Documentary Evidence Suggests University Failed to Adhere to Their Terms of Agreement
UC DavisOn Monday the Vanguard ran a story on the lawsuit filed by former UC Davis police Officer Calvin Chang. The story has since been covered in detail in the California Aggie and mentioned briefly on the Davis Enterprise website. At this point, one of the hang ups has been that the university has not been served and thus not officially notified with the complaint. So at this point they cannot respond.
The Vanguard has now received a copy of the settlement agreement between Officer Chang and the university since in February of 2008. In that agreement, Officer Chang was to be paid by the Regents a sum of $240,000 of which $66,000 would go to his attorney.
“In exchange for the promises and warranties of CHANG as set forth below the REGENTS shall pay the total sum of $240,000 (two hundred forty thousand dollars). The $240,000 will be paid in two separate checks – one payable to Calvin Chang in the amount of $174,000 and the other check payable to James McGlamery in the amount of $66,000.”
In addition to the monetary terms there were several key non-monetary provisions including the removal of identified negative documents from Calvin Chang’s personnel file.
“To remove certain identified negative documents from CHANG’s official personnel file and place them in a separate confidential file (”unsanitized file”) that will be maintained in the office of Campus Counsel, Steve Drown. CHANG, his attorney, and the attorney for the REGENTS will meet to cull through the official personnel file to determine which documents constitute such “negative” documents. A list of the documents that are removed from his personnel file and placed in the separate ”’unsanitized file” will be compile and attached hereto as Exhibit A.”
Moreover, for future employers, information would be limited to dates of his employment, title, and the fact that he has voluntarily resigned.
Specifically it authorizes that the regents will keep the “currently pending laundry-room Internal Affairs investigation open as “not completed.” The University will expunge from Officer Chang’s personnel file all letters or reprimand older than six months.
Here is the full listing of the items specifically agreed upon by both parties to be removed:
The complaint alleges a breach of contract stemming from the university not adhering to the terms of this agreement.
According to the complaint:
“A fundamental obligation of the settlement was to also preserve Plaintiff’s peace officer career and coveted public safety retirement. As such, the settlement imposed a fundamental and material obligation on Regents as established by paragraph 2 of the settlement, that certain negative documents, that were the product of discrimination, be expunged or removed from his personnel file, and otherwise to comply with his rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Govt. Code § 3300 et seq., hereinafter “POBR”).”
It continues:
Specifically, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Spicuzza met with Plaintiff and counsel in open session, to review and agree on the removal of documents according to the obligations stated above as outlined in paragraph 2 and “Exhibit A” of the settlement. As a result of this obligation, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties generated “Exhibit A,” that delineated the documents to be placed in or removed from Plaintiff’s personnel files.
This allegedly did not happen.
“However, defendant Regents unlawfully placed into Plaintiff’s personnel file, adverse documents that negated the purpose and effect of the terms of the agreement. These documents have irreparably harmed Plaintiff’s ability to successfully obtain other employment as a peace officer and have effectively denied him the ability to continue in his career.”
Instead the complaint alleges that a number of items were placed into Mr. Chang’s personnel file.
“Regents placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff’s police department personnel file, a letter dated January 18, 2008, authored by Spicuzza that placed Plaintiff on “administrative leave.”
Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff’s police department personnel file two additional letters referring to and revealing the “Settlement” and to his “resignation.”
Regents also placed over one hundred pages of negative documents into Plaintiff’s peace officer personnel file located at the Office of Campus Counsel. Said documents consist of the most inflammatory and derogatory material, false allegations against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s complaints against other peace officers, as contained in the full bound unredacted Seyfarth Shaw workplace investigation report.
Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff’s peace officer personnel file, two versions of a Kilday & Kilduff report adverse to Plaintiff’s interests – regarding internal affairs investigations that Regents launched against Plaintiff immediately after Plaintiff was reinstated in 2004. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said documents include, a yet to be fully disclosed, unwarranted internal affairs investigation against him by Regents in 2003 for alleged “insubordination” that consisted of “talking about his discrimination complaint.”
According to the complaint, Officer Chang only became aware of these breaches after he was denied an employment position by several law enforcement agencies including the city of Davis. Recall that according to the settlement agreement, the university had very specific provisions about how requests for information were to be treated and what information they were to give out.
Instead according to the complaint:
“On July 22,2008, Campus Counsel Steve Drown told Plaintiff that REGENTS showed to the background investigator the above breaching documents, including the Seyfarth Shaw report as well as two versions of the Kilday Kilduff reports. Drown declined Plaintiff’s request to read the documents, and declined to show Plaintiff the documents that were contained in his peace officer personnel file.
Plaintiff informed Drown that the documents were not to be in his personnel file, were in violation of the settlement, and that he requested to read them, that REGENTS must remove them, and allow him to provide a response to them after he has read them.”
According to the settlement agreement, the “laundry-room” investigation would be classified as open and “not completed.”
In fact, the complaint alleges that agreement was entered in based on fraudulent information and even then the defendants did not adhere to those provisions.
“As a direct and material obligation of the Settlement, Regents represented that the Laundry Room IA was still pending, had not been concluded, and would be maintained indefinitely as an “open investigation.”
On or about February 4, 2008, in the presence of counsel for Regents, Spicuzza, a peace officer, verbally stated to Plaintiff that the Laundry Room IA had no finding, and further represented to Plaintiff that Regents would never disclose the existence or any information regarding the investigation to any party, including to any prospective employer – because it was an “open investigation.” This obligation was material and conclusive in that the disclosure of the existence and the “open status” of an IA would substantially foreclose on the ability of a peace officer to obtain other police employment with a prospective employer.
In addition to fraudulently misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the IA had no finding, and would remain open as pending, when in fact this was untrue, Regents and Spicuzza concealed this fact from Plaintiff, in order to further its fraud, duress, and misrepresentation to support constructively discharging Plaintiff’s employment through a fraudulent settlement agreement.
Among other things, Plaintiff was induced by Defendants’ misrepresentations to enter into the settlement agreement and release certain claims and his pending discrimination lawsuit, and would not have done so if the Defendants had not made false representations, or concealed and failed to disclose the material information alleged above. This further denied Plaintiff his statutory rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Cal. Gov’t Code § 3300 et. seq.).”
Finally:
“Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Regents have disclosed to the news media that the IA was in fact closed as “sustained” against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff “resigned” as a result of the IA. Plaintiff discovered this fraud when he was contacted and questioned by the news media about what misconduct he had engaged in to be terminated from his position as a police officer.”
Brief Commentary:
Based on a reading of the settlement agreement, it would appear that Officer Calvin Chang would have a case against the University for breach of their settlement agreement. This is particularly damaging if true because the university would have interfered with his ability to receive new employment.
As originally mentioned, the university has not received a copy of the complaint and we have not heard their side of the story. The Vanguard will continue to follow this case as more developments occur.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This kind of in-depth analysis is why I read this blog. I was fuzzy on Chang’s case after Monday, now it’s clear there was a breech of contract by the university or so it would appear.
…laundry room investigation…? I guess that means Chang’s allegations will come out in the wash?
This is serious enough as a violation of the Settlement agreement. That is worth enough money to make him whole had the violation never occurred. The Agreement itself may say how much that amount is, but the fraudulent inducement to enter into the agreement is worth punitive damages. This is an expensive mistake by UCD.There is more than just breach of contract here, though. Law enforcement agencies (and their attorneys!) ought to know better.There seem to be certain violations of the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights (POBR) here.http://www.porac.org/POBOR.htmlGovernment Code 3305- …Comments adverse to interest; personnel files; opportunity to read and sign; refusal to sign No public safety officer shall have any comment adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other file used for any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first read and signed the instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware of such comment, except that such entry may be made if after reading such instrument the public safety officer refuses to sign it. Should a public safety officer refuse to sign, that fact shall be noted on that document, and signed or initialed by such officer….From what you provide in this article, it looks like UCD PD violated the law here if they put negative info in his file (the …sustained… result of the …laundry room investigation…) without letting him know.
Would this be taxpayer money ?Lets investigate UCD .
In other news, it was discovered that several verbs had been incorrectly conjugated in the report, as well as a significant number of subordinate clauses, well over the 50-clause limit set forth in the settlement agreement.
Anonymous 7:12am said:…This kind of in-depth analysis is why I read this blog. I was fuzzy on Chang’s case after Monday, now it’s clear there was a breech of contract by the university or so it would appear….This is not in depth analysis and one can’t make a judgment about the university’s action. As David notes, there is only one side of the story that is known, and David uses allegations from an aggrieved party, written by a lawyer whose intent is to persuade, as the basis for presentation. These allegations may prove to be true, but the simple fact that they are made, and that Vanguard put it on the website, means very little in and of itself. The allegations certainly are not proven facts, and there are many,many lawsuits in which defendants prevail. The only story worth reporting at this time is that the lawsuit has been filed, and the university has and cannot comment because they haven’t been served.
…Based on a reading of the settlement agreement, it would appear that Officer Calvin Chang would have a case against the University for breach of their settement agreement….The shame of this kind of situation is that whatever money he gets from a lawsuit, it will be students who have to pay higher fees and working stiffs who have to lose more of their paychecks to pay this bill.If Chang was wronged, he was wronged by individual human beings. I don’t see what good it does to punish the institution — that is, the poor kid who come to UCD in the future and the taxpayer. If any punishment is due for a wrongdoing here, it would only serve justice to limit that to the specific parties involved. Alas, that will never be the case; and justice will never be served.
I don’t know exactly how it works at the University, but the city has an insurance fund, in a case like this, they’d pay a deductible, and the rest would come from the insurance. I’m certain that the university is likewise protected, meaning that the only thing that would impact the students would be if the premium had to go up after paying out a settlement.
I’m sure you are right, David. However, it is ultimately the same thing — whether paid indirectly by way of an insurance policy or paid directly from future funds — the taxpayer or the student has picked up or will pick up the tab.The idea, I suppose, is that lawsuits of this nature will force the university to change some sort of institutional policy. However, insofar as the university already has a policy to not discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation, and insofar as the university as an institution did not authorize individual UC employees to violate the terms of Mr. Chang’s non-disclosure agreement, it’s lost on me as to what UCD will or can do in the future to improve its institutional behavior/policies.I know it will never happen, but I simply think all of the punishment — if a court deems punishment is due — should fall on the individuals who caused harm; and none should fall on the institution.–Rich @ Lexicon Daily
Rich:As you probably know in general individuals are indemnified against such liability so long as they operate within the scope of their work.
How very liberally one sided this report is…Since my last post was erased for reasons only known to the …blog administrator…, I’ll make this sweet and simple.Find some …real… people who can be a judge of Calvin’s character and ability to function in his desired role. Calvin Bruce Chang has a history of selecting his truth, and this blog, along with Davids report, is just an added insult to the integrity of everyone reading. I’m not defending the Big …U…… but collect more facts and data before you make a martyr of a fraud. Some people see a $ where others see a home, or a job, or a family. Calvin is a leech on society and looks for others to blame for his shortcomings. Calvin is only hurt by himself and his own inabilities to perform as a functional adult.
Mr. Cuchillo (if that is your real name):This seems like a pretty simple case to me at its core. It appears that the university and Mr. Chang entered into a settlement agreement. If that’s the case (I have reason to believe that it is), then the only question is whether the university violated the terms. At this stage, we only know one side of the story, part of that is the process, part of that is that it is a personnel matter, but really the only issue in question is whether the university violated the terms of the agreement and frankly that has very little to do with Mr. Chang’s character.You must have some inkling as to why the original post was pulled as you have substantially altered the content of it for your second post.
David,The reason for the content change between posts is because I recognized that you obviously didn’t want Calvin’s criminal record to play as a role in peoples judgment of his morals.Any creative Google/Yahoo search comes up with the same public information.You have the ultimate control over the content of this blog and can choose to censor as you deem fit. As hypocritical as it may be to censor a public blog set for the voice of the people.The side splitting humor of this case is unbearable in the least, but you’re right about the violations. If the …U… is at fault then by all means pay the man… but pay him to go away and never come back! If he is entitled to a fee for a loss then I am ALL in favor of his winnings… But I don’t need to see or hear about any more criminals with badges. Let him go on with his money, and his altered/sterilized personnel record and find a life outside of police work.Perhaps this is the basis of my entire grievance with this topic. I can’t place any belief in a man who stated his life long, childhood dream was to be a protector of society for the people of Davis… To be a hero and a role-model for my children and my family… Yet has a criminal record to disprove such claims.If any police department were to take Calvin in, I believe their H.R. dept should expect to see the applications from LAPD’s Mark Furman or BART’s Johannes Mehserle pretty soon too.
The reason I removed it is I don’t know the facts of it, it doesn’t appear you do either. It also appears to have been dismissed. And at bottom, it’s not relevant to the issues at hand.
UPDATE: SEE FRONT PAGE FOR STATEMENT FROM UNIVERSITY
Officer Chang’s attorney has an obligation to ensure that the settlement agreement was clear, and that UCD and the Regents complied with it.It is amazing that long after that agreement was signed, there is any sort of controversy as to the deal, or the destruction of the adverse evidence in the officer’s file.The two sides are completely opposed as to the interpretation of the agreement. The question is: why?
For an institution of higher education, the University does an awful lot of stupid things. If their officers had refrained from saying homophobic things, Officer Chang could have most likely been fired for good cause without having any way of suing the University. But now he will be a hero for social justice and line his pockets at the expense of the general public. Then, to boot, they leave stuff in his file after agreeing to take it out—giving him MORE reason to sue and get self-righteous. But the University has a long history of stupid behavior, treating good whistle-blowers horribly and rewarding those that should be ashamed of themselves.Of course, these are the people who give the administrators and top managers raises while student fees rise and departments get cut. So why is this a surprise?
NOTICE TO PERSON(S) WHO POSTED COMMENTS ON THE DAVIS VANGUARD (http://davisvanguard.blogspot.com) ON FEBRUARY 4, 2009, and/or FEBRUARY 5, 2009, UNDER USER NAME “MACK CHUCHILLO” and “ANONYMOUSLY,” INFORMATION REGARDING CALVIN CHANG, (including but not limited to postings on or about the following date/time(s) (Pacific Time): 2/4/2009 2:08 PM, 2/4/2009 3:02 PM, 2/4/2009 9:17 AM, 2/4/2009 12:21 PM, 2/4/2009 1:22 PM, 2/5/2009 8:49 AM, 2/5/2009 11:03 PM ,
ATTORNEY ANTHONY N. LUTI, THE LUTI LAW FIRM (6255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 714 Hollywood, CA 90028 323-960-2600), REPRESENTING CALVIN CHANG, has served a Civil Subpoena on Google, Inc. (Google, Inc. Legal Investigations Support, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043), seeking the personal identifying information relating to the above described individual(s).
Case No. 34-2009-00033484-CU-OE-GDS, Sacramento County Superior Court, Department 54. Calvin Chang v. The Regents Of The University of California, et al.. Date of Subpoena: July 17, 2009. A hearing regarding this discovery response is set for September 9, 2009 in the above named court.
If you object to this discovery, you should file a written objection that cites the specific grounds on which production of the records requested should be prohibited. Your objection must be filed timely and in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Take further notice that the above named individual(s) “Mack Chuchillo” and “Anonymous,” Plaintiff intends to seek your personal identifying information, from subsequent Internet Service Providers (ISP), related to the above posted comments.
If you have questions about your rights, you should consult an attorney.
Anthony N. Luti, Attorney at Law
The known parties of interest are as follows:
Representing: Plaintiff (Calvin Chang)
Anthony N. Luti
The Luti Law Firm
6255 Sunset Blvd, Suite 714
Hollywood, CA 90028
Representing: The Regents of the University of California and Annette Spicuzza
Timothy G. Yeung
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP
428 J Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Representing: Google, Inc.
Google, Inc.
Legal Investigations Support
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Representing: The People’s Vanguard of Davis, Inc. and David Greenwald
Donald B. Mooney
Law Offices of Donald B. Mooney
129 C Street, Suite 2
Davis, CA 95616
NOTICE TO PERSON(S) WHO POSTED COMMENTS ON THE DAVIS VANGUARD (http://davisvanguard.blogspot.com) ON FEBRUARY 4, 2009, and/or FEBRUARY 5, 2009, UNDER USER NAME “MACK CUCHILLO” and “ANONYMOUSLY,” INFORMATION REGARDING CALVIN CHANG, (including but not limited to postings on or about the following date/time(s) (Pacific Time): 2/4/2009 2:08 PM, 2/4/2009 3:02 PM, 2/4/2009 9:17 AM, 2/4/2009 12:21 PM, 2/4/2009 1:22 PM, 2/5/2009 8:49 AM, 2/5/2009 11:03 PM ,
ATTORNEY ANTHONY N. LUTI, THE LUTI LAW FIRM (8899 Olympic Blvd, Second Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 323-960-2600), REPRESENTING CALVIN CHANG, has served a Civil Subpoena on Rhonda Compton, Legal Compliance, AT&T Internet Services, 1010 N. Saint Mary’s Street, Room 315-A2 San Antonio, TX 78215), seeking the personal identifying information relating to the above described individual(s).
Case No. 34-2009-00033484-CU-OE-GDS, Sacramento County Superior Court, Department 54. Calvin Chang v. The Regents Of The University of California, et al.. Date of Notice: November 4, 2010.
If you object to this discovery, you should file a written objection that cites the specific grounds on which production of the records requested should be prohibited. Your objection must be filed timely and in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Take further notice that the above named individual(s) “Mack Cuchillo” and “Anonymous,” Plaintiff intends to seek your personal identifying information, from subsequent Internet Service Providers (ISP), related to the above posted comments.
If you have questions about your rights, you should consult an attorney.
Anthony N. Luti, Attorney at Law
The known parties of interest are as follows:
Representing: Plaintiff (Calvin Chang)
Anthony N. Luti
The Luti Law Firm
8899 Olympic Blvd, Second Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Representing: The Regents of the University of California and Annette Spicuzza
Timothy G. Yeung
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP
428 J Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Representing: AT&T Internet Services (formerly SBC Communications)
Rhonda Compton, Legal Compliance
AT&T Internet Services
1010 N. Saint Mary’s Street, Room 315-A2
San Antonio, TX 78215