 29, 2012, PERB set an informal settlement conference for May 7, 2012.
On April 5, 2012, Liu sent an email to CSU Vice Chancellor of Human Resources Gail
Brooks (Brooks) arguing that PERB stated that CSUEB 's actions of suspending and
terminating him were retaliatory in violation ofHEERA section 327l(a). Liu requested that
CSUEB immediately withdraw his two disciplinary actions which would demonstrate that:
1) CSUEB was not in contempt of PERB; 2) CSUEB would avoid a ruling that it engaged in an
illegal retaliatory action; and 3) CSUEB would save taxpayer money from being spent on the
14

arbitration process. Liu requested a response by April 13, 2012. After receiving CSUEB's
response, Liu explained he would contact the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Liu
copied AAA in the email. Liu explained that he sent this email because PERB had just issued
a complaint on these matters.
On April 6, 2012, Liu emailed Brooks again and requested that CSU remove Gunn
from the case as she was part of the retaliatory actions taken against him. Liu then requested
that his two disciplinary actions be withdrawn and he be granted tenure and promotion.
On April 11, 2012, Gunn sent Liu an email stating that CSUEB had no intent of
withdrawing his two pending disciplinary actions nor granting his request for tenure or
promotion. Gunn sent a copy of the email to President Morishita, Brooks and an AAA
representative.
On May 21, 2012, Liu filed Grievance 41, a contractual grievance, that he had been
wrongfully denied his tenure and promotion.
Dobb as Appropriate Administrator for Grievances Filed against Her
CBA Article 10.12 prohibits a Faculty Hearing Committee (FHC) panel member who is .
directly involved with or a party to matters related to a grievance from serving on the FHC panel
of that grievance. CFA and CSU published a document entitled, "A Statutory Grievance
Administrative Hearing Manual," (hearing manual) which provided:
What if a Committee Member has a Conflict of Interest?
If an individual selected for a specific committee believes that he
or she should not sit on a Faculty Hearing Committee in a
particular case because of a provision in the CF A/CSU
agreement, other controlling CSU policy, personal or professional
association with the grievant, or other material reason, then the
individual should notify the Faculty Hearing Panel chair of his or
her intent to withdraw. If the chair or administrator agree that the
individual should not participate, then he or she will then be
replaced by the alternate .... No less than 7 days prior to the
commencement of the hearing, the grievant may request removal
15

of a Hearing Committee member for cause. The grievant shall be
required to state in writing the specific grounds for such
objection. If the CSU administrator and Faculty Hearing Panel
chair agree, the challenged Hearing Committee member shall be
removed and replaced by the alternate. If they do not agree, the
matter shall [be] referred to the systemwide level and the
procedure described in Section 11 will be followed.
Neither the CBA nor the hearing manual address whether a person designated as an
"appropriate administrator" can conduct a Level 1 meeting when the focus of that grievance is
against the appropriate administrator's conduct. CSU Senior Director for Academic Human
Resources Margaret Merryfield (Merryfield), who had familiarity with the CBA and the
hearing manual, opined that it was the best practice in that situation to assign another
appropriate administrator to conduct the Level 1 meeting and write its response. Liu filed six
grievances against Dobb. Liu contended that Dobb should not be the appropriate administrator
in any grievance filed against her.
1. 	Grievance 11
On May 17, 2011, Liu filed Grievance 11 against Dobb. Specifically, Liu alleged that
on May 9, 2011, while Dobb was conducting an informal grievance meeting on Grievance 6,
she stated that Liu was also hired by Dean Swartz. 8 Dobb also allegedly placed a University
Police Department (UPD) officer two yards from him during that meeting. Dobb, on the other
hand, contended that the UPD officer was outside the small conference room where the
grievance meeting was held, but within the confines of the Provost's office suite. Associate
Dean James Okutsu (Okutsu) was assigned as the appropriate administrator of Grievance 11
instead of Dobb.
On hme 15, 2011, Okutsu issued his Level 1 response, denying the grievance, and
stating in his conclusion:
8 Dobb admitted that she made a mistake as to who hired Liu.
16

It appears that Ms. Dobb has attempted to address the concerns
Dr. Liu has expressed in this statutory grievance. When accused
of bias, she recused herself from hearing Dr. Liu's grievances.
Because Dr. Liu wishes to have each and every statutory and
contractual grievance he has filed heard at a formal [l]evel,
Ms. Dobb's office is arranging to do so.
On June 15, 2011, Dobb's confidential assistant, Audrey Wade (Wade), notified Liu
that the Grievance 11 Level 1 response was ready to be picked up at the Provost's Office. On
the same day, Dobb sent Liu an email which included an attachment of the grievance response
which Liu could print. On'May 25, 2012, Grievance 11 was withdrawn.
2. 	Grievance 16
On June 17, 2011, Liu filed Grievance 16, a statutory grievance, which alleged that
Dobb "handpicked" Okutsu to be the "appropriate administrator" for the Grievance 11 Level I
response and had her confidential assistant Wade present during the Level I meeting. Dobb
was also alleged to have written the Level I response for Associate Dean Okutsu in
Grievance 9.
In Grievance 9, 9 Okutsu issued his Level 1 response on June 9, 2011, and used words
such as "unhappy" in the grievance response, which Liu contends was Dobb's favorite word to
use in grievance responses. Okutsu was not sure whether he placed the word "unhappy" in the
grievance response or not. On Jtme 14, 2011, Liu stated that Okutsu told him that Okutsu was
only present to take notes and pass them on to Dobb. Okutsu denied passing his notes to Dobb
for her to write the Level I response. Okutsu explained that he prepared the responses and
provided them to Dobb for revision. The revisions did not impact the accuracy of his findings
or substantive content of his response.
9 Grievance 9 did not deal with Dobb. Professor Gary McBride (McBride) was alleged
to have been allowed to not teach in Winter 2011, but engaged in an outside business and
received a raise. Liu alleged that Professor McBride was given these benefits in exchange for
giving negative reviews of Liu in his retention process.
17

Grievance 16 was assigned to Associate Dean J aines Zarrillo (Zarrillo) to be the
appropriate administrator who conducted the Level 1 response on June 28, 2011. In Zarrillo' s
grievance response, he stated Liu did not demonstrate bias toward him and that a series of
adverse decisions did not constitute bias. On July 6, 2011, Liu appealed the grievance to the
second level. The grievance was withdrawn by Liu on May 25, 2012.
3. 	Grievance 17
On June 30, 2011, Liu filed Grievance 17, a statutory grievance, alleging that Dobb
ignored Liu's request to investigate biased actions taken against him in the denial of his early
tenure and promotion, the 2009-2010 academic year retention process, and the 2010-2011
tenure and promotion process. On July 7, 2011, Wade emailed Liu that the Provost's Office
had received Grievance 17 and that Zarrillo was not going to conduct the Level 1 meeting.
The emailed closed with:
In addition, please note that Ms. Dobb, Interim Associate Provost
will be hearing the matter in her official role and capacity as the
University's appropriate administrator and that it is no longer
necessary for you to send emails to [D]r. Okutsu or Dr. Zarrillo.
On the saine day that Liu received the email, he sent an email to Wade, while copying
President Morishita, Okutsu and Zarrillo, stating that it was unfair for Dobb to preside over
grievances filed against her. Neither a Level 1 meeting nor FHC hearing was conducted and
the grievance was withdrawn on May 25, 2012.
4. 	Grievance 18
On June 30, 2011, Liu filed Grievance 18 alleging that Dobb retaliated against him by
issuing him a September 20, 2010 reprimand after he sent Dobb an email on
September 27, 2010 complaining of Dean Swartz. Neither a Level 1 meeting nor FHC hearing
was conducted and the grievance was withdrawn on May 25, 2012. No evidence was
presented that Dobb played any role as the appropriate administrator in this grievance.
18

5. 	Grievance 33
On January 17, 2012, Liu filed Grievance 33 alleging that Dobb was present at a Threat
Assessment Team meeting on January 6, 2011 in which team members plotted to have Liu
denied tenure/promotion. Neither a Level 1 meeting nor FHC hearing was conducted and the
grievance was withdrawn on May 25, 2012. No evidence was presented that Dobb played any
role as the appropriate administrator in this grievance.
6. 	Grievance 40
On January 1, 2012, Liu filed Grievance 40, a statutory grievance, which alleged that
Dobb had been spreading rumors that Liu had been stalking people. Neither a Level 1 meeting
nor FHC hearing was conducted and the grievance was withdrawn on or about May 25, 2012.
No evidence was presented that Dobb played any role as the appropriate administrator in this
gnevance.
Arthurlene Towner as the Appropriate Administrator
Arthurlene Towner (Towner) was a former Professor at San Francisco State University,
Associate Dean and Dean at CSUEB for 18 years, and Associate Provost at CSUEB for three
years. She retired from CSU in September 2009. In those years that Towner was the
Associate Provost, she was involved in the faculty grievance process and was able to resolve
most potential grievances before they were filed.
In early May 2012, Towner was hired by CSUEB as a retired annuitant to provide
Level 1 responses to Liu's remaining grievances and to represent CSUEB at FHC hearings.
One of the reasons that Towner was retained was her familiarity with the faculty grievance
process, including her familiarity with the role of the appropriate administrator under CBA
Article 10.
19

On May 15, 2012, Liu emailed President Morishita, Provost Houpis, and Associate
Provost Dobb that he filed grievances against Dobb and requested that CSUEB "completely,
100% remove" Dobb from any part of the grievance process. On the same day, Liu emailed
President Morishita that he believed Dobb was drafting responses to bis grievances.
On May 22, 2012, the ALJ issued a written mling in PERB Case No. SF-CE-995-H
deferring to arbitration all four grievances related to the 1) disciplinary suspension, 2) the
disciplinary termination, 3) the denial of tenure and promotion, and 4) the issuance of the Penal
Code section 626.4 order restricting Liu from campus grounds. The mling stated in part:
Accordingly, the motion to defer to arbitration is granted. This
complaint is deferred to arbitration and is placed in abeyance.
After 90 days has passed from the issuance of this mling, the ALJ
will determine the status of the grievance/arbitration proceedings,
and whether the parties are meeting their obligation to process the
grievances/arbitrations and what action, if any, should be taken.
The June 7 and 8, 2012 hearing dates are cancelled. The parties
are strongly encouraged to take all permissible actions which
advance grievances concerning the denial of tenure and
promotion and the issuance of the Penal Code section 626.4 order
to the arbitration level.
(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)
On May 23, 2012, Liu emailed President Morishita that Dobb should not be allowed to
read his grievances; make arrangements for Level 1 meetings; select faculty panels; read, write
or revise Level 1 responses; read, write or revise FHC recommendations; or read, write or
revise the President's decisions.
On May 25, 2012, Theodora sent Liu an email stating that Towner had forwarded his
May 25, 2012 "Statement on Withdrawing Majority of Grievances" and confirmed that Liu had
withdrawn a11 grievances, except Grievances 6, 9, 10, 21, 29, 36, 27, 39, and 41.
On May 29, 2012, Theodora sent a letter to Liu clarifying that she was assigned as
University Counsel for all CSUEB legal matters and was CSUEB' s counsel of record before
20

PERB. She clarified that she was to move Liu's grievances through the grievance process
toward a prompt resolution.
10
Towner issued Level 1 responses for Grievances 6, 7, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 42, and 43
on May 23, 2012; June 18, 2012; and July 11, 2012. Liu was not pre,sent at the Level 1
meetings for Grievances 6, 7, 31, and 32. Towner stated she wrote each and every one of these
grievance responses without the assistance of Dobb or Theodora and considered herself an
independent thinker. Towner admitted that she consulted Dobb when she needed information
or documentation, but Dobb never revised her responses. No one ever instrncted Towner to
deny all of Liu's grievances.
Grievances 3, 5 and 28: Failure to Implement Decision by Withdrawing Disciplinary Actions
On April 24, 2012, an FHC hearing was held regarding Grievances 3, 5, and 28 11
regarding the violation of office hour policies by Department Chair Frankel and Professors
Nancy Mangold (Mangold) and McBride. As a remedy, Liu requested that Department Chair
Frankel and Professors Mangold and McBride be terminated from employment.
In its April 24, 2012 recommendation, the FHC found:
The Committee finds that Dr. Liu' s requested remedy, of
termination of the Department Chair and two professors to be
excessive. However, we do want to point out to the Department
Chair and Faculty, that granting exceptions and benefits to some
and not others without transparency can create an appearance of
unfairness and consequent resentment. We further recommend a
modification of University and College Office Hours policies that
10 Grievances 42 and 43 were filed after May 25, 2012, when Liu withdrew a majority
of his grievances.
11 Grievance 3 alleged that Chair Frankel and Professors Mangold and McBride
violated the office hours policy in Winter Quarter 2011. Grievance 5 alleged further office
hours violations in Spring Quarter 2011 by Chair Frankel and Professor McBride.
Grievance 28 continued the office hours grievances by contending that Chair Frankel and
Professors Mangold and McBride violated the office hours policy in Fall Quarter 2011. Liu
closed out Grievance 28 by stating that the three faculty members retaliated against Liu.
21

allow for fair and transparent exceptions based on clear and
public standards.
During the course of the hearing, Dr. Liu also raised many issues
that seemed to pertain to grievances he filed with the
Administration other tha[n] those in front of this Committee.
That evidence was not considered in this hearing. as it will be
more appropriate in a different hearing where such grievances
may be heard.
While Dr. Liu's concern for fairness and equity is to be
commended, we hold that the appropriate remedy for the minor
violations at the heart of these three grievances is a modification
of existing policies and procedures.
(Emphasis added.)
On May 2, 2012, President Morishita sent a letter to Liu notifying him of his decision
that he supported the FHC recommendation.
On May 7, 2012, Liu emailed President Morishita and copied Provost Houpis. Liu
requested a one-hour meeting with President Morishita to discuss his May 2, 2012 decision.
Specifically, Liu demanded that President Morishita issue him a letter of apology for
retaliating against him. Liu then noted that the suspension action taken against him included
an allegation that he "engaged in inappropriate and stalking-like behavior by taking
photographs in and around Department and College facilities, including classrooms."12 Liu
explained that these photos included documenting the various office hours violations in his
grievances. Liu summarized his request by stating:
Since you support the faculty panel recommendation which
stated, "Dr. Liu's concern for fairness and equity are to be
commended," I ask that you to take the following actions,
1) 	Write me a letter apologizing that CSUEB has engaged [in]
direct retaliation actions against me for filing these 3
grievances.
12 The FHC recommendation made no reference to any disciplinary action taken against
Liu. There was no evidence presented that the FHC issued its remedy that Liu be
"commended" in light of any knowledge of Liu's pending disciplinary actions.
22

2) 	Immediately withdraw the two disciplin[ary] actions against
me.
3) 	Agree to financially compensate me for the tremendous
emotional stress and public humiliat[ion] against me imposed
under the two disciplin[ary] actions.
Secondly, I ask you to take discipline against Chair Frankel,
Dr. Mangold, and Dr. McBride.
Please respon[d] to this email in three days by 4:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, May 9, 2012.
On May 9, 2012, Liu sent another email to President Morishita reminding him that his
deadline was that day. Provost Houpis responded to Liu by providing in pertinent part:
[T]he President has concurred with the faculty hearing committee
decision as communicated to you in a letter dated May 2, 2012.
Pursuant to article 10.22 of the faculty collective bargaining
agreement, the president's decision is final and binding, and not
subject to arbitration. This process related to grievances 3, 5, and
28 has now concluded.
Grievance 6: Failure to hnplement Decision by Issuing Liu a Written Apology
On April 25, 2011, Liu submitted Grievance 6 with the Provost's Office alleging that
on March 28, 2011, Dean Swartz "spoke in a firm tone" to him to leave the Valley Business
and Technology (VBT) Building Room 408 when he was checking his emails at a computer.
Liu contended that Dean Swartz violated the CSU Statement on Collegiality and requested an
apology from Dean Swartz. On May 16, 2011, Towner appeared for the Level 1 meeting, but
Liu did not show. On May 23, 2011, Towner issued her Level 1 response ntling only on the
issue of whether Dean Swartz violated Liu's right to access VBT 408.
On or about June 8, 2012, the FHC rendered its decision which stated in part:
Decision/Remedy with Rationale: The committee recommends
that Dean Swartz issue the grievant a written apology for her
inappropriate behavior on the day of the incident. We also
23

suggest that written policies be posted with respect to the use of
the VBT Lab, and for the withdrawal of rooms in VBT from
regular use during inventory checks. We are also concerned
about plausible allegations concerning Dean Swartz's generally
inappropriate conduct towards the business school faculty, and
suggest that the university further investigate that conduct as well
as the allegations of fostering a hostile working environment.
(Emphasis added.)
On June 19, 2012, Dean Swartz ~et with Provost Houpis stating that she was going to
retire as she was emotionally spent from the mistreatment she received from Liu. She
considered herself to be suffering from a hostile working environment and was in fear of her
personal safety. Provost Houpis did not anticipate Dean Swartz's retirement.
On June 22, 2012, President Morishita issued his decision in Grievance 6 and wrote Liu
stating in pertinent part:
As provided in Article 10.19 of the CBA, the committee granted
your grievance. In addition, the committee provided three
remedies. This letter is to inform you that in accordance with
CBA Article 10.20 I accept their decision, and I am referring the
committee's decision and their recommendation to Provost
Houpis for appropriate action.
(Emphasis added.)
On June 27, 2012, Dean Swartz sent a memo out to the College Faculty announcing her
retirement. After the announcement, Dobb telephoned Dean Swartz and asked if she was
going to write a letter of apology to Liu. Dean Swartz stated that she would not do so as it was
Liu who had threatened and harassed her. Dobb did not think she had the authority to order
Dean Swartz to apologize as Dean Swartz did not believe Dobb and her were on the same
"level."13 Provost Houpis never asked Dean Swartz to apologize. He spoke to two of the
witnesses to the event, Associate Dean Jagdish Agrawal (Agrawal) and Wanda Davenport,
who did not think Dean Swartz said or did anything wrong.
13 Dean Swartz and Dobb occupied the same classification level, however.
24

On June 29, 2012, the CSUEB Provost Office announced that Professor Agrawal was
named as the CBE Interim Dean and he started on July 1, 2012.
On August 16, 2012, CBE Interim Dean Agrawal wrote to Liu:
Provost Houpis asked me to respond to your request for a letter of
apology from Dean Swartz. As you know, Dr. Swartz has retired
and is no longer working at CSU East Bay. She will not be
writing you a letter. I am the Interim Dean of the College of
Business and Economics. I will ensure that the hours which
VBT 408 may be used by faculty and staff are clearly
commlmicated and posted to avoid any confusion from occurring
in the future.
Dean Agrawal, who had been present during the March 28, 2011 incident, did not issue
an apology on Dean Swartz's behalf as he did not believe she did anything wrong. Dean
Agrawal just heard Dean Swartz tell Liu in a normal tone of voice that if he wanted to access
his email, he needed to do it from his office.
On August 17, 2012, Liu wrote President Morishita stating that he refused to accept
Dean Agrawal's letter and that CSUEB was to provide him with a "sincere apology" from
Dr. Swartz containing "at least 200 words." No apology was forthcoming.
Towner Not Responding to Liu's Emails
On Sunday, June 3, 2012, at 10:33 p.m., Liu sent Towner an email proposing times to
meet on June 4, 2012 for a Level 1 grievance meeting. The next morning Theodora replied
stating that Towner had forwarded the email to her to respond stating that Towner would
accommodate his request for a 1:00 p.m. start time. Liu later asked Towner what Theodora's
role was in responding to his emails. Towner replied that Theodora was designated by the
campus to handle those emails in regards to scheduling and expediting the grievance process.
Liu stated Towner told him that Theodora was also a grievance hearing officer. Towner denies
referring to Theodora as a grievance hearing officer. Theodora was never present at any of the
grievance hearings.
25

Grievance 21: Writing ofLevel 1 Response
On November 17, 2011, Liu filed Grievance 21, a statutory grievance, which was later
changed to a contractual grievance on May 21, 2012 14 and revised again on May 25, 2012.
Specifically, Liu contended that CSUEB violated CBA Article 10.36.(retaliation for filing
grievances) and Government Code section 8547.3 (California Whistleblower Protection Act)
by issuing a Penal Code section 626.4 order restricting Liu from the CSUEB campus grounds
and terminating his employment.
On June 6, 2012, Liu sent Towner an email which reflected what he discussed with
Towner at the end of the faculty hearing. Liu stated that Towner should write the Level 1
responses based upon facts presented at the Level 1 meeting and that it would be an unfair
practic'e for Towner to write based upon what Theodora told her.
On June 8, 2012, Towner wrote a seven-page Level 1 response which stated in part:
Article 10.2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement is limited to
alleged violations, misapplications, and/or misinterpretations of a
specific term or Article of the CFA/CSU Collective Bargaining
Agreement. California Government Code section 8547.3
(Whistleblower Protection Act) allegations are being or have
been investigated through a separate process pursuant to CSU
Executive Orders 929 and/or 1058, and is not part of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Since this is a contractual
grievance, it is restricted to claimed violations, misapplication or
misinterpretation of a specific term or Article of the CFA
Collective Bargaining Agreement (Article 10.2). Thus, Dr. Liu's
assertion regarding California Government Code section 8547.3
will not be addressed by this reviewer.
14 On May 18, 2012, a prehearing conference was held in PERB Case
No. SF-CE-995-H, to decide CSUEB's motion to defer all four adverse actions to arbitration,
including the Penal Code section 626.4 order. In CSUEB's response, it agreed to waive
procedural defects as to these four grievances. 	(May 22, 2012, Ruling on Motion to Defer.)
Upon questioning from the ALJ, CSUEB contended that it could stipulate with Liu to change
Grievance 21 from a stah1tory grievance to a contractual grievance or Liu could re-file the
grievance as a contractual grievance. CSUEB was 1msure what CFA would do with these
changes. Grievance 21 was therefore later changed to a contrachrnl grievance.
26

(Emphasis in original.)
On June 11, 2012, both Towner and Liu attended an FHC grievance hearing for
Grievance 10. 15 At the end of the hearing, Liu asked Towner whether she knew what "1058"
was. Towner was exhausted and asked him what he was talking about. Liu asked again.
Towner replied that she did not know what he was talking about and would talk to him later.
On June 12, 2012, Liu sent Towner an email arguing that since Towner did not know
what Executive Order 1058 was, her grievance response was written by a lawyer who was not
present at the hearing. Liu asked Towner to contact him ifhe was mistaken. Towner did not
respond. Again, at the PERB hearing, Towner denied that Theodora wrote any of her
gnevance responses.
Grievance 39: Implementation ofFHC Remedy Requesting Audit
On January 17, 2012, Liu filed Grievance 3 9. Liu contended that Dean Swartz wasted
$60,000 by rewarding her friends with unmerited research grants and instructional
improvement grants and Liu did not receive the same support.
On August 2, 2012, the FHC conducted a hearing and issued its recommendation on
August 16, 2012. Specifically, the panel recommended:
The committee finds that the evidence presented raised concerns
about Dr. Liu's treatment by administrative colleagues, but it
does not support a finding that Dr. Liu was directly harmed by
Dean Swartz. The evidence also raises serious concerns about
the professionalism and equity of the instructional improvement
grants. In light of the evidence reviewed, the faculty panel
recommends that the University undertake a formal audit of the
internal granting opportunities executed within the College of
Business during the timeframe of Dr. Liu' s employment. ...
An audit of the granting opportunities executed within the
College of Business would serve both Dr. Liu and the University
in that the outcome would surely make much clearer the case of
impropriety and unfairness within the College of Business,
Grievance 10 concerned Dean Swartz's hiring of a personal friend at CSUEB.
27

positive or negative, while providing the University with clear
data on whether or not wrongdoing had occurred.
(Emphasis added.)
On August 28, 2012, President Morishita issued his decision stating in part:
As provided in Articles 10.19 to 10.22 of the CBA, I accept the
FHC's decision that you did not meet the burden of proof that
you were directly harmed by Dean Terri Swartz, and that there is
no remedy to be provided to you.
The FHC also suggested that an audit of the College of Business
and Economics internal grant programs be conducted. I am
copying Provost James Houpis and Interim Dean Jagdish
Agrawal[161 on this recommendation so they can determine an
appropriate course of action.
On August 29, 2012, Liu sent an email to President Morishita stating that since
President Morishita "did not agree to the Faculty Panel's recommendation of an audit," he
requested arbitration pursuant to CBA Article 10.21. On August 30, 2012, Liu made a similar
request of CSU Senior Labor and Employee Relations Manager Maria Osorio (Osorio) and the
AAA. Osorio responded to AAA explaining that CSU took the position that Liu was not
entitled to arbitration and stated:
The Faculty Hearing Committee did not sustain the grievance
referenced in Dr. Liu's email ... , rather the Faculty Hearing
Committee denied the grievance. Specifically, the committee
held that "the evidence presented raised concerns ... but it does
not support a finding that Dr. Liu was directly harmed ... " As
such Dr. Liu is not entitled to arbitration.
On September 7, 2012, CSU Manager of Labor Relations Kevin Downes (Downes)
wrote AAA that CSU did not hold that Liu was entitled to arbitrate the grievance as President
Morishita concurred with the FHC recommendation and, therefore, CBA Article 10.22 applied
to prohibit arbitration.
16 Dean Agrawal did not play any part in deciding whether an audit should be
conducted or not, but did provide information to the auditors.
28

On September 7, 2012, CSU Associate Vice Chancellor of Labor Relations John
Swarbrick (Swarbrick) wrote Liu notifying him that an audit would soon begin in accordance
with the recommendation of the FHC.
On September 25, 2012, CSUEB Vice-President of Administration and Finance Brad
Wells (Wells) emailed Liu notifying him that his office was conducting an audit of the CBE
internal granting opportunities between academic years 2005-2006 and 2011-2012. Wells
stated the audit was underway and was expected to be completed in 60 days.
On December 14, 2012, Wells responded to an email from Liu stating that his office
enco1mtered unexpected delays during the audit, but they were near completion.
On December 28, 2012, Liu emailed Wells setting a deadline of January 13, 2013 at
1:00 p.m. to provide him the completed audit. On February 1, 2013, Liu emailed President
Morishita expressing his disgust toward CSUEB and requesting them to reply that day and
provide an explanation as to when CSUEB planned to release the document.
Wells explained that he had a single internal auditor in the Department of Risk
Management and Internal Control (Risk Management). Unexpectedly, Risk Management
received two other CSU systemwide internal audit requests at the same time as the CBE audit.
The internal auditor's time was redirected to complete the systemwide internal audit reports
and the CBE audit was "spread out" over a longer period of time.
On February 15, 2013, the CSUEB Risk Management released its 11-page internal
audit report entitled, "Faculty Grants funded by the College of Business and Economics." The
report itself states that the fieldwork for the audit was conducted between mid-September 2012
and mid-January 2013. The report was emailed to Liu on Febmary 15, 2013.
Grievances 42 and 43: Refusal to Change Grievance from Contractual to Statutory
29

On June 19, 2012, Liu filed Grievance 42 requesting to change the grade submission
procedure and Grievance 43 alleging that Dean Swartz assigned summer teaching assignments
only to those who were loyal to her. The grievances had the box "The Contractual Procedure"
checked. Towner conducted the Level 1 meetings of the grievances on June 28, 2012.
At the Level 1 meeting, Liu stated that he made a mistake and requested that the
contractual grievance be changed to a statutory grievance. Towner responded that she needed
to check if Liu could change the character of the grievance. Liu stated at the hearing that both
he and Towner agreed to change the contractual grievance to a statutory grievance and both
signed it, but the form did not include Towner's signature.
On June 29, 2012, Theodora emailed Liu and copied Towner stating that CSUEB would
not change Grievances 42 and 43 from contractual to statutory as Liu clearly elected the
contractual procedure pursuant to CBA Article 10.6. On July 5, 2012, Liu emailed Towner
and President Morishita that in his last grievance meeting with Towner, he changed the "typo"
on the grievance form to statutory. On this occasion, Liu's email did not state that Towner
agreed with this change. Theodora responded to Liu's email that CSUEB would not agree to
change the contractual grievance to a statutory grievance and that Liu's next appeal of the
grievance would go to the CSU Office of the Chancellor.
In Towner's Level 1 responses, dated July 11, 2012, she wrote:
During the meeting, Dr. Liu requested that the elected procedure
be changed to a "statutory grievance." Regarding the request to
change ( or convert) the grievance from a contractual grievance to
a statutory grievance, the request is denied. The collective
bargaining agreement is clear and unambiguous. Specifically,
Article 10. 6 states: "At the time of filing of a grievance by an
individual employee or group of employees the grievant shall
make an election by using the appropriate form between the two
procedures set forth below: (1) Faculty Hearing Committee or
(2) Contractual Procedure .... " There is no provision in the
collective bargaining agreement that permits conversion from one
procedure to another. Had the parties intended to permit
30

converting grievances, they would have included such
language-but they did not. In addition, it should be noted that
this is not Dr. Liu' s first grievance, nor is it his second, or even
his fifth. Rather, this is the forty-second [and forty-third]
grievance filed by Dr. Liu. As such, he is thoroughly familiar
with the grievance process. Moreover, although not directly on
point as conversions were not agreed upon by the Parties, it is too
late for the university to accommodate the request because there
are insufficient faculty working during the summer to
accommodate two more faculty hearing committees [footnote
omitted], in addition to the three already scheduled. Therefore, as
previously noted, CSU East Bay denies the request to change this
grievance from "contractual" to "statutory." Dr. Liu was
informed of this decision on June 29, 2012.
Grievance 43: Whether Towner Wrote the Grievance Response
On July 11, 2012, Theodora sent Liu the Level 1 response for Grievance 43 written by
Towner. On July 16, 2012, at 3:05 p.m., Liu forwarded Towner an email stating that he cannot
accept her decision as it should be a statutory grievance and appealed it and requested an FHC
hearing. At 3:06 p.m., an automatedresponse email from Theodora was sent to Liu that she
was out of the office on vacation even though Liu had not included her as an addressee.
Law Enforcement Present at FHC Hearings
CSUEB has a "Workplace Safety and Security Policy," which provides in pertinent
part:
California State University recognizes that workplace violence is
a critical problem requiring strict attention and has therefore
adopted a policy of no tolerance towards this problem and
adopted the Work Place Safety and Security Plan, as the campus
general plan to increase workplace safety and security.
Consistent with this policy, acts or threats of physical violence,
including intimidation, harassment, and/or coercion, which
involve or affect the university or which occur on property owned
or operated by the Board of Trustees, will not be tolerated. Acts
or threats of violence include conduct which is sufficiently
severe, offensive, or intimidating to alter the employment
conditions at the University or to create a hostile, abusive, or
intimidating work environment, for one of several employees.
31

Examples of workplace violence include, but are not limited to
the following:
1. 	All threats or acts of violence occurring on university
premises, regardless of the relationship between the
University and the parties involved in the incident.
Specific examples of conduct that may be considered threats or
acts of violence include, but are not limited to the following:
2. 	Threatening an individual or his/her family, friends,
associates, or property with harm.
On March 1, 2010, Department Administrative Assistant Jeannie Gee (Ge~) reported to
the UPD a verbal altercation she had with Liu where she believed Liu confronted her regarding
the whereabouts of his retention letter. Specifically, Gee complained that Liu stood too close
to him and invaded her personal space.
On March 9, 2010, Dobb sent an email to Liu stating in pertinent part:
In the meantime, I think it best to let you know that your behavior
recently has had the effect [of] frightening or causing concern
with your fellow employees. This has resulted in one of them
seeking assistance from the University Police and others
approaching the Dean in the College of Business.
On or about June 28, 2010, Dean Swartz contacted Lt. Hodges 17 and complained about
Liu's intimidating behavior with her during a meeting where he stated that he would "fight to
the death" over the right to teach a Finance course. Lt. Hodges asked Liu to come to the police
station and inquired what he meant by the statement. Liu did not want to answer his question.
On September 20, 2010, Dobbs issued a written reprimand to Liu stating in pertinent
part:
17 Before Chief Hodges was appointed as the Chief of Police, he was a UPD lieutenant.
32

Over the past few months, two individuals within the College of
Business and Economics have had occasion to call the police in
regards to your behavior. Before we start a new academic year, I
felt it important to write you directly about your behavior and
what our expectations are regarding how you interact with
colleagues and staff within the University.
Remarks like I will "fight to the death for my right to teach
Finance 4315" and behaviors which seem overly aggressive are
inappropriate. I ask that you keep your remarks and actions brief
and to the point when working with colleagues and staff I would
certainly anticipate that nothing in your behavior would occasion
a call to the police department. If you are having trouble
controlling your behavior or remarks, I would ask that you seek
help either through your Chair or through our Employee
Assistance Program.
In July 2011, Provost Office staff contacted the President's Office and stated that they
were frightened of Liu and they did not want Liu to come to the Provost's Office again. 18 The
President's Chief of Staff directed Dobb to "handle it." Dobb discussed the matter with the
Director of Human Resources and they agreed that Liu could bring his grievance(s) to the
Department of Human Resources and Human Resources staff would take the grievance(s)
upstairs to the Provost's Office. On July 15, 2011, Dobb sent Liu a written notification stating
that CSUEB had received a complaint of Liu's behavior from the Provost's Office staff and if
he was to deliver anything to the Provost's Office, he was to use the campus mail or personally
deliver it to the receptionist at the Human Resources Office.
On August 24, 2011, Provost Houpis issued the final disciplinary letter suspending Liu
from September 19 through December 13, 2011. The charges included intimidating Gee;
attaching a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device to the automobile of Professor
Scott Fung so that he could monitor Fung's whereabouts to determine his outside activities;
telling Dean Swartz that he would "fight to the death" and "sacrifice his life" to teach Finance
18 Dobb was unaware that her staff contacted the President's Office about Liu.
33

4315; stalking Department Chair Frankel by loitering outside his office armed with a camera to
take photos; and, taking photos of Frankel's students.
On September 28, 2011, at 3:30 p.m., Liu dropped off a grievance package19 at the
President's Office and then walked over to the Provost's Office to drop off the same
documents. The door was locked. When Provost Office employee Gina Traversa (Traversa)
came to the door, she told Liu to go to Human Resources Office and not to come to the
Provost's Office.
On Friday, September 30, 2011, at 11 :32 a.m., Liu sent the following email to the
Human Resources Director Denise Needleman (Needleman), Human Resources and Provost
Office staff, Traversa, and Chief Hodges:
Dear Ms. Needleman and other Colleagues at HR department,
By this email, I want to discuss Ms. Gina Traversa's
discrimination against HR staff - as second class of citizen who
are inferior to her.
Two days ago, I tried to deliver a package to the Provost Office
and Ms. Traversa initially refused to accept the document and
asked me to go to the Human Resources department. The
assumption that Ms. Traversa made about Liu, an assistant
professor of finance, is that Liu is a risky person who will kill
many people in the. (sic) This is obviously a criminal action of
open discrimination against Liu. However, in this email, let us
temporarily assume Ms. Gina Traversa's assumption is true.
Then I wish all members of the HR department to think about the
following question.
If Professor Liu is risky and he may kill other people, then why
did Ms. Traversa knowingly [send] Liu to HR?
It is well known that the designated campus location for faculty
members to deliver grievance forms is the Provost Office.
Why is Ms. Gina Traversa asks staff members of HR to take care
of things that are solely the responsibility of the Provost Office?
The package may have been the instant unfair practice charge.
34

It is very clear that Ms. Gina Traversa thinks that, at CSUEB, she
is a first-class citizen. Just like the old slave-owners, to
Ms. Traversa, all other CSUEB faculty and staff members are the
black slaves. Those black slaves only deserve to work in the
dirty cotton field, and they can not come to where the slave
owners live (the CSUEB Provost Office).
Staff members of HR department are of a[n] inferior class to Ms.
Traversa.
And if Professor Liu kills someone, then staff members of HR
department should die first.
Here, I want to make the clear statement.
I am a very friendly person and I only take peaceful means to
fight corrnption, discrimination, and organized fraud at CSUEB.
I will never hurt any of my colleagues at CSUEB, there is no
need to think of Liu as a risky person.
In this email, I demand an immediate investigation by the Office
of Equity and Diversity on Ms. Gina Traversa's open
discrimination against staff members of HR department and Jerry
Liu[.]
Finally, I demand a written apology from Ms. Traversa to staff
members of HR department and me for her act of open
discrimination.
Thank you very much for your attention.
I wish you a nice weekend!
Jerry Liu
(Emphasis added.)
After receiving the email, Chief Hodges believed that Liu was intentionally attempting
to intimidate the Human Resources staff as it was addressed to them and Liu referenced
"killing" them. Chief Hodges convened a Threat Assessment Team meeting between
2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Chief Hodges provided the team with his chronological history of
concerns regarding Liu' s behavior since March 2010 and the te.am discussed the
35

September 30, 2011 email. Chief Hodges believed that Liu was insubordinate to a direct order
that Dobb gave him on July 15, 2011 and was disruptive by handing out pamphlets outside of
Frankel's classroom.20 The team decided that immediate action needed to be taken pursuant to
Penal Code section 626.4 to order the withdrawal of the University's consent for Liu to be on
campus for 14 days. The recommendation was approved by President Morishita and UPD
officers served Liu with the Penal Code section 626.4 order near his office. Liu was escorted
off campus grounds. Liu was informed that he was forbidden to return to campus and if he
returned during the 14-day period, he would be arrested.
In November 2011, Liu was terminated for charges which included sending a
threatening email on September 30, 2011, and lurking outside three professors' offices during
their office hours.
On April 24, 2012, an FHC hearing was held regarding Grievance 3, 5, and 28
regarding the violation of office hour policies by Department Chair Frankel an.d Professors
Mangold and McBride. An armed UPD officer was present in plain clothes. The hearing was
held in the Bayview Room which is 50 feet by 17 feet. The officer was stationed in the back of
the room near the exit door. Liu presented his case before the FHC.
On April 25, 2012, Chief Hodges emailed Liu reminding him to check in at the UPD
before going anywhere on campus and that he should do so before his FHC hearing at
9:00 a.m. on April 26, 2012. Liu telephoned Chief Hodges twice that day. Chief Hodges
considered Liu to be very angry and agitated. Liu objected to having to check in at the UPD
and did not want any police present at the FHC hearing. He said he would be bringing the
"press" with him and ifhe saw police, he would "take action." ChiefHodges asked him what
20 Chief Hodges admitted that the impetus for calling the Threat Assessment Team
meeting was the September 30, 2011 email.
36

type of "action" he was referring to and Liu would not answer Chief Hodges. 	Liu replied that
he would not mind being arrested. At 10:00 p.m., Liu responded that he would not report to
the UPD and UPD could arrest him if they want.
Chief Hodges reported the conversation to Wells and both agreed that an increased
police presence was needed at the FHC hearing. Chief Hodges arranged an armed plain
clothes officer to be inside of the Bayview Room located near the back of the room, the Chief
would be armed and in plain clothes outside the hearing room and an armed uniformed officer
would be in the building and available by radio call to respond if needed. Wells would also
come if needed.
On April 26, 2012, Liu arrived at CSUEB and Chief Hodges greeted him in the parking
lot. Chief Hodges escorted Liu to the Bayview Room.21 The Grievance 29 FHC panel,
University Representative Edwin Waite, CFA Chapter President Jennifer Eaton and former
CFA Chapter President Brian McKenzie (McKenzie) were also present. UPD Officer Dan
Larson was present in plain clothes in the back. After Liu entered the Bayview Room, he
turned to McKenzie and told him he could not go through with the hearing with police present.
McKenzie exited the hearing room to speak with Chief Hodges. By that time, Wells had
arrived. McKenzie asked if the FHC hearing could go forward with the UPD officer outside
the hearing room with police observing through the glass windows. Chief Hodges replied that
his decision was final. Liu exited the Bayview Room and was agitated. Liu accused Chief
Hodges that his officers had "guns drawn." Chief Hodges disputed Liu's assertion. Liu then
moved his hand to see if Chief Hodges had his gun on him at his waist. Chief Hodges brushed
Liu's hand away and instructed him never to reach for his gun. Liu then started shedding some
of his clothing to prove that he did not have a gun and challenged Chief Hodges to arrest him.
21 The Bayview Room is a large conference room which has large glass windows where
one can look inside from the entrance and see who is present and what is occurring.
37

The FHC panel walked out at the Bayview Room and the hearing was cancelled. The hearing
was later rescheduled to June 7, 2012 and completed.
On May 2, 2012, Dobb notified Liu that Towner would be retained to work on his
grievances. Dobb notified Liu that as a result of perceived threats contained in his previous
emails and past actions on campus, a UPD officer would be present at all times during his
grievance hearings. On May 12, 2012, Wells notified Liu that a plain clothes UPD officer
would be present in the grievance hearings.
FHC meetings held after March 4, 2012, were: Grievances 3, 5, and 28 on
April 24, 2012; Grievance 6 on June 8, 2012; Grievance 9 on Jlme 4, 2012; Grievance 10 on
June 11, 2012; Grievance 29 on June 7, 2012; Grievance 36 on August 1, 2012; Grievance 37
on July 31, 2012; and Grievance 39 on August 2, 2012. Chief Hodges was present at each of
the FHC hearings in plain clothes with a weapon,22 except one, for which Officer Mark Engel
was present. 23
22 Liu admitted that he telephoned Chief Hodges all the time as a friend and
Chief Hodges never intimidated him. Liu contended he was afraid that Chief Hodges was
intimidating the faculty panel. Later in his testimony, Liu stated that he also felt intimidated
byUPD.
23 Although not in the complaint, one plain clothes UPD officer was also present in the
Level 1 meetings conducted by Towner after March 4, 2012: Grievance 6 on May 16, 2012;
Grievance 7 on May 16, 2012; Grievance 31 on May 14, 2012; Grievance 33 on May 14, 2012;
Grievance 36 on June 4, 2012; Grievance 37 on June 4, 2012; Grievance 39 on June 4, 2012;
and Grievances 42 and 43 on June 28, 2012. Chief Hodges was present at each of these
meetings. The Level 1 grievance meetings were held off campus in a small conference room at
the Hampton Inn in Hayward about one block from campus. Liu stated that Chief Hodges sat
arms-length from him. Towner stated that Chief Hodges sat further away from them. As the
issue of the CSUEB 's use of law enforcement at Level 1 meetings was not set forth in the
charge, amended charge or complaint, it will not be considered in this proposed decision.
However, if it were, the same reasoning set forth later in this proposed decision as to the use of
law enforcement at Liu's FHC hearings would apply to the Level 1 meetings.
38

ISSUES
1. 	Are some of the allegations in the complaint relating to the utilization of law
enforcement at FHC hearings barred by the statute of limitations?
2. 	Are the allegations in the complaint relating to Dobb acting as the appropriate
administrator in grievances filed against her barred by the statute of limitations?
3. 	Did CSUEB interfere with Liu in the processing of some of his grievances?
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Timeliness of Allegation
HEERA section 3563.2(a) prohibits PERB from issuing a complaint with respect to "any
charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of
the charge." The limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have
known, of the conduct underlying the charge. (Gavilan Joint Community College District (1996)
PERB Decision No. 1177.) The six-month limitation period commences on the date that the
conduct constituting an unfair practice was discovered, and not the date of discovery of the legal
significance of that conduct. (Compton Unified School District (2009) PERB Decision
No. 2016; Empire Union School District (2004) PERB Decision No. 1650.) A charging party
bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge was timely filed. (Tehachapi Unified School
District (1993) PERB Decision No. 1024; State a/California (Department of Insurance) (1997)
PERB Decision No. 1197-S.)
1. 	Utilization of Law Enforcement at FHC Hearings
Liu was aware of when CSUEB started using law enforcement in its FHC grievance
hearings, as he was present. Liu filed an amended charge which included these law
enforcement interference allegations on September 4, 2012. Therefore, pursuant to the six
months statute of limitations in HEERA section 3563.2, only those FHC hearings which
39

occurred from March 4, 2012 forward will be considered for purposes of determining whether
CSUEB interfered with the grievance process by utilizing a law enforcement presence at FHC
hearings.
2. 	Dobb Allowed to Participate as an Appropriate Administrator in Grievances Filed
Against Her
The grievances which were filed against Dobb were Grievance 11 which was filed on
May 17, 2011 with a Level 1 written response issued by Okutsu on June 15, 2011;
Grievance 16 which was filed on June 17, 2011 with a Level 1 written response issued by
Zarrillo on June 28, 2011; Grievance 17 which was filed on June 30, 2011 with a July 7, 2011
notification that Dobb would be the appropriate administrator; Grievance 18 which was filed
on June 30, 2011 for which a Level 1 meeting was not conducted; Grievance 33 which was
filed on January 17, 2012 for which a Level 1 meeting was not conducted; and Grievance 40
which was filed on January 1, 2012 for which a Level 1 meeting was not conducted. Liu filed
an amended charge which included these Dobb interference allegations on September 4, 2012.
Therefore, pursuant to the six months statute oflimitations in HEERA section 3563.2, only
those Level 1 grievance responses filed on March 4, 2012 and forward will be considered for
purposes of determining whether CSUEB interfered with the grievance process by using Dobb
as the appropriate administrator in grievances filed against her. As all of the grievances were
filed before March 4, 2012, had Level 1 grievance responses issued before March 4, 2012, or
had a notification that Dobb would act as the appropriate administrator before March 4, 2012,
those allegations relating to these matters as to Grievances 11, 16, n, 18, 33, and 40 are
dismissed as untimely. 24 Additionally, and in the alternative, as Grievances 18, 33, and 40
24 Although not specifically charged, Liu alleged that the Level 1 response written by
Okutsu in his four Level 1 responses were actually written by Dobb: Grievance 1 issued on
June 13, 2011; Grievance 9 issued on June 9, 2011; Grievance 10 issued on June 13, 2011; and
Grievance 11 issued on June 15, 2011. Liu stated he discovered this on June 14, 2011, when
40

were never officially assigned to Dobb, those allegations that Dobb handled those grievances
as the appropriate administrator should be dismissed.
Okutsu allegedly told him that he was only present to take notes and pass them on to Dobb.
Clearly, these incidents took place before March 4, 2012, and would also be untimely and
barred by the statute of limitations.
Interference
HEERA section 357l(a) provides in pertinent part:
It shall be unlawful for the higher education employer to do any of
the following:
(a) ... to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of
their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter. ...
The test for whether CSU has interfered with the rights of employees under HEERA does
not require that unlawful motive be established, only that at least slight harm to employee rights
results from the conduct. In State of California (Department of Developmental Services) (1983)
PERB Decision No. 344-S, citing Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision
No. 89 and Service Employees International Union, Local 99 (Kimmett) (1979) PERB Decision
No. 106, the Board described the standard as follows:
[I]n order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful interference,
the charging party must establish that the respondent's conduct
tends to or does result in some harm to employee rights granted
underEERA.
Under the above-described test, a violation may only be found ifHEERA provides the
claimed rights which were interfered with. In Clovis Unified School District (1984) PERB
Decision No. 389, the Board held that a finding of coercion does not require evidence that the
employee actually felt threatened or intimidated or was in fact discouraged from participating in
protected activity.
HEERA section 3567 provides in pertinent part:
41

Any employee or group of employees may at any time, either
individually or through a representative of their own choosing,
present grievances to the employer and have such grievances
adjusted, without the intervention of the exclusive representative;
provided, the adjustment is reached prior to arbitration pursuant to
Section 3589, and the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms
of a written memorandum then in effect.
(Emphasis added.)
In Regents of the University of California (1991) PERB Decision No. 872-H, the Board
held that HEERA section 3567 grants employees a right to file grievances without the
interference of their exclusive representative. When a grievance reaches the stage of
arbitration, the individual's right to present grievances and have them adjusted comes to an
end. (Regents of the University of California (1990) PERB Decision No. 849-H.) The "right"
to an independent, neutral evaluation of your grievance is not established by HEERA. While
HEERA section 3567 provides an employee the right to present grievances to his or her
employer, the statute does not prescribe how the employer will process and consider such
grievances and does not require a factfinding that is free of management influence or control.
(Regents of the University of California (Los Alamos National Laboratory) (2003) PERB
Decision No. 1519-H.) As the right to file grievances and have grievances considered is also
set forth internally in the CBA itself, a grievant can look to those processes in determining
whether his statutory rights have been interfered with.
If the harm to employee rights is slight and the employer offers justification based on
operational necessity, the competing interests are balanced. (Carlsbad, supra, PERR Decision
No. 89; State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2011) PERB Decision
No. 2106a-S.) Only when the interference with employee rights outweighs the business
justification for the respondent's conduct will a violation be found. (State of California
42

(Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2012) PERB Decision No. 2285-S; Carlsbad,
supra, PERB Decision No. 89.)
1. 	No Intent to Withdraw Disciplinary Actions or Grant Tenure and Promotion
Liu argues that Gunn interfered with his grievance process when she said CSUEB had
no intent to withdraw the disciplinary actions or grant his request for tenure and promotion.
On April 11, 2012, when Gunn made the statement, Liu was attempting to resolve his adverse
actions as a result of the PERB complaint that had recently been issued. By April 11, 2012, the
two disciplinary actions were already at the arbitration stage and CFA had already denied
arbitration of his contractual grievance on tenure and promotion. 25 At the arbitration stage, Liu
does not have a statutory right to present a grievance under HEERA section 3567. Clearly,
based upon the timing of the issuance of the complaint and Liu's own testimony, he was
attempting to settle his outstanding issues through an extra-contractual forum, PERB. Gunn' s
April 11, 2012 answer was in response to Liu' s contentions which cited extensively to PERB.
As a result, it is not found that this answer was an interference with Liu' s right to present
grievances and have them adjusted and, as a result, the allegation is dismissed.
2. 	Towner Having Authority as an Appropriate Administrator in Responding to Emails
and Writing Level 1 Responses
CBA Article 10.2( d) defines appropriate administrator as the "individual who has been
designated by the President to act pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Article." In the
procedures of Article 10, an appropriate administrator may refuse to consider a grievance not
filed on a grievance form or provide the appropriate grievance form (Article 10.3(b)); may set
an informal conference with the grievant at the grievant's request (Article 10.S(a)); hold a
Level 1 meeting with the grievant at a mutually acceptable time, and if the grievance cannot
25 Dr. Liu filed Grievance 41, a contractual grievance about his tenure and promotion,
after Gunn's April 11, 2012 answer.
43

successfully be resolved, then respond in writing to the grievant after the Level 1 meeting
(Article 10.7); tape-record the proceedings of the FHC hearing (Article 10.17); represent the
University at the FHC hearing (Article 10.18); and receive from grievant(s) reasonably specific
requests for information (Article 10.40).
a. 	Responding to Liu' s Emails
On June 3, 2012, Liu sent an email to Towner proposing times to meet for a Level I
grievance meeting on June 4, 2012. Theodora responded for Towner stating that one of the
times was acceptable. Towner later explained to Liu that Theodora was assigned to schedule
and expedite the grievance process. On May 29, 2012, Theodora informed Liu that she was to
move Liu's grievances through the grievance process toward a prompt resolution.
Article 10 does not prohibit an appropriate administrator from delegating to someone
the functions of setting up acceptable meeting times. Additionally, ever since May 22, 2012,
when the PERB ALJ "strongly encouraged" the parties to "take all permissible actions" to
advance grievances concerning the denial of tenure and promotion and the issuance of the
Penal Code 626.4 order to the arbitration level, it was appropriate for Theodora to act in a
scheduling capacity to move Liu's grievances through the grievance process, especially with
the tight time frames set forth for conducting FHC hearings and the number of grievances to
process. These scheduling response(s) from Theodora are not evidence that she was an
appropriate administrator or that Towner was not an appropriate administrator. It is not found
that Liu established slight harm to his grievance rights and the allegation is therefore
dismissed.
b. 	Writing Level I Responses
Towner stated that she wrote all of her responses without any assistance from Dobb or
Theodora. She admitted to consulting with Dobb when she needed information or
44

documentation. Liu contends that Theodora must have written the Grievance 21 Level 1
response, dated June 8, 2012, because on June 11, 2012, Liu asked Towner what "1058" was at
the end of the Grievance 10 FHC hearing, and Towner, at that time, did not know.
Additionally, On July 16, 2012, Liu sent an email to Towner that he could not accept her
Level 1 response and wanted an FHC hearing. A vacation response message was immediately
kicked back to Liu. These two events are insufficient to demonstrate by a preponderance of
evidence that Theodora wrote these Level 1 responses for Towner. To ask somebody if they
know an Executive Order by its number, when one is focusing on another FHC hearing
establishes little, if anything, especially with the number of grievances Towner was processing
at the time. As it was not demonstrated that somebody wrote the Level 1 response for Towner,
it is not found that Liu established slight harm to his grievance rights and the allegation is
therefore dismissed.
3. 	Defying Faculty Hearing Committee Recommendations
a. 	Grievance 6: Failing to Issue Apology
On June 8, 2012, the FHC recommended that "Dean Swartz issue a written apology for
her inappropriate behavior on the day of the incident." On June 22, 2012, 26 President
Morishita, in accordance with CBA Article 10.20, accepted the FHC recommended decision
and referred it to Provost Houpis for appropriate action. According to CBA Article 10.20,
there are only two choices for the President: to "accept and implement" the FHC's
recommended decision or to "reject" the recommended decision. It is clear that of the two
choices, President Morishita agreed to "accept and implement" the recommended decision. It
26 CBA Article 10.20 requires the President to make his/her decision within 21 days of
the receipt of the recommended decision. President Morishita could have 'waited until
June 29, 2012 to make his decision, ifhe desired, which would have been after Dean Swartz
announced her retirement date. It is more likely than not that President Morishita made his
decision as to Grievance 6 without any knowledge of Dean Swartz pending retirement.
45

is also clear that the remedy of the recommended decision is that Dean Swartz issue Liu a
written apology. On June 27, 2012, Dean Swartz announced her retirement and she was
replaced on July 1, 2012. Dobb asked Dean Swartz about writing an apology, but she refused
to do so. Provost Houpis who had authority to implement the remedy did not order Dean
Swartz to issue a written apology as he conducted a separate investigation and did not believe
Dean Swartz did anything wrong. Interim Dean Agrawal did not issue an apology in the place
of former Dean Swartz because he was present during the incident in question and did not
believe Dean Swartz did anything wrong. Neither Provost Houpis' separate investigation nor
Dean Agrawal' s personal observation, however, are of any consequence. President Morishita
had the authority to accept and implement the FHC recommended decision and his decision is
final and binding. (Article 10.22.) As a final and binding decision, for Dean Agrawal or
Provost Houpis not to issue a written apology on behalf of or in the place of Dean Swartz
harms Liu's right to receive the remedy he was afforded pursuant to the grievance process. As
such, Liu has met a prima facie case that be suffered slight harm to bis grievance rights for he
did not receive a written apology :from Dean Swartz or somebody standing in Dean Swartz'
stead. CSU's business justification that it did not provide a written apology based upon Dean
Swartz' leaving is not sufficient to rebut the prima facie case as other alternatives were
available to CSUEB such as issuing a written apology in Dean Swartz' stead. It is found that
CSUEB interfered with Liu's rights under the grievance process and violated HEERA section
3271(a).
b. 	Grievance 39: Refusing to Adopt a Recommendation to Conduct an Audit
On August 2, 2012, the FHC issued its recommended decision which found that Liu
was not directly harmed by Dean Swartz. It also recommended that a faculty audit be
conducted during the time ofLiu's employment. On August 28, 2012, President Morishita
46

accepted the FHC's recommended decision that Liu did not meet his burden that he was
directly harmed. Again, CBA Article 10.20 only allows the President two choices: to "accept
and implement" or to "reject" the FHC's recommended decision. The President's
August 28, 2012 letter is clearly more like an acceptance than a rejection. Indeed, even though
the President copied Provost Houpis and Dean Agrawal to determine an appropriate course of
action, on September 7, 2012, Swarbrick notified Liu that the audit would be conducted in
accordance with the FHC recommendation which certified that the FHC recommended
decision had been accepted and implemented by the President.27 Liu, however, claims that the
untimeliness of the production of the audit on February 15, 2013, which was completed over
five months from the time he was told an audit would be conducted by Swarbrick, interfered
with his rights pursuant to the grievance process. CSUEB offers as a business justification that
Risk Management had only one internal auditor who had two systemwide requests come in at
the same time as the CBE audit which delayed the completion of the audit. Five months may
seem like a long time to prepare such an audit, however, in light of the other two systemwide
requests, the short staff, and Liu's inability to demonstrate how he was harmed in any way by
the production of the audit report, CSUEB's business justification overcame any slight harm to
Liu's grievance right. Therefore, the allegation is dismissed.
c. 	Grievances 3, 5, and 28: Refusing to Withdraw Disciplinary Actions
On April 24, 2012, the FHC in Grievances 3, 5, and 28 issued its recommended
decision which denied Liu's requested remedy of terminating Chair Frankel and Professors
Mangold and McBride, but recommended a modification to the University and College Office
Hours policy. In making its recommendation, the FHC made a salutary comment that
27 Once CSU agreed to the audit remedy, Liu's contention that the dispute should be
arbitrated was nullified as it was undeniable that the President had now accepted and would
implement the FHC's recommended decision.
47

"Dr. Liu's concern for fairness and equity is to be commended."28 When the President
accepted the FHC recommended decision, Liu began asking for additional remedies which
went beyond the remedies requested in the grievance and related more toward his retaliation
case. These additional remedies extrapolated being "commended" for seeking fairness and
equity among faculty as to how office hours are observed beyond the scope of the
grievance/recommended decision. fudeed, the FHC recommended decision itself noted that
Liu attempted to expand the scope of the hearing outside the scope of the grievance and
explicitly stated that it would be more appropriate to raise these matters at a different hearing.
Provost Houpis was correct: the matter was closed as final and binding once the President
accepted the FHC 's recommended decision. Liu failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that
slight harm was caused to his grievance rights because the President's acceptance of the FHC's
recommended decision was limited to the FHC recommended decision itself. As a result, Liu
failed to establish any harm to his grievance rights and this allegation is dismissed.
4. 	Utilizing Law Enforcement at FHC Grievance Hearings
On April 26, 2012, Liu told Professor McKenzie that he could not go through with the
FHC hearing with a UPD officer being present in the FHC hearing room. As a result of Liu's
complaint, Professor McKenzie unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate that the UPD officer be
stationed outside the hearing room. Regarding other hearings, Liu stated that Chief Hodges
did not intimidate him, but he was afraid of Chief Hodges intimidating the FHC panel.
However, based upon the FHC recommended decisions issued, it was clear that Liu completed
all of his FHC hearings and he was allowed to audibly record any alleged event of police
intimidation of the hearing.
28 The determination that this comment is salutary is supported by the fact that Liu
never requested a remedy that he be "commended" in the grievance.
48

CSU produced more than an adequate business justification to support Chief Hodges'
decision to have law enforcement present during these FHC hearings and overcome any slight
harm to Liu's grievance rights. Such business justification included its zero tolerance for
violence policy; the March 9, 2010 email regarding Liu's frightening behavior which Liu
disregarded; the September 20, 2010 reprimand about "fighting to the death" for my right to
teach Finance 4315; the August 24, 2011 suspension which included as a charge the tracking of
a fellow professor by GPS and ":fighting to the death" to teach Finance 4315; the
September 30, 2011 email to Needleman about "kill[ing]" the staff members of the HR
department first; the September 30, 2011 Penal Code section 626.4 order; the November 2011
termination for the September 30, 2011 email; the April 25, 2012 refusal to come to the UPD
police station prior to the next FHC hearing; and Liu's announcement that he would take some
type of unspecified action if he saw police present. Clearly, Liu's actions amply justified the
presence of a plain clothes UPD officer at the back of the hearing room, and one outside the
hearing room, if needed. No interference of Liu's grievance rights is found and the allegation
is dismissed.
5. 	Grievances 42 and 43: Refusing to Organize FHC Hearing
Liu selected the box, "The Contractual Procedure" for both Grievances 42 and 43.
When Liu wanted to change the grievance to the statutory procedure at the Level 1 meeting,
Towner said she would check into whether he could make the change. Liu's contention that
both agreed to the change is not supported by the "signed" document, as both of their
signatures are not present. They were also not supported by one of Liu' s later emails where he
no longer contended that both agreed to it. As the parties did not stipulate to the change of the
character of the grievance, and the CBA does not authorize such a change. Liu has not
49

demonstrated any harm that he was denied his grievance rights and this allegation is
dismissed. 29
REMEDY
PERB has broad remedial powers to effectuate the purposes of HEERA. HEERA
section 3563.3 states, in relevant part:
The board shall have the power to issue a decision and order
directing an offending party to cease and desist from the unfair
practice and to take such affirmative action, including, but not
limited to, the reinstatement of employees with or without back
pay, as will effectuate the policies of this chapter.
In this case, it has been found that CSU violated HEERA section 3571(a) by failing to
issue an apology after that remedy was granted through the grievance process. As a remedy to
the violation, CSU should take the affirmative action of fulfilling what it granted as a remedy
to Liu. Affirmative actions have been ordered in a case where the employer interfered with the
grievance process. (Modesto City Schools and High School District (1985) PERB Decision
No. 518.) It is also appropriate that CSU be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct
from recurring in the future. 	(Ibid.)
Finally, it is the ordinary remedy in PERB cases that the party found to have committed
an unfair practice be ordered to post a notice incorporating the terms of the order. Such an
order is granted to provide employees with a notice, signed by an authorized agent, that the
offending party has acted unlawfully, is being required to cease and desist from its unlawful
aqtivity, and will comply with the order. Liu instead requests that the posting be placed on the
CSU systemwide website or the CSUEB campus website. In this digital age, Liu's request is
29 Theodora's June 29, 2012 response that CSUEB would not agree to the change of the
character of the grievance was in her role as representing the University President. President
Morishita testified to forwarding emails to Theodora when those matters concerned Liu as she
was the University's representative and Liu had pending litigation with CSUEB. Additionally,
deciding whether to change or to agree to change the character of a grievance is not one of the
designated duties of an appropriate administrator.
50

an alternative to the traditional employer bulletin board posting and therefore will be
discussed.
The purpose of posting a notice incorporating the terms of the order is educational for
the represented employees. It is to notify employees of the conduct that was found to be
unlawful, assure all employees affected by the decision of their rights and PERB's conclusions,
and inform employees that the controversy is now resolved and the employer is ready to
comply with the remedy ordered. (Placerville Union School District (1978) PERB Decision
No. 69 (Placerville).) The visitors to the systemwide and campus websites, however, are not
only faculty or employees, but students, parents, and members of the public. Liu's request
therefore is overbroad for the purposes of fulfilling the notification requirement to represented
employees. Had Liu' s request been a posting to some digital employee bulletin board or
intranet site which CSUEB has for its employees it would have been closer to the purposes set
forth in Placerville, however, the evidentiary record does not support such a finding for an
intranet capability existing at CSU. Thus, it is appropriate to order CSU to post a notice
incorporating the terms of the order herein where notices to bargaining unit employees are
customarily posted. Posting of such a notice effectuates the purposes of the HEERA that
employees are informed of the resolution of this matter and CSU's readiness to comply with
the ordered remedy. (Ibid.)
PROPOSED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record
in this matter, the complaint and underlying unfair practice charge in Case No. SF-CE-1009-H,
Wenjiu "Jerry" Liu v. Tntstees of the California State University (East Bay), it is found that
California State University, East Bay (CSUEB) violated the Higher Education Employer-
Employee Relations Act (HEERA) section 3571(a) by failing to issue an apology to Wenjiu
51

Liu after that remedy was granted through the grievance process. The remaining allegations
are hereby DISMISSED.
Pursuant to sections 3563(h) and 3563.3 of the Government Code, it is hereby
ORDERED that California State University (CSU), its governing board and its representatives
shall:
A. 	CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. 	Interfering with employee's rights to participate in the grievance process.
B. 	TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:
1. 	Issue an apology to Wenj iu Liu in accordance with the University
President's adopted June 8, 2012 Faculty Hearing Committee's recommended decision. The
apology must be issued by a College.Dean or University Administrator with a similar or higher
standing than the former College Dean.
2. 	Within ten (10) workdays of the service of a final decision in this matter,
post at work locations where notices to employees in CSU customarily are posted, copies of
the Notice attached hereto as an Appendix. The Notice must be signed by an authorized agent
of the CSU, indicating that it will comply with the terms of this Order. Such posting shall be
maintained for a period of thirty (30) consecutive workdays. Reasonable steps shall be taken
to ensure that the Notice is not reduced in size, altered, defaced or covered with any other
material.
3. 	Written notification of the actions taken to comply with this Order shall
be made to the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board),
or the General Counsel's designee. Respondent shall provide reports, in writing, as directed by
the General Counsel or his/her designee. All reports regarding compliance with this Order
shall be concurrently served on Wenjiu Liu.
52

Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32305, this Proposed Decision
and Order shall become final unless a party files a statement of exceptions with the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB or Board) itself within 20 days of service of this Decision. The
Board's address is:
Public Employment Relations Board ·
Attention: Appeals Assistant
I 031 18th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-4124
(916) 322-8231
FAX: (916) 327-7960
E-FILE: PERBe-file.Appeals@perb.ca.gov
In accordance with PERB regulations, the statement of exceptions should identify by page
citation or exhibit number the portions of the record, if any, relied upon for such exceptions. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32300.)
A document is considered "filed" when actually received during a regular PERB business
day. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32135, subd. (a) and 32130; see also Gov. Code,§ 11020, subd. (a).)
A document is also considered "filed" when received by facsimile transmission before the close of
business together with a Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet or received by electronic mail before
the close of business, which meets the requirements of PERB Regulation 32135(d), provided the
filing party also places the original, together with the required number of copies and proof of service,
in the U.S. mail. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 32135, subds. (b), (c) and (d); see also Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 8, §§ 32090, 32091 and 32130.)
Any statement of exceptions and supporting brief must be served concurrently with its
filing upon each party to this proceeding. Proof of service shall accompany each copy served on a
party or filed with the Board itself. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 32300, 32305, 32140, and
32135, subd. (c).)
53

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the State of California
After a hearing in Unfair Practice Case No. SF-CE-1009-H, Wenjiu "Jerry" Liu v.
Trustees of the California State University (East Bay), in which all parties had the right to
participate, it has been found that the California State University violated the Higher Education
Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), Government Code section 357l(a);by failing to
issue an apology to Wenjiu Liu after that remedy was granted through the grievance process.
As a result of this conduct, we have been ordered to post this Notice and we will:
A. CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
1. Interfering with employee's rights to participate in the grievance process.
B. TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE HEERA:
1. Issue an apology to Wenjiu Liu in accordance with the University
President's adopted June 8, 2012 Faculty Hearing Committee's
recommended decision. The apology must be issued by a College Dean or
University Administrator with a similar or higher standing than the former
College Dean.
Dated: CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
By: Authorized Agent
--------------
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. IT MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY
(30) CONSECUTIVE WORK.DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
REDUCED IN SIZE, DEFACED, ALTERED OR COVERED WITH ANY OTHER
MATERIAL.