Monday, August 28, 2006

Anti-discrimination suit against CEO Mathur finally goes to trial next week

Back in June of 2001, then-IVC President Raghu Mathur, who currently serves as Chancellor of the SOCCCD, tweaked the hiring process for dean of health sciences, physical education and athletics at the college to get the underling he wanted—a twit he could control—and to avoid getting the underling he did not want, namely, Cely Mora, a strong and highly competent woman. (See Teachers, students protest athletic director’s transfer.)

Long-time Mathur observers know that the former chemistry teacher tends not to get along with women, especially strong and competent women. (See Mathur vs. women.)

As we reported nearly a year ago,
[In 2001,] then-IVC President Mathur hired a white guy from Virginia to be Dean of Health Sciences, PE, and Athletics at IVC. The guy didn't look like much, on paper or otherwise. That was bad enough, but he was chosen, by Mathur, over Cely Mora, a popular educator with a state-wide reputation for excellence in her field.

According to the search committee, she was by far the superior candidate. But she's a woman, so Raghu decided to go with the guy with sh*tty paper.

Plus the guy's name was "Rodney Poindexter." [The fellow turned out to be unstable.] People were plenty pissed off.

Cely decided to take the matter to civil court. She sued Mathur personally for racial and gender discrimination. She had a strong case, as these kinds of cases go. But, to the amazement of many observers, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of [Mathur]; further, he ruled that she must pay Mathur's attorneys fees.

The ruling was ridiculous, and so Cely appealed, and, in August of [2005], the appellate court unanimously decided that the original judge's granting of summary judgment in favor of Mathur was improper, as was his decision concerning attorneys fees.
(To see how well Mathur’s twitular white male turned out, see Complaints, suit filed against college dean.)

Well, at long last, court is in session--or, rather, it will be soon! The trial--it's a jury trial--is set for next week, from Tuesday through Thursday, in Los Angeles.

Today, several IVC faculty and at least one former administrator were given notices to appear (on the first day of trial, I'm told). Don’t know who else was summoned.

Stay tuned.

7 comments:

  1. Good luck, Cely.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Will Rodney Poindexter be a star witness?

    How about Howard Gensler? (Who knows how many qualified candidates lost out to that delusional wingnut?)

    Could people who were generally sane and well-qualified and who applied, in good fiath, for jobs in the district the last few years -- could they band togther in some kind of grand class action case?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alleging discrimination and filing a lawsuit is easy. Proving discrimination in hiring practices is not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, 6:44, proving discrimination is not easy. Of course, no one said that it was easy. On the contrary, we've always been clear that such cases are difficult, though we've also said that, as these cases go, this case is strong. That's not the same as saying it's easy.

    This case involves a jury trial, and so it's even more of a crap shoot than it might otherwise be.

    Still, with any luck, win or lose, we'll be able to report on some of the testimony during the trial, which will likely be very damaging to Mathur's reputation (among those who pay attention), if not to his wallet.

    If he loses and has to pay up, expect him to sue the district. That's what he did when he sued the Dissenters a few years ago and it backfired on him. We countersued and we prevailed; he owed us $34K. So he sued the district and got $40K (as I recall).

    It's a neat little system they've got going. When Chancellor Sampson did not hire (ex-Trustee) Teddi Lorch for VP of HR (we reported that she coveted that job when she left the board), she sued the district, and the district settled by giving her the job. Very neat.

    Very corrupt, and very status quo since December 1996.

    ReplyDelete
  5. what was the state of the district prior to 1996, chunk? perhaps ancient history, relatively speaking of course, but i'm curious as to what the district was like prior to Mr Goo and his Goosters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. or Ms. 7:45

    Perhaps the pivotal point in the fortunes of the district and its colleges was the trustee election of 1996. It produced the notoriously clueless "Board Majority," a group beholden to the corrupt faculty union. All of our problems trace back to that event.

    The whole story is told in our BRIEF HISTORY--Just go to our Archives (August 2005). it's all there in just three or four pages.

    ReplyDelete
  7. GO Cely! We miss you and think of you often.

    ReplyDelete

Trolls and flamers will be cursed by our team of black magicians