Former COC chancellor files wrongful termination claims 

College of the Canyons Chancellor Dianne G. Van Hook speaks at the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new Student Services Center on Tuesday, 042723. Photo courtesy of College of the Canyons.
Share
Tweet
Email

Dianne Van Hook, the former chancellor of College of the Canyons, has filed wrongful termination claims against the college and the governing board overseeing it, according to a news release from her attorney. 

Van Hook was placed on administrative leave by the Santa Clarita Community College District board of trustees, which oversees COC, in July after 36 years in charge of the college. She announced her retirement less than two weeks later. 

Now, according to the release, she is alleging that she was “abruptly removed from her position and forced to resign based on the board’s misuse of the results of a campus climate survey conducted to gauge various aspects of COC’s work environment.” 

Van Hook is being represented by Jeff Hacker, an attorney with the Adamski, Moroski, Madden, Cumberland and Green law firm, which has offices in San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles. 

The survey in question was conducted in the spring and was open to all employees of the college. In it, it was revealed that 81% of respondents said they felt welcome at the college and 19% did not. There were also open-ended responses in which employees stated there was a culture of fear of retaliation over speaking up about problems. 

Union leaders at the college have said at board meetings since Van Hook’s departure that the climate has improved after she was replaced, at least on an interim basis, by David Andrus, a former political science professor at COC. 

Board President Edel Alonso has stated on multiple occasions that the basis for the decision to put Van Hook on leave cannot be publicly disclosed due to state laws surrounding personnel decisions. 

According to Eric Harnish, spokesman for the college, COC does not comment on pending litigation. 

“The district will consult with (legal) counsel and move forward accordingly,” Harnish said. 

A timeline for when an answer to the claims will be given was not provided. 

“The campus climate survey contained a disclaimer that the results were to be utilized only to identify areas for improvement and would not be used for any employment actions, discipline or retaliation to encourage staff to complete the survey,” the release from Van Hook’s attorney states. “All responses were to be anonymous to avoid fears of retaliation.” 

According to the release, Van Hook was the “target of a deliberate campaign” by the board. The claims being presented say that the campaign included “harassment, defamation, discrimination (based on age and gender), disparate treatment, isolation, deprivation of due process, and retaliation.” 

“The orchestrated effort breached Dr. Van Hook’s employment agreement,” the release states, “while also attempting to sideline her from participating in key decisions surrounding the upcoming trustee elections and damaging her credibility.” 

It is also claimed that Van Hook’s “forced resignation denied her the ability to complete the unexpired term of her employment agreement, which had been approved by the board only one year prior. She alleges that the damage to her professional reputation and the emotional distress caused by these actions have been irreparable.” 

Hacker provided the following statement in the release: “This past July, after 36 years of unprecedented service to COC, the board of trustees unceremoniously kicked Dr. Dianne Van Hook to the curb without good cause. The board placed her on administrative leave without explanation or cause using the pretext that the limited and inaccurate results of a confidential campus climate survey allegedly documented a fabricated hostile work environment at COC.  

“Mind you,” Hacker continued, “in all the years that Dr. Van Hook led COC, there is not one other instance of any claims that Dr. Van Hook created any uncomfortable work environment at COC. Instead, the board harassed her, threatened her, and discriminated against her, all to force her out. The board denied Dr. Van Hook her due process rights. The board did not follow existing procedures, contractual obligations, approved district policies and procedures, and labor laws. The board violated Dr. Van Hook’s rights and acted contrary to the public policy of this state. The board deprived Dr. Van Hook of her due process rights. The board did not conduct an investigation, nor did it advise Dr. Van Hook on why the board was taking its action, nor allow Dr. Van Hook to respond. There was no valid reason to force her out. Dr. Van Hook was constructively fired when the board forced her to abruptly ‘retire.’” 

According to Hacker, if the claims are denied, a lawsuit will be filed. 

“Dr. Van Hook’s legal team is committed to holding the district and the board of trustees fully accountable for their conduct,” the release states. 

Andrus is currently in charge of the college while a search is conducted for a permanent president. A timeline for that process has not been provided. 

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS