The Regents recently filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the DOJ's case which accuses UCLA of antisemitism. I asked Claude to obtain the brief and summarize the key arguments. It provided a short summary and a longer summary. I have modified the short version below, removing the names of specific individuals and denoting them as X, Y, and Z. I have also asked Claude to alert me when responses to the Regents' brief are filed.
The Regents make six main arguments:
- No standing to seek an injunction. The complaints focus on events from 2023–24, and UCLA’s reforms since then mean no future injury is “certainly impending.” The brief relies heavily on the August 2026 Harvard ruling.
- No hostile work environment claim. Title VII doesn’t make UCLA liable for harassment by third parties it doesn’t control... Even under a negligence standard, UCLA’s response was reasonable. X’s claim is also barred by his release in the Frankel settlement. The incidents the two named doctors describe were away from their workplace, protected speech, or not severe enough.
- No pattern-or-practice claim. Section 707 requires intentional discrimination, but DOJ pleaded only negligence. Accounts from about nine employees can’t show a systemic pattern in a workforce of about 48,700.
- No retaliation. Neither doctor alleges a qualifying adverse action caused by protected activity.
- Two intervenors aren’t employees. Y is a retired professor emerita and Z is an unpaid volunteer.
- The FEHA* failure-to-prevent claim fails. The intervenors assert no underlying discrimination claim.
The Regents ask the court to dismiss DOJ’s entire complaint with prejudice, plus specific counts from the intervenors’ complaint. The hearing is set for February 1, 2027.
==
*FEHA is the state's antidiscrimination law (Fair Employment and Housing Act).
==
The actual Regents' brief is at:
No comments:
Post a Comment