The interim government appointed Sheik Moinuddin as a special assistant to Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, according to a Cabinet Division notification issued on March 5. He has been given executive authority over the Ministry of Road Transport and Bridges.
A US expatriate, Sheik Moinuddin, has extensive experience working in the public infrastructure sector. According to his resume, he is the chief of safety and operations at the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the notification says. His LinkedIn profile says the same.
Before joining this post in 2023, he was the project manager at the program and project management division of the same department from 2016.
However, according to the Caltrans website, Moinuddin is a District Bicycle & Pedestrian Engineer.
He has over 25 years of expertise in leading multi-billion-dollar infrastructure projects in the public sector of Los Angeles.
He obtained his BSc in civil engineering from the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, and a master’s degree in civil engineering from California State University. He completed his PhD in civil engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles, the government notification adds.
I’ve done brief research on this person since I didn’t hear about him. However, because of Moinuddin’s US connections, it can be assumed that he is close to Prof Yunus, as are many of his aides in the interim government because of his culture of nepotism, installed after the August 5 changeover.
What we know about Moinuddin
Moinuddin began working for Caltrans in January 1991. He started as a transportation engineer and was later promoted to senior transportation engineer.
In 2015, the Caltrans authorities rejected his probation for the post of Principal Transportation Engineer and demoted him for disciplinary issues and incompetency, inefficiency, inexcusable neglect of duty, insubordination, and other failures of good behaviour.
After he filed an appeal against the decision, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that
-Moinuddin had offered a promotion to an employee without obtaining clearance from the personnel office;
-did not draft duty statements for two positions;
-became argumentative with a supervisor;
-did not take detailed notes at a meeting as directed;
-did not ensure employees under his supervision submitted timesheets on time;
-did not facilitate a quarterly safety meeting for his staff;
-did not submit a monthly status report on the committees he attended each month; and
-did not provide a requested organizational chart.
Long legal battle
In 2007, Moinuddin and seven other Caltrans employees signed a formal complaint letter accusing another employee, Sameer Haddadeen of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin. Haddadeen stopped talking to Moinuddin.
In or around 2014, Caltrans created the position of Principal Transportation Engineer in Operations (Principal TE) with a one-year probation period. After a competitive application process, Moinuddin was promoted to the position. He reported to deputy district director of operations Ali Zaghari and Moinuddin would have supervisory responsibility over approximately 170 employees, including Haddadeen.
After returning to work from a leave of absence, Haddadeen learned he would be reporting to Moinuddin, and asked Zaghari to allow him to report to Zaghari instead. Zaghari granted the request (he was not aware of the 2007 letter).
After his probation, Zaghari gave him two performance reviews: both identified areas in which Moinuddin’s performance was unacceptable or needed improvement.
In 2015, Caltrans issued a Notice of Rejection During Probation but later withdrew the notice since the period had already ended. Caltrans then issued a Notice of Adverse Action demoting Moinuddin to his previous position as Senior Transportation Engineer.
Moinuddin appealed his demotion, claiming that there was no evidence to support the disciplinary action and Caltrans did not properly follow principles of progressive discipline.
His appeal was heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in November 2016. The ALJ concluded that
(1) Moinuddin did not prove that there was no substantial evidence to support the demotion, or that the demotion was made in fraud or bad faith;
(2) his conduct constitutes cause for discipline under Government Code section 1952, subdivisions (b) incompetency, (c) inefficiency, (d) inexcusable neglect of duty, (e) insubordination, and (t) other failures of good behaviour; and
(3) the demotion is appropriate.
The Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision in January 2017. Two months later, Moinuddin filed a verified petition of writ of mandate appealing the Board’s determination sustaining his demotion. The trial court sustained Caltrans’ demurrer to the petition in January 2018. Moinuddin appealed. This court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in July 2019.
While the administrative proceedings remained ongoing, Moinuddin filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (FEHA) and received a right-to-sue notice in October 2016.
In April 2017, Moinuddin filed a three-count civil complaint against Caltrans, alleging FEHA violations: unlawful discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
He alleged that Haddadeen was removed from the supervisory chain when Moinuddin became Principal TE (conflict since 2007); he was reprimanded for various actions performed and demoted; (poor performance); and he lost all opportunities for career advancement due to Zaghari’s favoritism and Caltrans’ work environment.
Moinuddin also alleged in the trial that he applied for a position in the Division of Design, where he spent approximately six years in the early part of his career; he was ranked third and was not selected. He also applied for a position in the Division of Project Management, where he had two years of experience. He was not given an opportunity to interview.
Other testimonies covered, among other things, Moinuddin’s promotion of an employee who was not eligible for promotion, the timelines of timesheet submissions by Moinuddin’s subordinates, Moinuddin’s failure to hold safety meetings, Moinuddin’s failure to take notes at meetings he attended on Zaghari’s behalf, and Moinuddin’s inclusion of a third party in a meeting regarding a workplace violence incident without obtaining approval from Human Resources.
While Moinuddin claimed that he was demoted because of his national origin, Caltrans claimed he was demoted because of poor job performance.
The trial court gave its verdict in May 2019, citing that Caltrans violated the FEHA provisions but poor performance was enough to demote him, asked Caltrans to provide training and set rules for… and awarded attorney fees worth $600,000…
The California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division, pronounced its verdict on June 23, 2021.
Division of Design: Moinuddin had not worked there since the 1990s, knew other applicants likely had more proficiency than he did, and conceded others ranked higher in the interview process than he did.
Division of Project Management: Moinuddin had only two years of work experience, had not qualified for an interview, and acknowledged other applicants may have been more qualified than he.
Moinuddin argued that Caltrans should have produced its own evidence to address why he was not selected for those positions. But the appeals court rejected it, saying it considered whether substantial evidence was introduced.
English
Leave a Reply