Why was a respected California official investigated by his agency? Here are the details

Michael Loupe worked for Cal-OSHA‘s enforcement branch in San Bernardino and faced a litany of charges before he retired. The department spent an estimated $80,000 in workers’ comp funds to investigate him — and he was cleared of all.

Here are the details of the allegations:

Who is Michael Loupe?

Loupe, 64, was district manager of Cal-OSHA’s San Bernardino office, overseeing workplace-safety enforcement in a region operating with fewer than half its authorized staff. He is a Bronze Star recipient for Army service in Iraq and Kuwait. He retired in 2025, after the investigation cleared him.

Several former Cal-OSHA officials said he was highly regarded.

“Michael was the most honest and trusted person I ever encountered in 29 years working for the state,” said Mary Christian, who worked for Cal-OSHA’s Professional and Training Unit and at one point was supervised by Loupe. “What happened to him was unforgivable.”

What is Cal-OSHA

Cal-OSHA is California’s workplace-safety agency. It inspects workplaces, investigates complaints and can cite and fine employers for violating health and safety rules. It is part of the Department of Industrial Relations, the state agency that oversees labor-law enforcement. District offices such as Loupe’s handle inspections and complaints, including cases involving serious injuries, deaths and heat hazards.

What did Loupe object to?

Over two years, Loupe raised objections regarding these matters:

A trucking case — In 2021 a labor-backed nonprofit filed a COVID-masking complaint against a Riverside trucking company, Deco Logistics. The evidence included photographs taken at night at other companies’ loading docks. Loupe’s inspector found nothing, and he closed the case. In February 2022, Debra Lee, then the head of Cal-OSHA enforcement and today its top official, through Loupe’s regional manager, ordered him to reopen the case. Loupe refused in writing, saying the citation deadline had passed. “I do not know how to proceed without violating LC,” he wrote, using shorthand for the Labor Code. His union backed him. The case was handed to another unit and never produced a citation.

“This was not my sole decision, nor was it likely Debra’s,” his regional manager, Kathy Derham, wrote. “This is what we were told by HQ to do.” In an emailed statement, DIR said the worker safety inspection was handled appropriately.

A hire — In 2021 Loupe was kept off the panel that hired a safety engineer for his own understaffed office. He was told he first had to take a class called “Writing Effective Duty Statements.” None was scheduled. “I had never heard of that class, before or after,” he said. The hire was Shahid Hami, whose wife was a Cal-OSHA district manager in Fresno, more than four hours away. Hami soon began working from Fresno.

“I have never heard of a district manager being excluded from the hiring process for their district office,” said Garrett Brown, who spent 20 years at Cal-OSHA and publishes Inside Cal/OSHA, a website that tracks the agency. “The DM is the hiring manager in the process.”

What was he accused of?

In February 2023, DIR issued a four-page notice listing more than a dozen potentially fireable acts. It warned that “any type of evasion, deception, or dishonesty” could itself be grounds for dismissal.

DIR stated that a bullying complaint had been filed by Hami, according to a summary of the complaint. However, only three of the seven allegations were about how Loupe treated his employee. Four were about his superiors: that he tried “to sabotage or undermine” employees hired by Derham and Lee, wanted them to “fail,” and assigned them work so they would “drown.”

Read more Gov. Gavin Newsom encourages Californians to open Trump Accounts for kids

The last accused him of “repeated shooting a toy bow and arrow at pictures of DIR Director Katie Hagen, Labor Secretary Stewart Knox, and Governor Gavin Newsom” in a public area of the office, and of posting “inappropriate post-it notes” on the photos.

The complaint referred multiple times to Hami’s arrangement to work from Fresn0. The word “telework” appears eight times. One line states: Hami “was assigned a potential Heat case while it was known he was in Fresno. This assignment would have required an onsite inspection within 24 hours.”

“The whole thing was just nuts,” said Jennifer Horton, a veteran inspector assigned to mentor Hami. “Our office’s mission was to keep workers safe in San Bernardino.”

Reached by phone, Hami declined to discuss the complaint and said he made it on his own. “I have nothing to hide,” he said.

DIR said in a statement that the inquiry “was not in retaliation and was properly administered.”

Who investigated Loupe and how was it paid for?

DIR hired an outside law firm, Shaw Law Group, under a $500,000 no-bid contract to conduct the interviews. The case was overseen by DIR’s internal audit unit, led by chief auditor Mathew Raute, who reports to the director. Unlike about two-thirds of state internal audit offices, the unit is not accredited and has never had an outside peer review, according to a Department of Finance directory. DIR does not dispute that, but says it follows professional auditing standards.

The estimated $80,000 investigation cost was paid out of the Workers’ Compensation Administration Revolving Fund, which state law says “may not be used or borrowed for any other purpose” than running the workers’ comp system. DIR says the money can be transferred to other funds later. It has not shown that any transfer occurred.

What happened?

Eighteen months after the notice, DIR cleared Loupe of every allegation. By then, he said, the stress had contributed to a stroke.

Mary Inman, a partner at Whistleblower Partners, said the case fits a pattern. “When someone questions wrongdoing, the people responsible lash out,” she said. “And who are they going to lash out at? They lash out at the messenger who brought the message.”

“If you’re now just looking at them to try and dig up dirt because you don’t like what they exposed,” she said, “that’s absolutely retaliation.”

Read more California state attorneys union says RTO mandate could put bar licenses at risk