Former COC chancellor alleges discrimination, harassment, seeks $2.75M in damages
Former College of the Canyons Chancellor Dianne Van Hook has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Santa Clarita Community College District alleging racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, harassment, and other factors, according to the complaint.
“The district has received a copy of the lawsuit and will undertake a vigorous defense against the allegations made,” Eric Harnish, COC’s assistant superintendent/vice president of public information, wrote in a text message to The Signal on Wednesday afternoon. “Beyond that, we cannot provide any further comment on pending litigation.”
Van Hook, who seeks at least $2.75 million in damages, served as the chancellor for the public community college for 36 years until she was ousted from the position in July 2024, “without due process” the complaint alleges. Her contract was set to expire in 2027.
Initially, the COC board of trustees placed her on administrative leave. She officially retired shortly after that.
At the time leading up to her removal, the five board members on the governing board were trustees Edel Alonso, Jerry Danielson, Sebastian Cazares, Joan MacGregor and Chuck Lyon, according to the complaint. Lyon resigned from the board in June 2024 and did not participate in the actionable conduct, it added.
Following Van Hook’s removal, David Andrus was appointed as interim superintendent. Andrus has since been replaced as acting superintendent by Jasmine Ruys. Andrus in September was placed on administrative leave, by a different version of the board, with Alonso the only one remaining from the time of Van Hook’s removal last year.
Board members Fred Arnold, Sharlene Johnson and Darlene Trevino have since joined the board after being elected in November 2024.
MacGregor resigned in August 2024 after Van Hook’s departure and Carlos Guerrero was appointed to replace her. MacGregor, who had previously announced her intent to resign, waited until it was too late for the seat to appear on the November ballot, thus ensuring that her replacement would be appointed by the remaining board members rather than being elected by the voters.
“(Dianne Van Hook) had enjoyed the full and unwavering support of the board of directors and the Santa Clarita Community for decades until 2024 after the death and resignation of two board members,” the complaint stated. “In fact, in the 36 years (Dianne Van Hook) was with COC she never received a vote of no confidence by the board, faculty, or any other employee group, nor did (Dianne Van Hook) receive so much as a written critique or reprimand.”
The complaint alleges that the board that ousted her consisted of trustees whose campaigns had been “financed by and affiliated with teacher unions whose vision of COC clashed with that of (Dianne Van Hook). The union resented her because of her activities in labor contract negotiations and that she would not accede to union demands.”
And following those clashes, board members “embarked on a campaign of treachery and clandestine meetings to devise a way to stage a coup and oust (Dianne Van Hook) from her longtime position and thus deprived her of creating and implementing a viable succession plan she long envisioned,” the complaint alleges.
Van Hook alleges, according to the complaint, that part of the process to oust her included conducting a Campus Climate Survey in April 2024 “for the purpose of creating a pretext to terminate” her.
According to the survey that the complaint cited, 81% of respondents stated they felt welcomed on campus. The other 19%, or 563 people, answering that question stated they were either not sure of feeling welcomed or disagreed with the statement completely.
Concerns from employees that the survey found were fear of retaliation because the respondents had witnessed or been recipients of backlash in the past, and prioritizing goals and benchmarks put ahead of the well-being of employees, according to the survey report.
The survey results were released on May 31, 2024, and were used by the district in June 2024 “as their “‘gotcha,’ their articulated reason for placing Hook on ‘administrative leave’ as their precursor to discharging her,” the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit also alleges that Van Hook was threatened by the board with termination and loss of her retirement and other benefits unless her forced “voluntary” resignation was received by the board.
The lawsuit argues that the board intentionally disregarded the express written admonition from the district’s counsel that the survey was to play no role in any employment decisions, yet the board did not disclose to Van Hook any reason for their action except the survey, and the board rationalized their preconceived and contrived decision to fire Van Hook on a few anonymous criticisms of her management style.
The complaint also alleges that Van Hook was removed from the position after she received a letter from Alonso placing her on administrative leave without cause or any explanation, nor pre-disciplinary due process safeguards as mandated by state law — including what is known as a “Skelly Notice.”
“Dianne Van Hook is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the board of trustees conspired, contrived and agreed to deliberately and shamefully operate secretly in their place to oust (Dianne Van Hook),” the complaint alleges.
No additional information was immediately available on potential court dates. Local attorney Jeffrey Hacker, who is representing Van Hook, did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
