Report Title: “The Department Violated Its Own Policy When It Failed to Include a No-Rehire Clause in a Settlement of a Strong Dismissal Case Against a Sergeant Accused of Soliciting a Minor for Sex.”
We respectfully disagree with the OIG’s assessment of this Sentinel case. The department’s settlement in this case was consistent with that of other state agencies and current interpretation of existing law. It is also important to note that the OIG did not seek executive review, which they have the authority to do. While this incident was troubling, we followed proper protocols stipulated in the State’s no re-hire procedure with the State Personnel Board, reduced a likely lengthy litigation process, and ensured there was proper communication and resolution. Ultimately, the case resulted in holding the Sergeant accountable.
CDCR’s Use of “No Rehire” Provisions
The OIG’s report does not accurately describe the history of the Department’s approach to “no rehire” provisions, and the discussions between the Department, OIG, and the State Personnel Board (SPB).
On January 1, 2020, Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5 (“section 1002.5”) went into effect. It prohibited the use of “No-Rehire” clauses in agreements resolving claims with an “aggrieved person,” except under incredibly limited circumstances. Section 1002.5 was amended effective January 1, 2021. That amendment added a third exception, but did not alter or narrow the definition of an “aggrieved person.”
Given the...
[OSEN=Choi Lee-jung Reporter] As past remarks by singer Yang Hong-won expressing his dislike of infidelity resurface, reactions continue to grow that the recent 'motel infidelity allegations' agai...