Applicant with Troubling Allegations of Stalking and Sexual Harassment Interviewed for College of the Redwoods VP of Student Services Position Yesterday

Dr. Howard Irvin being interviewed yesterday as seen on this screenshot from Zoom.
Yesterday, a former Los Angeles police officer and college level educator, who has faced allegations of having a violent criminal history and a $1.5 million civil judgment against him, was interviewed in Eureka for the position of College of the Redwoods Vice President of Student Services. This interview took place even though he had been found liable for ongoing sexual harassment of a coworker. The jury’s verdict held both him and his former employer, the Los Angeles Community College District, responsible for his hiring despite his alleged troubled past. Now, appealing the southern California court’s 10 million dollar judgment sullying his name, Dr. Howard J. Irvin, Jr hopes to take a new position behind the Redwood Curtain.
College of the Redwoods is in the process of examining two candidates vying for it’s VP of Student Services, and completed an interview with one of two applicants approved for consideration (from a larger group of applicants) on Thursday afternoon, drawing the attention of concerned staff members and students who were keen to ask about the applicant’s allegedly sordid history of sexual assault, harassment, stalking, and abuse of power as a Los Angeles police officer, and as an administrator in higher education in California.
According to a Los Angeles Times October 30, 1997 article,
In December 1994, a female LAPD officer who had been dating [Howard Irvin] contacted Long Beach police about a 1992 assault that left her with a fractured neck, according to a police report. Although a criminal case was never filed because the statute of limitations had expired, the female officer did obtain a restraining order against Irvin and he was suspended by the LAPD for 25 days in October 1995.
In July 1996, records show, Irvin was accused of another domestic dispute, this one in San Diego. Although the woman in that case refused prosecution, Irvin currently faces an LAPD Board of Rights hearing that alleges 15 separate acts of misconduct, including placing the barrel of a handgun against the victim’s head.
A $10 MILLION JUDGMENT
Los Angeles County College Professor Sabrina Odom filed a civil complaint alleging workplace sexual harassment against Irvin and the LA Community College District in October of 2018, listing seven alleged causes of action, and won. She was also subsequently awarded a hefty amount of attorneys’ fees and court costs in a post trial motion.
The Court found Irvin culpable of having sexually harassed Odom, a fellow educator, and retaliating against her for reporting his conduct with her appropriate superiors, in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. This resulted in an award for damages in the amount of $10,000,000 total, with $1.5 million specifically levied against Irvin as an individual, and the remaining $8.5 million against the LA Community College District (LACCD) for their negligent hiring of Irvin, allegedly while knowing of his “history of discipline for sexual assault,” according to the complaint.

The case details, judgment and rulings on the matter thus far can be found at the court’s website by searching the case number BC724401.
The complaint for damages filed by Odom’s attorneys specifically alleges that Irvin “abused his position as Vice President” of student services to “demand sexual favors from students and faculty.”
The complaint describes Dr. Irvin using his position of authority to sexually harass and threaten women, stating the harassment was “severe, pervasive, continuous and offensive,” specifically stating that Irvin “asked plaintiff to have sex with him” alleging that he “used his position as Vice President to try and force plaintiff to have sex with him.”
The complaint repeatedly states reasoning for the lawsuit, explaining that Irvin was hired by the LACCD in the position that CR is actively considering him for locally. The complaint reads that the LA district hired Irvin as their “Vice President of Student Services when they knew or should have known he had been the subject of multiple claims of sexual assault by female police officers who had gotten restraining orders against him. Prior to being hired by [the school district] was a police officer. During the time he was a police officer he was accused of sexual assault.”
The complaint continues to detail disturbing behavior which prompted the 2018 complaint reading, “He was accused of stalking several female LAPD detectives and officers who had gotten a restraining order against him. He was further subject to restraining orders by three other females… It is inconceivable to believe that (LACCD) would have hired IRVIN without checking his background and would not have investigated prior allegations when plaintiff complained of the sexual harassment.”
Following the trial outcome, last fall, Irvin spoke with local reporters regarding the judgment. According to the Contra Costa College Advocate, Irvin candidly stated on the record, “There were some things, what, 20-something years ago. But all that stuff has been cleared and things of that nature have been adjudicated,” and noted, “With the invention of computers and things of that nature, (moving forward) is very difficult because these things (criminal records) can be brought up and are left open in your life.”
The LACCD school district’s motion for a new trial was denied last February, and the case has continued working its way through an appeals process since.
Still, while responding to questions about his past during the interview process on Thursday, Irvin told staff and students that there’s more to the story than meets the eye, and emphasized during his interview that he would be forthcoming with court documents, including in regard to the serious allegations of domestic abuse dating back to when he was a member of the late 1990’s era Los Angeles police force.
In regard to those older allegations of sexual abuse, threats and harassment that led to the restraining orders issued against him while he served as a Los Angeles police officer, the LA Times wrote in 1997, “After bailing out, records show, Irvin was rearrested in January and eventually pleaded guilty in Orange County to one felony count of stalking, one felony count of terrorist threats and two misdemeanor counts of violating a restraining order.”
According to one of Irvin’s LinkedIn profiles, “He launched his career in education in 1998,” ultimately leaving a career in law enforcement behind. Mr. Irvin asserted in his interview on Thursday at CR, that the LA Times had “misreported” on the matter, adding, “ It’s hurtful, because the truth is not out there.”
When asked in general about what drew him to apply for the rural student advisory position at CR, Howard Irvin said, “I applied for the job because this is where I want to be.”
While, he did field some softball questions regarding how he feels about the North Coast, and a more country living atmosphere in rural Humboldt County, there were also pointed questions regarding the accusations against him. Irvin indicated that the questions expressing concern about those past allegations and findings during the interview that he thought it was to be expected, and that it was “fair” to have been asked about the matter, “because that’s what they read.”
The HIRING PROCESS
While College of the Redwoods navigates the process of hiring a new Vice President of Student Services – a job currently held in interim by Dr. Crystal Morse, the other candidate being interviewed for the job – there is a process that is required to be followed, which is largely dictated by the State of California.
According to CR’s President Keith Flamer, who answered our questions by email, “The hiring committee looks at all applications and ranks them according to their qualifications and the job requirements as posted in the job description,” and added that his office was “not aware of Dr. Irvin’s past” when asked if a background check had been completed as of yet. While there will be a background check conducted, that part of the assessment does not occur prior to the interview.
Pressed as to whether or not the administration had knowledge of any of the allegations against Irvin, Flamer explained, “California Government Code § 12952 prohibits California public and private employers with at least 5 employees from asking about a candidate’s criminal conviction record on a job application and before offering them a job. Additionally, internal policies of fairness, equity and confidentiality preclude the hiring committee from any background research on candidates before they are offered the job.”
When asked why Dr. Irvin was selected to be interviewed, President Flamer responded, “He was deemed by the committee to have the requisite skills and employment experience to be forwarded for an interview.” Flamer added, “Our policy dictates that the selection of candidates to interview is based on the candidate’s possessing the required qualifications for the position. Following the interviews, reference checks are conducted on candidates the screening committee has determined should be considered by the President to hire.”
Beyond the information gleaned from formal interviews, President Flamer offered some additional assurance of what aspects of a candidate’s personal life would be examined. “Following the interviews, reference checks are conducted on the candidates that the screening committee submits to my office for hiring. The reference checks will include an investigation of professional experience and personal qualities relevant to performance of the position,” he wrote.
“The reference check will be conducted if Dr. Irvin is recommended for consideration by the President as someone who can do the job as Vice President of Student Services,” explained President Flamer’s in his email response to our inquiry.
Once the interviews and investigation process are concluded, President Flamer will announce the successful applicant to the community, as the new VP of Student Services.
In the interest of transparency, this reporter graduated from College of the Redwoods as did Kym Kemp, RHBB’s publisher and all of their sons and a good portion of their family attended at least some classes there.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Why isn’t he in jail?!
Because we live in a rape supportive culture- Which means that people in positions of power get away with repeated violent behavior and victims are asked to provide the burden of proof. He absolutely should not be in education nor law enforcement.
You are exactly right!
Agree he should not be in any position in education or law enforcement or any position where he supervises other people.
The laws in California need to be changed to allow employers to ask about criminal convictions or civil judgements for everything from sexual harassment to domestic violence, sexual assault and rape..
At least in cases where the job involves supervising other employers or contact with students, including colleges. And the statute of limitations needs to be at least 10 years
But he’s not in jail because his criminal charges were resolved in 1996 when he pled guilty to stalking and making terrorist threats.
He avoided being tried for sexual assault because the stature of limitations expired in one case before the victim came forward and another victim “refused prosecution.”
The laws against domestic violence also need to be strengthened so when the victim refuses to testify or claims she fell down the stairs more weight is given to her initial statements. (And yes, almost all victims of serious DV are female.)
Unfortunately the California legislature keeps making it harder to keep violent and sexual predators behind bars. They recently rejected efforts to make child sex trafficking a serious felony!! They only reversed course after there was a public outcry.
Sexual harassment (not assault) is generally considered a civil matter rather than a criminal one.
https://cccadvocate.com/10095/news/campus-news/vp-finalists-have-background-of-sexual-assault/
Well, the above mentioned person was interviewed, so he was treated fairly.
“Another applicant was selected, and thanks for interviewing”.
Interesting choice of applicants…
Another item I read this AM:
https://abc7.com/venice-stalker-released-from-prison-socal-talia-landman-stalking-case-in-southern-california/13784306/
Great reporting! I’m glad someone is paying attention.
Whoever is being paid to vet applicants is incompetent.
Agreed.
I’m curious if this specific applicant even disclosed that on their application. Seems like they wouldn’t even [hopefully] be eligible if it was disclosed.
Settling out of court would avoid a conviction/jail time which otherwise should have been addressed on the paperwork.
Sure sound like he would of hid it by his comment about the internet.
From the story:
“California Government Code § 12952 prohibits California public and private employers with at least 5 employees from asking about a candidate’s criminal conviction record on a job application and before offering them a job. Additionally, internal policies of fairness, equity and confidentiality preclude the hiring committee from any background research on candidates before they are offered the job.”
its not FAIR to staff and students to put a risky person in a position like this
So what? It’s also not FAIR to release murderers and rapists who have not been rehabilitated. Yet we do it every day- in the name of “fairness”. I used to call this state’s policies “Misplaced Compassion”…I am considering changing that to “Demented Compassion”
Agree 100% – I only quoted the story – I didn’t say I agreed with it.
Sexual and violent predators should be barred for life from being in supervisory positions or being around students.
Not quite
“Numerous states and local jurisdictions across the country prohibit employers from making criminal record inquiries until after a conditional offer is made. Key word; conditional. See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code § 12952(a)(1) and (2)”
&
https://casetext.com/analysis/check-those-pre-adverse-action-letters-new-california-law-goes-into-effect?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=
California Government Code § 12952 changes that for Californians. Under this new code section, the employer must provide the applicant with specific written notifications regarding the potential adverse action. These notifications include the following:
Notification that the employer has made a “preliminary decision that the applicant’s conviction history disqualifies the applicant from employment;
”Notification of the disqualifying conviction or convictions that are the basis for the preliminary decision to rescind the offer of employment;
A copy of the conviction history report, if any; and
An explanation of the applicant’s right to respond to the notice of the employer’s preliminary decision before that decision becomes final and notification of the deadline by which the applicant may respond. This explanation must inform the applicant that the response may include the submission of evidence challenging the accuracy of the conviction history report that is the basis for rescinding the offer, evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances, or both.”
===================
This means after consideration for the job a background check can be made and the applicant can certainly be denied the job if convicted of charges which would interfere with the trust of job efficiency. They just have to tell the person why they don’t want him and allow him to say he thinks he was unjustly convicted. Then they can deny him again.
Lynn H. – You’re not telling me anything I didn’t already know.
The law in California sets up the employer for a lawsuit. The law needs to be changed. I stand by my statement:
“Sexual and violent predators should be barred for life from being in supervisory positions or being around students.”
She is adding a very important detail you don’t mention for some reason if you in fact know it. The law as she clarified means people convicted of a crime cant be automatically denied an opportunity to apply for jobs and ALSO jobs are not required to hire those whose convictions interfere with the trust of job efficiency which is quite subjective and gives employer lots of leeway.
What i don’t get is how come convicts have to disclose convictions and perhaps even charges that were dropped (the latter is required for subsidized housing for some reason) with private businesses and therefore have a hard time getting work and reintegrating into society. We only allow ex-criminals to work for public organizations?
This is concerning. Every EMT, Paramedic, law enforcement student on that campus gets an extensive check of their legal record before proceeding with working in areas of public access….
It seems that job applications often have questions regarding criminal history.
Law vs code- can anyone explain why this code exists and or how it is applied and or not followed generally? Just for future edification.
It clearly states that they aren’t supposed to do those kinds of background checks prior to accepting applications. And as the representative from CR stated, now that he has proceeded in the hiring process those more thorough checks are done and considered as part of hiring.
Laws like this arise to avoid a situation where a felony conviction for weed possession when a person was 18 doesn’t preclude them from even getting to job interviews for the rest of their life.
You can do that by , oh, checking a record. If there was a record to check. No need to bar inquires to do that. On the other hand, as you pointed out, in this case, there is a current civil case, which he lost, under appeal that should be open to inquiry. And should certainly be an issue as his behavior in the same job lead to another college losing a suit. He did not retain his employment there. And that is not barred from asking on the application. It is not a criminal proceeding. If he wins his appeal, then it becomes a non issue. But not until then. It would be interesting to see the reason he gave for leaving that recent job.
The push for hiring felons should not and isn’t a pass. Did so few people without baggage apply that he was one of the two left to consider? “With this victory, Dr. Odom and her trial team hope to force LACCD to change its policies, taking complaints of sexual harassment seriously, and that Howard Irvin will never be allowed to supervise or teach female students again. ” Obviously they were wildly over optimistic.
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/597742720/all-female-legal-team-secures-millions-for-los-angeles-southwest-college-professor-in-landmark-sexual-harassment-case
That code is dumb as dog-doo.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Please do not insult my dog’s poo poo!
WOW in the work world In Ca . I have hired over 100 people, if you fail to report any felony conviction on job app you will be fired as soon as your info if checked. While you can’t ask it is required on App and falsification is unacceptable.
This is no longer a legal question to include on an application for employment. A background check is allowed after a job offer is made with the contingency of the background check passing.
It is against state law to have those questions on your job apps anymore and should someone get fired over it or feels that they did not get hired or a fair shot at the job and those questions are on your app. You will lose your entire lifes savings and then some . It is the same with rental apps now as well.
This is largely impart to people feeling that even those those who served their time behind bars and are attempting to move on with their lives should still be punished further for the rest of their lives .
It is very concerning to me that most people do not realize just what is considered to be a felony these days is not what most believe them to be . When you hear the words convicted felon most people think violent criminal , habitual lost cause etc. what most do not realize is that playing poker on line not even for money is a felony in some states . Others can be as simple as not paying speeding tickets or having a dui where you wrecked your car even if no one was injured . It is eye opening to understand that the average adult will commit 3 felonies a month without even realizing it , even more to think about is how those whom are either not caught or not prosecuted seem to look at those who were as being less than or somehow more wrong . They say ask anyone in prison and they will tell you they are innocent . I wonder how many people who can be really honest with themselves who are not in prison would be able to say truly i am guilty but i just have been lucky enough not to have been caught . I have yet to find the perfect law abiding human and if i ever do trust that i will take out front page in every paper announcing them
Taking an almost impossible scenario- that you were caught, prosecuted AND convicted for a one off crime that had no serious consequences – and comparing it to a common scenario that a person convicted and sentenced for assault or theft or whatever goes on to get caught committing another crime to order to say that criminal history is an unfair consideration is ridiculous. A person who assaults and injures, for example, an elderly woman to steal her purse is not equivalent and is not treated the same under any honest judicial system or any not insane potential employer as a person whose driving a car with a broken tail lights and gets rear ended as a consequence. That person who doesn’t understand that difference likely has engaged in multiple crimes because they hadn’t the common sense or self control to know the consequences. Intent matters.
California has a bizarre sense of what is “fair”. We have allowed this state to slide into idiocracy using the excuses of “fairness” and “compassion”. Yes it’s right to be fair and compassionate but here in CA those concepts have been twisted to eventually land us where we are right now- complete lack of common sense and decency. And if you speak out about it you might be accused of bigotry, hatred or worse…
Another example of a law that leads to undesirable unintended consequences and should be rewritten at least.
Who made up that law?
Let’s de elect them for stupid lawmaking.
.
corrected in comment below
they found out the dirt after they asked to interview him…….right…..RIGHT?????
Get the job, then file the discrimination lawsuit.
Perfect plan
“Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.” Napoleon Bonaparte
Let the Left continue to consume itself…
N.Y. A.G.
Are you sure you’re commenting on the right rticle?
This isn’t a political issue.
Nonsense. Thee only qualifications that applicant had are party affiliation and suntan.
Racist much?
Yes it seems so.
Steal. kill. destroy.
Man, are you off the wall or what go stick your head back in the sand
Despite the President Flamers referring to prohibited criminal background questions as having prevented inquiry, a civil suit is not a criminal conviction. Certainly being currently involved appealing one so directly connected to the exact same position is not excluded from inquiry. So unless Flamer thinks that having the “requisite skills and employment experience” includes the experience of being sued for stalking and harassment and losing, which is being appealed currently, he really hasn’t a leg to stand on. Kinda smells like the old boy network.
One of the awful things about California’s “Fair Chance” employment regulations is that anyone who goes into a diversion program before or after conviction, even if known, basically must have that ignored in hiring. Since California changed “mass convictions” for “mass diversions”, it seems that many crimes are not only barring employers from asking but they are barred from considering it even if they know it.
Who gets the fairness? The innocent or the guilty? Because way too often that is predetermined by California legislator and the public has no place in deciding the risks they must take. The reality is that a much more nuanced law than “don’t ask, don’t tell” would mean a limit to the chances a criminal gets before it is reasonable to say no more.
Go back to the big city, where creep’s like you belong.
Trying to hide in Humboldt ain’t working for ya.
Doesn’t pass the smell test! This man should be interviewing for a job in the state prison system where his experience could benefit the incarcerated. How is it he was even a candidate for this present interview?
He looks like the perfect candidate. He should fit right in. You say sexual deviant like it’s a bad thing. You are all not bigots now are you?
Interesting that he keeps on applying for positions which entail extensive background checks. There’s no remorse for his past actions, just “that was all litigated”. A total lack of self awareness, at the least.
Classic narcissism.
Two accounts on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com /in/howardirvin/ and in/howard-j-irvin-jr-ph-d-819b7568/
Both show a PhD from Fielding and a position at Chabot College. The second shows a lot more detail…
I imagine he just forgot he had the one; but it’s kinda like having two driver licenses when you’re job-hunting.
What in the hell is wrong with our schools (College of The Redwoods) to be clear, doing interviewing an applicant for VP of Student Services with a criminal record like Dr. Howard Irvin? It makes no difference to me whether he is black or white, he has no business working for any school in the United States and probably belongs in prison. I am sure the staff and students don’t want him near the campus!
Because the man’s “criminal record “ consists of merely allegations, not convictions and the man wants a job at C/R, so he applied.
Just having allegations against him is enough I would hope to have him disqualified. He does not belong in a school period!
He pled guilty to stalking and to making terrorist threats. In return, other charges were dismissed. He avoided still other charges because the statute of limitations ran out or because the victims didn’t want prosecution. Of course, holding a gun to his victim’s head would have been tossed out as a violation of his 2A rights.
The way I am reading this is that the law says you can’t exlude someone from applying, being considered, or being offered a job, but once you offer the job then you can do the background check and if there is something that would exclude them from being eligible then the job offer is rescinded.
Regarding him saying the truth is not out there, well, he could just issue his own press release like that McClosky guy.
I wouldn’t make a big deal out of this. He probably looked really good on the application, plus let’s be honest, he’s black and that carries some weight when hiring these days. The truth came out, there is no way he is getting hired.
Well… there was a local government council in the LA area that still voted to seat a new member who had been put on parole two years before from a multi year stint in prison for sexual assault while a school police officer and was on the California sexual offender registry. Someone did find a record but wasn’t sure it was him. When he said he had never been a police officer and the person who had question consulted LA county officials, they were told to avoid violating the law and getting sued for harassment. So they voted to seat him. Then resigned.
This law will only be resolved in court. Until then it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. ““We felt bound by what little advice we got … that the [city’s] Department of Neighborhood Empowerment welcomes the formerly incarcerated,” she said. ”
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/neighborhood-council-collapses-after-new-member-is-suspected-of-being-a-registered-sex-offender/
Who are they related to at CR ?
Thank you Ryan!
This is just lovely.. /s
Well, LBJ was Vice President, and then President, and now he is among the candidates for worst and most corrupt President in history:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef_79INE2m8
Among his many crimes, he allegedly:
Defrauded the Agricultural Subsidy Program of $30 million, had at least 7 persons murdered, including his own sister and JFK, and involved the USA in the Vietnam war, greatly enriching himself through holding in Aircraft and Motor Vehicle manufacturing, and a company that manufactured ammunition…
Some people just keep getting away with stuff, no matter how outrageous…
There are (3) additional lawsuits filed against this sadistic predator, each one speaking to discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and workplace bullying committed by him. The saddest part is the LACCD Chancellor and Board of Trustees members were/are aware of his actions and did nothing to protect any of his victims.
Here are the case numbers: 21STCV28718, 218TCV05855, and 22STCV11286.