Appealing was not appealing: Further Litigation might also not be appealing

On Friday, we posted a piece about guidance UCLA was giving employees about compliance with a preliminary injunction related to the spring protests and treatment of Jewish students.* UCLA originally filed an appeal concerning that injunction. Then on Friday, August 23rd, it withdrew that appeal.**

There is a question about the timing of this appeal and withdrawal. The guidance was dated August 14th, the day after the injunction was issued. Its last sentence said there would be no appeal. But August 14th is also the date UCLA first filed the appeal that it later withdrew.*** Whether this is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is unclear. Given the length and detail of the guidance, it seems unlikely that it was drafted and approved for circulation in one day; UCLA must have had some sense that an injunction would be issued despite its protest, and probably had the document ready to go just in case.

A larger question is whether UCLA is now intending to continue to litigate the underlying case. The university issued this statement in response to a question about its decision to withdraw the appeal:

“UCLA is committed to fostering an environment where every member of our community is safe and feels welcome. We are in full alignment with the court on that point. While we will always create conditions for the free expression of ideas, we will not tolerate antisemitism, Islamophobia or any forms of discrimination or harassment. The University will forgo an appeal given UCLA’s own anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies and the current implementation of the directives issued by the UC Office of the President. We will abide by the injunction as this case makes its way through the courts.”****

So, since UCLA refers to the case making its way through the courts, it appears UCLA intends further litigation at this point. Of course, a settlement of this case - particularly since the university says it is in "full alignment" with at least some elements of the injunction - is possible. Letting the case go forward could lead to an airing of a lot dirty laundry which wouldn't make for good PR.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/08/injunction-faq.html.

**https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA-appeal-withdrawn%208-23-2024.pdf.

***https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA-appeal%20of%20antisemitism%20lawsuit%208-14-2024.pdf.

****https://jewishjournal.com/news/374317/ucla-dismisses-appeal-of-injunction-requiring-university-to-protect-jewish-students-from-being-barred-from-campus-spaces/.

====

Note: UCLA's original objection to the plaintiffs' request for an injunction is at:

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA-response%20to%20antisemitism%20suit%207-8-2024.pdf.

The plaintiff's response to UCLA's objection is at:

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Plaintiff%27s%20response%20to%20UCLA%27s%20attempt%20to%20have%20the%20antisemitism%20lawsuit%20dismissed%207-15-2024.pdf.

The court's preliminary injunction of August 13th is at:

https://ia800402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Preliminary%20injunction%20against%20UCLA.pdf.