Documentation to "My Case"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- X
TIBOR GASPARIK,
.................................................................................................CV-05-03817 (SJF/ARL)
Plaintiff,

-against- ..................................................................................SUPPLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES

STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- X

Plaintiff pro se, TIBOR GASPARIK, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the request by defendant from February 21, 2006, to amend the response to Interrogatory 10.
The responses set forth herein are made without waiving the following:
a) The right to object on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, or any other ground, to the use of any material produced herein, in whole or in part, for any purpose, in any subsequent proceeding in this action or in any other action;
b) The right to object on any or all grounds, at any time, to other requests or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the requests responded to herein; and
c) The right at any time to revise, correct, modify, supplement or clarify any of the responses provided herein.
All of plaintiff’s responses are made subject to the foregoing objections, comments, and qualifications.

AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 10

Question: For each person identified in paragraph numbered “9”, detail each and every act of “indifferent or hostile behavior” referred to in paragraph number “21” of the complaint, including the dates, times, places of each such occurrence and the names and addresses of any witnesses thereto.

Amended Answer: All acts of “hostile behavior” known to plaintiff, including the dates, times and witnesses, are summarized in the Exhibit “A” and the attached documentation labeled as Exhibits 1 to 60. The acts took place at the Department of Geosciences, Stony Brook University. The addresses other than those corresponding to the Department of Geosciences can be found in the employee files, which are currently not accessible to the plaintiff. Following is a list of incidents viewed by plaintiff as hostile behavior, which include: a number, which refers to the numbered paragraphs in the Exhibit A, brief description of the hostile act, date, the instigator(s) of the hostile act, and the witness(es):

4. Plaintiff’s demotion from “partner” to “technician” (1987):
Instigators: Liebermann, Weidner;
Witnesses: None, except plaintiff.

6. Premeditated acts to formally destroy plaintiff’s seniority status (1989-1991):
Instigators: Liebermann, Weidner;
Witnesses: To be identified from the employee files of the MPI research staff.

7. Invitation of a known bully, David Walker, to work in the Stony Brook lab (1988):
Instigator: Liebermann;
Witnesses: Walker, Agee, Herzberg,

8. First bullying letter from David Walker (3/16/1988):
Instigator: Walker;
Witnesses: Liebermann.

9. Other bullying letters by David Walker (1988-1992):
Instigator: Walker;
Witnesses: Liebermann, Weidner, Johnson, Saxena, Zhang, Herzberg.

10. Smoking incident (1992):
Instigator: Liebermann;
Witnesses: Lattimore, Weidner, Hanson, Nimmons.

12. Attempts to dismiss the machinist Herb Schay (1992):
Instigator: Hanson;
Witnesses: Lindsley, Liebermann, Weidner, Broyles.

13. Sabotaging plaintiff’s research funding (1997-1999):
Instigator: Liebermann (presumed), Navrotsky;
Witnesses: Maryellen Cameron, John Holloway.

15. Stealing a student from plaintiff (1/25/1999):
Instigator: Liebermann;
Witnesses: Parise, Weidner, Lindsley, Nekvasil, Roth.

16. Preparing grounds for the microprobe users’ meeting incident (2/10/1999):
Instigator: Liebermann;
Witnesses: Weidner, Broyles.

17. Preparing grounds to terminate a student (2/19/1999):
Instigator: Parise;
Witnesses: Liebermann, Lindsley, Schoonen, Sprouse, Garai.

18. Obstruction of plaintiff’s work and research by machine shop (April-July, 1999):
Instigators (presumed): Liebermann, Weidner;
Witnesses: Broyles, Hoversen.

19. Plaintiff’s dismissal from student summer program (July 1999):
Instigator: Parise;
Witnesses: Liebermann, Weidner.

20. First attempt to cause the microprobe users’ meeting incident (9/3/1999):
Instigators: Liebermann, Lindsley;
Witnesses: Weidner, Hanson, Nekvasil, Parise, Broyles, Reeder, McLennan, Rasbury.

22. The microprobe users’ meeting incident (10/19/1999):
Instigators: Liebermann, Lindsley;
Witnesses: Tenured faculty members.

23. Sabotaging electron microprobe (1999-2001):
Instigator: Lindsley;
Witnesses: Rapp, Nekvasil, Dondolini.

24. Attempt to terminate a student (November 1999):
Instigators: Liebermann, Parise;
Witnesses: Weidner, Holt, Schoonen, Siemsen, Roth, Garai.

25. Sabotaging multi-anvil press (November 1999):
Instigators (presumed): Liebermann, Weidner, Lindsley;
Witnesses: Unknown.

27. Meeting to prepare grounds for plaintiff’s termination (2/17/2000):
Instigator: Weidner;
Witness: Liebermann.

29. Rejection of plaintiff’s appeal to faculty and notice of termination (September 2000):
Instigators: McLennan, Liebermann, Weidner;
Witnesses: All tenured faculty members.

30. Plaintiff’s termination (1/31/2002):
Instigators: Liebermann, Weidner.
Witnesses: All tenured faculty members.

34. Posting a sign declaring victory (September 2002):
Instigator (presumed): Liebermann;
Witnesses: None other than plaintiff, possibly Holt.

50. Retaliation for posting Web site summarizing the plaintiff’s persecution (July 2005):
Instigator: Teng-fong Wong;
Witnesses: All tenured faculty members.

The acts of “indifferent behavior” by all tenured faculty members follow:

a) In the year 2000, the Department conducted a search to fill a faculty position, which turned out to be, as was presumably evident at that time to all faculty members, the last opportunity for the Department to fulfill its commitment to the plaintiff. Yet, as the advertised deadline for submitting applications for the position approached, not a single faculty member made any effort to inquire why plaintiff did not submit an application, nor encouraged plaintiff to do so. This is significant because in the response from September 10, 2001, to plaintiff’s appeal to the Department to fulfill its commitment, the Chair, professor Scott M. McLennan, responded that plaintiff did not apply for this position. This was the first time that plaintiff realized that the Department would not keep its commitment to his permanent employment that, as he firmly believed, was made by the time he was hired on April 1, 1985.

b) Since the time plaintiff was dismissed from his paid position on January 31, 2002, but still has remained in his academic position of Research Associate Professor, desperately trying to generate some income to provide for his family, several employment opportunities arose at the Department that could have helped him in this difficult situation. The plaintiff did not apply because he simply did not know about these opportunities. Despite the fact that plaintiff had a mailbox at the Department and was readily accessible by e-mail, not a single faculty member made any effort to bring to plaintiff’s attention any of these opportunities.

c) In July 2005, plaintiff’s name was removed from the list of faculty members on the departmental Web site in retaliation for posting a blog detailing his alleged persecution. Plaintiff asked the faculty members to rally in his support to denounce this arbitrary and unconstitutional decision, or post a supporting comment. Not a single faculty member responded.


Dated: Holtsville, New York
March 7, 2006

_____________________________
Tibor Gasparik
Plaintiff pro se and
Research Associate Professor
352 Plad Blvd
Holtsville, New York 11742
(631) 447-2168


TO: Lori L. Pack
Office of the Attorney General
300 Motor Parkway
Suite 205
Hauppauge, NY 11788