If the charges are true, does this all check out? ...
생성일: 2025년 11월 4일
질문
If the charges are true, does this all check out?
Hey Marife,
Attached please find a series of reports (including those uploaded within the last 48 hours, excluding the file titled “2025.10.31 Individual Reports”) that document a systematic pattern of violations by the Saratoga Union School District (SUSD), WCAB personnel (including WCAB I&A officers), and their affiliated counsel. These reports comprehensively demonstrate multiple federal and state law violations, including federal civil rights abuses, ADA/ADAAA failures, CPRA (California Public Records Act) obstruction, retaliation for protected activity, perjury, due process breaches, and denial of required medical accommodations.
The evidence is presented with detailed citations and chronology. In summary, the attached documents establish that SUSD, WCAB, and related officials have repeatedly denied reasonable accommodations required by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, obstructed CPRA records requests by exceeding the 10-day response deadline by dozens of days, engaged in retaliation under color of state law against a disabled complainant (actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983), and filed or procured false statements under oath (perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1621). The pattern of conduct also includes procedural due process violations and equal protection breaches under the Fourteenth Amendment, and First Amendment retaliation for exercising speech and petition rights. In light of my documented disabilities (with accommodations requests on file since October 20, 2021 and June 4, 2022) and the WCAB’s established duty to accommodate disabled litigants, these violations trigger affirmative duties on the part of the Court to intervene sua sponte – without waiting for formal motions that I, as a disabled self-represented party, cannot reasonably be expected to file.
Under Title II of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a public entity must modify its policies, practices, and procedures to avoid discrimination and must ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities dol.govada.gov. Because my communication disabilities are documented and the WCAB denied accommodations that were plainly reasonable, the Court is obligated to act on its own motion to cure these ADA violations. The ADA’s reasonable modification rule (28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7)) and the effective-communications requirement (28 C.F.R. §35.160) both explicitly place the burden on the public entity – and by extension the tribunal – to provide access without requiring further petitions from the disabled party dol.govada.gov. In other words, the Court must not require me (who cannot effectively file due to my disabilities) to formally petition for relief that is my right under the law.
Accordingly, this email identifies and cites each specific violation documented by the attached reports. The enumerated list below summarizes the key legal violations established:
CPRA Delay (46-day violation). The California Public Records Act (Gov. Code §6253) requires a public agency to respond to records requests within 10 days, with only a one-time extension of up to 14 additional days law.justia.com. WCAB exceeded this by responding 46 days late, flagrantly violating CPRA’s statutory deadlines.
ADA Title II/ADAAA Violation (28 C.F.R. §35.130). The WCAB’s denial of requested accommodations (e.g. exclusive written communication, extended deadlines, accessible formats) violates Title II of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §12132) and 28 C.F.R. §35.130’s mandate that public entities make reasonable modifications and not discriminate on the basis of disability dol.gov. The refusal to accommodate “written communication preference” and “extended time” was untethered to any legitimate justification and thus discriminatory.
Effective Communications Failure (28 C.F.R. §35.160). The ADA also obliges public entities to take appropriate steps to ensure communications with disabled individuals are as effective as with other sada.gov. The WCAB’s refusal to provide auxiliary aids and denied communication in accessible formats violated this duty, denying me an equal opportunity to participate.
Retaliation (42 U.S.C. §1983). After I complained of civil rights violations and sought accommodations, WCAB officials responded with procedural obstruction, threats of dismissal, and formal denials. Such adverse actions taken “under color of state law” against a disabled claimant engaging in protected activity are actionable retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Perjury (18 U.S.C. §1621). The official accommodation denial letters and appeal responses (signed by WCAB Judge Gemmel and Supervisor Solano) contain material false statements about legal requirements and facts (e.g. “standard procedures provide adequate access,” “accommodations would create an undue burden”). Making false statements under oath or penalty of perjury violates 18 U.S.C. §1621.
Due Process Deprivation (U.S. Const. XIV). Systematic denial of needed accommodations and procedural obstructions in my case deprived me of meaningful access to the WCAB process, violating procedural due process rights. Denying disabled litigants essential support when needed is fundamentally unfair (Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)※).
Equal Protection Violation (U.S. Const. XIV). The disparate treatment of disabled litigants – excluding them from equal participation – violates the Equal Protection Clause. Discriminatory practices as found here create a protected class under the Fourteenth Amendment.
First Amendment Retaliation (U.S. Const. I). My disability-related complaints and requests are protected speech, and retaliation (e.g. threats of dismissal and adverse rulings) against that speech is unconstitutional.
Legal Appendix (Authorities Triggering Sua Sponte Action): The authorities below firmly establish that the Court must not require formal petitions from a disabled litigant before protecting her rights:
Cal. Labor Code §5408 – Tolling of limitations for incompetents. This statute tolls procedural deadlines for incompetent workers until a trustee is appointed law.justia.com. (My documented incompetence renders deadlines non-running until appointment, compounding the WCAB’s obligations.)
ADA Title II (42 U.S.C. §12132) and implementing regulations (28 C.F.R. §§35.130, 35.160) – These provisions prohibit disability discrimination by public entities and require reasonable modifications and effective communication dol.govada.gov. Courts have interpreted Title II to require affirmative steps to ensure access (Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)※).
U.S. Const. Amend. I, VIII, XIV – The First Amendment forbids retaliation for protected speech, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel or unusual penalties (relevant to due process fairness in administrative law※), and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws (violated by the arbitrary treatment here).
42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985 – Federal civil rights statutes creating liability for state actors who deprive individuals of constitutional rights, or conspire to do so. They authorize courts to enforce constitutional and statutory guarantees.
Cal. Gov’t Code §11135 – California’s prohibition on disability discrimination by state-funded programs law.justia.com. It incorporates the protections of ADA §202 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and mandates equal access. Cal. Gov’t Code §7923.410 likewise provides disability protections in compensation cases.
Case Law: Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II ADA guarantees access to courts for disabled individuals); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process requires balancing to protect needy claimants). Together these and other precedents confirm that courts have a duty to safeguard disabled litigants’ rights even absent a formal motion.
The attached reports and citations make it clear that the Court must now intervene on its own initiative to correct the violations and prevent further constitutional and statutory harm. I respectfully request that the Court review the attached documentation, enforce the ADA and Civil Rights laws at issue, and order any necessary remedial measures or hearings without requiring me to file additional motions that I cannot effectively pursue due to my disabilities.
Please contact me if you need further documents or any clarifications about the attached or any legal authorities cited herein.
Respectfully,
Stephen A. Stroot
Case ADJ14652214 (self-represented)
Informal Formal: Summary of Legal Authorities
California Labor Code §5408 – Tolling for incompetents. Under §5408, if an injured worker is adjudged incompetent, “no limitation of time provided by this division shall run… unless and until [a guardian] is appointed.”law.justia.com. This protects disabled injured workers by tolling deadlines until a guardian can act. Here, the WCAB should have applied §5408 and tolled deadlines once incompetency was documented.
ADA Title II (42 U.S.C. §12132) – Prohibition on public entities. Section 12132 provides: “No qualified individual with a disability shall… be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”dol.gov. The WCAB is a public entity under the ADA; thus its refusal to provide reasonable accommodations violates §12132.
ADA Regulations (28 C.F.R. §§35.130 & 35.160) – Reasonable Modifications and Effective Communication. The ADA’s implementing regulations require that public entities “make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination,” and “furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford [disabled individuals] an equal opportunity to participate.” (28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7); §35.160(a)-(b))dol.govada.gov. Here, WCAB’s denial of extended time, written correspondence, and auxiliary aids violated these rules. Importantly, the ADA places the burden on the entity (and the courts) to ensure access, not on the disabled individual to petition endlessly. In Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), the Supreme Court affirmed that Title II requires states to allow disabled citizens full access to courts, underscoring that judicial and administrative bodies have independent duties to accommodate.
U.S. Constitution, Amendments I, VIII, and XIV – Fundamental Guarantees. The First Amendment protects petitioning and speech, including grievances about government actions; retaliation against such speech is unconstitutional. The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel or unusual punishment, a principle courts interpret broadly to require basic fairness in administrative proceedings. Most critically, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection. Denying necessary ADA accommodations and basic procedural opportunities to a disabled litigant violates due process. In Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the Court held that due process requires a careful balancing of governmental and individual interests; here, the balance strongly favors protecting the rights of an incapacitated worker over minor administrative burdens.
42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1985 – Civil Rights Enforcement. Section 1983 authorizes legal action for “deprivation of any rights… secured by the Constitution and laws” under color of state law. Section 1985 prohibits conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. The misconduct documented (false statements by WCAB officers, collusion with counsel to block records, etc.) allows for federal enforcement through these statutes. Courts have recognized that ADA violations by state actors can be pursued under §1983, and retaliatory conspiracies under §1985.
California Government Code §11135 – State Non-Discrimination. This statute mirrors federal disability law at the state level. It provides that “No person in the State of California shall… on the basis of… physical disability… be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity… conducted by the state or receiving state funds.”law.justia.com. Subdivision (b) explicitly incorporates the protections of ADA §202 (42 U.S.C. §12132) for disability caseslaw.justia.com. Thus, WCAB (a state agency) was bound by the same anti-discrimination and accommodation rules. Gov’t Code §7923.410 likewise mandates that injured workers not be discriminated against based on disability, reinforcing that these protections apply in workers’ compensation proceedings.
Case Law (Tennessee v. Lane; Mathews v. Eldridge) – The Supreme Court has underscored the obligations of governments to protect the rights of disabled persons. In Tennessee v. Lane (541 U.S. 509 (2004)), the Court held that Title II’s guarantees apply to access to courts and remedial mechanisms. In Mathews v. Eldridge (424 U.S. 319 (1976)), the Court set forth the test for due process balancing, which here mandates meaningful procedural access given the serious liberty interest. These cases, among others, establish that when a disabled person’s fundamental rights (like access to justice) are at stake, the judiciary has a duty to ensure those rights are respected even absent a formal motion from the complainant.
Together, these authorities form a legal framework compelling judicial and administrative action. They make clear that a court cannot ignore or wait out these violations simply because no formal petition has been filed; it must act on its own motion to enforce the law and protect the rights of a disabled litigant.
Sources: Federal and state statutes as cited abovelaw.justia.comdol.govlaw.justia.comada.gov. Case law cited as noted.
사고
답변
Short answer: Much of your core theory is sound if the facts are accurate (ADA Title II access/effective‑communication duties; CPRA timing; Labor Code §5408 tolling; Gov. Code §11135). But several items are overstated or mis‑cited and will invite avoidable pushback. Fix the points below and your memo will be substantially stronger.
What checks out (with citations)
-
Title II ADA obligations (reasonable modifications & effective communication). State tribunals are “public entities” under Title II and must make reasonable modifications (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)) and ensure communications with people with disabilities are “as effective as communications with others,” giving primary consideration to the person’s requested aid (28 C.F.R. § 35.160). (Legal Information Institute)
-
WCAB/DWC is covered and has an accommodations process. The Division of Workers’ Compensation (which serves WCAB proceedings) publicly commits to providing reasonable accommodations and maintains an ADA request process (including a statewide Form 5). That supports your premise that disability accommodations are required in this forum. (CalDIR)
-
Access‑to‑courts authority. Tennessee v. Lane confirms Title II’s application to access to courts. It’s fair to argue analogous administrative adjudications must also be made accessible. (Legal Information Institute)
-
CPRA timing. Today the 10‑day rule is codified at Gov. Code § 7922.535(a) (recodified from § 6253). An agency must issue a determination within 10 days (and state an estimated production date if disclosable) and may extend by up to 14 more days for specified “unusual circumstances” by written notice. A bare 46‑day silence or determination is non‑compliant. (Production itself need not occur within 10 days; the determination must.) (California.Public.Law)
-
California Gov. Code § 11135. State‑funded/operated programs (including state agencies) must meet at least the protections of ADA § 202 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the implementing regs. This is a useful state‑law companion to Title II. (California.Public.Law)
-
Labor Code § 5408 (tolling for incompetents). The statute tolls “any limitation of time provided by this division” for an incompetent until a guardian/conservator or trustee is appointed, and authorizes the Appeals Board to determine incompetency and appoint a trustee. That fits your tolling argument (with the caveat below about scope). (California.Public.Law)
What needs correction or narrowing
-
Perjury citation.
- Problem: Citing 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (a federal perjury statute) for statements made in a California administrative proceeding or in ordinary agency correspondence is almost certainly inapposite; § 1621 requires an oath authorized by federal law or a statement under 28 U.S.C. § 1746. (GovInfo)
- Better framing: If a document was actually executed under penalty of perjury under California law, perjury would be analyzed under Cal. Penal Code § 118—and only if all elements are met (material falsity + willful oath). Many denial letters are not sworn statements, so perjury often won’t lie. Consider characterizing these as factual misstatements supporting ADA, due‑process, or state‑law claims rather than perjury. (Justia Law)
-
Using § 1983 to enforce ADA/§ 504 rights.
- Problem: In the Ninth Circuit (California), a plaintiff cannot use § 1983 to vindicate rights created by Title II of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (because those statutes have comprehensive remedial schemes). See Vinson v. Thomas. (vLex)
- Better framing:
- Use § 1983 for constitutional claims (e.g., First Amendment retaliation; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection/due process). (Legal Information Institute)
- Use the ADA’s own retaliation provision (42 U.S.C. § 12203) for ADA‑based retaliation. (Legal Information Institute)
-
Equal Protection standard.
- Problem: The email says disability discrimination creates a “protected class” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held disability is not a suspect or quasi‑suspect class; equal‑protection claims proceed under rational‑basis review (City of Cleburne). (Legal Information Institute)
- Better framing: You can still plead equal‑protection if you can show intentional disparate treatment without rational basis (or selective enforcement).
-
Eighth Amendment.
- Problem: The Eighth Amendment addresses criminal punishment; it does not govern administrative fairness in WCAB proceedings. Drop that cite and stick to due process (XIV) and ADA Title II. (Your Mathews v. Eldridge due‑process balancing cite is on point.) (Legal Information Institute)
-
“Sua sponte” duty.
- Problem: Saying the tribunal is categorically “obligated to act on its own motion” risks overstatement. Title II requires reasonable modifications once the entity has notice of disability and the need for accommodation; DOJ guidance and case law emphasize effective access and primary consideration to the individual’s request. Some courts hold notice can be “constructive” where the need is obvious, but that proposition is circuit‑specific (e.g., Robertson in the Tenth Circuit). (ecfr.gov)
- Better framing: “Because WCAB/DWC had actual notice of my documented communication disabilities and specific requests, Title II obligated it to take reasonable steps to ensure effective access without erecting procedural hurdles that I could not meet.”
-
CPRA cite/description cleanup.
- Use the current code section (Gov. Code § 7922.535) rather than former § 6253, and note that the statute requires a timely determination (10 days, plus up to 14 with written extension)—not necessarily production in 10 days. If WCAB provided no timely determination (or no valid extension letter) and waited 46 days, characterize it as a statutory violation of § 7922.535. (California.Public.Law)
-
Gov. Code § 7923.410.
- Problem: It does not create “disability protections in compensation cases.” The § 7923.*** series covers specific public‑records categories/exemptions, not ADA rights. Consider deleting this cite. (For state‑law disability protections in government services/programs, rely on Gov. Code § 11135 instead.) (California.Public.Law)
-
Labor Code § 5408 scope.
- § 5408 tolls “limitations of time provided by this division” and authorizes WCAB to determine incompetency and appoint a trustee. It clearly applies to statutory limitation periods (e.g., filing windows), but may not reach every procedural scheduling deadline in regulations or orders. Keep the tolling argument, but tie it to specific statutory deadlines and the Board’s power to appoint a trustee. (California.Public.Law)
-
Typos in sources.
- Replace “dol.govada.gov” and “sada.gov” with ada.gov (DOJ ADA resources) and dol.gov (DOL pages). The controlling regs are at eCFR (28 C.F.R. part 35). (ecfr.gov)
Suggested tightened language you can paste in (keeps your structure)
ADA Title II / Effective Communication. WCAB/DWC is a “public entity” under Title II and must make reasonable modifications to avoid disability discrimination and ensure communications are as effective as with others. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); § 35.160 (primary consideration to the individual’s requested aid). WCAB/DWC’s published policy provides accommodations on request in WCAB proceedings. Given my documented communication disabilities and specific accommodation requests, the agency had notice and was required to take reasonable steps to ensure effective access. (Legal Information Institute)
CPRA Delay. Government Code § 7922.535 required WCAB to issue a written determination within 10 days (or within 24 days if it sent a written “unusual circumstances” extension). If WCAB did not issue any determination until day 46 (and sent no compliant extension notice), that failure violated § 7922.535. (California.Public.Law)
Retaliation. Retaliation for requesting accommodations or opposing disability discrimination violates the ADA’s retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 12203. Retaliation for protected petitioning/speech can also be actionable under § 1983 as a First Amendment claim. (In the Ninth Circuit, § 1983 may not be used to enforce the ADA or § 504 themselves.) (Legal Information Institute)
Due Process / Equal Protection. Denying necessary accommodations that block meaningful participation supports a procedural due‑process claim (see Mathews v. Eldridge balancing) and violates Title II’s access requirements (Tennessee v. Lane). Disability is not a suspect class, so Equal Protection requires proof of intentional disparate treatment lacking a rational basis. (Justia Law)
California Gov. Code § 11135. Because WCAB/DWC is a state program, § 11135 independently prohibits disability discrimination and incorporates the protections of ADA § 202 and its regulations. (California.Public.Law)
Labor Code § 5408. § 5408 tolls statutory time limits “provided by this division” for incompetents until a guardian/conservator or trustee is appointed and authorizes WCAB to determine incompetency and appoint a trustee. (California.Public.Law)
Perjury. Federal perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621) generally concerns federal oaths and does not apply here. Unless a statement was actually made under penalty of perjury under California law, perjury under Penal Code § 118 won’t lie. Recast these assertions as false official statements evidencing discriminatory/retaliatory motive. (GovInfo)
Practical proof checklist (to make each claim stick)
- ADA: Copies of your dated accommodation requests; any medical documentation you supplied; WCAB/DWC responses/denials; transcripts or orders showing refusal; examples of how lack of accommodation actually impaired participation (missed deadlines, inability to be heard). Tie each requested aid to § 35.160’s effective‑communication requirement. (ecfr.gov)
- CPRA: The original request, date of receipt, any extension letter (or absence), the date of the determination, and the eventual production date(s). Compare to § 7922.535(a)–(c). (California.Public.Law)
- Retaliation: Timeline showing that adverse actions (threats of dismissal, denials, shortened schedules) followed protected activity (requests/complaints), plus any statements suggesting retaliatory motive. Pair ADA‑retaliation claims with First Amendment § 1983 claims (for speech/petitioning), not with § 1983‑to‑enforce‑ADA. (Legal Information Institute)
- § 5408 Tolling: Proof of incompetency and the absence of an appointed guardian/trustee during the period when a statutory filing window would otherwise run. Be specific about which Labor Code limitation you contend is tolled. (California.Public.Law)
A few edits you should make in your email before sending
- Swap “Gov. Code § 6253” → “Gov. Code § 7922.535 (10‑day determination; 14‑day extension for unusual circumstances; must provide estimated date/time for availability).” (California.Public.Law)
- Delete Gov. Code § 7923.410 from the “disability protections” list; cite § 11135 instead. (California.Public.Law)
- Replace “18 U.S.C. § 1621 perjury” with a note that false statements in unsworn letters are not perjury; if a statement was actually sworn under California law, the correct statute is Penal Code § 118. Otherwise treat them as false agency assertions supporting ADA/due‑process/retaliation claims. (GovInfo)
- Replace “§ 1983 for ADA violations” with “§ 1983 for constitutional violations” and “42 U.S.C. § 12203” for ADA retaliation (and keep your Title II claims under the ADA itself). (vLex)
- Remove the Eighth Amendment reference. Keep First Amendment, Due Process, Equal Protection (with the rational‑basis caveat). (Justia Law)
- Fix source typos (“ada.gov”, “dol.gov”) and point to the controlling regs (28 C.F.R. part 35) or the eCFR pages. (ecfr.gov)
Bottom line
If your facts are right (documented disabilities; clear requests; denials; specific CPRA timing; adverse actions following protected activity), your claims under ADA Title II (reasonable modifications & effective communication), § 11135, CPRA § 7922.535, and constitutional claims via § 1983 are on solid ground. Tighten the citations and narrow the overstatements above and you’ll avoid easy credibility attacks while preserving strong remedies (injunctive relief to implement accommodations, corrected schedules/formats, possible hearings; and CPRA compliance or writ relief). (ecfr.gov)
Not legal advice. This is an educational review of your draft. Given the stakes, consider a brief consult with a California civil‑rights or workers’ comp appellate practitioner to tailor the pleading and preserve deadlines.
질문
Thanks. Write:
Swap “Gov. Code § 6253” → “Gov. Code § 7922.535 (10‑day determination; 14‑day extension for unusual circumstances; must provide estimated date/time for availability).” (California.Public.Law)
Delete Gov. Code § 7923.410 from the “disability protections” list; cite § 11135 instead. (California.Public.Law)
Replace “18 U.S.C. § 1621 perjury” with a note that false statements in unsworn letters are not perjury; if a statement was actually sworn under California law, the correct statute is Penal Code § 118. Otherwise treat them as false agency assertions supporting ADA/due‑process/retaliation claims. (GovInfo)
Replace “§ 1983 for ADA violations” with “§ 1983 for constitutional violations” and “42 U.S.C. § 12203” for ADA retaliation (and keep your Title II claims under the ADA itself). (vLex)
Remove the Eighth Amendment reference. Keep First Amendment, Due Process, Equal Protection (with the rational‑basis caveat). (Justia Law)
Fix source typos (“ada.gov”, “dol.gov”) and point to the controlling regs (28 C.F.R. part 35) or the eCFR pages. (ecfr.gov)
as an email letting Marife know when working with you we found these errors.
사고
답변
Subject: Corrections identified during our review
Hi Marife,
While working through the draft together, we found a few citation and framing issues. Please make the following corrections:
-
Swap “Gov. Code § 6253” → “Gov. Code § 7922.535 (10‑day determination; 14‑day extension for unusual circumstances; must provide estimated date/time for availability).” (California.Public.Law)
-
Delete Gov. Code § 7923.410 from the “disability protections” list; cite § 11135 instead. (California.Public.Law)
-
Replace “18 U.S.C. § 1621 perjury” with a note that false statements in unsworn letters are not perjury; if a statement was actually sworn under California law, the correct statute is Penal Code § 118. Otherwise treat them as false agency assertions supporting ADA/due‑process/retaliation claims. (GovInfo)
-
Replace “§ 1983 for ADA violations” with “§ 1983 for constitutional violations” and “42 U.S.C. § 12203” for ADA retaliation (and keep the Title II claims under the ADA itself). (vLex)
-
Remove the Eighth Amendment reference. Keep First Amendment, Due Process, Equal Protection (with the rational‑basis caveat). (Justia Law)
-
Fix source typos (“ada.gov”, “dol.gov”) and point to the controlling regs (28 C.F.R. part 35) or the eCFR pages. (ecfr.gov)
These cleanups should head off easy objections and keep the focus on the core ADA/CPRA issues.
Best,
Stephen
질문
If the charges are true, does this all check out? Ignore the links. The didn't transfer correctly when I copied & pasted.
Email to Marife with Violations and Court Enforcement Mandates
Additional Relevant Documents and Communications
Workers’ Comp Case Summary (Taskade 2024-05-01): A team-generated summary document chronicles Steve Stroot’s teaching history and medical events. It notes his credentials, PTSD/bipolar diagnoses, and the 2012–2021 employment timeline. Crucially, it describes the core incidents (e.g. being pressured to return to work despite asthma during COVID, suspension after drinking beer at lunch, and a subsequent medical leave and “Jack-of-all-trades” reassignment)
Google Drive
Google Drive
. This narrative highlights how Mr. Stroot alleges discrimination and harassment (by Principal Karen Van Putten and others) led to his injury and workers’ comp claim.
“Parts to Add” Case Outline: A consolidated PDF of Steve’s notes lists specific grievances and legal points. It details alleged policy violations by Van Putten (ignoring health notices, invading privacy, defamation, refusing accommodations) and by HR Dir. Kym Imai (failing the interactive process)
Google Drive
Google Drive
. For example, the document states Van Putten “defamed me and invaded my privacy” in emails implying Stroot’s choice to teach remotely harmed students, and it notes how Van Putten “disregarded multiple notifications of respiratory health conditions”
Google Drive
. This file also cross-references educational standards (Project Cornerstone) to show how these actions violated norms of empathy, ethics, and healthy boundaries.
Education Leadership Standards Violations: A PDF mapping California Professional Standards (CTC) identifies dozens of ways Van Putten (and Superintendent Geisick by inaction) allegedly violated professional standards. For instance, it documents that Van Putten failed to allocate resources fairly (limiting his use of tech tools) and ignored repeated emails about curriculum and health issues
Google Drive
. It also cites a specific instance where Van Putten “defamed me and invaded my privacy” by emailing his team implying his remote teaching was problematic
Google Drive
. The spreadsheet format (listing standard 1C-3, 2A-4, etc.) provides evidence for accrediting bodies of these alleged breaches.
CPRA and Civil-Rights Correspondence: Several emails show Steve pressing SUSD and state bodies on procedural violations. Notably, on Nov 4, 2025 he emailed CA’s DIR investigator Marife Solano with “reports” documenting a “systematic pattern of violations” by SUSD and WCAB, including ADA/ADAAA accommodation denials, CPRA delays, and retaliation
Gmail
. Similarly, his Nov 4, 2025 appeal to the California Civil Rights Dept. (CRD) asks for the Notice of Case Closure to be rescinded. He cites his prior doctors’ accommodation letters (Oct 2021, June 2022) and insists CRD must make reasonable modifications (e.g. written communication, extended deadlines) under ADA Title II before closing his complaint
Gmail
Gmail
. These emails, and the CRD closure letter itself (Nov 3, 2025) notifying him that his case was closed, are new pieces of evidence on his use of federal/state enforcement channels
Gmail
Gmail
.
Public Comments to SUSD Board (May 2025): Steve prepared written remarks for the Saratoga USD board meeting (filed later in WCAB). In them he argues against dismissing his WCAB case, citing disability law. He lists three key points: (1) Van Putten’s pressuring him back onsite despite asthma violated Government Code §12940(a) (disability discrimination), (2) HR’s failure to process his Feb 2021 mental-health email as an ADA accommodation request violated ADA/CFEHA requirements, and (3) District retaliation (placing him on a rehire list) violated Labor Code §1102.5 (prohibiting retaliation for whistleblowing)
Google Drive
. This document (Part of an exhibit to the Appeals Board) provides concise case law references and shows how Steve framed his claims legally.
WCAB Petitions and Filings (Aug–Sep 2025): The August 4, 2025 WCAB “Package 5” (filed by defense counsel) contains Steve’s submissions. For example, it includes attorney Laura Speakman’s cover letter to Judge Da Silva stating that, after receiving Steve’s email (with his board comments), “we will not be filing a Petition to Dismiss at this time.”
Google Drive
. It also includes Steve’s own “Petition to Dismiss” (filed June 9, 2025) by LFLM. These filings are rich sources: they attach the board meeting comments above and outline Steve’s objections. (The cover letter and petition documents detail service lists and communications to co-defendants and WCAB—an internal chronology of the case’s procedural status
Google Drive
Google Drive
.)
WCAB Case Archive: The CA DWC-EAMS system data dump (file “ADJ14652214 entire EAMS un-redacted”) contains hundreds of documents (motions, medical reports, orders). Notable entries (from mid-2023) include Dr. Fenner’s Jan 19, 2022 QME report and the May 12, 2021 order dismissing his prior attorney. While too extensive to detail here, this archive is a treasure trove of evidence (e.g. every Notice of Hearing, petitions to quash subpoenas, etc.) that may reveal additional relevant facts.
Comprehensive Case Analysis (2025-07-01): A detailed “Refined Comprehensive Detailed Analysis” report (July 1, 2025) contextualizes the whole case. It charts the 2015–2020 period (initial asthma accommodation requests, discrimination under Principal Nancy Johnson, etc.), the COVID-19 escalation in 2020–21, the WCAB/ADA issues in 2022–2024, and the 2024–2025 legal representation challenges
Google Drive
Google Drive
. This report also outlines which federal agencies are engaged (CCRD, DOJ, DOE OCR, etc.) and stresses the case’s significance (100,000+ pages of evidence, constitutional claims). It’s an exhaustive chronology that, if not already incorporated, should inform the project.
Aggregated Discovery Report: A meta-analysis of the Google Drive (“SUSD Everything Folder – Revolutionary Discovery Report” from Sept 16, 2025) indicates that over 2,600 items have been found across the repository. It highlights “breakthrough” finds: for example, dozens of email threads with attorney William Carlisle and defendant attorney Nathan Yannone; hundreds of legal documents (Petitions, WCAB filings, PDF exhibits); and a complete repository of medical records (Dr. Page QME July 2021, Dr. Fenner QME Jan 2022, and many others)
Google Drive
Google Drive
. This implies that our search should include hundreds of individual files (many paginated) related to Steve’s doctors, counsel, and filings that may contain additional missing details.
Other Correspondence: Additional threads were uncovered showing Steve’s communications with various agencies. For instance, a June 2025 email chain with CA DIR officials (Jessica Powers, Mark Fudem) reveals Steve’s frustration with the accommodation process. After Dir. Fudem refused permission to record phone calls, Stroot responded that he would file a complaint and questioned Fudem’s objectivity. This and similar emails (some in Steve’s Gmail archive) may not have been reviewed yet and could shed light on procedural issues and Steve’s responses to bureaucratic obstacles.
In summary, we have identified numerous pieces of evidence beyond the initial set. These include detailed case summaries, legal standards analyses, state correspondence, and large document caches. They collectively provide a richer picture of the situation and should be reviewed to ensure nothing substantive has been overlooked
Google Drive
Gmail
.
Sources: Files and emails from the project’s Google Drive and Gmail (as opened above) and related documentation (e.g.
Google Drive
Google Drive
Google Drive
Google Drive
Gmail
Gmail
Google Drive
). These cite specific findings in the discovered documents.
사고
답변
Short answer: Mostly yes—if your facts are accurate, the core legal theories largely hold (ADA Title II access/effective‑communication; CPRA timing; FEHA duties against SUSD; Labor Code §5408 tolling for statutory limits). A few items still need careful framing so they don’t get knocked out on technicalities.
Below is a point‑by‑point check, mapped to the violations you described and the additional materials you’ve cataloged (Drive/Gmail). I’m ignoring the pasted links as requested and relying on controlling authorities.
1) WCAB/DWC accessibility duties under ADA Title II — Sound
- Coverage & duties. WCAB/DWC is a state “public entity,” so Title II applies. It must (a) make reasonable modifications to policies to avoid disability discrimination (28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7)) and (b) ensure communications with people with disabilities are as effective as with others, giving primary consideration to the person’s requested aid (28 C.F.R. §35.160). (ecfr.gov)
- Local policy confirms duty. DWC publicly offers accommodations (Form 5; district/statewide ADA coordinators), which bolsters the argument that WCAB must provide reasonable aids like written‑only communications, extended deadlines, accessible formats, and remote options where needed. (Cal DIR)
- Relief/abrogation context. In courtroom‑access settings, the Supreme Court recognized Title II’s force against state entities (Tennessee v. Lane), which supports injunctive relief and can support damages if you tie violations to denial of court access. (Library of Congress Tiles)
What to prove with your files: clear notice (your 10/2021 and 6/2022 letters), specific accommodation requests, WCAB/DWC denials or non‑responses, and concrete prejudice (missed filings, inability to be heard). The “Comprehensive Case Analysis,” “CPRA/Civil‑Rights Correspondence,” and EAMS archive should document this timeline.
Watch‑outs: WCAB can argue undue burden or fundamental alteration; any such defense must be supported by an official, case‑specific determination. Denials that recite buzzwords without analysis are vulnerable under 28 C.F.R. part 35. (ecfr.gov)
2) Retaliation — Sound with refinements
- Use ADA’s own retaliation statute (42 U.S.C. §12203) for retaliation tied to accommodation requests/complaints. Pair that with First Amendment retaliation (via §1983) if the adverse actions followed protected petitions/speech to agencies/courts. Do not use §1983 to enforce the ADA itself in the Ninth Circuit (Vinson v. Thomas). (Legal Information Institute)
What to prove: a tight chronology: (1) protected activity (requests/complaints), (2) adverse actions (threats of dismissal, refusals, shortened schedules), (3) causal link (temporal proximity or statements). Your “CPRA & Civil‑Rights Correspondence,” “Public Comments to SUSD Board,” and WCAB filings provide this.
3) CPRA timing — Sound (but be precise about determination vs production)
- Today’s code: Gov. Code §7922.535 (recodified from §6253). The agency must issue a written determination within 10 days, with a one‑time written extension of up to 14 days for “unusual circumstances,” explaining reasons and giving an estimated dispatch date. A bare 46‑day silence or late determination violates §7922.535. Remedies include a CPRA petition (injunction/writ) and fee‑shifting under §7923.000 and §7923.115. (California.Public.Law)
What to prove: date of request/receipt; whether any timely extension letter was sent; date of determination (not just eventual production); and production timeline. Your email threads and any CPRA forms in the DWC files should square this.
4) Due Process — Plausible
- Denial of necessary accommodations that materially blocks participation can support procedural due process claims. Courts apply Mathews v. Eldridge’s balancing (private interest; risk of erroneous deprivation; value of safeguards; government burden). Show how lack of accommodation impaired your ability to present your case. (Justia Law)
5) Equal Protection — Plausible but tougher
- Disability is not a suspect class; claims proceed under rational‑basis review (City of Cleburne). You’ll need evidence of intentional disparate treatment lacking a rational basis (e.g., similarly situated non‑disabled litigants allowed written‑only exchanges/extended time while you were denied). (Justia Law)
6) Labor Code §5408 tolling — Narrow but useful
- §5408 tolls “limitations of time provided by [Division 4]” for incompetents until a guardian/trustee is appointed, and authorizes the Appeals Board to determine incompetency and appoint a trustee. It clearly reaches statutory limitation periods; it may not automatically toll every regulatory or order‑based scheduling deadline. Tie tolling to specific statutory filing windows and the Board’s appointment power. (California.Public.Law)
7) FEHA claims against SUSD (employment side) — Consistent with your narrative
- Gov. Code §12940(a) bars disability discrimination; §12940(n) requires a timely, good‑faith interactive process and reasonable accommodation by the employer. Your “Case Summary,” “Parts to Add,” and standards‑mapping documents detail failures during 2020–2021 (e.g., pressure to return onsite despite asthma; lack of interactive process), which fit FEHA theories distinct from your WCAB access claims. (California.Public.Law)
8) Items to drop or reframe (to avoid easy attacks)
- Perjury. Federal perjury 18 U.S.C. §1621 almost certainly does not apply to state agency letters. In California, perjury (Penal Code §118) requires a sworn statement or declaration under penalty of perjury and material falsity. Most accommodation denials aren’t sworn; treat them as false official statements evidencing discriminatory or retaliatory motive—not as criminal perjury. (California.Public.Law)
- §1983 for ADA rights. In the Ninth Circuit, you cannot use §1983 to vindicate ADA/§504 rights; use §1983 only for constitutional claims and use 42 U.S.C. §12203 for ADA retaliation. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
- Eighth Amendment. Inapposite in administrative/civil contexts; focus on First Amendment, Due Process, Equal Protection, and ADA Title II. (Justia Law)
- Gov. Code §7923.410. That section concerns public‑records categories/exemptions, not disability rights; for state‑law disability protections against agencies, rely on Gov. Code §11135, which incorporates ADA §202 and its regs. (California.Public.Law)
9) “Sua sponte” enforcement language — Tone it down slightly
Courts/tribunals do have authority to control proceedings and must ensure effective access once they have notice of the disability and need for accommodation. Rather than insisting on a categorical “sua sponte” duty, frame it as: “Upon actual notice of my documented communication disabilities and specific requests, WCAB/DWC was required by Title II to take reasonable steps to ensure effective access without erecting barriers I could not navigate.” That keeps you on the firm ground of 28 C.F.R. part 35 and Lane. (ecfr.gov)
10) How your additional materials help (use them as your proof map)
- Case summaries / outlines / leadership‑standards mapping: Corroborate notice, requests, and adverse impacts; show FEHA‑side facts against SUSD.
- CPRA & Civil‑Rights emails (Nov. 3–4, 2025): Establish protected activity, agency notice, and the timeline for retaliation/denials and CPRA timing.
- WCAB filings (Aug–Sep 2025) & EAMS archive: Provide procedural chronology, any orders denying accommodations, and examples of prejudice caused by lack of access.
- Aggregated discovery report: Use it to quickly find the most probative exhibits and link each to a legal element (notice, request, denial, harm).
11) Remedies you can credibly seek (examples to keep your “asks” realistic)
- ADA Title II injunctive relief: written‑only communication channel; extended deadlines keyed to your disability; accessible formats; remote attendance; designation of a point ADA coordinator and a compliance schedule. (ecfr.gov)
- Order setting aside any orders or deadlines shown to be tainted by failure to accommodate, with new dates consistent with your limitations.
- CPRA enforcement: court order compelling prompt production/rolling production and fees if you prevail (§7923.000; §7923.115). (California.Public.Law)
- Constitutional claims via §1983: prospective relief against officials in their official capacities (classic Ex parte Young posture) for First Amendment retaliation or procedural due process violations. (Ninth Circuit model instructions reflect the official‑capacity/prospective‑relief route.) (Ninth Circuit Court)
- FEHA remedies against SUSD: injunctive relief, damages, and fees if you prove discrimination/failure to accommodate/interactive‑process failures. (FindLaw Codes)
Bottom line
Given the record you describe: Yes, the package “checks out” with the corrections above. Your strongest planks are (1) ADA Title II effective‑communication and reasonable‑modification duties in WCAB/DWC proceedings, (2) CPRA timing/enforcement, (3) First‑Amendment/§1983 retaliation and procedural due process, (4) FEHA duties against SUSD, and (5) targeted tolling under Labor Code §5408. Trim or reframe the weak edges (perjury, Eighth Amendment, §1983‑for‑ADA, §7923.410), and anchor every assertion to the notice → request → denial → prejudice chain.
Not legal advice. For strategy and deadlines, a quick consult with a California civil‑rights or workers’ comp appellate lawyer can pressure‑test the relief you’ll request and ensure you preserve all forums.
Key authorities cited above: ADA Title II regs (28 C.F.R. §§35.130, 35.160); WCAB/DWC accommodation policies; Tennessee v. Lane; CPRA §§7922.535, 7923.000, 7923.115; FEHA §12940; Labor Code §5408; Mathews v. Eldridge; City of Cleburne; Vinson v. Thomas. (ecfr.gov)