The Department provided OIG with three settlement agreements from other state agencies that were rejected because they included an impermissible No-Rehire provision. Following that meeting, OIG did not raise this issue again with the Department until over a year later.Īgain, OIG took the position that section 1002.5 did not apply to SPB appeals, and advised that it would maintain its position until the Department could produce a rejected settlement agreement. In an effort to resolve the different interpretations, the Department arranged for a meeting with high-level representatives from the SPB, which was attended by representatives from the OIG. OIG representatives maintained that the Legislature did not intend to include employee appeals to the SPB. The Department also provided OIG with a written summary regarding its interpretation of section 1002.5, explaining, in part, that the term “aggrieved person” was broadly defined and the plain language of the statute governed its interpretation, and addressed the strong public policy underlying the statute. In late January 2020, representatives from the Department and OIG discussed the application of section 1002.5 to SPB actions. Given the language of the statute, and consistent with other State agencies, the Department interpreted section 1002.5 to apply to employee appeals to the SPB. That amendment added a third exception, but did not alter or narrow the definition of an “aggrieved person.” Section 1002.5 was amended effective January 1, 2021. It prohibited the use of “No-Rehire” clauses in agreements resolving claims with an “aggrieved person,” except under incredibly limited circumstances. On January 1, 2020, Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5 (“section 1002.5”) went into effect. 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). Ultimately, the case resulted in holding the Sergeant accountable.

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. It is also important to note that the OIG did not seek executive review, which they have the authority to do. The department’s settlement in this case was consistent with that of other state agencies and current interpretation of existing law. We respectfully disagree with the OIG’s assessment of this Sentinel case. 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.”

Spb health