How did a discrimination complaint turn out to be retaliation?
When Núñez filed the discrimination complaint, it went to Vice Chancellor of Human Relations Irma Ramos. Ramos oversees investigations into employee conduct and is also the lead negotiator for the district when it comes to faculty union contracts.
According to the district’s Administrative Policy 3410, sections 3.2 and 9.3 permit the district to bring in outside investigators, and section 6.4 mandates a compulsory investigation once a formal complaint is filed.
Arturo Ocampo, who was NOCCCD’s director for diversity and compliance at the time, “requested that the investigation be ‘farmed out’ to an outside investigator,” because of his workload, according to public documents.
Patricia Weaver of the law firm Currier & Hudson was hired and conducted the investigation, for which she interviewed Núñez, the union leader and several other administrators and faculty members, but no other union members.
According to Ramos’s testimony, Weaver found that the union leader did not discriminate against Núñez, but did violate Administrative Policy 3050, which states, “Employees of the District are expected to treat other members of the District and members of the public with courtesy, honesty, professionalism, and civility.”
We attempted to contact Weaver twice via email for a comment, but received no response.
Ramos examined the investigator’s report and found no deficiencies in the investigation, according to public documents.
“Discipline processes for full time faculty are outlined in the California Education Code. The District adheres to these provisions, with the level of discipline being commensurate with the alleged misconduct,” said Ramos in an email to The Hornet.
The union took issue with the nature of the investigations. According to the PERB judge’s ruling: “There is no indication that the outside investigator reviewed available video evidence, indicating both a departure from investigative procedure and a cursory investigation.”
That’s when the union brought the case to PERB, saying that the district had retaliated against the union leader by launching a discrimination investigation into them over their protected speech – the speech which was arguing for the rights of faculty members in public meetings and bargaining sessions.
PERB accepted the case in June 2022 and launched its own investigation. In December 2023, the court announced its findings: The district had violated the union leader’s rights and was ordered to cease and desist from retaliating against employees for exercising rights under the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA), interfering with or harming those rights, and interfering with United Faculty’s right to represent bargaining unit employees.
The PERB judge required the district to publicly post the decision and notify all faculty within 10 workdays of the final decision. The NOCCCD chancellor’s office sent the decision to faculty on Dec. 13, 2023, and posted it on its website and employee portal.