Hannah L Tye v. Wells Fargo Capital Finance, Llc et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claims

C.D. Cal.December 8, 2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:479854146.1 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP GREGG A. FISCH, Cal. Bar No. 214486 gfisch@sheppardmullin.com RACHEL PATTA HOWARD, Cal. Bar No. 273968 rhoward@sheppardmullin.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, California 90067-6055 Telephone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HANNAH L. TYE, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, a California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Hon. S. James Otero DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: January 30, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10C [Filed currently with Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts; Appendix of Evidence; and [Proposed] Order] Complaint Filed: March 8, 2016 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- SMRH:479854146.1 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on January 30, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable S. James Otero, Courtroom 10C, United States District Court, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, Defendant Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Defendant” or “Wells Fargo”) will and hereby does move, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order granting summary judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor, on the ground that there are no triable issues as to any material fact as to any of the purported claims for relief contained in the operative complaint filed by Plaintiff Hannah L. Tye (“Plaintiff”) in this matter and that Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, or in the alterative, partial summary judgment. All of Plaintiff’s claims fail for a number of reasons. First, Plaintiff’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims fail because Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action during her employment with Wells Fargo and Plaintiff cannot establish a causal link between any action taken against her and her alleged disability. Second, Plaintiff’s claim for disability harassment fails because Plaintiff cannot establish that she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a harassing nature based on her disability or that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. Third, Plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim fails because (1) Plaintiff cannot meet her high burden to demonstrate her work conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign, and (2) she cannot demonstrate that Wells Fargo violated public policy, as required for this claim. Fourth, Plaintiff cannot support claims for failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate because Plaintiff never sought an Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- SMRH:479854146.1 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT accommodation from Wells Fargo and never put Wells Fargo on notice that she needed any type of accommodation. Fifth, Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is barred because it is preempted by California’s Workers Compensation Act and, separately, Plaintiff cannot show that anyone at Wells Fargo engaged in “extreme and outrageous” conduct. Sixth, Plaintiff’s negligent retention claim also is barred because it too is preempted by California’s Workers Compensation Act. Lastly, Plaintiff has no basis to recover punitive damages against Wells Fargo because she cannot show that anyone at Wells Fargo committed acts of oppression, fraud or malice. This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3. Specifically, on September 12, 2016, Gregg Fisch, counsel for Defendant, spoke to Mehrdad Bokhour, counsel for Plaintiff, by phone and explained the arguments Defendant would be presenting in its upcoming Motion for Summary Judgment. Then, on September 13, 2016, Mr. Fisch sent Mr. Bokhour an email with case citations further supporting Defendant’s legal arguments. In response, on September 19, 2016, Mr. Bokhour sent Mr. Fisch an email in which Mr. Bokhour explained that Plaintiff disagreed with Defendant’s contentions and would be opposing Defendant’s proposed Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Bokhour also provided case citations to support Plaintiff’s arguments and acknowledged that the parties had met and conferred on the subject. See Declaration of Gregg A. Fisch ¶¶ 4-6 (concurrently filed herewith ). / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- SMRH:479854146.1 DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; the concurrently- filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts; Appendix of Evidence, which includes the declaration of Gregg A. Fisch, along with corresponding exhibits; the records on file in this action; and such other matters as may be considered at the time of the hearing. Dated: December 8, 2016 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /s/ Gregg A. Fisch GREGG A. FISCH RACHEL P. HOWARD Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP GREGG A. FISCH, Cal. Bar No. 214486 gfisch@sheppardmullin.com RACHEL PATTA HOWARD, Cal. Bar No. 273968 rhoward@sheppardmullin.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, California 90067-6055 Telephone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HANNAH L. TYE, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, a California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Hon. S. James Otero MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WELL FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: January 30, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10C [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts; Appendix of Evidence; and [Proposed] Order] Complaint Filed: March 8, 2016 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -i- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ......................................................... 2 A. Plaintiff’s Employment at Wells Fargo .................................................. 2 B. Plaintiff Suffered from Lyme Disease While She Worked as a Compliance Consultant for Wells Fargo ................................................ 3 C. Kelley Thatcher Suffered From Her Own Medical Issues During This Time Period, Including When She Supervised Plaintiff ................. 3 D. Plaintiff’s Allegations of Harassment By Thatcher Are Based On Thatcher’s Actions While She Was Overmedicated ............................... 4 E. Thatcher’s Supervisors, Rhonda Noell and Stacy Hopkins, Supported Plaintiff While They Attempted to Deal With Thatcher’s Medical Issues ....................................................................... 4 F. Approximately Ten Months After Plaintiff Agreed to Transfer to Work For Steve Scott, She Voluntarily Resigned .................................. 5 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT ...................................................................................... 6 A. Plaintiff’s Disability Discrimination Claim Fails ................................... 6 1. Plaintiff Did Not Suffer An Adverse Employment Action .......... 7 2. Plaintiff Has No Evidence of a “Causal Link” Between Any Adverse Employment Action and Her Alleged Disability ....................................................................................... 8 B. Plaintiff Has No Evidence To Establish Her Retaliation Claim ............. 9 C. Plaintiff’s Claim for Disability Harassment Fails ................................. 10 1. Thatcher’s Alleged Conduct Toward Plaintiff was Not Based on Plaintiff’s Disability .................................................... 10 2. The Conduct Plaintiff Complains of was Neither Severe Nor Pervasive Enough to Be Actionable .................................... 11 D. Plaintiff’s Constructive Discharge Claim Fails As A Matter of Law ........................................................................................................ 12 1. Plaintiff Cannot Meet Her High Burden to Demonstrate Her Work Conditions were So Intolerable that A Reasonable Person Would Be Compelled To Resign ................ 13 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -ii- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ 2. Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate that Wells Fargo Violated Public Policy ............................................................................... 15 E. Plaintiff’s Claims for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process and Failure to Accommodate Both Fail As A Matter of Law .............. 16 F. Plaintiff’s Intentional Infliction Claim Also Fails and Is Barred ......... 18 G. Plaintiff’s Negligent Retention Claim Also Fails and Is Barred .......... 19 H. Plaintiff Has No Evidence To Obtain Punitive Damages ..................... 19 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 20 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -iii- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Ackerman v. Western Electric Co. 643 F. Supp. 836 (N.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d, 860 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................................................................... 20 Akers v. County of San Diego 95 Cal. App. 4th 1441 (2002) ................................................................................. 7 Alsup v. U.S. Bancorp 2015 WL 224748 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) ......................................................... 17 Aquino v. Sup. Ct. 21 Cal. App. 4th 847 (1993) ................................................................................. 20 Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc. 163 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2008) ............................................................................... 11 Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist. 975 F.2d 588 (1992) ............................................................................................. 19 Cannice v. Norwest Bank Iowa 189 F.3d 723 (8th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................ 17 Cloud v. Casey 76 Cal. App. 4th 895 (1999) ................................................................................. 13 Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co. 14 Cal. App. 4th 1595 (1993). .............................................................................. 19 Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. 43 Cal.3d 148, 161 (1987) .................................................................................... 19 Cozzi v. Cty. of Marin 787 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................. 8 De Markoff v. Superior Court of California 2014 WL 2895200 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2014) ........................................................ 9 Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc. 145 Cal. App. 4th 790 (2006) ............................................................................... 19 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 27 Page ID #:131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -iv- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Etter v. Veriflo Corp. 67 Cal. App. 4th 457 (1998) ................................................................................. 12 Faragher v. Boca Raton 524 U.S. 775 (1998) ............................................................................................. 12 Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. 150 Cal. App. 4th 864 (2007) ................................................................................. 7 Fisher v. San Pedro Hospital 214 Cal. App. 3d 590 (1989) .................................................................... 10, 11, 18 Flait v. N. Am. Watch Corp. 3 Cal. App. 4th 467 (1992) ..................................................................................... 9 Fowler v. Varian Associates, Inc. 196 Cal. App. 3d 34 (1987) .................................................................................. 18 Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc. 180 Cal. App. 4th 365 (2009) ............................................................................... 12 Hoffman v. Winco Holdings, Inc. 2008 WL 5255902 (D. Or. Dec. 16, 2008) ........................................................... 15 Holmes v. Petrovich Dev’t Co. 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011) ............................................................................. 14 Hope v. California Youth Auth’y 134 Cal. App. 4th 577 (2005) ............................................................................... 11 Janken v. GM Hughes Elec. 46 Cal. App. 4th 55 (1996) ................................................................................... 19 Johnson v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. 987 F. Supp. 1376 (M.D. Ala. 1997) .................................................................... 15 Jones v. Department of Corrections 152 Cal. App. 4th 1373 (2007) ........................................................................ 10-11 Lappin v. Laidlaw Transit 179 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ................................................................ 12 Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prod. 38 Cal.4th 264 (2006) ........................................................................................... 12 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 27 Page ID #:132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -v- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ McRae v. Dep’t of Corrections and Rehabilitation 142 Cal. App. 4th 377 (2006) ................................................................................. 7 Milosky v. Regents of the University of California 44 Cal.4th 876 (2008) ........................................................................................... 18 Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal. 88 Cal. App. 4th 52 (2000) ..................................................................................... 9 Mullins v. Rockwell Int’l Corp. 15 Cal.4th 731 (1997) ........................................................................................... 14 Reid v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. 366 F. Supp. 2d 989 (S.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................. 20 Rodriguez v. John Muir Med. Ctr. 2010 WL 3448567 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010) ..................................................... 17 Schneider v. TRW, Inc. 938 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1991) ................................................................................ 18 Schwarzkopf v. Brunswick Corp. 833 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Minn. 2011) ................................................................ 17 Setser v. Idaho Home Health & Hospice/LHC Grp., LLC 2014 WL 970041 (D. Idaho Mar. 12, 2014) ........................................................ 15 Surrell v. California Water Service Co. 518 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 11 Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 7 Cal.4th 1238 (1994) ......................................................................... 13, 14, 15, 16 Vaughn v. Pool Offshore Co. 683 F.2d 922 (5th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................ 14 Wagner v. Sanders Assoc., Inc. 638 F. Supp. 742 (C.D. Cal. 1986) ....................................................................... 14 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. 36 Cal.4th 1028 (2005) ........................................................................................... 7 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 27 Page ID #:133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -vi- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Statutes Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a) ........................................................................................... 20 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f) .................................................................................. 20 Cal. Lab. Code § 3600(a) ........................................................................................... 18 Cal. Lab. Code § 3601 ............................................................................................... 18 Cal. Lab. Code § 3602(a) ........................................................................................... 18 Cal. Lab. Code § 5300 ............................................................................................... 18 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 7 of 27 Page ID #:134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The instant lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Hannah Tye (“Plaintiff”), a former Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Wells Fargo”) employee, is ripe for summary judgment. There is no dispute about the material facts here at all. No one disputes that, for almost two years while Plaintiff worked for Wells Fargo, her supervisor – Kelley Thatcher – had medical issues that appeared to stem from an abuse of pain medication. Thatcher, who now is deceased, came to work appearing intoxicated and slurring her words. She often could not do her own job duties, causing the work to fall to Plaintiff, her only direct report. At this same time, Plaintiff undisputedly suffered from Lyme disease. No one disputes that Plaintiff worked for Thatcher for about two years and then transferred to work for a different Wells Fargo employee. After working in that transfer position for about ten months, Plaintiff voluntarily resigned. Nonetheless, Plaintiff now claims she was constructively discharged, discriminated and retaliated against, and harassed because she had a disability. However, Plaintiff’s entire case is fatally flawed because Thatcher did not take any action against Plaintiff because Plaintiff had Lyme disease. Instead, Thatcher’s actions arose from her own medical problems and her inability to function at work. In fact, Thatcher treated everyone who worked for her the same way. Plaintiff even knew this fact before she began working for Thatcher. Because Plaintiff’s discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims all require a “causal link” between her disability and the conduct she experienced, they all fail as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s other claims also fail for additional reasons. Her constructive discharge claim must be dismissed because she cannot demonstrate her work conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign, especially since, in fact, she herself waited almost three years to resign. Additionally, her failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate claims fail as a matter of law because she never sought a workplace Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 8 of 27 Page ID #:135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ accommodation. Both the negligent retention and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claims are barred by the California Workers’ Compensation Act and the IIED claim is further barred because Plaintiff has no evidence that anyone engaged in conduct that was beyond all bounds of decency. Not only do each of Plaintiff’s nine causes of action fail, but she has no basis whatsoever to seek punitive damages here. She has no evidence that anyone at Wells Fargo engaged in malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent misconduct. For these reasons, Wells Fargo respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion in its entirety. II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS A. Plaintiff’s Employment at Wells Fargo Prior to January 2012, Plaintiff worked intermittently at Wells Fargo in Santa Monica in various jobs, including as a receptionist and in the mail room.1 Then, in January 2012, after returning from a medical leave of absence, Plaintiff obtained a position as a Compliance Consultant 1 in the Specialty Finance division of Wells Fargo, which consists of approximately 20 employees.2 Plaintiff was a salaried employee with varied hours who sometimes worked more than forty hours in a week.3 In this position, Plaintiff reported directly to Kelley Thatcher and was Thatcher’s only direct report.4 Plaintiff worked directly for Thatcher for about two years and then in January 2014, she began directly reporting to Steve Scott until her voluntary resignation in early December 2014.5 During her three years of employment, Plaintiff’s annual salary increased from $46,000 to $64,500.6 / / / / / / 1 Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) No. 1. 2 SUF No. 4. 3 SUF No. 5. 4 SUF No. 6. 5 SUF No. 7. 6 SUF No. 8. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 9 of 27 Page ID #:136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ B. Plaintiff Suffered from Lyme Disease While She Worked as a Compliance Consultant for Wells Fargo At least since November 2011 and continuing to today, Plaintiff has suffered from Lyme disease.7 Although Plaintiff had symptoms of Lyme disease while she worked as a Compliance Consultant, she never informed anyone that she needed an accommodation to perform her job duties.8 Notwithstanding that Plaintiff never requested an accommodation, when Plaintiff’s third-level supervisor, Rhonda Noell, found out Plaintiff sat in her car when she felt sick at work, Noell gave Plaintiff a key to the Company’s “quiet room” so that Plaintiff could have a safe place to rest whenever she needed.9 Plaintiff initially used the room but stopped doing so after she felt reluctant to have others see her exiting the room. None of Plaintiff’s co-workers made any comments about her use of the quiet room.10 C. Kelley Thatcher Suffered From Her Own Medical Issues During This Time Period, Including When She Supervised Plaintiff While Thatcher directly supervised Plaintiff, Thatcher had her own medical issues, including what appeared to be a dependence on pain medication and depression.11 It appeared to Plaintiff and other co-workers that Thatcher had medical issues that caused her to frequently appear intoxicated, slur her words, forget things, have trouble walking, and even run into a wall.12 In fact, even before Plaintiff began working for Thatcher, Thatcher’s previous direct reports informed Plaintiff that Thatcher had medical issues at work, including slurring her words.13 Thatcher suffered from these medical issues throughout the entire time she supervised Plaintiff and, regrettably, in Spring 2015 (just months after Plaintiff resigned), Thatcher passed away. Plaintiff understands that Thatcher 7 SUF No. 9. 8 SUF No. 10. 9 SUF No. 11. 10 SUF No. 12. 11 SUF No. 13. 12 SUF No. 14. 13 SUF No. 15. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 10 of 27 Page ID #:137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ died from an overdose of pain medicine.14 D. Plaintiff’s Allegations of Harassment By Thatcher Are Based On Thatcher’s Actions While She Was Overmedicated The crux of Plaintiff’s allegations relate to purported harassment she experienced by Thatcher. Specifically, her claims relate to Thatcher’s bizarre behavior when overmedicated, which Plaintiff mislabels as workplace “harassment.” Plaintiff alleges that Thatcher “harassed” her in the following ways: (1) telling Plaintiff she could not be sick since she had to be strong for her; (2) calling Plaintiff into her office, telling Plaintiff personal stories while crying (including one story of a sexual nature), and making Plaintiff hug her; (3) calling Plaintiff on the phone crying, which kept Plaintiff from doing her work; (4) making Plaintiff do Thatcher’s work, including typing her emails, which made Plaintiff feel overloaded; (5) showing up to work overmedicated, stumbling, slurring words, and falling down; and (6) once emailing Plaintiff while Plaintiff was at lunch to ask Plaintiff to return to the office, but then later completely forgetting about the email or why she sent the email.15 Essentially, Plaintiff’s allegations boil down to the fact that she felt (a) overworked because Thatcher could not do her own job and (b) uncomfortable when Thatcher communicated with her while Thatcher was purportedly overmedicated. Most of the issues Plaintiff experienced with Thatcher were issues Thatcher’s former direct reports also had experienced before Plaintiff worked with Thatcher.16 E. Thatcher’s Supervisors, Rhonda Noell and Stacy Hopkins, Supported Plaintiff While They Attempted to Deal With Thatcher’s Medical Issues Thatcher’s direct supervisor, Stacy Hopkins, and Hopkins’ supervisor, Rhonda Noell, became aware of Thatcher’s medical issues. Plaintiff spoke to Noell about her experiences with Thatcher and explained that Thatcher’s behavior was 14 SUF No. 16. 15 SUF No. 17. 16 SUF No. 18. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 11 of 27 Page ID #:138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ escalating.17 In response, Noell was supportive of Plaintiff. She told Plaintiff she was working with Human Resources on the issue, but she could not provide Plaintiff with specific details because such medical information was confidential.18 Similarly, Hopkins told Plaintiff that Thatcher had personal issues and was a sensitive person. Hopkins suggested that Plaintiff get Thatcher to focus on work and that Plaintiff should tell Thatcher she did not want to hear personal stories.19 At times, Plaintiff also would email Hopkins or Noell about Thatcher, telling them that Thatcher was overmedicated or could not function. She would explain she was stressed and overloaded with work because Thatcher could not do her work.20 It is Plaintiff’s understanding that Noell or Hopkins, or possibly both, spoke to Thatcher and told her not to come to work overmedicated.21 Plaintiff also later explained to Noell that she no longer wanted Thatcher to supervise her and then Noell and Plaintiff brainstormed about what position Plaintiff could transfer to.22 Noell explained Plaintiff could work full-time directly for Steve Scott and Plaintiff was happy with that option. Because Plaintiff did not want to leave Specialty Finance, to her, this transfer was ideal and the best option.23 In any event, Plaintiff was not qualified for any other positions in the Specialty Finance group.24 Although Plaintiff spoke to Noell and Hopkins about Thatcher, Plaintiff never spoke to HR or called the Wells Fargo help lines.25 F. Approximately Ten Months After Plaintiff Agreed to Transfer to Work For Steve Scott, She Voluntarily Resigned In late November 2014, after Plaintiff worked directly for Scott for about ten 17 SUF No. 20. 18 SUF No. 21. 19 SUF No. 22. 20 SUF No. 23. 21 SUF No. 24. 22 SUF No. 25. 23 SUF No. 26. 24 SUF No. 27. 25 SUF No. 28. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 12 of 27 Page ID #:139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ months, Plaintiff contacted Noell and Scott by email to inform them she was resigning from Wells Fargo.26 Plaintiff explained she needed to resign to “get [her] health on track [because it was] too up and down.”27 She also explained she was willing to stay at the Company for as long as needed.28 At that time, Plaintiff was suffering from Lyme disease.29 Plaintiff then had a meeting with Noell and Scott where she told them that, in addition to her health issues, she wished to resign because of Thatcher’s treatment. She explained that the workload was getting worse and she was never completely severed from Thatcher.30 Scott and Noell both told Plaintiff that she should go home and take care of her health.31 Plaintiff then officially resigned from Wells Fargo.32 On Plaintiff’s last day of work, she had an exit interview with Mary Jo Gagliardi from HR.33 Plaintiff told Gagliardi that she was sicker than ever, mentally exhausted, and stressed, and she also told her about the problems she had with Thatcher.34 In response, Gagliardi asked her if she wanted a different position at Wells Fargo, but Plaintiff explained she did not want another position and needed to go home.35 Plaintiff did not seek another Wells Fargo position.36 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff’s Disability Discrimination Claim Fails In her First Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff must 26 SUF No. 31. 27 SUF No. 32. 28 SUF No. 33. 29 SUF No. 34. 30 SUF No. 35. 31 SUF No. 36. 32 SUF No. 37. 33 SUF No. 38. 34 SUF No. 39. 35 SUF No. 40. 36 SUF No. 41. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 13 of 27 Page ID #:140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ demonstrate both that she suffered an adverse employment action and some causal connection between the adverse action and her protected classification. Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., 150 Cal. App. 4th 864, 886 (2007). Plaintiff cannot establish either of these two essential elements of her claim.37 1. Plaintiff Did Not Suffer An Adverse Employment Action To constitute a legally cognizable “adverse employment action,” an action must have a “substantial and material adverse effect” on the terms and conditions of a plaintiff’s employment. Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1036 (2005). Importantly, “[a] change that is merely contrary to the employee’s interests or not to the employee’s liking is insufficient.” McRae v. Dep’t of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 142 Cal. App. 4th 377, 386 (2006). “Minor or relatively trivial adverse actions or conduct by employers . . . that, from an objective perspective, are reasonably likely to do no more than anger or upset an employee cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment and are not actionable.” Yanowitz, 36 Cal.4th at 1054; see also Akers v. County of San Diego, 95 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 1445, 1455 (2002) (holding that adverse employment actions typically involve hiring, firing, and demotions). Plaintiff lacks any admissible evidence of an adverse employment action. As an initial matter, Wells Fargo did not discharge Plaintiff. Rather, Plaintiff herself elected to resign. And, although Plaintiff baselessly argues that her resignation was a “constructive discharge,” it cannot be deemed an “adverse employment action,” because her constructive discharge claim fails as a matter of law, as discussed in Section III.D, infra. Additionally, Wells Fargo did not demote Plaintiff and never reduced her pay or benefits. In fact, Wells Fargo dramatically increased her salary during her three-year tenure. 37 For purposes of this Motion only, Wells Fargo assumes Plaintiff belongs to a protected class and was performing her job satisfactorily. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 14 of 27 Page ID #:141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Plaintiff may claim she suffered an “adverse employment action” because she was assigned more work by Thatcher. Not only is this factually inaccurate, but it also does not constitute an “adverse employment action.” First, as a salaried employee, Plaintiff’s workload constantly varied and she admits she was actually the busiest when she started working for Scott because she was “trying to learn new projects.”38 Moreover, since Plaintiff was Thatcher’s only direct report, there is no way to compare her workload to that of anyone else. Further, any claim of an increased workload would fail as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot show that any increase in work had a detrimental effect on her employment. See Cozzi v. Cty. of Marin, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1060, 1062-63 (N.D. Cal. 2011). In Cozzi, among other allegations, plaintiff claimed she suffered an adverse employment action when her workload increased. In holding that this did not constitute an adverse action, the court explained that the work increase did not have a detrimental effect on plaintiff’s employment because plaintiff was able to finish the work and her reputation was never diminished. Id. Similarly, here, Plaintiff admits that no one at Wells Fargo ever complained about her work performance, revealing that her performance never suffered as a result of any work increase.39 Thus, Plaintiff has no evidence that she suffered from any adverse employment action at Wells Fargo. 2. Plaintiff Has No Evidence of a “Causal Link” Between Any Adverse Employment Action and Her Alleged Disability Separate and apart from her lack of evidence of an adverse employment action, Plaintiff’s claim fails for the additional reason that none of the conduct of which she complains is causally related to Plaintiff’s disability. With respect to any allegation that Plaintiff’s workload increased, such an increase was only a result of Thatcher’s inability to do her job.40 It had nothing to do with Plaintiff having a disability. In fact, because of Thatcher’s medical issues, 38 SUF No. 29. 39 SUF No. 30. 40 Pltf. Dep. 69:19-23. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 15 of 27 Page ID #:142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ anyone who directly reported to her – disabled or not – would have had an increased workload when Thatcher was overmedicated, unable to complete her work, or out of the office. See De Markoff v. Superior Court of California, 2014 WL 2895200, at *13 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2014) (finding no causal connection between plaintiff’s increased workload and his protected activity when his work increased as a result of another employee resigning and he was qualified to do the work).41 The same is true for any other conduct Plaintiff complains about, including her alleged constructive discharge. It is evident from Plaintiff’s own testimony that Thatcher’s actions were a result of Thatcher’s personal issues and the actions affected anyone who worked directly for her, including her prior direct reports.42 This lack of a causal link dooms the discrimination claim. B. Plaintiff Has No Evidence To Establish Her Retaliation Claim This same lack of evidence of an adverse employment action and a causal link also dooms Plaintiff’s retaliation claim because those are essential elements to a retaliation claim as well. Flait v. N. Am. Watch Corp., 3 Cal. App. 4th 467, 476 (1992). “The causal link may be established by an inference derived from circumstantial evidence, ‘such as the employer’s knowledge that [plaintiff] engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and allegedly retaliatory employment decision.’” Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal., 88 Cal. App. 4th 52, 73 (2000). Here, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation because, as explained above, she cannot establish an adverse employment action. Additionally, she also fails to establish the “causal link” element. The only actions that arguably could be considered “protected activity” are Plaintiff’s discussions with Hopkins 41 The De Markoff court did not decide one way or the other whether an alleged increased workload could constitute an adverse employment action. 42 SUF No. 15. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 16 of 27 Page ID #:143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ and Noell about Thatcher.43 However, those discussions did not lead to any adverse action. Plaintiff has no argument that her discussions with Hopkins or Noell led to her “constructive discharge” ten months after she began working directly for Scott. Additionally, to the extent an increased workload could be considered an adverse employment action – which it cannot – Plaintiff specifically testified that, as a salaried employee, her workload varied throughout her employment. She further testified she was actually the busiest when she began working for Scott because she was “trying to learn new projects,” not because anyone was treating her differently, especially not because of her discussions with Noell and Hopkins. As she consistently testified, Plaintiff received more work because of Thatcher’s medical issues, not because anyone was retaliating against her. C. Plaintiff’s Claim for Disability Harassment Fails As with her discrimination and retaliation claims, Plaintiff’s disability harassment claim fails as a matter of law. Not just any mistreatment in the workplace qualifies as actionable harassment. Rather, to establish a claim for harassment, a plaintiff must prove both that she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a harassing nature based on her disability and that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. See Fisher v. San Pedro Hospital, 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 608-09 (1989). 1. Thatcher’s Alleged Conduct Toward Plaintiff was Not Based on Plaintiff’s Disability Plaintiff has no evidence that any of the mistreatment she alleges she experienced at the hands of Thatcher was on account of Plaintiff’s disability. To support her claim, Plaintiff must show more than just harassment; she must establish that she was harassed based on a protected characteristic or activity. Jones v. 43 Plaintiff testified that she never spoke to anyone in Wells Fargo’s Human Resources department before she resigned. Pltf. Dep 33:23-34:4. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 17 of 27 Page ID #:144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -11- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Department of Corrections, 152 Cal. App. 4th 1373, 1378 (2007); see also Hope v. California Youth Auth’y, 134 Cal. App. 4th 577, 591 (2005) (“If [plaintiff] was not harassed because of a protected status . . . [the employer] cannot be found liable.”); Surrell v. California Water Service Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008) (granting summary judgment on race harassment claim where plaintiff “presents no evidence that [defendant’s] comments were based on race”). Mere “harassment” that is not connected to a protected status is not actionable under FEHA. Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 327, 344 (2008) (“FEHA does not guarantee employees a stress-free working environment. . . . It is not a shield against harsh treatment at the workplace.”). Plaintiff has brought forth absolutely no evidence that Thatcher engaged in any verbal or physical conduct that was in any way connected to Plaintiff’s disability.44 Again, the conduct Plaintiff complains about – unwanted empathetic hugging, telling Plaintiff personal stories, telling Plaintiff she could not be sick since she had to be strong for Thatcher, and making Plaintiff do additional work – may have been stressful for Plaintiff, but Thatcher did not engage in this conduct because Plaintiff had Lyme disease. Thatcher engaged in this conduct because she had her own medical issues. She thus had to rely on her one direct report to assist her in many ways. Without this causal link, Plaintiff has no basis for a harassment claim. 2. The Conduct Plaintiff Complains of was Neither Severe Nor Pervasive Enough to Be Actionable Although Plaintiff may not have liked Thatcher’s actions, Plaintiff also cannot establish that the purported conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment and create a hostile or abusive work environment. See Fisher, 214 Cal. App. 3d at 612-13. The Supreme Court has explained that laws 44 Pltf. Dep. 61:8-18. Plaintiff admits that, other than one co-worker named Randy (who was expressing concern for Plaintiff at the time), no one made comments about her medical condition. Pltf. Dep. 209:16-210:25. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 18 of 27 Page ID #:145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ against harassment are not intended to become a “general civility code” that protects employees from “the ordinary tribulations of the workplace.” Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998). The law does not create a “zero tolerance” rule for offensive words or conduct in the workplace. Etter v. Veriflo Corp., 67 Cal. App. 4th 457, 467 (1998). Thatcher’s actions of telling Plaintiff she could not be sick since Thatcher needed Plaintiff’s support, hugging Plaintiff, telling Plaintiff stories, appearing intoxicated, and giving Plaintiff more work – even if they happened frequently – simply do not qualify as severe or pervasive. In fact, this conduct is much less serious than that which occurred in other instances where the court granted summary judgment to the employer. See Lappin v. Laidlaw Transit, 179 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1120-21 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (finding defendant’s comments that plaintiff had “nice legs,” referring to her as “tiny butt” or “tight ass,” calling her “the F word” and “bitch,” sticking his tongue at her, and staring at her while puckering his lips was not conduct sufficiently severe as to create an abusive work environment); Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prod., 38 Cal.4th 264, 275-76, 289-90 (2006) (holding that exposure to frequent discussions about oral sex and anal sex, masturbatory gestures, pictures of breasts and genitalia on a coloring book depicting cheerleaders with their legs spread open, discussions of sexual fantasies, and altered calendar with words such as “persistence” and “happiness” changed to “pert tits” and “penis,” is not severe or pervasive enough to be actionable). Simply put, Plaintiff has no evidence that she experienced any “extreme” conduct. See Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 365, 379 (2009) (holding that, to constitute “severe” harassment, the conduct must be “extreme”). Without this evidence of severe conduct, Plaintiff’s harassment claim fails as a matter of law. D. Plaintiff’s Constructive Discharge Claim Fails As A Matter of Law To succeed on her claim for constructive discharge in violation of public Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 19 of 27 Page ID #:146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ policy,45 Plaintiff must establish both that she experienced a constructive discharge and that the reason for the discharge violated public policy. See Turner v. Anheuser- Busch, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1251 (1994). Plaintiff cannot establish either element. 1. Plaintiff Cannot Meet Her High Burden to Demonstrate Her Work Conditions were So Intolerable that A Reasonable Person Would Be Compelled To Resign Plaintiff’s claim fails first and foremost because she falls far short of establishing a “constructive discharge.” Such a finding would require evidence that Plaintiff experienced adverse working conditions that were so intolerable that any reasonable employee would have had no reasonable alternative except to quit. Turner, 7 Cal.4th at 1247. An “employee may not be unreasonably sensitive to his . . . working environment . . . [as] [e]very job has its frustrations, challenges, and disappointments.” Id. Notably, harassment and discrimination, even when proven, often do not rise to the level of intolerable conditions required for a constructive discharge absent aggravating factors. Cloud v. Casey, 76 Cal. App. 4th 895, 904-05 (1999). Courts have recognized the heavy burden a plaintiff alleging constructive discharge faces: [A]n employee cannot simply “quit and sue,” claiming [constructive discharge]. The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer. The proper focus is on whether the resignation was coerced, not whether it was simply one rational option for the employee. Turner, 7 Cal.4th at 1246 (emphasis added). Here, the undisputed evidence provided by Plaintiff herself establishes that her working conditions would not force 45 Plaintiff pleads her eighth cause of action as “constructive wrongful discharge” and her ninth one as “wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.” These claims appear to be redundant and Wells Fargo treats both as a claim for constructive discharge in violation of public policy. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 20 of 27 Page ID #:147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -14- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ a reasonable person to quit. First, Thatcher’s purported conduct cannot constitute the “intolerable conduct” necessary to support Plaintiff’s claim because, as discussed in Section III.C, supra, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that harassment occurred as a matter of law. See Holmes v. Petrovich Dev’t Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 1062 (2011) (finding that, where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate that harassment occurred, it is impossible to meet the higher standard of constructive discharge). Additionally, Plaintiff cannot meet her heavy burden of proving “intolerable conduct” because of two different timing elements at issue here. First, Plaintiff remained on the job for almost three years after she began experiencing the conduct from Thatcher that she claims was intolerable.46 As explained in Turner, there is an “outer limit” beyond which an employee cannot remain on the job after intolerable conditions arise and still claim constructive discharge. Turner, 7 Cal. 4th at 1254. Indeed, the longer the employee remains on the job, the less likely a reasonable person would consider the work conditions intolerable. See Mullins v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 15 Cal.4th 731, 740 (1997) (“the longer the employee delays . . . resignation, the more difficult it may be to prove” that work conditions were intolerable); Wagner v. Sanders Assoc., Inc., 638 F. Supp. 742, 745 (C.D. Cal. 1986) (“If an employee wishes to claim that an employer’s act should be deemed a constructive discharge, he must ‘put up or shut up.’ If he wishes to claim that he had no choice but to leave, he must leave when the choice is posed.”); Vaughn v. Pool Offshore Co., 683 F.2d 922, 926 (5th Cir. 1982) (no constructive discharge when alleged misconduct occurred several months prior to resignation). Here, Plaintiff did not “put up or shut up.” She worked directly for Thatcher for two full years (allegedly encountering intolerable conditions the majority of the time) and then worked directly for Scott for another ten months after that before she decided to 46 SUF No. 19 (explaining that “about a month [after I started working for Kelley] things started going downhill”). Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 21 of 27 Page ID #:148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -15- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ quit. This long delay eviscerates any argument for constructive discharge. Another element of timing that dooms Plaintiff’s claim is her offer to remain in her position “as long as needed” after giving notice of her resignation,47 again indicating the conditions were in fact not intolerable. If the conditions were so bad Plaintiff would not have been willing to stay indefinitely. See Johnson v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 1376, 1394 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (“That Johnson was able to . . . give Wal-Mart three weeks’ notice before leaving her position strongly suggests that the conditions to which she allegedly [was] subjected were not intolerable.”); Setser v. Idaho Home Health & Hospice/LHC Grp., LLC, 2014 WL 970041, at *8 (D. Idaho Mar. 12, 2014) (plaintiff’s resignation held not to be a constructive discharge when plaintiff gave employer two weeks’ notice of her resignation and did not quit outright); Hoffman v. Winco Holdings, Inc., 2008 WL 5255902, at *6 (D. Or. Dec. 16, 2008) (finding no support for plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim when plaintiff provided two weeks’ notice of her resignation). Plaintiff’s claim further fails because she had multiple alternatives to quitting. First, she was permitted to transfer to work for Scott, and she continued working for him for ten months. Then, when she still was unhappy, after she gave her resignation notice, a Wells Fargo HR employee told her she could apply for a different position within the Company. But, instead of accepting this reasonable alternative – or even looking into it – Plaintiff simply left Wells Fargo altogether. Because Plaintiff failed to consider alternatives to quitting, she cannot now sue for “constructive discharge.” See Turner, 7 Cal.4th at 1249-50. 2. Plaintiff Cannot Demonstrate that Wells Fargo Violated Public Policy Plaintiff also fails to provide any evidence of a violation of public policy. “Standing alone, constructive discharge is neither a tort nor a breach of contract… 47 SUF No. 33. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 22 of 27 Page ID #:149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -16- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Even after establishing constructive discharge, an employee must independently prove a breach of contract or tort in connection with employment termination in order to obtain damages for wrongful discharge. Turner, 7 Cal.4th at 1251. “Tort claims for wrongful discharge typically arise when an employer retaliates against an employee for ‘(1) refusing to violate a statute, (2) performing a statutory obligation, (3) exercising a statutory right or privilege . . . , or (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance.’” Id. As explained above, Plaintiff has not shown any nexus between any protected activity and the behavior which she alleges “forced” her to resign. She claims she complained about Thatcher’s behavior to Noell and Hopkins, but she has absolutely no evidence that anyone subjected her to “intolerable” treatment because of these purported complaints. Because Plaintiff has no evidence of a violation of public policy, her constructive discharge claim must be dismissed. E. Plaintiff’s Claims for Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process and Failure to Accommodate Both Fail As A Matter of Law Plaintiff pleads two causes of action (her third and fourth) asserting that Wells Fargo failed to accommodate her disability and failed to engage in the interactive process. But, both causes of action have no basis because Plaintiff never sought any legally cognizable accommodation from Wells Fargo. To the extent that Plaintiff claims she needed to be accommodated with “time off,”48 this allegation is erroneous since she admits she never requested time off, except for the medical leave she obtained in 2011, before she ever worked for Thatcher.49 Plaintiff’s doctor released her to return to work with no restrictions in early 2012 and she never submitted another doctor’s note to Wells Fargo.50 48 Complaint ¶ 16. 49 SUF No. 2. 50 SUF No. 3. Plaintiff admits Noell gave her Wells Fargo’s 1-800 number to discuss her medical issues, but Plaintiff never called. Pltf. Dep. 142:16-143:3. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 23 of 27 Page ID #:150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -17- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Plaintiff also alleges in her Complaint that she requested a reasonable accommodation of “a work environment free of abuse and harassment” and a transfer away from Thatcher, but these are not reasonable accommodations as a matter of law.51 See Cannice v. Norwest Bank Iowa, 189 F.3d 723, 728 (8th Cir. 1999) (“We do not believe, however, that the obligation to make reasonable accommodation extends to providing an aggravation-free environment.”); Rodriguez v. John Muir Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 3448567, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2010) (finding that there exists “no authority for the proposition that cessation of harassment is a required reasonable accommodation”); Alsup v. U.S. Bancorp, 2015 WL 224748, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) (dismissing plaintiff's reasonable accommodation claim because “plaintiff's requested accommodation, transfer to a new position under a new supervisor, is unreasonable as a matter of law”); Schwarzkopf v. Brunswick Corp., 833 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1123 (D. Minn. 2011) (“[A]n employer is not required to . . . reassign an employee away from any supervisor or coworker who may cause stress or conflict.”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim also has no factual basis since Plaintiff admits that Noell actually allowed her to transfer to work with Scott after they brainstormed about her options. Plaintiff also pleads that she sought an accommodation of “frequent rest breaks,” but this is not supported by any evidence. Plaintiff never asked for frequent rest breaks and she did not submit documentation suggesting she needed such breaks. Plaintiff merely told Noell she went to her car to take breaks and Noell, on her own accord, gave Plaintiff a key to the Company’s “quiet room” so Plaintiff could have a different place to rest whenever she wanted it.52 In fact, Plaintiff was the only employee to have her own personal key to the room and she is not aware of any other quiet, private space where she could have rested at work.53 Because 51 Complaint ¶ 18. 52 Pltf. Dep. 125:5-10. 53 Pltf. Dep. 125:11-126:10, 128:16-18. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 24 of 27 Page ID #:151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -18- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Plaintiff did not seek an accommodation, her claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process cannot survive summary judgment. F. Plaintiff’s Intentional Infliction Claim Also Fails and Is Barred Plaintiff’s intentional infliction claim fails as a matter of law for two distinct reasons. First, it is completely preempted by the California Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”). Second, Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of IIED, including the extreme and outrageous conduct prong. The WCA provides the “sole and exclusive remedy of the employee” for injuries sustained in the workplace. See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 3600(a), 3601, 3602(a), 5300. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that employee injuries stemming from even intentional employer misconduct exclusively must be remedied through the WCA. See Milosky v. Regents of the University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876, 902 (2008) (affirming dismissal of emotional distress claim since any emotional distress caused by retaliation for whistleblowing is preempted by the WCA). Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s IIED claim seeks damages arising only from alleged workplace conduct – that is, the alleged conduct of her direct supervisor at work. As such, Plaintiff’s intentional infliction claim is preempted. Separate and apart from workers’ compensation exclusivity, Plaintiff’s intentional infliction claim additionally fails for a lack of any extreme and outrageous conduct, which is essential to an intentional infliction claim. See Fisher, 214 Cal. App. 3d at 617. Importantly, courts will find conduct to be “extreme and outrageous” only where it exceeds “all bounds of decency usually tolerated in a decent society.” Id. at 617; Fowler v. Varian Associates, Inc., 196 Cal. App. 3d 34, 44 (1987) (finding that conduct will not be deemed extreme and outrageous unless it is atrocious, goes beyond all possible bounds of decency, and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community); Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 1991). This high standard has repeatedly led courts to rule in favor of employers on emotional distress claims, even where the adverse employment action was Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 25 of 27 Page ID #:152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -19- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ motivated by allegedly unlawful reasons such as discrimination. See Janken v. GM Hughes Elec., 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 80 (1996). Similarly, here, Plaintiff cannot meet this high standard. She cannot demonstrate that she was subjected to conduct that exceeded all bounds of decency in a civilized society. Thatcher’s conduct of appearing intoxicated, giving unwanted hugs, telling inappropriate stories, and giving more work certainly cannot rise to this level. In fact, Plaintiff’s allegations pale in comparison to employee allegations in other cases that were held not to be extreme or outrageous. See Delfino v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 145 Cal. App. 4th 790, 809 (2006) (anonymous emails graphically threatening physical harm insufficient); Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist., 975 F.2d 588, 590 (1992) (incidents of sexual horseplay that took place over a period of years were not so egregious to support an IIED claim). Because Plaintiff did not experience extreme and outrageous conduct, her IIED claim cannot stand. G. Plaintiff’s Negligent Retention Claim Also Fails and Is Barred Like her IIED claim, Plaintiff’s negligent retention claim is barred by the WCA. As explained in Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Ins. Co, where an employee made claims for egregious sex discrimination and harassment along with claims for negligence, employer negligence is a likely consequence in the workplace and is an expected part of the employment bargain. The fact that an employer may act in a negligent manner is an inherent risk of the employee-employer relationship. 14 Cal. App. 4th 1595, 1605-06 (1993). Accordingly, any negligence that occurs during a plaintiff’s employment is barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity principles, even where the underlying claim is based upon claims of intentional misconduct. Id. (citing Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist., 43 Cal.3d 148, 161 (1987)). H. Plaintiff Has No Evidence To Obtain Punitive Damages Lastly, Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. It is well settled that a party may move for Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 26 of 27 Page ID #:153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -20- SMRH:479725158.7 DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MSJ summary judgment of a claim for punitive damages. See Reid v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 366 F. Supp. 2d 989, 1000-01 (S.D. Cal. 2005); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f). To successfully oppose such a motion, a plaintiff must establish her right to punitive damages by “clear and convincing evidence.” Aquino v. Sup. Ct., 21 Cal. App. 4th 847, 854-55 (1993). An award of punitive damages requires proof of an act of oppression, fraud, or malice, which requires “despicable conduct” carried out in “conscious disregard” of plaintiff’s rights. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a). A finding of even unlawful discrimination in personnel decisions would not itself justify punitive damages as such conduct is not the equivalent of malice, fraud, or oppression. See Ackerman v. Western Electric Co., 643 F. Supp. 836, 857 (N.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d, 860 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, Plaintiff has no evidence that anyone at Wells Fargo engaged in any “despicable conduct,” or conduct that constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. Accordingly, regardless of how the Court rules on Plaintiff’s other claims, Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages must be dismissed. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter summary judgment in its favor. Dated: December 8, 2016 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /s/ Gregg A. Fisch GREGG A. FISCH RACHEL P. HOWARD Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 27 of 27 Page ID #:154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:479854248.1 DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP GREGG A. FISCH, Cal. Bar No. 214486 gfisch@sheppardmullin.com RACHEL PATTA HOWARD, Cal. Bar No. 273968 rhoward@sheppardmullin.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, California 90067-6055 Telephone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HANNAH L. TYE, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, a California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Hon. S. James Otero DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: January 30, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10C [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Appendix of Evidence; and [Proposed] Order] Complaint Filed: March 8, 2016 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- SMRH:479854248.1 DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ Pursuant to Rule 56-1 of the Local Rules of the Central District of California and this Court’s Standing Order, Defendant Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”), hereby sets forth its separate statement of undisputed facts in support of its concurrently-filed Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Hannah L. Tye’s (“Plaintiff”) claims. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1. Prior to January 2012, Plaintiff worked intermittently at Wells Fargo in Santa Monica in various jobs, including as a receptionist and in the mail room. Deposition of Plaintiff Hannah Tye (“Pltf. Dep.”)1 19:18-20:2, 20:7-23:25. 2. Prior to obtaining a position as a Compliance Consultant 1 at Wells Fargo in January 2012, Plaintiff requested and obtained a medical leave of absence from Wells Fargo. Pltf. Dep. 119:5-17, 129:9- 25. 3. Plaintiff’s doctor released her to return to work with no restrictions in early 2012 and Plaintiff never submitted another doctor’s note to Wells Fargo. Pltf. Dep. 122:6-15, 123:6- 11, 153:12-24, Ex. 12. 4. In January 2012, after returning from her medical leave, Plaintiff obtained a position as a Compliance Consultant 1 in the Specialty Finance division of Wells Fargo, which consists of approximately 20 employees. Pltf. Dep. 24:13-25:5, 56:25- 57:4, 101:11-15, 107:6-18, Ex. 8. 5. Plaintiff was a salaried employee with varied hours who sometimes worked more than forty hours in a week. Pltf. Dep. 80:9-82:20 6. In her position as a Compliance Consultant 1, Plaintiff reported directly to Kelley Thatcher and was Thatcher’s only direct report. Pltf. Dep. 53:14-54:1, 54:9- 11. 1 All cited portions of Plaintiff’s deposition are attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Gregg A. Fisch, contained within Defendant’s Appendix of Evidence. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- SMRH:479854248.1 DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ 7. Plaintiff worked directly for Thatcher for about two years and then in January 2014, she began directly reporting to Steve Scott, who she continued to report to until her resignation in early December 2014. Pltf. Dep. 54:12-55:9. 8. During her three years of employment, Plaintiff’s annual salary increased from $46,000 to $64,500. Pltf. Dep. 108:2-10. 9. At least since November 2011 and continuing to today, Plaintiff has suffered from Lyme disease. Pltf. Dep. 70:9-20, 196:2-12, 197:10-198:3, Ex. 23. 10. Although Plaintiff had symptoms of Lyme disease while she worked as a Compliance Consultant, she never informed anyone that she needed an accommodation to perform her job duties. Pltf. Dep. 122:21-123:11. 11. When Plaintiff’s third-level supervisor, Rhonda Noell, found out Plaintiff sat in her car when she felt sick at work, Noell gave Plaintiff a key to the Company’s “quiet room” so that Plaintiff could have a safe place to rest whenever she needed. Pltf. Dep. 123:12-124:4, 125:5-10. 128:24-129:8. 12. Plaintiff initially used the quiet room but stopped doing so after she felt reluctant to have others see her exiting the room. None of Plaintiff’s co-workers made any comments about her use of the quiet room. Pltf. Dep. 123:20-124:4, 126:24-127:4. 13. While Thatcher directly supervised Plaintiff, Thatcher had her own medical issues, including what appeared to be a dependence on pain medication and depression. Pltf. Dep. 51:2-21, 53:8-13. 14. It appeared to Plaintiff and other co-workers that Thatcher had medical issues that caused her to frequently appear intoxicated, slur her words, forget things, have trouble walking, and even run into a wall. Pltf. Dep. 53:1-7, 58:5-59:9, 62:9-20, 173:17-174:21. 15. Even before Plaintiff began working for Thatcher, Thatcher’s previous direct reports informed Plaintiff that Thatcher had medical issues at work, including slurring her words. Pltf. Dep. 73:15-22. 16. Thatcher suffered from these medical issues throughout the entire time she supervised Plaintiff and, in Spring 2015, Thatcher passed away. Plaintiff understands that Thatcher died from an overdose of pain medicine. Pltf. Dep. 52:2-7, 52:22-25. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- SMRH:479854248.1 DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ 17. Plaintiff alleges that Thatcher “harassed” her in the following ways: (1) telling Plaintiff she could not be sick since she had to be strong for her; (2) calling Plaintiff into her office, telling Plaintiff personal stories while crying (including one story of a sexual nature), and making Plaintiff hug her; (3) calling Plaintiff on the phone crying, which kept Plaintiff from doing her work; (4) making Plaintiff do Thatcher’s work, including typing her emails, which made Plaintiff feel overloaded; (5) showing up to work overmedicated, stumbling, slurring words, and falling down; and (6) once emailing Plaintiff while Plaintiff was at lunch to ask Plaintiff to return to the office, but then later completely forgetting about the email or why she sent the email. Pltf. Dep. 49:23-50:22, 58:5- 20, 88:17-25. 18. Most of the issues Plaintiff experienced with Thatcher were issues Thatcher’s former direct reports also had experienced before Plaintiff worked with Thatcher. Pltf. Dep. 76:3-8. 19. Plaintiff alleges that she began having issues with Thatcher about one month after the two began working together. Pltf. Dep. 74:7-25. 20. Plaintiff spoke to Rhonda Noell about her experiences with Thatcher and explained that Thatcher’s behavior was escalating. Pltf. Dep. 62:21-63:3. 21. In response, Noell was supportive of Plaintiff. Noell told Plaintiff that she was working with Human Resources on the issue, but she could not provide Plaintiff with specific details because such medical information was confidential. Pltf. Dep. 63:4-25. 22. Hopkins told Plaintiff that Thatcher had personal issues and was a sensitive person. Hopkins suggested that Plaintiff get Thatcher to focus on work and that Plaintiff should tell Thatcher she did not want to hear personal stories. Pltf. Dep. 83:14-84:16. 23. At times, Plaintiff also would email Hopkins or Noell about Thatcher, telling them that Thatcher was overmedicated or could not function. She would explain she was stressed and overloaded with work because Thatcher could not do her work. Pltf. Dep. 176:16-177:24, Exs. 18-19. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- SMRH:479854248.1 DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ 24. It is Plaintiff’s understanding that Noell or Hopkins, or possibly both, spoke to Thatcher and told her not to come to work overmedicated. Pltf. Dep. 95:5-96:13. 25. Plaintiff also later explained to Noell that she no longer wanted Thatcher to supervise her and then Noell and Plaintiff brainstormed about what position Plaintiff could transfer to. Pltf. Dep. 98:19-99:7. 26. Noell explained to Plaintiff that Plaintiff could work full-time directly for Steve Scott and Plaintiff was happy with that option. Because Plaintiff did not want to leave Specialty Finance, to her, this transfer was ideal and the best option. Pltf. Dep. 99:8-100:23. 27. Plaintiff admits she was not qualified for any other positions in the Specialty Finance group. Pltf. Dep. 57:9-12. 28. Although Plaintiff spoke to Noell and Hopkins about Thatcher, Plaintiff never spoke to HR or called the Wells Fargo help lines. Pltf. Dep. 130:2-9, 140:12- 22. 29. Plaintiff admits she was the busiest when she started working for Scott because she was “trying to learn new projects.” Pltf. Dep. 78:2-80:4, 82:7- 20. 30. According to Plaintiff, no one at Wells Fargo ever complained about her work performance. Pltf. Dep. 109:23-110:12. 31. In late November 2014, after Plaintiff worked directly for Scott for about ten months, Plaintiff contacted Noell and Scott by email to inform them that she was resigning from Wells Fargo. Pltf. Dep. 31:6-32:2, 44:13- 21, Exs. 2, 3. 32. Plaintiff explained she needed to resign in order to “get [her] health on track [because it was] too up and down.” Pltf. Dep. 43:23-44:12, Ex. 3. 33. Plaintiff also explained she was willing to stay at the Company for as long as needed. Pltf. Dep. 43:6-22, Ex. 2. 34. At the time Plaintiff sent her letter of resignation to Noell and Scott, Plaintiff was suffering from Lyme disease. Pltf. Dep. 116:18-21. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- SMRH:479854248.1 DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MSJ 35. Plaintiff then had a meeting with Noell and Scott where she told them that, in addition to her health issues, she wished to resign because of Thatcher’s treatment. She explained that the workload was getting worse and she was never completely severed from Thatcher. Pltf. Dep. 26:14-27:13, 45:10-47:10. 36. Scott and Noell both told Plaintiff to go home and take care of her health. Pltf. Dep. 116:5-12, 117:19- 25. 37. Plaintiff then officially resigned from Wells Fargo. Ptlf. Dep. 32:13-33:15, Ex. 4. 38. On Plaintiff’s last day of work, she had an exit interview with Mary Jo Gagliardi from Human Resources. Pltf. Dep. 28:1-22. 39. Plaintiff told Gagliardi that she was sicker than ever, mentally exhausted, and stressed, and she also told her about the problems she had with Thatcher. Pltf. Dep. 147:5-149:13. 40. In response, Gagliardi asked Plaintiff if she wanted a different position at Wells Fargo, but Plaintiff explained she did not want another position and needed to go home. Pltf. Dep. 150:21-151:10. 41. Plaintiff did not seek another Wells Fargo position after she resigned. Pltf. Dep. 185:16-18. Dated: December 8, 2016 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /s/ Gregg A. Fisch GREGG A. FISCH RACHEL P. HOWARD Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:479907558.2 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP GREGG A. FISCH, Cal. Bar No. 214486 gfisch@sheppardmullin.com RACHEL PATTA HOWARD, Cal. Bar No. 273968 rhoward@sheppardmullin.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, California 90067-6055 Telephone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HANNAH L. TYE, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, a California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Hon. S. James Otero DEFENDANT’S APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: January 30, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10C [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law; and [Proposed] Order] Complaint Filed: March 8, 2016 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 123 Page ID #:161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:479907558.2 Defendant Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”) hereby submits its Appendix of Evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment. Dated: December 8, 2016 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP By /s/ Gregg A. Fisch GREGG A. FISCH RACHEL P. HOWARD Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 123 Page ID #:162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:479907558.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration of Gregg A. Fisch ...................................................................... 1 Exhibit A – Excerpts from Deposition of Hannah L. Tye ............................ 3 Ex. A-2 – Nov. 2014: Emails - Tye and Steve Scott .......................... 97 Ex. A-3 – Nov. 2014: Emails - Tye and Rhonda Noell ...................... 98 Ex. A-4 – Dec. 3, 2014: Email Chain re: Resignation ........................ 100 Ex. A-8 – Jan. 9, 2012: Offer of Employment Letter (Compliance Consultant 1) ........................................................................... 102 Ex. A-12 – Jan. 5, 2012: Doctor’s Return to Work Note ................... 104 Ex. A-18 – Dec. 30, 2013: Emails - Tye and Stacy Hopkins ............. 106 Ex. A-19 – April 1, 2014: Email Request from Kelley Thatcher ....... 108 Ex. A-23 – Nov. 21, 2011: Doctor’s Note .......................................... 111 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 123 Page ID #:163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- SMRH:479907558.2 DECLARATION OF GREGG A. FISCH I, Gregg A. Fisch, hereby declare and state: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California and am a partner with the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, counsel of record for Defendant Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”) in the instant action. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and I could and would testify competently thereto, if called upon to do so. 2. On September 8, 2016, I took the deposition of Plaintiff Hannah L. Tye. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the excerpts from the certified transcript for the deposition referenced in the concurrently-filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 3. During her deposition, Plaintiff authenticated a number of documents, marked as Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, and 23, which are referenced in the concurrently-filed Memorandum of Points and Authorities. The referenced documents are included within this Appendix as Exhibits A-2, A-3, A-4, A-8, A-12, A-18, A-19, and A-23, respectively. 4. On September 12, 2016, I spoke to Mehrdad Bokhour, counsel for Plaintiff, and explained the arguments Wells Fargo would be presenting in its upcoming Motion for Summary Judgment. 5. Then, on September 13, 2016, I sent Mr. Bokhour an email with case citations further supporting Wells Fargo’s anticipated legal arguments. 6. On September 19, 2016, Mr. Bokhour sent me an email in which he explained that Plaintiff disagreed with Wells Fargo’s contentions and would be opposing Wells Fargo’s proposed Motion for Summary Judgment. In his email, Mr. Bokhour also expressly acknowledged that the parties had met and conferred on the subject. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 123 Page ID #:164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- SMRH:479907558.2 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the information contained in this Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on December 8, 2016, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ Gregg A. Fisch Gregg A. Fisch Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 123 Page ID #:165 EXHIBIT A Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 123 Page ID #:166 ·1· · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ·2· · · · · · · CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ·3 ·4· HANNAH L. TYE, an · · individual, ·5 · · · · · · · · · ·Plaintiff, ·6 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Case No. 2:16- ·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · cv-02418-SJO-E ·8· · · · · · vs. ·9· WELLS FARGO CAPITAL · · FINANCE, a California 10· limited liability · · corporation; and DOES 11· 1 through 50, Inclusive, 12· · · · · · · · Defendants. · · ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 13 14 15· · · · · · · · ·VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 16· · · · · · · · · · · HANNAH L. TYE 17 · · · · · · · · · · · September 8, 2016 18 · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10:08 a.m. 19 20 · · · · · · · · · ·1901 Avenue of the Stars 21· · · · · · · · · · · · Suite 1600 · · · · · · · · · ·Los Angeles, California 22 23 24· · · · · · · · Karen Aligo, CSR No. 13418 25 Exhibit A 0003 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 1 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 7 of 123 Page ID #:167 ·1· · · · · · · · ·APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL ·2 ·3· ·For the Plaintiff: ·4· · · · BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR · · · · · BY:· MEHRDAD BOKHOUR ·5· · · · 287 South Robertson Boulevard · · · · · Suite 303 ·6· · · · Beverly Hills, California 90211 · · · · · 310-438-5555 ·7· · · · 310-300-1705 Fax · · · · · Mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com ·8 ·9 · · ·For the Defendant Wells Fargo Capital Finance LLC: 10 · · · · · SHEPPARD MULLIN 11· · · · BY:· GREGG A. FISCH · · · · · 1901 Avenue of the Stars 12· · · · Suite 1600 · · · · · Los Angeles, California 90067 13· · · · 310-228-3700 · · · · · 310-228-3701 Fax 14· · · · Gfisch@sheppardmullin.com 15 16· ·Also Present: 17· · · · KEN PARRA, The videographer 18· · · · RHONDA NOELL 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit A 0004 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 2 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 8 of 123 Page ID #:168 ·1· · · · · · · · · ·INDEX OF EXAMINATION ·2 ·3· WITNESS:· HANNAH L. TYE ·4· EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE ·5· By Mr. Fisch· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·7 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit A 0005 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 3 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 9 of 123 Page ID #:169 ·1· · · · · · · · · · INDEX TO EXHIBITS ·2 ·3· Exhibit· · · · Description· · · · · · · · · Page ·4· ·1· · · · ·Facebook profile· · · · · · · · · ·19 ·5· ·2· · · · ·E-mail, 11/26/14, Tye/Scott· · · · 31 ·6· ·3· · · · ·E-mail, 11/26/14, Tye/Noell· · · · 31 ·7· ·4· · · · ·E-mail, 1/3/14, Lucas/Noell· · · · 32 ·8· ·5· · · · ·Letter 2/26/15 to · · · · · · · ·Ponce De Leon· · · · · · · · · · · 66 ·9 · · ·6· · · · ·Wells Fargo Team Member 10· · · · · · ·Handbook July 2014· · · · · · · · 105 · · ·7· · · · ·Team Member Acknowledgment, 11· · · · · · ·3/28/11· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·105 12· ·8· · · · ·Letter, 1/9/12, · · · · · · · ·Tye/LaManna· · · · · · · · · · · ·107 13 · · ·9· · · · ·Wells Fargo Job Family 14· · · · · · ·Information Compliance · · · · · · · ·Consultant 1· · · · · · · · · · · 110 15 · · 10· · · · ·E-mail, 12/5/14, Tye/Noell 16· · · · · · ·WFB000148 - 150· · · · · · · · · ·134 17· 11· · · · ·E-mail, 12/5/14, · · · · · · · ·Tye/Noell, WFB000156 - 158· · · · 134 18 · · 12· · · · ·Return-to-work letter· · · · · · ·153 19 · · 13· · · · ·Letter, 11/23/11, 20· · · · · · ·Tye/Dries· · · · · · · · · · · · ·153 21· 14· · · · ·Handwritten document to · · · · · · · ·Dries from Tye, H.TYE00021· · · · 153 22 · · 15· · · · ·12/8/11 Letter of approval 23· · · · · · ·of medical leave w/out pay, · · · · · · · ·Tye/Whidden/Chatillon· · · · · · ·153 24 25 Exhibit A 0006 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 4 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 10 of 123 Page ID #:170 ·1· · · · · · CONTINUATION OF INDEX TO EXHIBITS ·2· Exhibit· · · · Description· · · · · · · · · Page ·3· 16· · · · ·EDD Appeal Form, 1/14/15· · · · · 162 ·4· 17· · · · ·California Unemployment · · · · · · · ·Insurance Appeals Board ·5· · · · · · ·decision, 2/27/15· · · · · · · · ·166 ·6· 18· · · · ·E-mail, 12/30/13, Hopkins/Tye· · ·176 ·7· 19· · · · ·E-mail, 4/1/14, Hopkins/Tye· · · ·176 ·8· 20· · · · ·E-mail, Hopkins/Tye, 1/30/14· · · 176 ·9· 21· · · · ·Apply History, · · · · · · · ·H.TYE00013 - 14· · · · · · · · · ·187 10 · · 22· · · · ·Payments from Debbie Oppenheim· · 194 11 · · 23· · · · ·Pacific Frontier letter, 12· · · · · · ·11/21/11, Tye/Harris· · · · · · · 195 13· 24· · · · ·Handwritten document, · · · · · · · ·"Symptoms over the years"· · · · ·199 14 · · 25· · · · ·Letter, 10/26/15, Bokhour/DFEH, 15· · · · · · ·Complaint of Employment · · · · · · · ·Discrimination· · · · · · · · · · 200 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit A 0007 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 5 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 11 of 123 Page ID #:171 ·1· · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF HANNAH L. TYE ·2· · · · · · · · · · September 8, 2016 ·3· · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Good morning.· This is ·4· tape number 1 of the videotaped deposition of ·5· Hannah L. Tye in the matter of Hannah L. Tye versus ·6· Wells Fargo Capital Finance being heard before the ·7· United States District Court Central District of ·8· California, Case No. 2:16-CV-02418-SJO-E. ·9· · · · · ·This deposition is being held at 1901 Avenue 10· of the Stars, Suite 1600, Los Angeles, California 11· 90067, on September 8th, 2016, at 10:08 a.m. 12· · · · · ·My name is Ken Parra, and I am the 13· videographer.· The court reporter is Karen Aligo. 14· · · · · ·Counsel, will you please introduce yourselves 15· and affiliations, and the witness will be sworn. 16· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Good morning, Mehrdad Bokhour 17· on behalf of plaintiff, Hannah L. Tye. 18· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Gregg Fisch on behalf the 19· defendant Wells Fargo. 20 21· · · · · · · · · · · HANNAH L. TYE, 22· sworn as a witness by the Certified Shorthand 23· reporter, testified as follows: 24 25 Exhibit A 0008 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 6 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 12 of 123 Page ID #:172 ·1· helped with some. ·2· · · · · ·(Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.) ·3· BY MR. FISCH: ·4· · · Q.· ·You've been handed a document called Exhibit ·5· 1, a six-page document from Facebook.com.· Is that ·6· your profile from Facebook.com? ·7· · · A.· ·Yes, it is. ·8· · · Q.· ·If you could, turn to page 2 of Exhibit 1. ·9· Towards the bottom or the bottom it says, "Hannah Tye 10· River posting from September 5th, 2015,"· It says 11· "Started school at Cal State University Chico." 12· · · A.· ·I did not post that. 13· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you believe that's inaccurate? 14· · · A.· ·Yes, absolutely.· That's very strange. 15· · · Q.· ·Now obviously at some point you were employed 16· by Wells Fargo? 17· · · A.· ·Yes. 18· · · Q.· ·When did you first start working with Wells 19· Fargo? 20· · · A.· ·In 2006, I believe. 21· · · Q.· ·And then that tenure ended sometime? 22· · · A.· ·Yes, I started as a receptionist there. 23· · · Q.· ·When you say "there," what's "there?" 24· · · A.· ·At Wells Fargo. 25· · · Q.· ·Is there a specific location where you were Exhibit A 0009 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 19 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 13 of 123 Page ID #:173 ·1· you a receptionist at Wells Fargo? ·2· · · A.· ·In the Santa Monica office. ·3· · · Q.· ·Was there a specific group that you were ·4· serving as a receptionist for, or was it a building? ·5· · · A.· ·It was the company, yes, the Santa Monica ·6· office.· I was in the facilities department. ·7· · · Q.· ·And for how long did you serve as a ·8· receptionist for Wells Fargo? ·9· · · A.· ·I believe it was about two years. 10· · · Q.· ·Until about 2008 approximately? 11· · · A.· ·Yes.· I can't recall exactly. 12· · · Q.· ·And then when you stopped being a 13· receptionist at the Santa -- I'm sorry -- at the Santa 14· Monica location for Wells Fargo, did your employment 15· with Wells Fargo end or did you take a new position? 16· · · A.· ·I started part time in the mail room. 17· · · Q.· ·So you stopped being a receptionist when you 18· started working in the mail room at Wells Fargo? 19· · · A.· ·Yes.· In between those times I applied for a 20· different job in the company which I did not receive. 21· · · Q.· ·So you went right from the receptionist 22· position to the mail room position, or did you take 23· time off from -- 24· · · A.· ·There might have been a few weeks in between. 25· · · Q.· ·And then for how long did you work in the Exhibit A 0010 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 20 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 14 of 123 Page ID #:174 ·1· mail room at Wells Fargo? ·2· · · A.· ·I can't recall exactly, but it wasn't for ·3· very long. ·4· · · Q.· ·And the mail position, was that also the ·5· Santa Monica location? ·6· · · A.· ·Yes, it was. ·7· · · Q.· ·And then what was your next position after ·8· the mail room at Wells Fargo? ·9· · · A.· ·I believe there was another break, and then I 10· worked for -- still worked for Wells Fargo in the 11· Santa Monica location for Mark Kotler.· I was helping 12· with data research. 13· · · Q.· ·Could you spell Mark's last name, please? 14· · · A.· ·I believe it's K-o-t-l-e-r. 15· · · Q.· ·And do you know when it was you started 16· working for Mark Kotler in data research? 17· · · A.· ·I can't remember the exact date, but it was 18· after the part time in the mail room, and I believe 19· this was a temporary job. 20· · · Q.· ·Were you employed directly by Wells Fargo? 21· · · A.· ·I might have gone through Apple One, a temp 22· agency, in order to obtain that position. 23· · · Q.· ·But, again, when you were working for Mark 24· Kotler, that was still at the same Santa Monica 25· location? Exhibit A 0011 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 21 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 15 of 123 Page ID #:175 ·1· · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. ·2· · · Q.· ·And then how long did you work for Mark? ·3· · · A.· ·Not even a year, and the job ended. ·4· · · Q.· ·What was your next position with Wells Fargo ·5· after your position with Mark? ·6· · · A.· ·He called me in to do another temp job as a ·7· compliance consultant for a woman who was going out on ·8· maternity leave. ·9· · · Q.· ·Do you remember when that was? 10· · · A.· ·I can't remember the exact year, but it was 11· after the temp job, although I believe there was about 12· six months in between, and I did go through a temp 13· agency for that as well. 14· · · Q.· ·That temp job that was in compliance, do you 15· recall how long you were in the temp job for 16· compliance? 17· · · A.· ·About three months. 18· · · Q.· ·And then what happened? 19· · · A.· ·She came back from maternity leave and that 20· ended. 21· · · Q.· ·Do you know what employee that was? 22· · · A.· ·Christy Walsh. 23· · · Q.· ·And that -- again, that compliance temp 24· position was also at the Santa Monica location? 25· · · A.· ·Yes, it was. Exhibit A 0012 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 22 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 16 of 123 Page ID #:176 ·1· · · Q.· ·So after Christy returned to work and your ·2· compliance temp position ended, what happened next ·3· with your employment? ·4· · · A.· ·I was unemployed for a little bit longer, and ·5· then at a certain point they called me in to that same ·6· group for that compliance job for the same woman ·7· because she went on a short medical leave for a ·8· surgery. ·9· · · Q.· ·You say "for the same woman."· Do you mean 10· Christy? 11· · · A.· ·Christy Walsh, yes. 12· · · Q.· ·So Christy went out again? 13· · · A.· ·Yes.· That was for maybe two months maximum. 14· · · Q.· ·And was that also through a temp agency? 15· · · A.· ·Yes, it was. 16· · · Q.· ·And then Christy came back to work and that 17· temp position ended? 18· · · A.· ·Yes. 19· · · Q.· ·And then what happened next? 20· · · A.· ·My next move, they hired me through a temp 21· agency for the mail room.· They were having a big 22· project.· They were doing construction on the office, 23· and they hired me for that, and that became permanent. 24· · · Q.· ·Do you recall when that was? 25· · · A.· ·Sometime in 2010, I believe. Exhibit A 0013 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 23 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 17 of 123 Page ID #:177 ·1· · · Q.· ·Again, that mail-room position that you ·2· obtained in approximately in 2010, that was also at ·3· the Santa Monica location? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. ·5· · · Q.· ·Instead of me asking that question every ·6· time, did you ever work for Wells Fargo at any other ·7· location besides the Santa Monica location? ·8· · · A.· ·No, I did not. ·9· · · Q.· ·So in other words, every position you ever 10· held with Wells Fargo was located at the Santa Monica 11· location, correct? 12· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. 13· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So after your mail-room position, what 14· was your next position with Wells Fargo? 15· · · A.· ·That was in -- that was as a compliance 16· consultant in specialty finance. 17· · · Q.· ·And that was the position you started in 18· January of 2012, correct? 19· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. 20· · · Q.· ·And that was a position you -- when you 21· took -- when you started the compliance position, that 22· was right after you had returned from a leave, 23· correct? 24· · · A.· ·That is correct. 25· · · Q.· ·And that was the leave you mentioned earlier Exhibit A 0014 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 24 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 18 of 123 Page ID #:178 ·1· about getting disability benefits? ·2· · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. ·3· · · Q.· ·And did you have a job title in the ·4· compliance area when you started in January of 2012? ·5· · · A.· ·Compliance consultant 1. ·6· · · Q.· ·And did you maintain the compliance ·7· consultant 1 position through the remainder of your ·8· Wells Fargo employment? ·9· · · A.· ·Yes. 10· · · Q.· ·And your employment ultimately ended with 11· Wells Fargo in December of 2014, correct? 12· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. 13· · · Q.· ·And your employment with Wells Fargo ended in 14· December 2014 pursuant to your written resignation, 15· correct? 16· · · A.· ·That I was told to make, yes. 17· · · Q.· ·What do you mean "you were told to make?" 18· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection as to form. 19· · · · · ·You can answer. 20· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I was told that I had to put in 21· writing that I was resigning and the date which I was 22· resigning on. 23· BY MR. FISCH: 24· · · Q.· ·By whom?· Or who told you that you needed to 25· put it in writing? Exhibit A 0015 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 25 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 19 of 123 Page ID #:179 ·1· · · A.· ·I can't recall exactly, but I was told it ·2· needed to go to Rhonda and Steve and HR.· I'm sorry. ·3· Rhonda Noell, Steve Scott and the HR department. ·4· · · Q.· ·And somebody told you to put it in writing ·5· after you informed them that you were going to be ·6· resigning, correct? ·7· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection as to form. ·8· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· When I stated that things were ·9· very bad, and I was feeling like I was being forced to 10· leave, yes. 11· BY MR. FISCH: 12· · · Q.· ·Did anyone tell you to quit? 13· · · A.· ·No. 14· · · Q.· ·So you told someone at Wells Fargo that you 15· were going to quit, correct? 16· · · A.· ·I sent e-mails saying I needed a meeting 17· because I needed to leave my position for reasons that 18· they knew about. 19· · · Q.· ·And who did you send the e-mail to about the 20· meeting? 21· · · A.· ·There was two e-mails:· one to Steve Scott 22· and one to Rhonda Noell. 23· · · Q.· ·Other than sending those e-mails to Steve and 24· Rhonda, did you tell anyone -- or how else did you 25· communicate that you were going to be resigning from Exhibit A 0016 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 26 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 20 of 123 Page ID #:180 ·1· your position at Wells Fargo? ·2· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection as to form. ·3· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· We had a meeting.· I had a ·4· meeting with Steve Scott and Rhonda Noell. ·5· BY MR. FISCH: ·6· · · Q.· ·After you sent the e-mail? ·7· · · A.· ·The e-mail was setting up the meeting, yes. ·8· · · Q.· ·Correct. ·9· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. 10· · · Q.· ·Was there any other way of communicating to 11· any other individuals that you were resigning before 12· you sent those e-mails to Rhonda and Steve? 13· · · A.· ·I can't recall at this time.· I'm not sure. 14· · · Q.· ·The e-mails you sent to Steve and Rhonda, 15· were those sent at the same time? 16· · · A.· ·I believe one after the other. 17· · · Q.· ·But pretty immediate? 18· · · A.· ·I believe so. 19· · · Q.· ·Close in proximity?· The same day? 20· · · A.· ·Yes, I believe. 21· · · Q.· ·Were those the first communications you had 22· with anyone at Wells Fargo that you were going to 23· resign your position? 24· · · A.· ·I don't remember.· I can't recall at this 25· time. Exhibit A 0017 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 27 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 21 of 123 Page ID #:181 ·1· · · Q.· ·Besides at that meeting that you referenced, ·2· and I'll come back to that in a moment, was there ·3· anyone else -- any other time you told anyone at Wells ·4· Fargo you were resigning by a verbal communication? ·5· · · A.· ·I had a -- I had made an exit interview with ·6· the HR manager, Mary Jo Gagliardi. ·7· · · Q.· ·And that was after you resigned? ·8· · · A.· ·It was after I had my meeting with Steve and ·9· Rhonda, yes.· I was told I didn't have to do my exit 10· interview, but I chose to set it up myself. 11· · · Q.· ·And did you actually have that meeting before 12· or after you last worked for Wells Fargo? 13· · · A.· ·I believe it was on the same day that I left. 14· · · Q.· ·So you had that meeting -- 15· · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry.· Could you repeat? 16· BY MR. FISCH: 17· · · Q.· ·Oh.· You had your meeting with Mary Jo 18· Gagliardo (sic) on your final day you worked for Wells 19· Fargo? 20· · · A.· ·Mary Jo Gagliardi? 21· · · Q.· ·Gagliardi.· Sorry. 22· · · A.· ·Yes, I believe that's correct. 23· · · Q.· ·Any other verbal communications with anyone 24· from Wells Fargo about your resignation? 25· · · A.· ·On that day I can't recall. Exhibit A 0018 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 28 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 22 of 123 Page ID #:182 ·1· your convenience.· Okay? ·2· · · A.· ·Okay. ·3· · · · · ·(Exhibits No. 2 and 3 marked for ·4· · · · · ·identification.) ·5· BY MR. FISCH: ·6· · · Q.· ·You've been handed two documents marked ·7· Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 respectively.· I'll take them ·8· one at a time for ease of reference. ·9· · · · · ·Exhibit 2 is a document marked in the bottom 10· right as H.TYE00089.· It is an e-mail chain between 11· you, Hannah Tye, and Steve Scott from Wednesday, 12· November 26th, 2014, regarding re: meeting. 13· · · · · ·And then Exhibit 3 is an e-mail chain marked 14· in the bottom right as WFB000139.· It's an e-mail 15· chain between you, Hannah Tye, and Rhonda Noell, also 16· from Wednesday, November 26th, 2014, and this one is 17· entitled "you in the office" on the subject line. 18· · · · · ·Have you seen these two e-mails before? 19· · · A.· ·I have. 20· · · Q.· ·And these are the e-mail chains that you had 21· with Steve Scott and Rhonda Noell respectively about 22· your resignation, correct? 23· · · A.· ·That's correct. 24· · · Q.· ·And these are true and accurate reflections 25· of the e-mail communication that you had with Rhonda Exhibit A 0019 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 31 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 23 of 123 Page ID #:183 ·1· and Steve about your resignation, right? ·2· · · A.· ·The e-mail communication, yes. ·3· · · Q.· ·Was there any other -- hold on. ·4· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Counsel, just for the record ·5· these e-mails speak for themselves, and I don't know ·6· whether they're accurate or not, and I don't think my ·7· client is in a position to determine whether or not ·8· they are -- ·9· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Objection -- 10· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· -- have been produced. 11· · · · · ·(Exhibit No. 4 marked for identification) 12· BY MR. FISCH: 13· · · Q.· ·Now, you both have been handed a document 14· marked as Exhibit 4.· It's identified in the bottom 15· right as H.TYE0009091 respectively, and it's an e-mail 16· chain between you, Hannah Tye, and Rhonda Noell, Steve 17· Scott, Beilee Tracey, Sonia Lucas entitled "My 18· resignation" from December 3rd, 2014.· Do you see 19· that? 20· · · A.· ·Yes, I do. 21· · · Q.· ·And this is the e-mail that you sent to 22· Rhonda, Steve and HR for the written resignation you 23· were referencing earlier, right? 24· · · A.· ·This is the e-mail that I was told I needed 25· to send, yes, that's correct. Exhibit A 0020 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 32 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 24 of 123 Page ID #:184 ·1· · · Q.· ·And who told you to send the e-mail? ·2· · · A.· ·I cannot recall.· It was either someone from ·3· HR, Rhonda or Steve. ·4· · · Q.· ·And when you were told to put it in writing ·5· and send that e-mail, that was after you had already ·6· announced to Rhonda and Steve that you wanted to ·7· resign, correct? ·8· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection as to form. ·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe this was after our 10· verbal meeting, yes. 11· BY MR. FISCH: 12· · · Q.· ·And this is a true reflection of the e-mail 13· that you had -- that you sent and the response you 14· received, correct? 15· · · A.· ·Of the e-mail, yes. 16· · · Q.· ·Yes.· Did you ever have any verbal 17· communications with Sonia Lucas about your 18· resignation? 19· · · A.· ·No. 20· · · Q.· ·Did you have any verbal communications with 21· Beilee Tracey about your resignation? 22· · · A.· ·No. 23· · · Q.· ·Anyone else -- did you ever have any 24· conversations with anyone else at Wells Fargo HR about 25· your resignation? Exhibit A 0021 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 33 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 25 of 123 Page ID #:185 ·1· · · A.· ·Yes, Mary Jo Gagliardi. ·2· · · Q.· ·Other than the Mary Jo Gagliardi -- exit ·3· interview that you referenced earlier? ·4· · · A.· ·No. ·5· · · Q.· ·And when you wrote the e-mails that you wrote ·6· to Rhonda, Steve and also the one to HR, were you ·7· providing truthful information to them about your ·8· resignation? ·9· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection as to form. 10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Partly.· The rest was given 11· verbally in Rhonda Noell's office with Steve Scott and 12· with Mary Jo Gagliardi. 13· BY MR. FISCH: 14· · · Q.· ·You're answering a different question.· What 15· you wrote, were you writing accurate and truthful 16· information to them when you submitted the e-mail 17· about your resignation? 18· · · A.· ·The two that I sent to Rhonda and Steve, yes. 19· And then I was told that the one that I had to send to 20· them stating I was resigning and the date I was told 21· to do that. 22· · · Q.· ·Right.· That's the third one, the December 23· 5th one, right? 24· · · A.· ·December 3rd. 25· · · Q.· ·I'm sorry.· I apologize.· I misread it. Exhibit A 0022 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 34 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 26 of 123 Page ID #:186 ·1· to figure out what you were requesting, you ultimately ·2· told them that you were resigning, correct? ·3· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection.· Vague and ·4· ambiguous. ·5· BY MR. FISCH: ·6· · · Q.· ·If you want, you can look at Exhibits 2 and ·7· 3.· They say, from you in particular, "I'm having this ·8· meeting" -- looking at Exhibit 2, Hannah Tye to Steve ·9· Scott from November 26th at 2:08 p.m. you say in 10· response to him, "What would you like to cover at the 11· meeting?" 12· · · · · ·I'm sorry.· It's the 1:34 e-mail from you to 13· Steve Scott.· In response to Steve saying, "What would 14· you like to cover at the meeting?· I would like to 15· talk to you and Rhonda about resigning my position." 16· Do you see that? 17· · · A.· ·Yes. 18· · · Q.· ·That's Exhibit 2 right in the middle. 19· · · A.· ·Yes. 20· · · Q.· ·And then you also go on to say, "I'm willing 21· to stay and train for as long as needed," right? 22· · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. 23· · · Q.· ·Similarly in Exhibit 3 your e-mail to Rhonda 24· from November 26th you ask for a meeting, and you then 25· went on to tell Rhonda in your 2/16 e-mail, "I need to Exhibit A 0023 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 43 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 27 of 123 Page ID #:187 ·1· resign.· I need to get my health on track.· It is too ·2· up and down."· You see that, right? ·3· · · A.· ·The one to Rhonda or -- ·4· · · Q.· ·The one to Rhonda, Exhibit No. 3. ·5· · · A.· ·I'm sorry. ·6· · · Q.· ·That's all right. ·7· · · A.· ·And there are a few other reasons that you ·8· know of that aren't helping it. ·9· · · Q.· ·Right. 10· · · A.· ·Is that the e-mail? 11· · · Q.· ·Yes. 12· · · A.· ·Yes, I see that. 13· · · Q.· ·So in those e-mails to Rhonda and Steve you 14· actually told them that you were submitting your 15· resignation, correct? 16· · · A.· ·I -- in the e-mails I refer to it, and then 17· we spoke more verbally in the meeting on the reasons, 18· yes, that's correct. 19· · · Q.· ·Right.· But in the e-mails you told both 20· Steve and Rhonda that you were resigning, correct? 21· · · A.· ·Yes. 22· · · Q.· ·And then you had the meeting on Monday or -- 23· approximately Monday? 24· · · A.· ·Yes. 25· · · Q.· ·And how did it -- were you the first one to Exhibit A 0024 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 44 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 28 of 123 Page ID #:188 ·1· speak at that meeting, or who was the first one to ·2· speak at that meeting? ·3· · · A.· ·I can't recall exactly. ·4· · · Q.· ·Do you recall the specifics of what was ·5· discussed at that meeting? ·6· · · A.· ·Absolutely. ·7· · · Q.· ·Do you recall what you specifically said at ·8· the meeting? ·9· · · A.· ·For the most part, yes. 10· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Tell me what you recall that you said 11· at the meeting. 12· · · A.· ·When I went in there, I told them that this 13· isn't exactly about my health.· It's about things that 14· were happening at work over the last three years that 15· have affected my health:· The harassment by Kelley 16· Thatcher, all of her actions over the years, and her 17· harassment towards me, and I just couldn't take it 18· anymore, and it was overwhelming.· I was mentally, 19· physically and emotionally distressed. 20· · · Q.· ·All right. 21· · · A.· ·I'm just really cold. 22· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· It's very cold in this 23· conference room.· If you could have it adjusted, we 24· would appreciate it. 25· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Sure.· Do you want me to try to Exhibit A 0025 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 45 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 29 of 123 Page ID #:189 ·1· do it now, take a break, or do you want to take a ·2· break? ·3· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm okay. ·4· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Can you read back her answer, ·5· please. ·6· · · · · ·(Record read as follows: ·7· · · · · ·Answer:· "When I went in there I told them ·8· · · · · ·that this isn't exactly about my health. ·9· · · · · ·It's about things that were happening at work 10· · · · · ·over the last three years that have affected 11· · · · · ·my health:· Harassment by Kelley Thatcher and 12· · · · · ·all of her actions over the years, and 13· · · · · ·harassment towards me, and I just couldn't 14· · · · · ·take it anymore.· It was overwhelming.· I was 15· · · · · ·mentally, physically, and emotionally 16· · · · · ·distressed.") 17· BY MR. FISCH: 18· · · Q.· ·You heard that?· You heard the answer? 19· · · A.· ·I did. 20· · · Q.· ·Is that your recollection of what you 21· actually said at that meeting? 22· · · A.· ·Some of it, yes. 23· · · Q.· ·What do you mean "some of it?"· Some of what 24· you just testified was what you said, or there was 25· other things that you said? Exhibit A 0026 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 46 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 30 of 123 Page ID #:190 ·1· · · A.· ·I just hadn't finished yet. ·2· · · Q.· ·Okay. ·3· · · A.· ·And I spoke about -- I went into detail about ·4· Kelley's harassment towards me and what I was dealing ·5· with and the work overload that was happening ·6· throughout the years and getting worse and worse, and ·7· the fact that they never completely severed me from ·8· Kelley Thatcher, which I had asked for over, and over, ·9· and over again, and I wasn't getting the help that I 10· needed. 11· · · · · ·And they continued to tell me that, no, I was 12· leaving because of my health.· I needed to go home and 13· take care of myself.· They told me to take two days 14· off and return for my last day, and that I should skip 15· my exit interview. 16· · · Q.· ·Hold on.· I just want to focus on what you 17· said first. 18· · · A.· ·Okay. 19· · · Q.· ·So the last part was what they said to you, 20· "they" meaning Rhonda and/or Steve, correct? 21· · · A.· ·Correct. 22· · · Q.· ·So I want to just break it down one by one. 23· · · A.· ·Okay. 24· · · Q.· ·So is there anything else that you recall 25· that you said at that meeting, other than what you've Exhibit A 0027 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 47 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 31 of 123 Page ID #:191 ·1· · · Q.· ·So if I understand your prior testimony, at ·2· that meeting did you reference Stacy Hopkins at all? ·3· · · A.· ·I don't believe I did, no.· I can't ·4· completely remember. ·5· · · Q.· ·Do you recall ever referencing any problems ·6· you had with Stacy Hopkins to anyone at Wells Fargo? ·7· · · A.· ·To Rhonda, yes, I did. ·8· · · Q.· ·Prior to that meeting or after that meeting? ·9· · · A.· ·Prior to the meeting. 10· · · Q.· ·Thank you.· We'll come back to that then. 11· · · A.· ·Sure. 12· · · Q.· ·I want to kind of break down what I 13· understood your answer to be about what you said at 14· that meeting.· Okay? 15· · · A.· ·Okay. 16· · · Q.· ·So you used the term "harassment by Kelley," 17· right? 18· · · A.· ·Right.· Uh-hum, yes, I did. 19· · · Q.· ·And did you explain at that meeting what you 20· meant or what you believed was harassing conduct by 21· Kelley? 22· · · A.· ·Yes. 23· · · Q.· ·What did you believe was the harassing 24· conduct that you endured while working at Wells Fargo 25· from Kelley Thatcher? Exhibit A 0028 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 49 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 32 of 123 Page ID #:192 ·1· · · A.· ·Her harassing behavior was she often told me ·2· I couldn't be sick.· I couldn't go out sick.· I had to ·3· be strong for her.· She would tell me -- over the ·4· three years the behavior from Kelley Thatcher to me ·5· was constantly calling me into her office and closing ·6· the door and telling me her personal stories, crying, ·7· making me hug her to comfort her.· If she was out of ·8· the office sick, which she was often, she would call ·9· me at least ten times a day crying on the phone, 10· keeping me from my work, which I was actually off 11· doing her work because she was out of the office.· If 12· I ignored her phone calls, she would call the 13· receptionist and page me so I would have to answer the 14· call. 15· · · · · ·She often showed up to work overmedicated. 16· She was stumbling, slurring her words.· She would 17· often have me type e-mails for her in her office 18· because she could not do it herself.· There were a few 19· times where she went to sit in her office seat and 20· fell down.· I had to pick her up.· The personal 21· stories she told me of her life sometimes became in a 22· sexual manner of her own personal details in her life. 23· · · Q.· ·You understood that Kelley had some problems? 24· · · A.· ·I did, absolutely, yes -- 25· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection.· Vague. Exhibit A 0029 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 50 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 33 of 123 Page ID #:193 ·1· BY MR. FISCH: ·2· · · Q.· ·You understood Kelley had some medical ·3· problems? ·4· · · A.· ·I did, yes. ·5· · · Q.· ·Do you know what Kelley's medical problems ·6· were? ·7· · · A.· ·There was quite a few that she told me.· I do ·8· not know if that was all of them. ·9· · · Q.· ·What was your understanding as to what 10· medical problems Kelley had? 11· · · A.· ·She would tell me she had migraines.· She 12· told me that she had stomachaches.· She was often at a 13· doctor.· She also told me that she had many personal 14· problems in her life as well. 15· · · Q.· ·What kind of personal problems did you 16· understand Kelley to have? 17· · · A.· ·There were different ones on a daily basis: 18· things with her close friends, things with her 19· husband, things with her children, the way that she 20· felt about life in general, and that she was 21· depressed. 22· · · Q.· ·Anything else that you were aware of? 23· · · A.· ·Not that I can recall at this time. 24· · · Q.· ·And you're aware that, to your knowledge, 25· Kelley is deceased? Exhibit A 0030 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 51 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 34 of 123 Page ID #:194 ·1· · · A.· ·I am. ·2· · · Q.· ·Do you know -- did you or do you know now ·3· that Kelley died in the spring of 2015? ·4· · · A.· ·I'm not sure if I knew that date.· I don't ·5· recall exactly when she passed away. ·6· · · Q.· ·You know it was more than a year ago? ·7· · · A.· ·Yes. ·8· · · Q.· ·When did you first become aware that Kelley ·9· had passed away? 10· · · A.· ·I believe it might have been a couple of days 11· after. 12· · · Q.· ·How did you find out that Kelley passed away? 13· · · A.· ·I was told on the phone. 14· · · Q.· ·By whom? 15· · · A.· ·Christy Walsh. 16· · · Q.· ·And that was after you left Wells Fargo 17· employment, correct? 18· · · A.· ·That is correct. 19· · · Q.· ·So even after you left Wells Fargo, you kept 20· in touch with some Wells Fargo coworkers? 21· · · A.· ·Yes. 22· · · Q.· ·Do you know why Kelley passed away, or what 23· the cause of her death was? 24· · · A.· ·I was told she had an overdose of pain 25· medication.· That was information I received. Exhibit A 0031 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 52 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 35 of 123 Page ID #:195 ·1· · · Q.· ·And while you worked for Kelley, one of those ·2· things that you regularly saw was that Kelley was ·3· overmedicating, overusing pain medication, right? ·4· · · A.· ·I don't know exactly the exact medication ·5· that was being used.· She did not speak of that, but, ·6· yes, her actions showed that she was overintoxicated ·7· on medication. ·8· · · Q.· ·It was your belief at the time that Kelley ·9· was overmedicated when you were working for her? 10· · · A.· ·Yes.· She never said the exact type of 11· medication, but she did tell me she was on anxiety 12· medications, and pain medication, but she never 13· referred to their names. 14· · · Q.· ·And you worked directly for Kelley when you 15· were -- originally when you first started in the 16· compliance department, right? 17· · · A.· ·I did.· That's correct. 18· · · Q.· ·Do you know what Kelley's position was at the 19· time that you worked with her? 20· · · A.· ·I can't recall exactly.· She was -- I believe 21· she was either senior vice president or vice 22· president. 23· · · Q.· ·And were you like her assistant, or what was 24· your role with regard to her position? 25· · · A.· ·I was her direct report.· I was the Exhibit A 0032 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 53 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 36 of 123 Page ID #:196 ·1· compliance consultant for the group. ·2· · · Q.· ·Did Kelley have an assistant? ·3· · · A.· ·No, she did not. ·4· · · Q.· ·Did Kelley have any kind of admin or ·5· secretary or -- or secretary that worked with her? ·6· · · A.· ·No, she often had me do work related to that ·7· for her.· It was not someone assigned to that ·8· position, no. ·9· · · Q.· ·Was there anyone else who was a direct report 10· to Kelley when you were directly reporting to Kelley? 11· · · A.· ·No. 12· · · Q.· ·And then at some point you stopped being a 13· direct report to Kelley, right? 14· · · A.· ·Correct. 15· · · Q.· ·And that was in January of 2014, right? 16· · · A.· ·Yes. 17· · · Q.· ·And that was -- and it was at that point that 18· you then became a direct report to Steve Scott? 19· · · A.· ·Steve Scott, and I still remained a backup to 20· Kelley Thatcher. 21· · · Q.· ·What does that mean "backup to Kelley 22· Thatcher?" 23· · · A.· ·When she was out or unable to do her work, I 24· did it:· certain aspect of her work. 25· · · Q.· ·And once you became a direct report to Steve Exhibit A 0033 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 54 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 37 of 123 Page ID #:197 ·1· Scott, was there anybody else -- or was there anybody ·2· who was a direct report to Kelley? ·3· · · A.· ·No. ·4· · · Q.· ·How did it come to be that your position ·5· changed from a direct report to Kelley to a direct ·6· report to Steve Scott? ·7· · · A.· ·It happened that way because for over a year ·8· I had been asking to please have me be removed ·9· completely from Kelley Thatcher. 10· · · Q.· ·And who did you relay those requests to? 11· · · A.· ·Rhonda Noell. 12· · · Q.· ·Anyone else? 13· · · A.· ·I don't believe so.· I believe she related 14· that information to Stacy Hopkins. 15· · · Q.· ·Did you ever make that request to Stacy 16· Hopkins? 17· · · A.· ·Not that exact request, but I did inform her 18· of what was happening to me under Kelley's 19· supervision. 20· · · Q.· ·Did you ever ask Stacy for a transfer? 21· · · A.· ·I can't recall at this time.· I know that 22· Rhonda and I were working together for it. 23· · · Q.· ·Did you ever contact HR about seeking a 24· transfer? 25· · · A.· ·I did not. Exhibit A 0034 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 55 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 38 of 123 Page ID #:198 ·1· · · Q.· ·Did you ever -- are you aware that Wells ·2· Fargo has an intranet that they like list job ·3· openings? ·4· · · A.· ·I do. ·5· · · Q.· ·While you were working as a direct report ·6· under Kelley Thatcher, did you ever go to that ·7· intranet and apply for any other internal positions? ·8· · · A.· ·I actually did look.· Most of them -- I'm ·9· sorry.· Correction.· All of them that were available 10· were not -- I didn't have a degree for those.· I did 11· not have the experience. 12· · · Q.· ·When you say degree, you -- those other -- 13· all those positions that you saw listed required a 14· college degree? 15· · · A.· ·I believe a business college degree, yes. 16· · · Q.· ·So because you realized that you didn't have 17· the basic qualifications for any of those positions, 18· you did not apply for any of those positions, correct? 19· · · A.· ·Yes, I looked at those positions out of 20· desperation.· My main goal, though, was to stay in 21· specialty finance where I wanted to work until my 22· retirement.· I wanted to move up in it.· I loved that 23· job.· I loved that group, and that's where I wanted to 24· stay ultimately. 25· · · Q.· ·When you say "specialty finance," because we Exhibit A 0035 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 56 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 39 of 123 Page ID #:199 ·1· haven't used that term at this depo today, the group ·2· that you were working in when you were a direct report ·3· to Kelley was called a specialty finance group? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · Q.· ·And the specialty finance group was located ·6· only at that Santa Monica location where you were ·7· working, correct? ·8· · · A.· ·The group, yes, it was. ·9· · · Q.· ·Were there any other positions in this 10· specialty finance group for which you were qualified 11· at that time? 12· · · A.· ·No, I don't believe so. 13· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· I object to form on the 14· previous question. 15· BY MR. FISCH: 16· · · Q.· ·Did you go to Kelley's funeral? 17· · · A.· ·I did not. 18· · · Q.· ·Did your husband know Kelley Thatcher? 19· · · A.· ·He didn't have a relationship with her, but 20· he knew who she was, yes. 21· · · Q.· ·Cameron works at the Santa Monica location as 22· well, correct? 23· · · A.· ·Yes, he works for Wells Fargo Bank NA. 24· · · Q.· ·During the entire time that you were working 25· for the specialty finance group, Cameron was located Exhibit A 0036 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 57 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 40 of 123 Page ID #:200 ·1· at the Santa Monica location as well? ·2· · · A.· ·Yes. ·3· · · Q.· ·Did Cameron go to Kelley's funeral? ·4· · · A.· ·He did not. ·5· · · Q.· ·Before you were telling us about the ·6· different problems you had with Kelley, and was there ·7· anything else, that you can recall, that Kelley did to ·8· you that you found to be harassing? ·9· · · A.· ·Yes, a few different times she would call me 10· when I was out to lunch.· There was one instance where 11· she sent me an e-mail on my Blackberry and told me 12· that I needed to come back right at that moment. I 13· gave her a phone call, and I asked her what was wrong, 14· and she told me -- she would not give me specifics of 15· the situation, but she told me to come back, that I 16· needed to be back into her office right now. 17· · · · · ·So I left where we were having lunch.· I went 18· back to the office.· When I got to the office, she 19· told me that she didn't remember even ever sending me 20· the e-mail. 21· · · Q.· ·Again, did you -- you came to a conclusion at 22· that time that the reason why Kelley didn't remember 23· that she had reached out to you was because she was 24· overmedicated? 25· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection.· Misleading Exhibit A 0037 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 58 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 41 of 123 Page ID #:201 ·1· testimony.· Vague and ambiguous. ·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know exactly why she ·3· did that. ·4· BY MR. FISCH: ·5· · · Q.· ·Did you believe she was lying to you that she ·6· didn't remember? ·7· · · A.· ·No, I believe she was out of her wits.· Yes, ·8· maybe she was overmedicated.· She was not doing well ·9· that day. 10· · · Q.· ·And it had to do with her medical condition 11· at the time and her personal problems, right? 12· · · A.· ·I cannot tell you why she took that 13· medication. 14· · · Q.· ·No, but the reason why she contacted you and 15· couldn't remember, is your understanding that it was 16· because of her medical condition or her personal 17· problem? 18· · · A.· ·I did not come to that conclusion, no. I 19· mean it could have been because she had an addiction 20· to those pills at that time.· I'm not sure. 21· · · Q.· ·That time -- was that the only time that you 22· recall that she contacted you, when you were at lunch 23· to make you come back to work? 24· · · A.· ·She did that several times.· That time was 25· the one that caused me the most stress because of her Exhibit A 0038 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 59 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 42 of 123 Page ID #:202 ·1· that question. ·2· · · Q.· ·Because you don't know what she was thinking ·3· at the time, and even she didn't know what she was ·4· thinking at the time, right? ·5· · · A.· ·I can't answer that either. ·6· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection. ·7· BY MR. FISCH: ·8· · · Q.· ·Based on your communications with her she ·9· told you I don't remember even doing that, right? 10· · · A.· ·Yes, but I can't answer to what things she 11· was thinking that she did not say outloud to me.· I do 12· know that she knew that I had a disability as well. 13· She knew that I was sick as well, seeing doctors. 14· · · Q.· ·Right, but that's not anything to do with 15· that day, right?· The fact is you went back from 16· lunch, you reported to her like she asked you to, and 17· she said, "I don't remember contacting you," right? 18· · · A.· ·That is correct. 19· · · Q.· ·And you reminded her that you had spoken to 20· her, and you had received an e-mail for her, right? 21· · · A.· ·I showed her the e-mail.· I told her that we 22· spoke on the phone, and she had no recollection of 23· either one. 24· · · Q.· ·And then after she said "I don't recall," did 25· you just go back and do your job duties? Exhibit A 0039 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 61 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 43 of 123 Page ID #:203 ·1· · · A.· ·No, I went into -- I believe I went into ·2· either the file room or an office and I cried. ·3· · · Q.· ·By yourself? ·4· · · A.· ·At first I did, and then I went into an ·5· office of Lillian Ponce de León and broke down with ·6· her as well.· She knew Kelley.· She knew Kelley's ·7· behavior.· She saw it for herself, and could relate to ·8· the situation. ·9· · · Q.· ·And so Lillian understood that Kelley had 10· these medical issues and the drug issues as well, 11· right? 12· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection as to form. 13· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe so.· She had seen -- 14· she definitely had seen her behavior that appeared to 15· be overmedicated, the slurring, the not walking right, 16· things like that. 17· BY MR. FISCH: 18· · · Q.· ·When you say "her behavior," you're 19· referencing Kelley's behavior, right? 20· · · A.· ·Sorry.· Yes, Kelley Thatcher, yes. 21· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.· Did you tell anyone else 22· from Wells Fargo about that incident? 23· · · A.· ·I believe I told Rhonda.· I can't recall 24· exactly if it was right when it happened, but Rhonda 25· and I would often get together, and I would tell her Exhibit A 0040 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 62 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 44 of 123 Page ID #:204 ·1· the ongoing events that was happening with Kelley, and ·2· how her behavior was escalating, and I would give the ·3· examples, and that would have been one of them. ·4· · · Q.· ·And do you recall what Rhonda -- for that ·5· specific instance or incident, do you recall what ·6· Rhonda said in response to you telling her about that ·7· incident? ·8· · · A.· ·I can't recall exactly, but Rhonda was ·9· always supportive.· She always told me that that was 10· not okay, that behavior was not acceptable, and that 11· she was sorry it happened to me:· in a general sense. 12· I can't remember exactly if it was that incident. 13· · · Q.· ·And did Rhonda ever tell you what Wells Fargo 14· was doing with regard to Kelley's employment? 15· · · A.· ·No, she told me that was confidential, but 16· that they were working on it.· She was working on with 17· HR.· She was informing HR of everything that was going 18· on and they were working on something. 19· · · Q.· ·Rhonda told you that.· She couldn't tell you 20· specifics, but she could tell you -- but she did in 21· fact tell you generally that Wells Fargo was working 22· toward -- with Kelley? 23· · · A.· ·She told me that HR was aware of Kelley's 24· behavior, her medical issues, what's happening with 25· me. Exhibit A 0041 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 63 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 45 of 123 Page ID #:205 ·1· is what she had remembered from my unemployment case. ·2· · · Q.· ·Do you know when that lunch was? ·3· · · A.· ·I cannot recall the exact date. ·4· · · Q.· ·That lunch would have been before you were ·5· transferred from direct report to Kelley to a direct ·6· report to Steve, correct? ·7· · · A.· ·No, I think this was -- I think this was -- I ·8· believe this was after.· I still had plenty of contact ·9· with Kelley.· I was still her backup.· She still had 10· access to me.· She was still conversing with me.· We 11· still had joint work together, but I cannot recall 12· exactly whether it was before or after I transferred. 13· · · Q.· ·Before, when you were talking about what you 14· believed to be the harassment conduct by Kelley, you 15· mentioned how Kelley would say things about she didn't 16· want you to be out of work, and some other things in 17· that regard, right? 18· · · A.· ·Correct. 19· · · Q.· ·Was it -- it was your understanding that 20· Kelley was saying that because she needed your support 21· because of all of her personal problems, right? 22· · · A.· ·And she needed me to do her work as well when 23· she was incapable of doing it, which was often. 24· · · Q.· ·The reason why she couldn't do her work is 25· because of the medication and other problems you Exhibit A 0042 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 69 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 46 of 123 Page ID #:206 ·1· identified earlier, right? ·2· · · A.· ·Possibly.· And it also made me feel like I ·3· wasn't allowed to have a disability of my own. I ·4· wasn't allowed to have the feelings and symptoms that ·5· I was having. ·6· · · Q.· ·Did you ever talk with Kelley about the ·7· medical condition that you had? ·8· · · A.· ·I did. ·9· · · Q.· ·The medical condition you had was Lyme 10· disease? 11· · · A.· ·Is currently, yes. 12· · · Q.· ·Is Lyme disease? 13· · · A.· ·Yes. 14· · · Q.· ·Any other condition other than Lyme disease 15· that you had during the time you worked for Wells 16· Fargo? 17· · · A.· ·Just everything that came with the Lyme 18· disease.· There was not -- there may have been -- 19· there was also a test for Bartonella and things that 20· go with Lyme disease. 21· · · Q.· ·But there's multiple symptoms that resulted 22· because of your Lyme disease; is that fair to say? 23· · · A.· ·That is correct. 24· · · Q.· ·Did you ever have a talk with Kelley 25· specifically about your Lyme disease? Exhibit A 0043 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 70 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 47 of 123 Page ID #:207 ·1· there in 2012 still. ·2· · · Q.· ·When you say "Dnira left," she left Wells ·3· Fargo entirely? ·4· · · A.· ·No, she went to another group. ·5· · · Q.· ·Also in Santa Monica? ·6· · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. ·7· · · Q.· ·Do you know what group it was? ·8· · · A.· ·I can't remember the exact name.· Erin went ·9· to technology finance, I do know that. 10· · · Q.· ·Was that also in Santa Monica? 11· · · A.· ·It was. 12· · · Q.· ·So would you see Dnira and Erin once you 13· became the only direct report for Kelley? 14· · · A.· ·That's correct. 15· · · Q.· ·Did you ever talk with Dnira or Erin about 16· the problems you were encountering with Kelley? 17· · · A.· ·Before I -- when I applied for this job, they 18· came up to me, and they told me to be careful, that 19· Kelley has an array of problems; that they often 20· smelled alcohol on her breath; that she would call and 21· slur her words, tell them she loved them, and things 22· like that.· I had never seen this behavior from 23· Kelley.· I would see her sometimes in the mail room or 24· at the front desk.· I always thought she was a lovely 25· person.· I always got along with Kelley before that. Exhibit A 0044 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 73 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 48 of 123 Page ID #:208 ·1· We didn't have a relationship, but I would see her ·2· here and there.· And I told them, you know what, I'm ·3· going to find out for -- you know, just -- I want this ·4· job.· I love this group.· I enjoy Kelley.· Our ·5· interview went great, and I'm going to take the job, ·6· which I did. ·7· · · Q.· ·Let me make sure.· Did you -- once you took ·8· the position, did you have any conversations with Erin ·9· or Dnira about the problems you were encountering with 10· Kelley? 11· · · A.· ·They often asked me how it was going.· For 12· the first month it went great.· She was excellent. 13· She trained me well.· She was -- 14· · · Q.· ·"She" meaning Kelley? 15· · · A.· ·Yes, Kelley Thatcher.· She was good to me. 16· We got along great.· And then about a month in things 17· started going downhill.· She would be out sick a lot. 18· That's when the harassing started.· That's when the 19· personal stories started.· That's when I -- she would 20· never give me time to do my work or the work that was 21· put on top of my work.· And I believe that they 22· checked in with me once in a while asking me how 23· Kelley was doing, and I would tell them things are 24· starting to go bad, and I'm now seeing what you guys 25· had told me:· in a general sense. Exhibit A 0045 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 74 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 49 of 123 Page ID #:209 ·1· relationship.· They just told me certain things about ·2· her behavior. ·3· · · Q.· ·But those behaviors that Dnira and Erin told ·4· you that they encountered were things that you also ·5· encountered? ·6· · · A.· ·Some of them.· She never told them that they ·7· can't be sick.· She never told them that they can't ·8· quit or transfer, or had to be strong for her. ·9· · · Q.· ·Is it possible that Kelley's condition 10· worsened during the time you were working for her? 11· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection.· Calls for 12· speculation. 13· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It was up and down throughout 14· my time there, but there were times where it escalated 15· and then went a little bit back to normal, then 16· escalated, and towards the end she did go on a medical 17· leave. 18· BY MR. FISCH: 19· · · Q.· ·And that was right before your resignation, 20· right? 21· · · A.· ·I don't know if it was right before. 22· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection.· Mischaracterizes 23· prior testimony. 24· BY MR. FISCH: 25· · · Q.· ·September and October of 2014 Kelley went on Exhibit A 0046 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 76 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 50 of 123 Page ID #:210 ·1· why she was out when she went out. ·2· · · Q.· ·And when Kelley was on her medical leave in ·3· the fall of 2014, were you doing Kelley's work? ·4· · · A.· ·The bulk of it, yes.· We were funding about ·5· five deals at the same time, and I was doing all of ·6· those -- her work for all those deals, except for a ·7· certain amount that went to another group in the ·8· company because I wasn't experienced in that, but I ·9· did the bulk of everything else. 10· · · Q.· ·Was there anyone else also performing 11· Kelley's job duties when she was on her medical leave 12· in the fall of 2014? 13· · · A.· ·The doca team at Wells Fargo was doing her 14· doca work and her bank account work for those funding 15· deals.· I was doing all the compliance, and the 16· background checks, and different things for the deals. 17· · · Q.· ·So other than that other group who was doing 18· specific work for their specialty area, was anyone 19· else, besides you, doing Kelley's work while she was 20· on medical leave? 21· · · A.· ·I don't believe so, because everyone has 22· their specific things they do when the deal funds, and 23· I was doing the compliance part of Kelley's job. 24· · · Q.· ·During that time period, were you also doing 25· the work that you needed to do while direct reporting Exhibit A 0047 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 78 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 51 of 123 Page ID #:211 ·1· to Steve Scott? ·2· · · A.· ·Yes, I was doing my daily work.· I was doing, ·3· you know, admin work that was assigned to me from the ·4· group that they wanted on a daily basis -- copying, ·5· filing, things like that.· And Steve and I were ·6· actually working on new training, new programs, new ·7· policies that we were working on.· So I was trying to ·8· do the best I could for him, my daily work, and ·9· Kelley's work, yes. 10· · · Q.· ·And Steve knew, during that time period, that 11· you were also doing Kelley's work as well? 12· · · A.· ·Yes. 13· · · Q.· ·Did Steve take any of the other work away 14· from you to help you get the other work done? 15· · · A.· ·I don't believe so, no. 16· · · Q.· ·And -- 17· · · A.· ·Because those were duties that had to get 18· done. 19· · · Q.· ·Did anybody else help you with your regular 20· job duties during that time period? 21· · · A.· ·I don't believe so.· The only instance I can 22· think of is a team member had asked for something from 23· me, and I just told them I couldn't do it at the time. 24· I needed some more time, because I was overwhelmed 25· with the funding of the deals that were my immediate Exhibit A 0048 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 79 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 52 of 123 Page ID #:212 ·1· responsibility because they were in the funding ·2· process.· And I believe he maybe had to read the ·3· documents himself instead of me translating it for ·4· him. ·5· · · Q.· ·During the period when you were in compliance ·6· from January 2012 until the end of your employment, ·7· were you a full-time employee? ·8· · · A.· ·I was. ·9· · · Q.· ·And were you regularly scheduled to work 40 10· hours a week? 11· · · A.· ·I was on salary.· Generally, yes, it was 12· supposed to a 40-hour workweek.· I took a lot of work 13· home.· I stayed after hours quite a bit during those 14· times to finish projects and get the policies that I 15· needed to have remembered. 16· · · Q.· ·So how many hours a week -- when you first 17· started in compliance, how many hours a week were you 18· working? 19· · · A.· ·When I first started, I did work more than 40 20· hours a week.· I stayed late in order to catch up on 21· the work.· Things were -- I was still new.· I was 22· still training.· I was still learning.· And there was 23· a lot left over from the person that was there 24· before Dnira, so I had to do catch-up, and I did my 25· regular -- trying to figure out how to do my regular Exhibit A 0049 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 80 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 53 of 123 Page ID #:213 ·1· work, so I stayed sometimes until 8 o'clock at night ·2· during the first six months or so.· Not every day, but ·3· sometimes I did. ·4· · · Q.· ·And then after the first six months, once you ·5· got acclimated to the job and understood and caught ·6· up, then the hours lessened? ·7· · · A.· ·When you're funding deals, there's never a ·8· certain amount of hours.· Sometimes they go really ·9· late into the night.· I didn't always have to be there 10· way into the night like the others.· Sometimes I did 11· have to.· It varies very much with that type of 12· business.· I couldn't say exactly if it did or not. 13· · · Q.· ·I might have misunderstood your prior answer, 14· but you said after -- for the first six months, you 15· used that as a defining point. 16· · · A.· ·That was -- I meant that as -- that was kind 17· of my training period where I was still learning and 18· things like that, so I stayed late because of that. 19· And then after that, it varied because of things that 20· came up at work, either funding deals or -- because of 21· the funding deals other work got delayed.· We had 22· audits often; things with the filing that project had 23· to get done within a timeline. 24· · · Q.· ·So some days it would be less hours, some 25· days it would be more hours.· Is that fair? Exhibit A 0050 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 81 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 54 of 123 Page ID #:214 ·1· · · A.· ·There wouldn't be less hours like a ·2· four-hour day, but, yes, there were either a regular ·3· workday, eight hours, or there was the longer hours. ·4· · · Q.· ·And then did your hours change as you went ·5· along in your tenure with Wells Fargo? ·6· · · A.· ·Official they didn't -- it was -- it varied. ·7· · · Q.· ·I mean, practically speaking or in actuality, ·8· did your hours increase or decrease, or did it stay ·9· similar to what you just described as some days it 10· would eight hours, other days it would be longer 11· depending on what was going on, whether it be funding, 12· or auditing or what have you? 13· · · A.· ·Right.· It varied.· In the last year and 14· especially -- when I started training with Steve, they 15· got longer because I was trying to learn new projects. 16· We were working on things.· I would take things home 17· in order to learn the policies that I had to learn. 18· And then when Kelley went on medical leave, things -- 19· the hours expanded.· I still took things home with the 20· funding that I had to do. 21· · · Q.· ·Did you ever tell Steve any of the problems 22· you encountered with Kelley? 23· · · A.· ·We didn't speak personally together of them. 24· There was a time that him and Stacy and I spoke.· At a 25· certain point I was in charge of telling Stacy, Rhonda Exhibit A 0051 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 82 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 55 of 123 Page ID #:215 ·1· or Steve if Kelley came in disheveled, not being able ·2· to speak, not being able to do her work.· So I was ·3· kind of like her watchman:· I had to tell them when ·4· things got bad.· And he actually was doing that as ·5· well.· So we spoke about it at a time of all the ·6· things that was happening, yes. ·7· · · Q.· ·So that was after you became a direct report ·8· to Steve? ·9· · · A.· ·I can't remember exactly.· I still worked 10· with Steve even though he wasn't -- before I 11· transferred to him.· We still had work that was joint 12· that included him, so I still worked with him in 13· certain aspects:· with Kelley as well. 14· · · Q.· ·This reporting situation that you just 15· described, you know, telling Rhonda, Steve and Stacy 16· about Kelley's condition, how did that come to be that 17· you were taking on that responsibility? 18· · · A.· ·The first time it was brought up -- when I 19· first -- my first complaints of Kelley Thatcher were 20· to Stacy Hopkins, who was Kelley's direct report and 21· my second report.· I went in to her and I explained 22· the harassing that was being done; how Kelley's 23· behavior was affecting me; that I didn't want -- every 24· morning I didn't want to come in to work anymore even 25· though I loved this job.· And she told me that Kelley Exhibit A 0052 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 83 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 56 of 123 Page ID #:216 ·1· has a lot personal issues, and she's a very sensitive ·2· person, and that I need to take charge of Kelley. ·3· · · · · ·She told me that when Kelley starts not doing ·4· her work, I needed to reel her back in.· When she ·5· wasn't focusing, I needed to get her to focus.· So ·6· basically I had to stay on top of Kelley and be in ·7· charge of her. ·8· · · · · ·She also told me that I needed to start ·9· basically treating Kelley like she was my subordinate. 10· I needed to tell her, Look Kelley, I don't want to 11· hear about your personal stories.· We have work to do. 12· We need to get to work.· And I needed to keep her in 13· line, which made her uncomfortable.· And that was the 14· process where it started that.· I was starting to be 15· kind of like Kelley's watchman.· And then it was also 16· done later with Rhonda and Steve. 17· · · Q.· ·Let's stick with the first part, just the 18· Stacy part, for a second. 19· · · A.· ·Okay. 20· · · Q.· ·You said that Stacy told you that you needed 21· to keep Kelley in line? 22· · · A.· ·Yes. 23· · · Q.· ·And basically you said, a little while ago 24· about Dnira and Erin, if I understood you correctly, 25· they were doing that -- taking that action towards Exhibit A 0053 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 84 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 57 of 123 Page ID #:217 ·1· · · Q.· ·But because you were trying to be a good ·2· employee, you did those things because you felt it was ·3· part of your job duties to make sure that that work ·4· got done, and because Kelley wasn't getting it done ·5· somebody had to, and you were the person who happened ·6· to be there to do it, right? ·7· · · A.· ·I was told those are part of my new job ·8· duties, yes. ·9· · · Q.· ·Do you know if -- and I'm assuming Dnira was 10· a female, right, or is a female? 11· · · A.· ·That's correct. 12· · · Q.· ·And Erin is also a female, correct? 13· · · A.· ·That's correct. 14· · · Q.· ·Do you know if Dnira or Erin had any kind of 15· medical conditions that they dealt with? 16· · · A.· ·I'm not sure. 17· · · Q.· ·Earlier when you talked about some of the 18· personal conversations that you had with -- or some of 19· the personal stories that Kelley told you, you said 20· there was at least one that was of a sexual nature? 21· · · A.· ·That's correct. 22· · · Q.· ·Was it just one story or was there multiple 23· stories of a sexual nature? 24· · · A.· ·Just one, which was told on different 25· occasions. Exhibit A 0054 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 88 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 58 of 123 Page ID #:218 ·1· in it, but I could not do the stuff with Kelley ·2· anymore.· I couldn't take the harassment anymore.· My ·3· symptoms were getting worse.· I was getting sicker due ·4· to the stress, and I just really needed help. ·5· · · Q.· ·You said a moment ago about Kelley being told ·6· to not overmedicate, come to work overmedicated, ·7· right? ·8· · · A.· ·I think much later on when she -- when things ·9· were -- it was -- there came a point in time when 10· Kelley -- it was so evident -- her behavior was so 11· evident, even to people around, even people outside of 12· the group.· I believe that's when she was told -- I 13· believe she had some kind of speaking to, that she 14· needs to try and control the medication when she comes 15· in to work. 16· · · Q.· ·I think this is implicit in your answer, but 17· I want to make sure I'm understanding.· Was that a 18· conversation that you had ever had with Kelley? 19· · · A.· ·No. 20· · · Q.· ·So you believe it was some supervisor who had 21· a conversation with Kelley? 22· · · A.· ·I believe at one point. 23· · · Q.· ·Do you know if it was Rhonda or Stacy or 24· someone else? 25· · · A.· ·I can't completely recall.· Maybe both of Exhibit A 0055 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 95 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 59 of 123 Page ID #:219 ·1· them spoke with her once. ·2· · · Q.· ·But in any event, it was your understanding ·3· that someone in Wells Fargo management had a ·4· conversation with Kelley to say you cannot come to ·5· work overmedicated? ·6· · · A.· ·Yeah, I do believe -- they didn't speak about ·7· her action towards me, but I do believe the one thing ·8· that was told to Kelley was -- obviously I'm not privy ·9· to everything that was told to Kelley, but at one 10· point I believe I was informed that they did ask her 11· to do so.· It didn't work.· She still continued her 12· behavior, for the most part, but I believe she did -- 13· not with HR or anything, but within our group. 14· · · Q.· ·This may have been kind of captured in the 15· last answer, but I just want to make sure we're clear. 16· · · A.· ·Okay. 17· · · Q.· ·Did you ever have a conversation with Kelley, 18· personally, about her medication -- or her being 19· overmedicated, rather? 20· · · A.· ·Her overmedicated, no, I did not.· I did not 21· feel comfortable. 22· · · Q.· ·Did you ever have a -- you personally have a 23· conversation with Kelley about her needing to do her 24· own work and stop giving you her work to do? 25· · · A.· ·I believe there were a few different times Exhibit A 0056 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 96 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 60 of 123 Page ID #:220 ·1· · · A.· ·I don't know if it was more.· When she was ·2· out of the office, I would send her an e-mail when she ·3· was there in person, I would walk over there.· Her ·4· office wasn't far from my cubicle. ·5· · · Q.· ·Let me make sure.· When you say "her" -- ·6· · · A.· ·Rhonda Noell. ·7· · · Q.· ·Thank you.· Was there a time, then, that you ·8· then just stopped giving those updates? ·9· · · A.· ·There was a time when I was -- especially 10· during when I started with Steve, I was just extremely 11· overloaded with work, and that's the only thing I 12· could concentrate on, but I did try to keep them 13· informed especially when she came to work really, 14· really bad, really, really incapable of doing her 15· work, not being able to communicate, asking things 16· like I needed to write her e-mails for her because she 17· couldn't type, and I didn't have any time for any of 18· that. 19· · · Q.· ·You said a few minutes ago about wanting to 20· be removed and severed from Kelley.· Did you tell 21· Rhonda that? 22· · · A.· ·Yes. 23· · · Q.· ·And did you make a suggestion to Rhonda as to 24· what other position you could be transferred to that 25· would enable you to be severed from Kelley? Exhibit A 0057 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 98 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 61 of 123 Page ID #:221 ·1· · · A.· ·We brainstormed together.· There was a point ·2· where she told me that Steve Scott earlier in the year ·3· had actually asked for me to be transferred to him, so ·4· that was one of the options where I could be his ·5· direct report instead of Kelley's.· We never talked ·6· about me still being a backup, but we did talk about ·7· hopefully moving me to him, yes. ·8· · · Q.· ·So when you were told that Steve had ·9· requested you and was interested in working with you, 10· what was your response to that? 11· · · A.· ·I said that would be an ideal situation, 12· along the lines of that. 13· · · Q.· ·So -- I'm sorry, I didn't hear the answer. 14· · · · · ·(Record read as follows: 15· · · · · ·Answer:· "I said that would be an ideal 16· · · · · ·situation.") 17· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· "Along the lines of that." 18· BY MR. FISCH: 19· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Thank you.· And so did -- you then 20· told Rhonda that you wanted to take the position to 21· work directly with Steve? 22· · · A.· ·Yes. 23· · · Q.· ·So -- 24· · · A.· ·If that would get me away from Kelley, yes. 25· · · Q.· ·So when that opportunity came up, you were in Exhibit A 0058 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 99 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 62 of 123 Page ID #:222 ·1· agreement to transfer to become a direct report to ·2· Steve? ·3· · · A.· ·Yes.· As one of the options, yes. ·4· · · Q.· ·So were there other options addressed or ·5· raised? ·6· · · A.· ·I can't recall everything that we spoke ·7· about, but I think that was the best one, because I ·8· was obviously still in that group, still full-time, ·9· still doing the work that I wanted to do. 10· · · Q.· ·Do you recall that there were other options 11· discussed between you and Rhonda, but you believed 12· that working with Steve was the best option? 13· · · A.· ·Yes. 14· · · Q.· ·Do you recall specifically what the other 15· options were that were raised at that time? 16· · · A.· ·We spoke about maybe I could be her part-time 17· assistant. 18· · · Q.· ·"Her" meaning Rhonda? 19· · · A.· ·Rhonda Noell's assistant.· I did want to work 20· full-time, though, and I did want to keep doing 21· compliance work.· And I wanted to grow in that group, 22· which meant staying in a full-time job and moving up 23· from there. 24· · · Q.· ·Any other options that you recall that were 25· discussed at that time? Exhibit A 0059 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 100 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 63 of 123 Page ID #:223 ·1· · · A.· ·I can't recall at this time, no. ·2· · · Q.· ·With the -- when you transferred from being a ·3· direct report from Kelley to a direct report to Steve, ·4· did your job title change? ·5· · · A.· ·No, it did not. ·6· · · Q.· ·Did your compensation change? ·7· · · A.· ·No. ·8· · · Q.· ·Did your physical location or office change? ·9· · · A.· ·Yes.· I moved down two cubicles closer to 10· Steve. 11· · · Q.· ·So it was still on the same floor as where 12· you had been working previously or was it a different 13· floor? 14· · · A.· ·Oh, no, same floor, same aisle.· It's a very 15· small group, 20 people, maybe, at the most. 16· · · Q.· ·You moved down on the other side of the 17· floor.· Is that fair? 18· · · A.· ·Not the other side.· I would say two or three 19· cubicles down.· There was still a whole other side to 20· the hallway. 21· · · Q.· ·The office -- so you said a cubicle you were 22· working in, right? 23· · · A.· ·I was always in a cubicle while I worked 24· there, yes. 25· · · Q.· ·Did you -- were you in agreement to -- to Exhibit A 0060 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 101 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 64 of 123 Page ID #:224 ·1· read it and review it and you understood that, ·2· correct? ·3· · · A.· ·Yes. ·4· · · · · ·(Exhibit No. 8 marked for identification.) ·5· BY MR. FISCH: ·6· · · Q.· ·You've been handed a document marked as ·7· Exhibit 8.· Marked as Exhibit 8 is a two-page document ·8· identified in the bottom right as H.TYE000162 and 163 ·9· respectively.· This is the offer letter and acceptance 10· for you for the compliance position, right? 11· · · A.· ·Yes. 12· · · Q.· ·And you've seen this document before, right? 13· · · A.· ·I have. 14· · · Q.· ·And looking at page 2 of Exhibit 8 that's 15· your handwriting and signature acknowledging that you 16· were accepting the offer for the compliance position 17· on January 9, 2012, right? 18· · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. 19· · · Q.· ·And you read the letter at the time? 20· · · A.· ·I did. 21· · · Q.· ·And you understood what the offer was for? 22· · · A.· ·Yes. 23· · · Q.· ·And this is a proper reflection of what you 24· were being offered and what the position was? 25· · · A.· ·Yes, they told me what the letter said Exhibit A 0061 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 107 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 65 of 123 Page ID #:225 ·1· reflected each other. ·2· · · Q.· ·And it says here that you were going to be ·3· making approximately $46,000 annually? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · Q.· ·Was there a time after you started in the ·6· compliance position that your salary changed at all? ·7· · · A.· ·Yes, it changed a few different times. ·8· · · Q.· ·Do you know how often it changed? ·9· · · A.· ·I can't remember how often, but when I left, 10· I left at the salary of 64,500. 11· · · Q.· ·Was it an annual increase or -- 12· · · A.· ·I think once it was -- I'm sorry.· I cannot 13· remember.· I don't know if it was one time -- they 14· had -- it was at review times, and there were annual 15· reviews, and I believe there were other time reviews, 16· but I can't remember. 17· · · Q.· ·Do you know who made the decision to increase 18· your salary for compensation when you worked in 19· compliance? 20· · · A.· ·I think it was a decision made by Kelley, 21· Stacy and Rhonda.· They all had to be involved in that 22· as my three supervisors. 23· · · Q.· ·So was there ever a time that you were 24· potentially up for a salary increase that you did not 25· get a salary increase when you were in compliance? Exhibit A 0062 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 108 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 66 of 123 Page ID #:226 ·1· · · A.· ·I can't exactly remember.· There might have ·2· been -- I don't know if I was up for it and didn't get ·3· it.· There might have been a time where it was time ·4· for it and I didn't receive it, but for the most part, ·5· I received salary increases, yes. ·6· · · Q.· ·If I'm doing the math correctly, give or take ·7· from the time you started in compliance to the time ·8· you ended two and a half, three years later, you ·9· increased about a third of salary? 10· · · A.· ·Uh-hum. 11· · · Q.· ·Is that right? 12· · · A.· ·Yes.· When I started, they told me that they 13· were starting low because I didn't have -- I believe I 14· didn't have the bulk of experience that I needed 15· because I had done temporary jobs of compliance 16· consultant.· They were okay with that.· This was 17· closer to the mail room facilities salary I got right 18· before I started, and then they increased it from 19· there over the course of time due to my job 20· performance. 21· · · Q.· ·So it's your understanding that -- 22· · · A.· ·Which I was told. 23· · · Q.· ·Right.· It's your understanding that the 24· supervisors were pleased with your performance and 25· they increased your salary accordingly? Exhibit A 0063 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 109 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 67 of 123 Page ID #:227 ·1· · · A.· ·Yes, I worked very hard. ·2· · · Q.· ·Did anyone ever tell you anything to the ·3· contrary at Wells Fargo when you were in compliance? ·4· · · A.· ·About my work? ·5· · · Q.· ·Correct. ·6· · · A.· ·No. ·7· · · Q.· ·So in other words, your supervisors, when you ·8· were working in compliance, always said you did a good ·9· job, you worked hard and you were earning your 10· compensation? 11· · · A.· ·When it came to my work and dedication and 12· loyalty, yes, that was always agreed upon. 13· · · · · ·(Exhibit No. 9 marked for identification.) 14· BY MR. FISCH: 15· · · Q.· ·And then looking at the other document, 16· Exhibit -- 17· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· 9. 18· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· 9.· Thank you. 19· · · Q.· ·Exhibit 9 is a two-page document marked in 20· the bottom right as WFB000060 and 61.· It is Wells 21· Fargo Job Family Information, and it's for the 22· compliance consultant 1 position.· It's a job 23· description, right? 24· · · A.· ·Yes. 25· · · Q.· ·Have you seen this document before? Exhibit A 0064 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 110 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 68 of 123 Page ID #:228 ·1· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· No one said that she did testify ·2· to that.· So if you have an objection, great, but ·3· don't testify for her.· Thanks. ·4· BY MR. FISCH: ·5· · · Q.· ·So was that all you remember Steve saying at ·6· that meeting? ·7· · · A.· ·I can't recall exactly what else he said, but ·8· it was all based on I need to go home and take care of ·9· myself.· I need to take two days to go home, and then 10· come back for my last day.· I was told that I don't 11· have to worry about my exit interview; they would take 12· care of it. 13· · · Q.· ·And did you actually take those two days off 14· after the meeting? 15· · · A.· ·I took one day off. 16· · · Q.· ·And did you get paid for that day? 17· · · A.· ·I believe so, yes. 18· · · Q.· ·And at the time when you resigned, were you 19· still having -- did you still have the effects of the 20· Lyme disease? 21· · · A.· ·Yes. 22· · · Q.· ·So you still were having health problems at 23· the time? 24· · · A.· ·And it exacerbated because of the stress, 25· yes. Exhibit A 0065 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 116 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 69 of 123 Page ID #:229 ·1· · · Q.· ·So you still were encountering the health ·2· problems? ·3· · · A.· ·Yes. ·4· · · Q.· ·And did you continue to have the health ·5· problems from the Lyme disease after Wells Fargo ·6· ended? ·7· · · A.· ·My symptoms stayed exacerbated for quite a ·8· time because of the trauma of leaving the company I ·9· wanted to stay at forever.· I still had exacerbated 10· symptoms because I was just scared for my future. I 11· didn't know what to do next.· And I was still seeing 12· doctors for my symptoms. 13· · · Q.· ·Do you still, to this day, have symptoms of 14· your Lyme disease? 15· · · A.· ·Here and there, yes. 16· · · Q.· ·Do you remember anything else that Steve said 17· at that meeting? 18· · · A.· ·Not that I can recall right now. 19· · · Q.· ·So we'll go to Rhonda at the early December 20· meeting.· What do you remember Rhonda saying at that 21· meeting? 22· · · A.· ·It was on the same subject of your health is 23· first.· Take care of yourself.· Go home and rest. 24· We'll take care of everything.· Come back and have 25· your last day. Exhibit A 0066 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 117 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 70 of 123 Page ID #:230 ·1· office.· There was a lot still to do. ·2· · · Q.· ·Did anyone ever tell you that you shouldn't ·3· take off the two days? ·4· · · A.· ·No. ·5· · · Q.· ·We talked earlier about you having taken a ·6· medical leave of absence before you started at ·7· compliance, right? ·8· · · A.· ·Yes. ·9· · · Q.· ·Did you ever look into taking medical leaves 10· of absence once you started working with compliance? 11· · · A.· ·No, because Wells Fargo actually denied my 12· first medical leave. 13· · · Q.· ·It wasn't Wells Fargo that denied it; it was 14· Liberty Mutual, right? 15· · · A.· ·On behalf of the Wells Fargo, yes. 16· · · Q.· ·That's the insurance carrier, right? 17· · · A.· ·Yes. 18· · · · · ·MR.· BOKHOUR:· Counsel, may I suggest you let 19· her finish her answer before you -- 20· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· She was finished. 21· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Were you finished? 22· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Not quite yet. 23· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· So she's not finished with her 24· response. 25· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Right. Exhibit A 0067 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 119 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 71 of 123 Page ID #:231 ·1· · · A.· ·They were I needed certain rest times. I ·2· couldn't lift heavy things.· At that time I was ·3· working in facilities, in the mail room, which ·4· included lifting heavy boxes and things like that.· He ·5· put restrictions on those temporarily. ·6· · · Q.· ·And then prior to you starting at compliance, ·7· though, you got a doctor's note that said you could ·8· return to work without restrictions, right? ·9· · · A.· ·Yes.· I had asked for that.· In the mail room 10· I wasn't receiving from my coworkers -- they would -- 11· they were letting me know that they didn't want to 12· pick up my slack, but they weren't very happy that I'm 13· coming with accommodations, so I wanted to just get 14· back to my regular job, and he gave me a 15· recommendation for having no accommodations. 16· · · Q.· ·You said about lifting boxes.· Were you doing 17· those kind of job duties in your compliance position? 18· · · A.· ·I was. 19· · · Q.· ·You were lifting boxes? 20· · · A.· ·I was. 21· · · Q.· ·Did you ever tell anyone when you were in 22· compliance that you needed to have any restrictions 23· imposed on your job duties or abilities? 24· · · A.· ·No, not for that. 25· · · Q.· ·Did you ever go back to the doctor and ask Exhibit A 0068 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 122 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 72 of 123 Page ID #:232 ·1· him for a new doctor's note that imposed some ·2· restrictions on your work? ·3· · · A.· ·I was no longer with that doctor.· I was in ·4· between doctors.· And then I had a new one.· No, I ·5· never asked that new one for that. ·6· · · Q.· ·So as far as anyone that worked with you in ·7· compliance knew, you were able to perform all the job ·8· duties without restrictions? ·9· · · A.· ·From a doctor, yes.· They knew about my 10· symptoms, everything like that, but they had no 11· official note, correct. 12· · · Q.· ·But did you ever tell anyone when you were 13· working in compliance that you needed some kind of 14· restrictions for your work? 15· · · A.· ·I told Kelley about my symptoms and how they 16· were getting exacerbated, and Rhonda and I talked 17· about things as well, and she gave me a key to the 18· quiet room in the company which is located right by 19· our group. 20· · · Q.· ·Were you able to use the quiet room whenever 21· you wanted? 22· · · A.· ·She found out I was going down to my car when 23· I was feeling sick, so she gave me a key to the quiet 24· room.· The first time I used it when I was in there 25· trying to rest, I could hear my coworkers walking by. Exhibit A 0069 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 123 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 73 of 123 Page ID #:233 ·1· I could hear them talking.· And if I came out, I would ·2· be seen by them.· So I got stressed and uncomfortable, ·3· and that wasn't an accommodation that was going to ·4· work. ·5· · · Q.· ·Did you ever tell somebody that you didn't ·6· find the quiet room acceptable? ·7· · · A.· ·Yes, I told Rhonda. ·8· · · Q.· ·What did you tell Rhonda about the quiet ·9· room? 10· · · A.· ·That I was embarrassed if I came out and one 11· of our group members saw me in there resting.· Not 12· everyone knew about my Lyme disease in the group. A 13· lot did, but some didn't, and I didn't want them to 14· think I was slacking off from work, I was going in 15· there for no reason, and I wasn't able to rest in that 16· room hearing and knowing how close I was to them. 17· · · Q.· ·What did Rhonda say in response to you 18· telling her that? 19· · · A.· ·I think in a sense she told me that I 20· shouldn't worry about that, that that's not something 21· I should worry about, but I can't recall exactly. 22· · · Q.· ·What you understood from that was Rhonda 23· saying to you, "Don't worry about your coworkers, 24· continue to use the quiet room whenever you want, 25· whenever you need it," right? Exhibit A 0070 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 124 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 74 of 123 Page ID #:234 ·1· · · A.· ·Basically from her point of view it didn't ·2· seem like I should be worried even though I was ·3· stating that, yes, that did affect me, that did stress ·4· me out, and, yes, I had access to that room still. ·5· · · Q.· ·Did Rhonda ever tell you that you shouldn't ·6· use the quiet room? ·7· · · A.· ·No. ·8· · · Q.· ·In fact she encouraged you use it whenever ·9· you wanted, right? 10· · · A.· ·Yeah. 11· · · Q.· ·And do you know of anyone else that had a key 12· to the quiet room? 13· · · A.· ·The receptionist did. 14· · · Q.· ·Did you ever see the receptionist use the 15· quiet room. 16· · · A.· ·She had it -- let me clarify.· She had it -- 17· the receptionist had a key to the room in order to 18· give it to people when they came to request it from 19· her.· Even when I had the key, I had to go to the 20· receptionist and check in on a piece of paper with her 21· stating that I was in the quiet room. 22· · · Q.· ·And that was because you didn't want -- so 23· that nobody else would come in there when you were in 24· there, right? 25· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. Exhibit A 0071 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 125 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 75 of 123 Page ID #:235 ·1· · · Q.· ·So it was to help you to make sure that you ·2· stayed quiet and didn't get disturbed by someone else ·3· coming in there? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes, that was a room for everyone in the ·5· company.· If you need the key, you go in and check in. ·6· Since I already had a key, I had to go check in so ·7· somebody didn't come in on you. ·8· · · Q.· ·Right, but that was for your benefit, to ·9· check in so that way nobody interrupted you, right? 10· · · A.· ·Yes, as part of the process, yes, of course. 11· · · Q.· ·Did you ever see anyone else use the quiet 12· room? 13· · · A.· ·Not particularly.· I know a lot of woman went 14· in there if they were still -- they needed to pump for 15· breast milk or something like, that was often how it 16· was used. 17· · · Q.· ·You were aware that certain people did use 18· the quiet room? 19· · · A.· ·I don't know their names.· I just knew the 20· kind of purpose of that room. 21· · · Q.· ·Did you ever become aware of anyone else 22· using it for any other reason? 23· · · A.· ·Not that I know of, no. 24· · · Q.· ·Did you ever hear anyone at Wells Fargo 25· comment about you using the quiet room? Exhibit A 0072 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 126 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 76 of 123 Page ID #:236 ·1· · · A.· ·No. ·2· · · Q.· ·Did you ever become aware that anybody had ·3· made a comment about you using the quiet room? ·4· · · A.· ·No. ·5· · · Q.· ·You said that Rhonda gave you the key to the ·6· quiet room after she became aware that you were going ·7· to your car, right? ·8· · · A.· ·Yes. ·9· · · Q.· ·Do you know how Rhonda became aware that you 10· were going to your car? 11· · · A.· ·I told her. 12· · · Q.· ·Did you tell anyone else that you were going 13· to your car? 14· · · A.· ·I think a few others knew:· maybe Christy 15· Walsh. 16· · · Q.· ·That's one of your coworkers, right? 17· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. 18· · · Q.· ·Anyone else? 19· · · A.· ·Probably Lillian Ponce de León knew. 20· · · Q.· ·Again, a coworker, right? 21· · · A.· ·Yes.· Maybe not each time that I did go, but 22· when I felt sick, that's where I felt safest to go to. 23· · · Q.· ·And did Christy or Lillian ever make a 24· negative comment about you going to your car to take a 25· break during the workday? Exhibit A 0073 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 127 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 77 of 123 Page ID #:237 ·1· · · A.· ·They just thought that it probably wasn't the ·2· best idea. ·3· · · Q.· ·Meaning? ·4· · · A.· ·That to them they didn't like the fact that I ·5· had to go down to my car in order to get away and feel ·6· better or take a break. ·7· · · Q.· ·Did Christy or Lillian know that you were ·8· given a key to the quiet room? ·9· · · A.· ·Yes. 10· · · Q.· ·Did Christy or Lillian ever make a negative 11· comment about the fact that you were given a key to 12· the quiet room or that you were going to use the quiet 13· room? 14· · · A.· ·No, but they did agree that the fact that 15· hearing my coworkers was a valid stressor. 16· · · Q.· ·Are you aware of any other quiet space that 17· you could have gone to? 18· · · A.· ·None that locked without a key (sic). 19· · · Q.· ·Other than the two coworkers knowing that you 20· went to the car during the day, anyone else at Wells 21· Fargo knew you were going to your car during the 22· workday? 23· · · A.· ·Not that I can recall right now. 24· · · Q.· ·And the time when you told Rhonda that you 25· were going to your car during the day, that was the Exhibit A 0074 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 128 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 78 of 123 Page ID #:238 ·1· first time that Rhonda ever became aware that you were ·2· going to your car, right? ·3· · · A.· ·Yes. ·4· · · Q.· ·And so immediately she said, "I don't want ·5· you to go to your car.· Why don't you go use the break ·6· room -- the quiet room to take breaks whenever you ·7· want to," right? ·8· · · A.· ·Yes. ·9· · · Q.· ·Did you ever talk with anyone at Wells Fargo 10· about taking an FMLA leave? 11· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection as to form. 12· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't know what that is. 13· BY MR. FISCH: 14· · · Q.· ·Okay.· Did you talk with anyone at Wells 15· Fargo about taking a medical leave once you started 16· working in compliance? 17· · · A.· ·No, I did not, because that was not my choice 18· I was going to take and go through denial again, 19· because I still had the same disease that they denied 20· me for before. 21· · · Q.· ·That was -- but that was prior to starting at 22· compliance, right? 23· · · A.· ·Yes, but it's the same process. 24· · · Q.· ·I understand.· But just to make sure I'm just 25· getting the timing correct. Exhibit A 0075 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 129 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 79 of 123 Page ID #:239 ·1· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. ·2· · · Q.· ·And you were aware that there was different ·3· help lines at Wells Fargo that you could call to talk ·4· with them about any kind of personal problems or ·5· medical conditions, right? ·6· · · A.· ·Yes, correct. ·7· · · Q.· ·And did you ever use any of those lines with ·8· Wells Fargo? ·9· · · A.· ·I didn't. 10· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· How's the temperature? 11· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay. 12· BY MR. FISCH: 13· · · Q.· ·And then after your meeting on Monday after 14· Thanksgiving with Rhonda and Steve, you then took the 15· next day off and went back to work? 16· · · A.· ·I believe -- I definitely took the next day 17· off, yes. 18· · · Q.· ·And then did you finish up all your work that 19· week? 20· · · A.· ·The most that I could do. 21· · · Q.· ·Did anyone tell you that you needed to do 22· additional work before you left? 23· · · A.· ·Yes. 24· · · Q.· ·Who told you? 25· · · A.· ·Stacy Hopkins. Exhibit A 0076 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 130 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 80 of 123 Page ID #:240 ·1· completely merged with Wells Fargo at one point in ·2· time.· So we had corporate Wells Fargo HR, and then ·3· they kept the HR for Wells Fargo Capital Finance. ·4· · · · · ·So she was -- Mary Jo Gagliardi was HR ·5· manager for Wells Fargo Capital Finance. ·6· BY MR. FISCH: ·7· · · Q.· ·Right.· You understood there was both the HR ·8· there for that location, but there's also the bigger ·9· HR as part of the corporate Wells Fargo as well, 10· right? 11· · · A.· ·Yes. 12· · · Q.· ·Did you ever speak with anyone of the HR 13· people located at the Santa Monica location about any 14· of your concerns or problems with Kelley? 15· · · A.· ·No, because I was told two different things 16· by two different supervisors.· The first one was Stacy 17· Hopkins.· She told me if I went to HR, it would be 18· like stabbing them in the back.· And then I was told 19· by Rhonda that she was taking care of everything on 20· the HR side.· She was speaking to them about 21· everything that was going on with Kelley, and that 22· they were working on things. 23· · · Q.· ·And ultimately you found out that that was 24· actually true and that she was ultimately laid off 25· right after you left, right? Exhibit A 0077 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 140 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 81 of 123 Page ID #:241 ·1· · · A.· ·She said, "If you went to HR, that would be ·2· like stabbing us in the back." ·3· · · Q.· ·Was that only a comment made one time? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · Q.· ·When was that comment made? ·6· · · A.· ·The first time I went to complain to her ·7· about Kelley's behavior, and how I was feeling, and ·8· how it was affecting me. ·9· · · Q.· ·So the discussion we talked about before that 10· you thought was, give or take, the summer of 2012? 11· · · A.· ·Correct. 12· · · Q.· ·Did Stacy ever make any other comment like 13· that to you after that first time? 14· · · A.· ·No, because after that I mainly dealt with 15· Rhonda when it came to Kelley. 16· · · Q.· ·When you dealt with Rhonda, did Rhonda ever 17· tell you that there's accommodation lines and other 18· help lines at Wells Fargo that you could use to 19· contact? 20· · · A.· ·To talk about my harassment with Kelley? 21· · · Q.· ·Talk about any of your issues. 22· · · A.· ·She never stated it was something that I 23· could talk to about what was going on with Kelley. I 24· believe she gave me a 1(800) number for my sickness. 25· · · Q.· ·And even though Kelley -- I'm sorry.· Even Exhibit A 0078 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 142 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 82 of 123 Page ID #:242 ·1· though Rhonda told you about the help line, you didn't ·2· use it, correct? ·3· · · A.· ·I didn't. ·4· · · Q.· ·Did you know Mary Jo prior to the last day ·5· you worked? ·6· · · A.· ·Yes.· Not on a personal level, but I knew who ·7· she was, yes. ·8· · · Q.· ·You knew who she was.· You knew she was part ·9· of the HR department at the Santa Monica location? 10· · · A.· ·Yes. 11· · · Q.· ·Did you ever have any work related 12· conversations with Mary Jo prior to that last day? 13· · · A.· ·I don't believe so.· I never went into her 14· office for any complaints that were work related 15· incidents that I can remember right now. 16· · · Q.· ·You also knew that there were other HR people 17· located there at the Santa Monica location as well? 18· · · A.· ·Yes. 19· · · Q.· ·One of whom was Beilee Tracey? 20· · · A.· ·Yes. 21· · · Q.· ·Did you ever have any work-related 22· conversations with Beilee Tracey during your 23· employment in compliance? 24· · · A.· ·I didn't go in and have a formal meeting with 25· her, no. Exhibit A 0079 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 143 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 83 of 123 Page ID #:243 ·1· ever had with anyone at HR at Santa Monica about any ·2· of your health issues or your concerns? ·3· · · A.· ·I don't believe so.· I can't remember right ·4· now. ·5· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So now going back to the Mary Jo ·6· Gagliardi meeting, which was your last day of ·7· employment, Friday, December 5th, 2014, right? ·8· · · A.· ·Yes. ·9· · · Q.· ·Was that the last thing you did at Wells 10· Fargo? 11· · · A.· ·I believe it was, yes.· I can't recall if 12· after the meeting I might have packed up a few more 13· things and left, or turned in the things that I needed 14· to turn in, like my key card and stuff like that to 15· the receptionist, but it was one of the main last 16· things that I did. 17· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So it was -- it was basically the 18· afternoon of Friday the 5th? 19· · · A.· ·I think so, yeah. 20· · · Q.· ·Okay.· I'm not trying to hold you to it. 21· · · A.· ·Yeah. 22· · · Q.· ·Just trying to get a perspective. 23· · · A.· ·Yeah. 24· · · Q.· ·So had you arranged ahead of time to meet 25· with Mary Jo or did you just go to her office? Exhibit A 0080 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 147 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 84 of 123 Page ID #:244 ·1· · · A.· ·Soon before.· I can't remember if it was that ·2· same day that we met -- I believe it was.· I sent her ·3· an e-mail asking to speak with her before I left. ·4· · · Q.· ·And she was accep -- and it was acceptable to ·5· her to meet with you that day? ·6· · · A.· ·Yes.· I might have gone through her ·7· assistant, Sonia Lucas, requesting a meeting from Mary ·8· Jo Gagliardi.· That might have been the proper ·9· process.· But in the end, yes, she accepted my 10· meeting. 11· · · Q.· ·And then you went and talked to her? 12· · · A.· ·Yes.· She might have set a time, and I went 13· to her office. 14· · · Q.· ·Do you recall how long the meeting with Mary 15· Jo was? 16· · · A.· ·Maybe a half hour, 40 minutes, somewhere in 17· there. 18· · · Q.· ·And do you recall what you said at that 19· meeting? 20· · · A.· ·Yes. 21· · · Q.· ·Do you also recall what Mary Jo said at the 22· meeting? 23· · · A.· ·Yes. 24· · · Q.· ·Anyone else present for that meeting? 25· · · A.· ·No. Exhibit A 0081 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 148 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 85 of 123 Page ID #:245 ·1· · · Q.· ·Was that just in a private office? ·2· · · A.· ·It was in her office, yes. ·3· · · Q.· ·Door closed? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · Q.· ·Okay.· So what did you tell Mary Jo at that ·6· meeting? ·7· · · A.· ·At the meeting I told her why I was feeling ·8· like I had to leave this job, which was everything had ·9· just become too much.· I was sicker than I had ever 10· been.· I was mentally exhausted.· I was stressed.· And 11· I told her from beginning to end my experience of my 12· harassment with Kelley and what wasn't done about it, 13· and the help I did not receive. 14· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Could you read that back, please? 15· · · · · ·(Record read as follows: 16· · · · · ·Answer:· "At the meeting I told her why I was 17· · · · · ·feeling like I had to leave this job which 18· · · · · ·was everything just had become too much. I 19· · · · · ·was sicker than I had ever been.· I was 20· · · · · ·mentally exhausted, and I was stressed, and I 21· · · · · ·told her from beginning to end my experience 22· · · · · ·of my harassment with Kelley and what wasn't 23· · · · · ·done about it and the help I did not 24· · · · · ·receive.") 25· BY MR. FISCH: Exhibit A 0082 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 149 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 86 of 123 Page ID #:246 ·1· · · Q.· ·You used the word "harassed."· Is that the ·2· same things that you already talked about earlier, as ·3· to what you believe was harassing from Kelley to you? ·4· · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · Q.· ·Anything else that you told Mary Jo that was ·6· different than what you've already testified to ·7· earlier with regard to Kelley's harassment of you? ·8· · · A.· ·Not that I can remember, no. ·9· · · Q.· ·And what did Mary Jo say in response? 10· · · A.· ·Mary Jo's response, she seemed shocked at 11· most of the events that -- most of the actions that 12· Kelley did and her state of -- her usual state of 13· mind, or often state of mind, of being 14· overintoxicated.· She agreed that none of that was 15· okay behavior.· For the most part, Mary Jo listened 16· and only said a few things now and then. 17· · · Q.· ·Did she seem comforting and welcoming to what 18· you were saying to her? 19· · · A.· ·Yes.· She seemed sympathetic to what I had 20· gone through. 21· · · Q.· ·Anything else said at that meeting that you 22· recall? 23· · · A.· ·By either of us? 24· · · Q.· ·By either of you. 25· · · A.· ·Let me see what comes to mind.· I don't know Exhibit A 0083 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 150 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 87 of 123 Page ID #:247 ·1· if I said anything more, but towards the end Mary Jo ·2· asked me if I had wanted a different position in the ·3· company. ·4· · · Q.· ·And what did you say to that? ·5· · · A.· ·Well, first of all, it was kind of a vague ·6· question.· She didn't give a certain position or what ·7· the details would be, and I told her at this point I ·8· was extremely emotionally distressed.· I was sick. I ·9· was mentally distressed, and at that point I just 10· needed to go home. 11· · · Q.· ·Did you ever circle back with Mary Jo after 12· that day to talk further about a different position 13· with the company? 14· · · A.· ·No, I did not. 15· · · Q.· ·Did you ever have any communications with 16· Mary Jo Gagliardi after that Friday meeting? 17· · · A.· ·No. 18· · · Q.· ·Anything else you remember from that meeting 19· with Mary Jo on your last day? 20· · · A.· ·Not that I can recall right now. 21· · · Q.· ·Anyone else you can recall having any 22· conversations with about the end of your employment? 23· · · A.· ·At the company? 24· · · Q.· ·At the company, yes. 25· · · A.· ·After I left, I spoke with Christy Walsh and Exhibit A 0084 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 151 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 88 of 123 Page ID #:248 ·1· · · A.· ·I don't remember right now. ·2· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Let's take a break. ·3· · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Off the record.· The time ·4· is 2:34 p.m. ·5· · · · · ·(Recess.) ·6· · · · · ·(Exhibits No. 12, 13, 14 and 15 marked for ·7· · · · · ·identification.) ·8· · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· This marks the beginning ·9· of media number 3.· We are now back on the record. 10· The time is 2:52 p.m. 11· BY MR. FISCH: 12· · · Q.· ·You've been handed a document marked as 13· Exhibit 12, identified in the bottom right as 14· WFB000113 and 114.· It's a doctor's note with a cover 15· page.· Is that your handwriting on the first page of 16· Exhibit 12? 17· · · A.· ·Yes, it is. 18· · · Q.· ·And that's you submitting the permission to 19· return to work without any restrictions note from your 20· doctor, right? 21· · · A.· ·At the time, yes. 22· · · Q.· ·This is a document that you gave to Wells 23· Fargo on January 5th, 2012, right? 24· · · A.· ·Yes. 25· · · Q.· ·And this is -- and attached to that, on the Exhibit A 0085 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 153 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 89 of 123 Page ID #:249 ·1· · · A.· ·Yes. ·2· · · Q.· ·Is there anyone else besides Lillian that you ·3· talked about serving as a witness for you with regard ·4· to your unemployment matter? ·5· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection.· Attorney-client ·6· privilege.· Any discussions that her and I have had -- ·7· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· I said unemployment.· She just ·8· said she wasn't represented by an attorney at the ·9· time. 10· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· No, I understand.· But you said 11· have you discussed potential witnesses testifying for 12· you. 13· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· At the unemployment hearing. 14· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· I see. 15· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, Christy Walsh. 16· BY MR. FISCH: 17· · · Q.· ·And did Christy provide any testimony on your 18· behalf or submissions on your behalf with regard to 19· your unemployment matter? 20· · · A.· ·She did.· I did not submit it. 21· · · Q.· ·You did not submit it to the unemployment 22· board you mean? 23· · · A.· ·Correct. 24· · · Q.· ·Why not? 25· · · A.· ·I felt that it wouldn't do anything for the Exhibit A 0086 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 173 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 90 of 123 Page ID #:250 ·1· case. ·2· · · Q.· ·Do you recall what Christy -- it was a ·3· written document? ·4· · · A.· ·It was. ·5· · · Q.· ·Do you recall what Christy wrote? ·6· · · A.· ·She wrote that once she had witnessed Kelley ·7· run into a wall at work. ·8· · · Q.· ·And was that something that you witnessed as ·9· well? 10· · · A.· ·No, not at that time.· I have witnessed that 11· on occasion, I did, but not at the same time as 12· Christy. 13· · · Q.· ·But you've witnessed some physical 14· manifestations of problems that Chris -- I'm sorry -- 15· that Kelley was encountering when you were working 16· with her at Wells Fargo? 17· · · A.· ·Yes. 18· · · Q.· ·And those were -- at least in your opinion, 19· those were caused by her medical problems or the use 20· of prescription drugs, right? 21· · · A.· ·In my view, yes. 22· · · Q.· ·Anything else that Christy was stating in her 23· written documentation on your behalf? 24· · · A.· ·No. 25· · · Q.· ·Anyone else you sought to serve as a witness Exhibit A 0087 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 174 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 91 of 123 Page ID #:251 ·1· · · A.· ·Just Rhonda. ·2· · · Q.· ·Just Rhonda? ·3· · · A.· ·Yeah. ·4· · · Q.· ·Do you know what was actually being done by ·5· Wells Fargo with regard to Kelley's employment? ·6· · · A.· ·No. ·7· · · · · ·MR. FISCH:· Let's take a quick break. ·8· · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We're now off the record. ·9· The time is 3:25 p.m. 10· · · · · ·(Recess.) 11· · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· We are now back on the 12· record.· The time is 3:34 p.m. 13· · · · · ·(Exhibits No. 18, 19 and 20 marked for 14· · · · · ·identification.) 15· BY MR. FISCH: 16· · · Q.· ·You've been handed three documents marked as 17· Exhibit 18, 19, and 20 respectively.· They are e-mail 18· chains.· The first one is an e-mail chain between you, 19· Hannah Tye and Stacy Hopkins from Monday, December 20· 30th, 2013. 21· · · · · ·Number 19 is an e-mail chain between you and 22· Stacy Hopkins, and also with Kelley Thatcher from 23· April 1st, 2014. 24· · · · · ·And Exhibit 20 is an e-mail chain between you 25· and Stacy Hopkins from Wednesday, January 29th, and Exhibit A 0088 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 176 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 92 of 123 Page ID #:252 ·1· Thursday, January 30th, 2014.· Do you see those ·2· e-mails? ·3· · · A.· ·I do, yes. ·4· · · Q.· ·And these are e-mail chains that you were a ·5· party to, right? ·6· · · A.· ·That's correct. ·7· · · Q.· ·And are these the kind of e-mails that you ·8· were talking about earlier as you talking to your ·9· supervisors about issues you were having with Kelley? 10· · · A.· ·These are on the very light side of the 11· things.· There are other e-mails, the ones you 12· produced.· That's part of it, yes. 13· · · Q.· ·These are the kind of things you would say, 14· hey, I'm having a bad day, or the flip side of 15· Kelley's having a bad day, this is what I'm dealing 16· with, and letting the supervisors know? 17· · · A.· ·This one was actually a special occasion, the 18· 18.· Usually if I e-mailed them or told them verbally, 19· it was more about her behavior, being overintoxicated, 20· slurring, can't function.· This one was more about I 21· was so completely overloaded with work, and instead of 22· Kelley being able to do her work, she had put it on 23· me, and it was completely stressing me out, and so I 24· let Stacy know. 25· · · Q.· ·And then Stacy's response was expressing her Exhibit A 0089 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 177 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 93 of 123 Page ID #:253 ·1· Vague and ambiguous. ·2· · · · · ·You can answer if you understand the ·3· question. ·4· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't recall. ·5· BY MR. FISCH: ·6· · · Q.· ·Do you recall ever telling anyone at Wells ·7· Fargo about such a conversation? ·8· · · A.· ·I don't recall. ·9· · · Q.· ·Prior to you leaving employment with Wells 10· Fargo, did you look for a position with any other 11· companies? 12· · · A.· ·No, I did not. 13· · · Q.· ·Have you looked for employment with any other 14· company since your employment with Wells Fargo ended? 15· · · A.· ·Yes, I have. 16· · · Q.· ·Have you looked for any positions with Wells 17· Fargo since your employment with Wells Fargo ended? 18· · · A.· ·No, I have not. 19· · · Q.· ·How did you go about looking for other 20· positions since your employment with Wells Fargo 21· ended? 22· · · A.· ·Online through Monster.com, Caljobs.com, 23· through friends, things like that. 24· · · Q.· ·What kind of positions did you apply for 25· since your employment at Wells Fargo ended? Exhibit A 0090 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 185 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 94 of 123 Page ID #:254 ·1· BY MR. FISCH: ·2· · · Q.· ·You've been handed a document marked as ·3· Exhibit 23.· It appears to be a doctor's note from ·4· Pacific Frontier Medical, Steven Harris, M.D, dated ·5· November 21, 2011, regarding you, Hannah Tye.· Have ·6· you seen this doctor's note before? ·7· · · A.· ·I have. ·8· · · Q.· ·And, again, just to kind of confirm, Steven ·9· Harris from Pacific Frontier Medical is a doctor in a 10· medical practice you were seeing who diagnosed you 11· with Lyme disease, right? 12· · · A.· ·Correct. 13· · · Q.· ·Did you review this letter at the time? 14· · · A.· ·I did. 15· · · Q.· ·Do you know why it was that he prepared this 16· letter at that time? 17· · · A.· ·Yes, because I was feeling very sick.· I had 18· started my treatments that he prescribed. 19· · · Q.· ·But was it to be -- was it a note that was to 20· be provided to someone in particular, or just a 21· general "Here, Hannah, take this so you have it"? 22· · · A.· ·I gave this to Lillian Ponce de León. 23· · · Q.· ·This was during your medical leave of 24· absence? 25· · · A.· ·It was.· This was -- because coming towards Exhibit A 0091 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 196 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 95 of 123 Page ID #:255 ·1· the end of November I was still too sick to go back to ·2· work, so he was stating that, asking them to allow ·3· another month. ·4· · · Q.· ·And you reviewed it at the time, the letter, ·5· before you gave it to Wells Fargo? ·6· · · A.· ·Yes. ·7· · · Q.· ·And did you believe that everything was true ·8· and accurate about your situation? ·9· · · A.· ·Yes. 10· · · Q.· ·And so at that time, and I'll quote the 11· second paragraph, that you had been diagnosed with 12· Lyme disease, and on a daily basis she, meaning you, 13· Hannah Tye, suffers from vast array of maladies that 14· debilitate her health condition? 15· · · A.· ·Yes. 16· · · Q.· ·That was true at that time? 17· · · A.· ·That's a broad way of saying things, but yes. 18· · · Q.· ·You agreed with that statement at the time, 19· right? 20· · · A.· ·And more, yes. 21· · · Q.· ·And you still agree with that statement with 22· regard to your health back then? 23· · · A.· ·During my treatment, yes. 24· · · Q.· ·And if I understood your testimony a few 25· minutes ago about even what you're dealing with now, Exhibit A 0092 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 197 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 96 of 123 Page ID #:256 ·1· that is still true? ·2· · · A.· ·In a sense, but things were different.· I was ·3· doing my treatment then as well. ·4· · · Q.· ·What kind of treatment were you undergoing ·5· then? ·6· · · A.· ·High doses of antibiotics and herbal remedies ·7· as well. ·8· · · Q.· ·And prior to returning to work in January of ·9· 2012, had you stopped that course of conduct? 10· · · A.· ·No.· I was still -- I went -- I went off it; 11· I went on it; I went off of it.· It was kind of -- 12· · · Q.· ·When was the last time you did that? 13· · · A.· ·The last time I was on the high dose 14· antibiotics was after I stopped after I went to the 15· hospital at the off-site:· late 2012. 16· · · Q.· ·Was there a reason why you stopped that 17· medication? 18· · · A.· ·I needed my body to kind of recover from the 19· antibiotics.· I had a pic line to my heart with an IV 20· antibiotic that I put in at home, and they had to take 21· the pic line out in the hospital, because they thought 22· it was infected, which is why they thought I was so 23· sick. 24· · · Q.· ·That's the off-site situation? 25· · · A.· ·Correct. Exhibit A 0093 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 198 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 97 of 123 Page ID #:257 ·1· · · Q.· ·Right.· I appreciate that, but I just want to ·2· focus just on this one specific thing.· Did you ever ·3· tell any of your supervisors at Wells Fargo that ·4· Kelley had touched you and that it was unwelcomed? ·5· · · A.· ·I can't recall at this time. ·6· · · Q.· ·Did you ever hear anyone make any comments ·7· about you with regard to your medical condition or ·8· health? ·9· · · A.· ·In general? 10· · · Q.· ·Correct. 11· · · A.· ·They personally came -- 12· · · Q.· ·Did you ever hear -- 13· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Objection.· Vague and 14· ambiguous. 15· BY MR. FISCH: 16· · · Q.· ·Did you ever hear anyone at Wells Fargo make 17· any comments about you with regard to your health or 18· medical condition? 19· · · A.· ·Yes. 20· · · Q.· ·Who? 21· · · A.· ·Comments were given if I spoke to people 22· about my condition. 23· · · Q.· ·You mean in response to you raising the 24· subject? 25· · · A.· ·Yeah.· We had an employee whose name was Exhibit A 0094 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 209 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 98 of 123 Page ID #:258 ·1· Randy.· I can't remember his last name.· He wasn't ·2· there for very long.· But he would often -- if I would ·3· walk by his office, he would stop me, and he would ·4· either make a comment saying I didn't look well that ·5· day, or what was wrong, things like that.· He did know ·6· about my condition. ·7· · · Q.· ·So it was him checking on you to see how you ·8· were feeling? ·9· · · · · ·MR. BOKHOUR:· Misstates testimony.· Lacks 10· foundation. 11· BY MR. FISCH: 12· · · Q.· ·Right? 13· · · A.· ·I can't speak for Randy. 14· · · Q.· ·You were there, and you heard him.· Was it 15· him expressing concern for you about your health 16· condition? 17· · · A.· ·He did it quite often.· It might be what he 18· was portraying. 19· · · Q.· ·Anyone else you ever hear make any comments 20· about your health or medical condition? 21· · · A.· ·I can't remember at this time. 22· · · Q.· ·Did you ever become aware from any source 23· that anyone had made comments about your health or 24· medical condition? 25· · · A.· ·Not that I can think of at the moment. Exhibit A 0095 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 210 YVer1f Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 99 of 123 Page ID #:259 ·1· STATE OF CALIFORNIA· ·) ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · )· ·ss. ·3· COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ·4 ·5· · · · · ·I, KAREN ALIGO, CSR NO. 13418, do hereby ·6· certify: ·7· · · · · ·That prior to being examined, the witness ·8· named in the foregoing deposition, HANNAH L. TYE, was ·9· by me administered an oath to testify the truth, the 10· whole truth, and nothing but the truth; 11· · · · · ·That said deposition was taken before me at 12· the time and place therein set forth and was taken 13· down by me in shorthand and transcribed into 14· computer-generated text under my direction and 15· supervision; and I hereby certify the foregoing 16· transcript of my shorthand notes so taken. 17· · · · · ·I further certify that I am neither counsel 18· for nor related to any party to said action nor in any 19· way interested in the outcome thereof. 20· · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 21· subscribed my name this· 20th· day of· September 2016. 22 23 24· KAREN ALIGO, CSR No. 13418 25 Exhibit A 0096 HANNAH L. TYE TYE vs. WELLS FARGO September 08, 2016 800.211.DEPO (3376) EsquireSolutions.com 217 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 100 of 123 Page ID #:260 EXHIBIT A-2 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 101 of 123 Page ID #:261 EXHIr Scott Steve Front lye Hannah Sent Wednesday November26 2014 208 PM To Scott Steve Subject Meeting need to resign because of my health it is too up and down so thatis why thought it easier to talk to you both love this group so Will absolutely wrap up all of my work and projects and stayto train My health Isnt so bad that have to leave right away it will just be easier ttxrme to get ItbaCk on track while not working From Scott Steve Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 139 PM To Tye Hannah Subject RE Meeting Okay under5tood and appreciate your willingness to stay to train We can resume discussing on Monday but asked because wanted to check to see If there was something could help with prior Try not to stay too late Friday Is stf II your call but in light of what you want to discuss on Monday dont feel obligated to come in on Specialtys behalf From Tye Hannah Sent Wednesday Nember 26 2014 134 PM To Scott Steve Subject RE Meeting would like to talk to you and Rhonda about resigning my position but also that am willing to stay and train for as long as needed From Scott Stave Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 1257 PMTo Hannah Subject RE Meeting What would you like to cover at the meeting OrIgInal Appolnunent From Te Hannah Sent Wednesday November 262014 12S6 PM To Noell Rhonda Scott Steve Subject Meeting When Monday December 01 2014 400 P14-430 PM LITC-000 Padfic lime US Canada Where Rhondas Office If .TYE00089 Exhibit A-2 0097 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 102 of 123 Page ID #:262 EXHIBIT A-3 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 103 of 123 Page ID #:263 ExHiaff From Tye Hannah Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 216 PM To Noell Rhonda Subject RE You in the office Steve asked what the meeting was about and so would like to tell you too need to resign need to get my health on track it is too up and down and there are few other reasons that you know of that arent helping with it told Steve that love this group and want to stay and train for as long as needed From Noell Rhonda Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 1235 PM To lye Hannah Subject RE You in the office am available at or From Tye Hannah Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 1228 PM To Noell Rhonda Subject RE You in the office Me and am going to call Steve in it too From Noell Rhonda Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 1228 PM To Tye Hannah Subject RE You in the office Meeting with who and for how long From Tye Hannah Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 1227 PM To Noell Rhonda Subject RE You in the office What time are you free for meeting From Noell Rhonda Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 1226 PM To lye Hannah Subject RE You in the office REDACTED WFB000139 Exhibit A-3 0098 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 104 of 123 Page ID #:264 monday From Tye Hannah Sent Wednesday November 26 2014 1222 PM To Noell Rhonda Subject You in the office What is the next day you are in the office Thank you Hannah Tye Compliance Consultant Specialty Finance Wells Fargo Capital Finance 2450 Colorado Aye Suite 3000 West Santa Monica CA 90404 MAC E2040-030 Tel 310.453.7460 Fax 855.769.0760 Hannah .Tyewellsfargo.com WFB000I 40 Exhibit A-3 0099 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 105 of 123 Page ID #:265 EXHIBIT A-4 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 106 of 123 Page ID #:266 EXHIBIT Scan Steve Front Lucas.Sonia Sent Wenesday December 03.20141011 AM To Noel Rhonric Scott Stave Cc Tracey. Beilee subject RZ My Resignation Attachments WFCF ManagerTerniination Checklistdoo Follow Up Flaç Follow up Flag Status Ragged Hello Rhonda Steve- Please use the attached checklist to complete Hannahs Termination Also if Hannah has Pcard please collect and deactivate it by calling 1-800-794-1522 Please make skip over Step this step doesnt pertain to the location of this team member Hannahs building access badge and parkln pass should go to Karen farmer WFCP technical equipment should go to Jon Stept or Santosh Nunna down on the 2M Floor Lastly Hannah should expect an Exit lrttervlew via email within 24 hours from the Human Resource department Please let me lcnow if you have any questions Thank you Sonia Sonla Lucas Wells Fargo Capital Finance- Human Resources 2450 Colorado Ave Suite 3000W Santa Monica CA 904041 MACE2040-030 Email sonia.lucas5wellsfano.com Direct Line 310.453-6366 Mobile 310-496-9584 eFax 866-674-3787 From Tye Hannah Sent Wednesday Decunber 0320141003 AN To Noel Rhonda Scott Steve Tra Beiiee Lucas Sanla Subject My Resignation am resigning and the effective date is December 2014 Thank you Hannah Tye Compliance Consultant Specialty Finance Wells Fargo Capital FInance 12450 Colorado Aye Suite 3000 West Santa Monica CA 90404 MAC E2040-030 Tel 310.453.1460 Fax 855.769.0760 H.TYE0009O Exhibit A-4 0100 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 107 of 123 Page ID #:267 Hanah.TverweIIsfar.con H.TYE0009I Exhibit A-4 0101 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 108 of 123 Page ID #:268 EXHIBIT A-8 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 109 of 123 Page ID #:269 January 2012 Hannah Tye Hannah.lYe@wellsfargO.com Subject Offer of Employment Dear Hannah Wells Fargo Capital Finance 100 Park Avenue NewYorlç NY wellsfargo.conr Congratulations am very pleased to extend our offer of employment to you as Compliance Consultant with Wells Fargo Capital Finance reporting directly to Kelley Thatcher As you know Wells Fargo values team members like you and supports your efforts to develop your career As team member you also have the opportunity to take advantage of programs and resources that will help you realize your full personal financial and professional potential as we work together to serve our customers and our communities Please take moment to review the Offer Summary below Your start date is January 102012 in Santa Monica CA Your base pay will be approximately $46000.00 annually Be sure to review all the details related to this offer in the following paragraphs As we discussed your annual base salary rate will be $46000.00 You will receive your base salary every two weeks on the Friday following the end of each two-week pay period Your base salary compensates you for all hours worked in any given week and your biweekly base salary will be calculated based on the exact number of business days within each calendar year Wells Fargos values include accountability integrity customer focus and diversity and as financial services institution we are entrusted with confidential information and the resources of our customers trust we take very seriously As valuable team member we are delighted for your continued pursuit of fulfilling your personal and professional goals working within our world-dass organization As an indication of your acceptance of our offer please sign copy of this letter and return to Patty Kiley fax to 1-866-358-0894 by January 2012 If you have any ques4ons please contact me at 646-728-3271 Again congratulations and best of luck in your new position Sincerely Charles LaManna Vice President Senior Recruiter N0012013 CONFIDENTIAL- VMIIs Fargo Offer Letter Rev 2.4b EXHIBIT Page of2 H.TYE000I 62 Exhibit A-8 0102 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 110 of 123 Page ID #:270 Offer Acceptance for Hannah rye Your employment with Wells Fargo has no specified term or length Both you and Wells Fargo have the right to terminate your employment at any time with or without advance notice and with or without cause This is called employment at will This offer does not include an offer to transfer your VISA sponsorship from one Wells Fargo entity to another If you need transfer of VISA sponsorship to be employed you must contact the hiring manager or Human Resources to discuss employment eligibility before you accept this employment offer By signing and returning copy of this letter accept and agree to all terms and conditions of this offer of employment Hiring Manager please send signed copies to Local Team Member File Employment Support MAC 54101-166 1I1IZP12 DateHannah Tye CONFIDENTIAL Wells Fargo Offer Letter Page 2012 H.TYE000I 63 Exhibit A-8 0103 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 111 of 123 Page ID #:271 EXHIBIT A-12 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 112 of 123 Page ID #:272 JAN 2Q12 141PM WELLS FAR6O FOOTHILL NO 0674 01/05/2012 353PM GN1T-06O0 VC\as9Lcnsip Esc\ GJThj trig//b WFB0001 13 Exhibit A-12 0104 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 113 of 123 Page ID #:273 NO 0674 PACIFIC FffIER bED PNZ 82/82 PACIFIC FRONTiERMEDICAL am writingyou on behalf of my patient Hannah Tye At this time Hannah can return to work with no restrictions Please feel free to contact our office with any questions or concerns 00 PTte14a.3tIftvWO R4dwocdtftcCM40G3 1$t74412cIFrç55a4744 01/05/2012 1229PM CGNT-07O0 WELLS FARGO FOOTHILL JAN 5.2012 14iPM 31/5/212 1139 654742t3E January 52012 Re Hannah Tye To Whom It May Conceit 01/05/2012 353PM CMT-06O0 WFB0001I4 Exhibit A-12 0105 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 114 of 123 Page ID #:274 EXHIBIT A-18 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 115 of 123 Page ID #:275 EXHIBrr From Hopkins Stacy Sent Monday December 30 2013 449 PM To lye Hannah Subject Re Go shake this day off Original Message From lye Hannah Sent Monday December 30 2013 0748 PM To Hopkins Stacy Subject RE Sounds good Have fun Original Message From Hopkins Stacy Sent Monday December 30 2013 448 PM To Tye Hannah Subject Re Thank you for the feedback and am sorry you are having bad day am at show that is about to begin so cant talk now will try you tomorrow and if we miss each other lets talk when return Ok Original Message From lye Hannah Sent Monday December 30 2013 0715 PM To Hopkins Stacy Subject RE She wasnt her normal self but not her worst and she delegated that project of the red line credit agreements to me and the way it made me feel showed me that am at my breaking point know it is her right as manager to give me any work she chooses and have never questioned it before or her authority have always done the job and thats it But when see that she does not delegate her time right to do her work and the fact that she has all of the newly funded deal documents on her desk that she is supposed to give to me which has all of my work in limbo just didnt want to take something from her didnt want an extra thing that she didnt want to do And was happy and relieved when she left She couldnt even tell me about the project correctly she kept slurring few words and mixing some up which made me not want to do it even more And having such an adverse reaction about doing something so simple makes me feel not like myself Original Message From Hopkins Stacy Sent Monday December 30 2013 405 PM To Tye Hannah Subject Re Exhibit A-18 0106 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 116 of 123 Page ID #:276 Why not Original Message FromTye Hannah Sent Monday December 30 2013 0702 PM To Hopkins Stacy Subject RE Yeah Im okay It wasnt great day but it is almost over ---Original Message From Hopkins Stacy Sent Monday December 30 2013 402 PM To Tye Hannah Subject Hi-just checking in to see if you are ok Exhibit A-18 0107 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 117 of 123 Page ID #:277 EXHIBIT A-19 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 118 of 123 Page ID #:278 The individual principals are not guarantors Original Message FromTye Hannah Sent Tuesday April 01 2014 857 AM To Hopkins Stacy Subject FW Wells Fargo Background Authorization Form Are these principals also guarantors Is that why we need to do the level Original Message----- From Thatcher Kelley Sent Tuesday April 01 2014 659 AM To Tye Hannah Subject Fw Wells Fargo Background Authorization Form meant would you mind ordering background checks Level and for all and OFAC-PEPs for all really really appreciate it Hannah Kelley Original Message From Thatcher Kelley Sent Tuesday April 01 2014 0837 AM Central Standard Time To Tye Hannah Subject Fw Wells Fargo Background Authorization Form have huge favor to ask you Im out sick again today Attached are the management questionairres for the principals of Apria Would you mind odering them with Credit investigations on rush So sorry to have to ask Thanks so much Kelley From Sent To Cc Subject Hopkins Stacy Tuesday April 01 2014 1022 AM Tye Hannah Thatcher Kelley RE Wells Fargo Background Authorization Form Exhibit A-19 0108 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 119 of 123 Page ID #:279 Original Message From Bernier Tim Sent Monday March 31 2014 0452 PM Central Standard Time To Thatcher Kelley Cc Plisko Kathy Hopkins Stacy Subject FW Wells Fargo Background Authorization Form FYI for the principals of Apria ---Original Message from De Garceau Eric @a pria.coml Sent Monday March 31 2014 133 PM To Bernier Tim Cc Harbour Kevin Subject RE Wells Fargo Background Authorization Form Tim Please see attached Eric De Garceau Vice President Treasurer eric.degarceauapria.com 949.639.2036 949.639.6812 www.apria.com Find employment opportunities ---Original Message- From tim.bernier@wellsfargo.com Sent Thursday March 27 2014 312 PM To De Garceau Eric Cc Kevin.R.Harbourwellsfargo.com Morris Debby Subject Wells Fargo Background Authorization Form Eric We checked with our compliance folks and because we were not agent on the last deal we need background checks on the following people Please have them fill out and return the attached form John Figueroa Chairman if Mr Figueroa is not the Chairman please send to current Chairman Dan Starck CEO Debra Morris CFO Regards Tim Tim Bernier CFA Vice President Wells Fargo Capital Finance Healthcare Finance Exhibit A-19 0109 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 120 of 123 Page ID #:280 10421 Wateridge Circle Suite 150 San Diego CA 92121 Tel 858-622-6598 Mobile 424-645-8671 tim.bernier@wellsfargo.com This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee you must not use copy disclose or take any action based on this message or any information herein If you have received this message in error please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message Thank you for your cooperation Confidentiality Notice This e-mail is intended only for the persons to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential proprietary privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure If you are not an intended recipient please do not read copy or use this communication or disclose it to others ii notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and iii delete the e-mail from your system Thank you Exhibit A-19 0110 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 121 of 123 Page ID #:281 EXHIBIT A-23 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 122 of 123 Page ID #:282 PACIFIC FRONTIER November 21 2011 Re Hannah Tye To Whom It May Concern am board certified Family Practitioner with practice emphasis on tick-borne diseases have seen over 3000 patients with tick-related illnesses in private practice at Redwood City CA am an active member of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society ILADS and director for the California Lyme disease Association CALDA am also clinical consultant for Igenex Inc.- laboratory specializing in Lyme disease and co-infections have spoken before the state board of medicine have testified before California Senate Select Committee on Health and have spoken at numerous engagements Currently maintain an active practice of more than 1100 patients with Lyme and associated diseases am writing you on behalf of my patient Hannah Tye Hannah has been diagnosed with Lyme disease On daily basis she suffers from vast array of maladies that debilitate her health condition have prescribed treatment protocol that consists of medications and supplements that feel will benefit the patient greatly At this time due to her symptoms and rigorous treatment schedule recommend Hannah not to work the entire duration of December She will be re-evaluated at later date Please feel free to contact our office with any questions or concerns Sincerely Steven EXHIBif JN1 tkIu 370 rce Avenue Sude 200 Redwood Cdv CA 94063 650 474-2130 650 474-2136 Exhibit A-23 0111 Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-3 Filed 12/08/16 Page 123 of 123 Page ID #:283 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMRH:480091789.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HANNAH L. TYE, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE, a California limited liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Hon. S. James Otero [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO CAPITAL FINANCE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: January 30, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 10C [Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts; and Appendix of Evidence] Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-4 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:284 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- SMRH:480091789.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] ORDER On January 30, 2017, in Courtroom 10C of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Honorable S. James Otero presiding, located at 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012, Defendant Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”) moved for an order granting Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Partial Summary Judgment, against Plaintiff Hannah L. Tye (“Plaintiff”). After considering the moving and opposing papers, arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court, for good cause shown, the Court finds that there is no triable issue of material fact and Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as to all of the following issues or claims for relief. Specifically, the Court finds that: 1. Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for disability discrimination fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action during her employment with Wells Fargo. 2. Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for disability discrimination also fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff has no evidence of a “causal link” between any adverse employment action and her alleged disability. 3. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for disability harassment fails as a matter of law because the alleged harassing conduct toward Plaintiff was not on account of Plaintiff’s alleged disability. 4. Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for disability harassment also fails as a matter of law because the alleged harassing conduct toward Plaintiff was neither severe nor pervasive enough to consistute actionable harassment. 5. Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for failure to engage in the interactive process fails as a matter of law because, other than a medical leave of absence provided to Plaintiff in 2011, Plaintiff never sought any legally cognizable accommodation from Wells Fargo. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-4 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- SMRH:480091789.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 6. Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for failure to accommodate fails as a matter of law because, other than a medical leave of absence provided to Plaintiff in 2011, Plaintiff never sought any legally cognizable accommodation from Wells Fargo. 7. Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for disability retaliation fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action during her employment with Wells Fargo. 8. Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for disability retaliation also fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff cannot establish a “causal link” between any adverse employment action and any purported protected activity. 9. Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for negligent retention fails as a matter of law because it is completely preempted by the California Workers’ Compensation Act. 10. Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action for intentional infliction of emotional distress fails as a matter of law because it too is completely preempted by the California Workers’ Compensation Act. 11. Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action for intentional infliction of emotional distress also fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff lacks any evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct. 12. Plaintiff’s Eighth Cause of Action for wrongful discharge fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff fails to establish that she experienced a constructive discharge. 13. Plaintiff’s Eighth Cause of Action for wrongful discharge also fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff fails to establish that the reason for her discharge violated public policy. 14. Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff fails to establish that she experienced a constructive discharge. Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-4 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:286 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- SMRH:480091789.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15. Plaintiff’s Ninth Cause of Action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy also fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff fails to establish that the reason for her discharge violated public policy. 16. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff has no evidence that anyone at Wells Fargo engaged in an act of oppression, fraud, or malice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, Wells Fargo’s Motion is granted in its entirety and that judgment be entered forthwith in favor of Wells Fargo as to the issues and claims for relief set forth above. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: , 2017 HON. S. JAMES OTERO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:16-cv-02418-SJO-E Document 18-4 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:287