A lawsuit filed against PCC by a former employee will go forward on July 19 with one less charge for the college to defend.
SHARE: FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter

A lawsuit filed against PCC by a former employee will go forward on July 19 with one less charge for the college to defend.

Alfred Hutchings filed a suit against the district after he was fired following a criminal investigation on him being involved with soliciting contracts to possible vendors for the college.

The lawsuit claimed defamation, wrongful termination and sexual harassment. The defamation charge was dropped after a hearing on June 6, where Judge Richard Fruin granted the district’s motion to strike it.

Defamation, which is a false accusation of an offense or malicious misrepresentation of someone’s words or actions, was dropped from the suit since it could not be proven that the college’s General Counsel Cooper or President Mark Rocha had said anything that was untrue. Statements from Rocha and Cooper included Hutching’s involvement in a bribery scandal soliciting contracts with out granting them, according to the complaint filed by Hutchings.

Hutchings claimed Rocha and Cooper falsely said he “’was doing inappropriate things with possible vendors,” referring to his alleged involvement in a bribery scandal with Richard van Pelt, former director of facilities, soliciting contracts from LED Global, LLC. The bribery scandal entailed that both Hutchings and van Pelt had allegedly taken money from LED Global in exchange for a contract with the college. A contract was never granted.

Hutchings also claims Rocha said, “’I would not have hired Hutchings,’” as well as calling him a “’cheat … dishonest … shameful …’” and “’disgusting.”

Hutchings retaliated ridding claims of defamation in a complaint, saying Cooper and Rocha made statements that were not following the legal process to file a motion to strike, and that it was based on “retaliatory motive” in regards to the sexual harassment claims.

PCC’s attorney Nancy Doumanian defended the motion to strike the defamation in a court document, claiming Hutchings does not have enough evidence to prove it.

“Hutchings has not proffered a shred of controverting evidence, and has plainly failed to meet his burden of establishing falsity of the alleged statements – an essential element of defamation.”

Doumanian also argued that even if Hutchings was still under investigation for the LED Global bribery scandal and no official report was made in his relation to it, does not mean he can call Rocha and Cooper’s claims of his involvement in it defamatory.

“The fact the Hutchings has not yet been criminally charged speaks only to the depth to which the District Attorney’s Office is investigating, not to his lack of guilt,” she said.

Another hearing set for the district to argue dropping the other claims of wrongful termination and sexual harassment is set for July 19.


  1. Rocha said, “’I would not have hired Hutchings,’” as well as calling him a “’cheat … dishonest … shameful …’” and “’disgusting.”

    So, you can’t tell what is true about a person? Just Google Hutchings and you can see he is a cheat, dishonest, shameful, and disgusting.

  2. One imagines Beer Steinz hunched over a public library computer, pockets full of conspiracy theory jottings. He/She mutters along with the typing, one eye on the wall clock. “No time to to include chemtrails evidence . . . can’t miss the Arts Bus . . .”

    Freedom of speech has never been so entertaining!

  3. So, Dr Hutchings gets fired for being crooked and dishonest, now he is suing for wrongful termination and sexual harassment? He has no conscience.

  4. Where is the courier article revealing the findings from the greedy faculty union’s labor dispute?


    “A fact-finding panel appointed by the California Public Employment Relations Board to help the two sides settle their differences has ruled in favor of the college on a number of disputes, including the very public and vitriolic conflict over eliminating the winter term.”

    Oh, wait, that does not fit into the VICTIM NARRATIVE that the courier is trying to portray.

    Where is the courier article on the PCC A.S. trying to pick the pockets of the students they are paid to represent???

  5. One down two to go for the district. In Rocha’s own words, Hutchings is a “cheat, dishonest, shameful and disgusting” Dr Hutchings days are numbered.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.