UCLA Vice Chancellor Fights to Suppress 264-Page Workplace Investigation as Whistleblowers Push for Public Release

A Los Angeles judge is set to review a sealed 264-page investigation into UCLA’s top communications official, stepping into a bitter dispute between university leadership and seven current and former employees who allege bullying, retaliation, and the improper steering of vendor contracts.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin ordered attorneys for Vice Chancellor Mary Osako and the University of California system to submit copies of the investigative report within one week. He scheduled a Dec. 8 hearing to determine whether the document should be released under the California Public Records Act, temporarily extending a restraining order that keeps the findings out of public view.

“I’m literally in a black box. I don’t know what’s in the report, other than what Ms. Osako says,” Kin told lawyers during Tuesday’s hearing, noting he could not rule on the document’s legal status without reading it first.

The report was completed Dec. 29, 2025, by Grutman Law, a Sherman Oaks firm specializing in workplace investigations. UCLA commissioned the independent review after six employees filed formal whistleblower complaints through the UC system. A seventh employee, Osako’s chief of staff Shilo Munk, separately filed a retaliation complaint with the university’s compliance office in May.

Osako sued the UC Board of Regents on Aug. 26 to block the release of the records. UCLA had planned to publish a redacted version in response to public records requests submitted by the employees. Her legal team argues the document falls under personnel file exemptions designed to protect public employees’ privacy. Paul Rigali, Osako’s attorney, characterized the filing as an effort to prevent the disclosure of “false allegations and personalized workplace disagreements that are irrelevant to the public interest.”

Attorneys for the employees, Mark Quigley and Christian Nickerson of Greene Broillet & Wheeler, countered that California appellate precedent allows the release of complaints against public officials when they reveal allegations of a substantial nature. Quigley described the underlying complaints to the court as “very significant, very substantial.”

The University of California has maintained a neutral posture in the litigation. Michael R. Goldstein of the UC Office of the General Counsel represents the system, which stated in recent filings that it “takes no position on whether the records are exempt” from disclosure.

Sworn declarations attached to court filings detail accusations from five employees who continue to work directly under Osako. They describe an environment marked by intimidation, where staffers who raised concerns or disagreed with directives were allegedly punished, excluded, or reassigned. One employee claimed that in May 2025, Osako actively tried to identify individuals using the UC whistleblower hotline.

Michael Callahan, editorial director of UCLA Magazine, wrote in his complaint that staff operated to avoid “the wrath and scorn of the vice chancellor.” Callahan disclosed he had been in 12-step recovery for several years and feared losing his sobriety due to unrelenting workplace stress.

Amanda Savercool, a former executive director of integrated marketing, alleged that after she participated in her first interview with investigators, Osako stopped speaking to her entirely despite Savercool remaining her direct report.

Beyond interpersonal conduct, the complaints scrutinize how Osako managed external vendor relationships for a division overseeing more than 100 workers. Employees alleged she directed university contracts to Cuore Collective, a strategic communications consulting firm run by former colleagues from her time at Amazon. Staffers claimed Cuore consultants were given control over internal employee work.

The filings also question the deployment of SKDK, a prominent national public affairs firm. UCLA initially retained SKDK to manage communications during pro-Palestinian campus protests. Two employees alleged the firm was subsequently used to pitch news coverage promoting Osako’s 2024 reappointment. Another staffer claimed SKDK and a second outside firm received overlapping contracts for duplicative work.

Osako’s attorneys have pushed back on these claims, stating the investigation’s ultimate conclusions do not support accusations that she misused public resources for personal gain, engaged in self-promotion, or unjustifiably increased vendor compensation. They also noted the report does not conclude she engaged in retaliatory conduct.

Cuore Collective declined to comment. SKDK, which regularly distributes official statements on behalf of UCLA, referred inquiries to the chancellor’s office.

Despite the ongoing litigation and unresolved investigation, Osako retains the backing of UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk. She joined the university in 2019 after holding senior communications roles at Activision Blizzard, Amazon, and Yahoo, and secured a subsequent five-year term in 2024.

Frenk praised her management of the university’s public image during a period defined by severe budget shortfalls, federal funding freezes, and lawsuits tied to the Trump administration. “Mary’s work has required strong judgment and hard calls, which she has consistently made while nurturing a culture of fairness and camaraderie,” Frenk said.

Osako affirmed in a written court declaration that she has not been suspended, demoted, terminated, or formally disciplined as a result of the allegations. Brian Brokaw, an outside consultant hired by UCLA to handle inquiries regarding the case, reiterated that the university takes workplace concerns seriously but does not discuss personnel matters, confirming that administrators evaluated the investigator’s findings through established legal processes.

Judge Kin’s Dec. 8 ruling will test the boundaries of California’s transparency laws when applied to high-ranking university administrators. Both Osako and the employees who filed the complaints were absent from Tuesday’s hearing.