UC DavisIn the lawsuit, Officer Chang, who is openly gay, alleges that he was subject to harassment including homophobic slurs and a death threat while serving as a police officer for the UC Davis Police Department. Officer Chang was at the time of his hire the only Asian-American officer on the campus and the first openly gay officer.
“During the relevant times, Plaintiff was subjected to a pattern of harassment and discrimination because of his race and sexual orientation, including but not limited to the following: a racial slur broadcasted to Plaintiff over the police radio by his supervisor, superiors referred to Plaintiff as “Mr. Chang” instead of by his earned title of “Officer Chang,” repeatedly referred to by the name of the agency’s previous Asian-American officer, denied timely backup, subjected to a derogatory slur (“fag”) by a probationary police officer (whom Regents passed on probation) in the presence of his supervisor, offensive homosexual innuendos from a supervisor, referred to as a “****ing fag” by his supervisor (whom Spicuzza promoted and assigned to the “professional standards unit” in command of internal affairs), subjected to numerous false internal affairs investigations.”
In July of 2003, Officer Chang was terminated from the UC Davis Police Department. By September 2003, he filed complaints of discrimination and harassment in connection with his termination.
“After Plaintiff’s mistreatment and termination was reported in the news media beginning on or about October 29, 2003, Regents ordered Plaintiff summarily reinstated on October 31, 2003 and agreed with the DFEH [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] to provide all sworn staff with discrimination prevention training. As of Plaintiff’s last termination in 2008, despite repeated reassurances, Regents have failed to provide agreed upon training.”
The suit alleges that the
“Defendants initiated, directed, encouraged, and subjecting Plaintiff to a malicious, severe, and unrelenting pattern of retaliation.”
These complaints included an alleged death threat. However according to a press release:
“UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza concluded she ‘could not identify’ which officer wrote the threat, even though the threat was written in the officer’s own handwriting.”
Moreover, Officer Chang alleges that in response to a complaint about discrimination, Chief Spicuzza stated to Officer Chang, “Why don’t you leave?”
The suit alleges a long list of various incidents of harassment and retaliations including a punitive transfer, failure to properly protect Officer Chang, and soliciting complaints against Officer Chang. Officer Chang claims that the Police Chief initiated several “malicious and false” internal affairs investigations against the Officer.
According to the press release by attorney Anthony Luti representing Officer Calvin Chang:
“These actions culminated in a lawsuit filed [today]… Chang alleges that in 2008, he was unlawfully terminated for the second time, after the UC Davis Police Department fabricated an internal affairs alleging that he “failed to have a backup officer” when he searched a laundry room at the Segundo Residence Hall. Chang’s lawsuit alleges that Spicuzza intentionally misrepresented that the internal affairs investigation had “no finding.” However, UC Davis concealed and intentionally misrepresented that it had sustained the allegation and then falsely and maliciously reported that he had resigned as a result of the internal affairs complaint.”
UC Davis has also attempted retaliation, according to the plaintiff, by
“unlawfully threatening [to] take his home of ten years—located in Aggie Village on the UC Davis campus. As a result of a complaint Chang filed with the CA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the University agreed that it would cease any further actions, again choosing to explain its actions as based on “miscommunication.”
Furthermore, the plaintiff reports:
“In a letter responding to Chang’s complaint, [UC Davis Chancellor Larry] Vanderhoef described the University’s action as “a result of administrative error” and that there was no “evidence that these actions were intended to be retaliatory.”
Officer Calvin Chang is seeking a reinstatement of his position and general damages for the loss of his career and public safety pension valued at over $3 million. Moreover he is also seeking damages for emotional distress and punitive damages against Chief Spicuzza for failure to prevent harassment, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
The Vanguard at time of publication has not had an opportunity to speak to UC Davis, however, will follow up if when there is an official response.
In the fall of 2007, the Vanguard received an anonymous mailing through the US Postal service depicting a series of complaints against Chief Spicuzza, Captain Joyce Souza, and now former Captain Leslie Brown. That was followed up in the spring of 2008 with an anonymous email detailing further events and abuses. Both of these communications appear to have merit and the Vanguard has been conducting a long investigation of the UC Davis Police Department and the upper management. As a result, the Vanguard has discovered reason to believe that Officer Chang’s complaint is not an isolated incident but rather part of a long and sustained pattern of alleged discrimination, retaliation, and abuse. The Vanguard will be following up on these allegations and will have a full report in the future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
” ”In the fall of 2007, the Vanguard received an anonymous mailing through the US Postal service depicting a series of complaints against Chief Spicuzza, Captain Joyce Souza, and now former Captain Leslie Brown. That was followed up in the spring of 2008 with an anonymous email detailing further events and abuses. ””Anonymous means gossip in this case , which your are spreading like a cancer , not caring who you hurt in the process of writing your story .I believe you just exposed yourself to a lawsuit .
…That was followed up in the spring of 2008 with an anonymous email detailing further events and abuses. Both of these communications appear to have merit and the Vanguard has been conducting a long investigation of the UC Davis Police Department and the upper management….It’s helpful if you post the full statement.
David, Why do you get yourself involved in these kinds of lawsuits? I didn’t understand Officer Chan’s complaints back in 2003 and, if it were so bad working in the department, why did he wait (5 years) until he was terminated to try to fix it? I’d stay away from this one, as well as Cedarblade’s.
…Both of these communications appear to have merit . . …. Based on what evidence do they have merit? Do they just …sound true… or have you uncovered actual evidence that you are not sharing with your readers?I suppose David could bash me too for not quoting/posting everything, but you can always go to the above blog and reread it all to get the full context.
Pat Lenzi said:Anonymous, why not post your name to avoid being an …anonymous… comment here and essentially participating in the same actions that you claim David does? He posted facts (the details of the complaint) and corroboration (a reference to the anonymous email naming the same people and the letter he received over the past year and a half that names at least some of the same people at fault). In fact, David’s summary of the letter and email in does not actually say what the allegations he received are, or that they are related to this lawsuit. What is apparent, in fact, is that for over a year and a half David has not posted any information based on the complaints he received until someone actually filed a lawsuit. As for the actual lawsuit and its allegations, this is a sad situation for our local law enforcement. It is sad that in this day and age, a gay, Asian officer would be subject to racial and sexual orientation slurs on the job and not be protected by management but would instead be a target of management for speaking up. If true, it is shocking that a person who was involved in the attacks would be promoted to become the person who is in charge of …professional standards…. If the allegations in the anonymous letter and email are about more incidents, or more victims, than those outlined in the lawsuit, UCD PD has some serious internal problems.
…corroboration… is a bit overstated since both contacts (postal mail and email) were anonymous and could easily be from the same person. Moral of the complaint – When terminated, file a lawsuit.
Anonymous 6:55 am. People like you are quite funny. You say that the Vanguard is spreading like a cancer and yet I guess by you visiting the …cancer… – which you imply – you are helping to spread it. Good humor in the morning with my coffee.Keep up the good work David. This person obviously doesn’t know the difference between the tabloid that they pick up at the store and the Vanguard. The Vanguard is not gossip. This anonymous armchair tabloid reader can’t even quote your full statement. That would prove them wrong. It is very serious when we have a former officer of the university – who happens to be gay and Asian – alleging discrimination. Of course he has to prove his case, but these are serious allegations that must be looked into.That is not gossip. It’s a fact that a lawsuit has been filed.Also, the anonymous armchair tabloid reader, is wrong by saying that you exposed yourself to a lawsuit. You are reporting on a lawsuit that has been filed. Keep up the great work David!! Even those that can’t stand the Vanguard just can’t stay away from you! Ha, ha…you gotta love it! Even they know that they need to read the Vanguard to know what is going on in Davis.
Papa John – Glad you got it right. …Moral of the complaint – When terminated, file a lawsuit….If it was for reasons of discrimination? Absolutely. Make them pay and cease with their discriminatory practices. The good ol’ dollar makes people or organizations change their ways when they don’t want to.
Hey, …weary,… that is why we like David – he does not shy away from tough issues. You should start your own blog if you don’t want to see these types of topics covered. A lawsuit by a former police officer against an agency is newsworthy. Cedarblade’s situation is newsworthy. Our local news outlets have long since been co-opted by the governmental agencies and elected officials in this county. They won’t cover either of these stories. David has not, so far, been co-opted by the local electeds or by the governmental agencies. I, for one, am glad he covers stories that others …stay away from….As for why Chan waited – maybe he did not accrue …damages… til he was terminated. Before he filed suit, he was required to exhaust all administrative remedies, too. maybe he kept trying to resolve it internally through official channels and maybe, just maybe, the Chief and her crones were actually acting improperly. Maybe some of these reasons are why he filed now instead of earlier. Maybe, just maybe, Cedarblade has actually been through all of the things alleged by her. Maybe, just maybe, her complaints have merit. Maybe, just maybe, her attempts to complain to local law enforcement have fallen on deaf ears. What should she do, if it is true? What would any of us do if faced with either of the situations that Chan or Cedarblade faced?
Sooo…you are just printing a one-sided version of the story here. A story which is largely he said/she said.This is quality reporting, on par with the Enterprise.
to …Cough, cough, hack… – In a perfect world, what would be the proper two-sided reporting of this suit? Having the Chief admit it is all true? (Not gonna happen) Having her deny it all? (she will, in her official court response to the suit so wait for it) Having her say …I can’t comment…? (the most likely, if any, response she can give right now)i suppose it is better, in your world, to just ignore complaints of individuals. All complaints are false and all complainants are liars? At least this way, we know the complaints about that department exist. Let the process go forward to see if they can be proven or not.
…In the lawsuit, Officer Chang, who is openly gay, alleges that he was subject to harassment including homophobic slurs and a death threat while serving as a police officer for the UC Davis Police Department….David, I see this phrase, openly gay, all the time. Seems repetitious. Why not just write, …In the lawsuit, Officer Chang, who is gay, alleges ……Obviously, his being homosexual is openly known. Were it not, you wouldn’t mention his sexual orientation.Am I being openly pedantic?
It is quite possible that 95% of the allegations are totally false and the ex-employee is out for a settlement, similar to the Celeste Rose fiasco
Rich:I chose to use the word …openly… to indicate it was known that he gay.Weary:This is really just the tip of the iceberg of a much larger and deeper pattern.Calvin Chang told me that he wanted to be a police officer. He stuck it out because he believed he would be exonerated, he had reached multiple agreements and settlements only to have them allegedly reneged upon. And most importantly it reached a point where these allegations have precluded him from seeking other employment as a police officer, so it comes down to he felt like he had little choice.Jon Ruth:As I wrote, this is now an investigation that has gone on for a year and a half. To some extent there is considerably more here than just this case. And I would not be volunteering the information I did were I knew fairly comfortable with it. Basically I have multiple points of corroboration from multiple individuals and have documentary evidence as well. All of this will come out in due time.Anonymous:…Sooo…you are just printing a one-sided version of the story here. A story which is largely he said/she said….To some extent any lawsuit filed is going to be that way particularly one involving personnel issues.To another extent, as I have stated earlier this is simply the first part of a much bigger story, so stay tuned before you decide what we have here.
Thank you David for posting this information. Were it up to certain PTB we would never hear about stuff like this.
In 2003 a fellow commissioner on the HRC brought to our attention Officer Chang’s situation expressing concern that he was being allegedly discriminated against by some co-workers and people in management at the UCD Police Department. We had a hearing on this issue in council chambers, the commission voted, and decided to have a special meeting on this issue by a unanimous vote.[After considerable discussion–members of the commission felt it was within our charge and important because UCD officers have jurisdiction not only over the university as well as the city of Davis. For example officers can arrest or fine people in the city of Davis as well as on campus.]We had a meeting and Dennis Shimek from UC Davis, who is now retired, who was the Vice Chancellor at UC Davis, was in attendance and listened to Officer Chang’s concerns.The commission recommended that the university look into these matters. The commission suggested it was in the best interest of the university to look into these matters and address them as needed as soon as possible. Dennis Shimek spoke at the meeting. He also talked to Officer Chang following the meeting and was able to assist Officer Chang in getting his position back.It is unfortunate that this matter has come up again after we believed it was resolved over five years ago.
You know that this investigation will not go anywhere. The University cannot discuss it as it is a personnel matter AND there is a lawsuit pending. Officer Chang, if the allegations are true, will eventually reach a settlement and part of that settlement will be that he cannot discuss it. So we will never really find anything out. But all sorts of allegations will be tossed out into the community without any actual truth being discovered and will just fester there until the next person has some sort of unhappy experience and then this will again be dredged up to be tossed about again. There are probably more than a few departments over at UCD who have crummy management and unhappy staff or faculty. Why just focus on law enforcement?
But all sorts of allegations will be tossed out into the community without any actual truth being discovered and will just fester there until the next person has some sort of unhappy experience and then this will again be dredged up to be tossed about again.I’m noticing a pattern with Greenwald’s so-called …reporting… on lawsuits in Yolo County. They are all pathetically biased in favor of the plaintiffs.Obviously, activist trial attorneys know they can talk to you and you will faithfully report the …facts… of their cases in a way which makes it seem as if they have a case at all. But you obviously don’t have access to defense counsel in these matters, so you never get their side out and you and your brainless readers end up thinking you are objective when in fact you are merely a tool for shameless attorneys who think it is beneficial to publicize weak cases.What your readers should consider is where these political cases generally end up–no money for the clients, but a settlement which pays the expenses of their lawyers.
That’s great insight Potter. You must brilliant, you’ve discovered this pattern out of how many lawsuits that Greenwald has covered on here? I can’t remember more than maybe two or three.
Good point Potter. You know how many actual lawsuits I have covered?I only see three.1. Chang’s suit2. The class-action suit against Jim Hyde in Antioch3. The Buzayan suitThat’s it.I think that number severely weakens your argument.
…Obviously, activist trial attorneys know they can talk to you and you will faithfully report the …facts… of their cases in a way which makes it seem as if they have a case at all. But you obviously don’t have access to defense counsel in these matters, so you never get their side out and you and your brainless readers end up thinking you are objective when in fact you are merely a tool for shameless attorneys who think it is beneficial to publicize weak cases.What your readers should consider is where these political cases generally end up–no money for the clients, but a settlement which pays the expenses of their lawyers. …A further point is that none of these have been settled, concluded, or adjudicated yet. So (a) how do you know they are weak cases and (b) how do you know what their verdict will be? I see no basis for your statement. Activists lawyers have sought me out? The evidence suggests otherwise.
Recently, you covered Brenda Cedarblade’s lawsuit. So that’s 4. And then there was the guy who had a lawsuit against Agraquest.That makes 5.
I can’t remember more than maybe two or three.1. Ricardo Abrahams2. David Bell3. Zachary Fischer4. Marvetia Lynn Richardson5. Brenda Cederblade6. Halema Buzayan7. David Serena8. Khalid BernyActivists lawyers have sought me out? The evidence suggests otherwise.If you are not a tool, then you are a fool.
I might think your friends in the plaintiffs’ bar pay you to push their cases in this arena, but I know how stingy those guys are, so that’s definitely not happening.
Wow. Someone really is keeping track, David. That’s a little unnerving.
1. Probably will cover Abrahams law suit, but I have not yet.2. Bell doesn’t have a lawsuit3. I covered that Fischer was filing a lawsuit but didn’t cover his lawsuit and haven’t followed up on it4. Richardson is the Antioch case5. Cedarblade haven’t covered her lawsuit6. Buzayan case did7. Forgot about Serena’s lawsuit, mostly covered him being cleared by the courts8. Haven’t covered Berny’s lawsuit, mainly covered his criminal ordealThat’s still 8 in two-and-half years… I think my original point stands.
…Recently, you covered Brenda Cedarblade’s lawsuit. So that’s 4….Cedarblade’s is not a lawsuit it was a request from attorneys for the police to investigate her complaints….And then there was the guy who had a lawsuit against Agraquest….No he doesn’t have a lawsuit against Agraquest.
Apparently both the Enterprise and Aggie have stories on this today. So not only is it a legitimate story, David was the first to report on it. Seems a few people owe him an apology.
It all seems high-schoolishly dramatic.Except for the cost of the suit–$3million? Whenever there was a need for a mediator, now is it. This employee dispute should never have gone to court…and cost the taxpayers who knows how much.
The Agraquest guy has a Workmans Comp claim pending. It was unclear what Cedarblade wanted and it was unclear why she hired an attorney unless it was to make a demand in preparation for filing a lawsuit.
The Agraquest guy, Mr. Bell, had a rejected not a pending worker’s comp claim.Ms. Cedarblade hired an attorney in part to make sure the police protected her. There are many reasons to hire attorneys. Regardless I didn’t cover lawsuits in either of those cases. I covered the stories, such as they were and such as we knew them at the time.
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