You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
The Torres Bill: UC's Response to Date
In 1994 the California State Legislature became concerned about the
University's high legal costs for fighting discrimination claims. They also
became aware of the ordeal faculty who alleged discrimination endure trying to
remedy it. They passed a bill requiring the University to report by March 1st
each year on progress in reforming the tenure review process and on legal
expenses incurred for discrimination cases, including the cost of outside
counsel.
During hearings on the bill, the University produced a report on their
legal expenses (see WAGE Newsletter 2, November 1994) that did not include
several cases of which WAGE was aware. According to the Los Angeles
Times (July 2, 1995), a spokesperson for the president's office stated that
they would not release "settlements for which the terms must remain
confidential by agreement of the parties." Of course, it's the University that
insists on non-disclosure clauses in settlement contracts.
The Orange County Register has reported on two of the omitted cases.
Court documents showed that UC Irvine paid $766,714 to settle a
discrimination suit brought by former faculty member Dr. Carol Jackson.
$440,622 of this went to the University's wondrously named outside law
firm, Payne & Fears. Jackson's settlement contract included a non-
disclosure clause. But at least one other case with high legal costs, one
where there has been no settlement and hence no non-disclosure agreement,
was also omitted.
As of July, 1995, the University has reported to the Legislature on
hires by ethnicity and gender, but there has been no report this year on the
legal costs of discrimination cases. Reached by telephone, University public
information staff claimed never to have heard of the Torres Bill but
promised to find someone who had the answers -- no one ever called back.
Meanwhile, the University has told Senator Hayden's office that the
report is being prepared. The inevitable suspicion is that UC omitted costly
cases from the original tally and is now stonewalling on an updated list
because these figures would be embarrassing evidence of UC's resistance to
reform.
-wage@wage.org-