The seal of the Office of the Attorney General of Guam is shown on May 4, 2023, at the ITC Building in Tamuning.
Photo by Frank San Nicolas/The Guam Daily Post
HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — Bryan Cruz, the investigator fired from the Office of the Attorney General, only for the Civil Service Commission to nullify the termination, has filed a complaint at the Superior Court of Guam accusing Attorney General Douglas Moylan of retaliating against him.
Cruz was fired last year over forwarding an internal email to attorney Peter Santos, a staunch critic of the attorney general. The email, sent from Moylan to employees at his office on July 12, 2024, contained disparaging remarks about Santos, whom the AG said was handing out “libelous” and “false” documents to prosecutors.
Moylan cited refusal or failure to perform duties, insubordination, misuse or theft of government property and other misconduct as reasons for Cruz’s termination, which the latter appealed to the CSC in October 2024.
Various discovery issues were raised against the OAG during the appeal, and the CSC, through a 4-1 vote in January, ultimately decided to dismiss the case and nullify Cruz’s termination based on the OAG’s failure to comply with a discovery order. CSC Chairman Juan Calvo made the motion to nullify. Commissioners Cathy Catling, Rose Morales and Francisco Guerrero joined Calvo in supporting the motion. Vice Chair Anthony Benavente dissented, stating that he wanted to hear the merits of the case.
A judgment and decision signed in late March ordered that Cruz be immediately reinstated to his former position with accrued seniority, back pay and benefits.
Complaint
The complaint against the attorney general, filed Thursday, stated that Cruz was ordered to return to work on April 1 but the OAG “failed, refused and by omission failed to issue a personnel action setting forth his reinstatement” consistent with the CSC decision.
Cruz was transferred from the Civil Division and General Crimes Division to the Child Support Enforcement Division upon return and immediately assigned to non-investigative duties, according to the complaint. The complaint also stated that Cruz wasn’t paid wages from April 1 through April 5.
“Plaintiff inquired as to the status of his payroll, and was informed that the OAG and the AG have failed and refused to process his personnel action, aka GG-1, for his reinstatement and the Department of Administration was without the proper documentation to process payroll for plaintiff,” the complaint stated.
Cruz was also ordered not to use, carry or conceal his personal registered and licensed firearm while on duty or in the OAG premises, the complaint stated.
“Plaintiff’s personal firearm is registered and previously requalified for official departmental use during normal business hours … Based upon information and belief, all law enforcement personnel at the OAG have department issued or personal-department-qualified-registered-firearms in their possession during normal business hours, including those investigators in Investigator I positions to Investigator IV,” the complaint added.
The complaint argues that the AG’s July 2024 email at the heart of Cruz’s termination is not protected under Guam law, does not contain confidential information, personal information or case theories, and is a public document subject to disclosure under Guam law.
“The AG retaliated against plaintiff for legally authorized release of the email … retaliated against plaintiff when he took adverse action against him when there were other OAG employees who also disclosed the disparaging email … retaliated against plaintiff by denying his request for emergency leave to travel off-island to attend to his daughter who was admitted to the hospital, and instead, placing him on three separate types of leave and restricting off-island travel,” the complaint stated.
It goes on to list other allegations of retaliation, citing actions taken during Cruz’s termination appeal and after he was reinstated by the CSC.
Moylan had also criticized Cruz when commenting on the CSC decision to The Guam Daily Post, saying that he poses “a clear and present danger to everyone” in the OAG and informants. The complaint cited this as well, as another example of alleged retaliation.
“As a direct and proximate (sic) the plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $10,000, in an amount to be proven (at) trial. In retaliating against the plaintiff, the AG by engaging in retaliatory conduct, plaintiff is entitled to special damages in an amount to be proved at trial,” the complaint stated.
The complaint also requested injunctive relief to prevent “the AG from continuing his retaliatory conduct against he plaintiff.” It also seeks declaratory relief for compliance with the CSC decision, as well as twice the amount of back pay and benefits as provided for under Guam law.
Motion for reconsideration for fees and costs
Back at the CSC, Cruz’s counsel filed a motion for reconsideration to amend the CSC decision to include the award of attorney’s fees and costs.
“A failure to award statutory costs and attorney’s fees would inadvertently result in a sanction against employee for asserting his right of appeal and statutory right to discovery. Furthermore, denying an employee who prevails by obtaining an order of reinstatement would set a dangerous precedent deterring employees from exercising their right to retain legal counsel if the commission refuses to award them attorney’s fees and costs, which is provided for by statute,” the motion argued.
The OAG opposed the motion, stating that Cruz’s counsel inaccurately asserts that he prevailed by obtaining an order of reinstatement.
“However, it was not counsel, but Chairman (Juan) Calvo’s motion which resulted in the employee obtaining an order of reinstatement,” the OAG argued. The OAG also argued that Cruz failed to serve the motion for reconsideration and failed to timely request attorney’s fees and costs.
The CSC is set to hear the motion on Tuesday.
