Examples of Alleged Discrimination & Harassment:

• • On 4/26/24, protesters denied plaintiff entry to the encampment that was blocking access to campus buildings. When he tried to enter anyway, they surrounded him, pushed him, pulled a blanket over him, and refused to let him leave for over an hour until he called police.
  • On 4/29/24, plaintiff and his young daughter were again blocked from entering the encampment. Protesters interrogated his daughter and asked if she was “safe” with plaintiff.
  • On 5/1/24, a protester smacked plaintiff’s phone from his hand while he tried to record their activities. Protesters threatened to shoot plaintiff and his brother and stole his phone. Plaintiff was physically restrained and forced to say “Free Palestine.”
  • Plaintiff’s complaint includes photos of UCLA professors locking arms with protesters to block students A grad student wore a mask to conceal his identity while harassing plaintiff.

Implications of the Factual Allegations:

• • The allegations, if proven, suggest a pattern of UCLA allowing discrimination, harassment, and intimidation against students based on their race, religion, and perceived political beliefs.
  • Evidence that UCLA administrators knew of civil rights violations occurring but allowed the encampment and harassment to continue could demonstrate deliberate indifference and an official policy permitting the misconduct.
  • Photos showing faculty members participating firsthand in the harassment and false imprisonment of plaintiff could make them personally liable for aiding and abetting civil rights violations.
  • Plaintiff’s personal experiences over multiple days illustrate the severity of the alleged hostile environment, harassment, and potentially criminal acts he was subjected to, which he claims occurred with UCLA’s tacit consent.
  • Continued encampments and disruptions even after plaintiff filed suit suggest an ongoing pattern of harassment that could bolster his claims for injunctive relief against UCLA to change its policies and practices.

FAQs:

• • Are the lawsuit allegations proven facts? Not yet – they are still just accusations that will need to be substantiated with admissible evidence as the case proceeds. However, the complaint does reference compelling photo/video evidence.
  • Can plaintiff bring civil rights claims if he wasn’t the protests’ intended target? Likely yes – the laws prohibit discrimination based on race and religion, even if he was just perceived as part of the targeted group. Plus he suffered personal harassment.
  • What if UCLA argues it couldn’t control the protesters’ conduct? UCLA may argue that it took reasonable steps to manage the situation, but the lawsuit claims that the university enabled the encampment, failed to intervene, and that its own faculty and students participated.
  • Could the individual defendants face criminal charges too? Possibly, for alleged acts like assault, battery, theft, criminal threats. But a high burden of proof applies for criminal cases.
  • Will UCLA face consequences from the Dept. of Education? Maybe – federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VI could trigger a DOE investigation and penalties if UCLA is found to have permitted a racially hostile environment.

Applying the Law to Key Facts Alleged:

• • The protesters’ conduct of physically blocking plaintiff on multiple occasions, pushing him, pulling a blanket over him and refusing to let him leave are coercive acts that interfered with his freedom of movement and right to access his education.
  • UCLA’s failure to disperse the encampment despite knowledge it was impeding student access and UCLA’s tolerance of the protesters’ intimidation tactics could make it liable for enabling threats and coercion that violated plaintiff’s rights.
  • Alleged statements by protesters that they would shoot plaintiff and his brother, forcing plaintiff to say “Free Palestine,” and following and videotaping plaintiff to deter him from filing complaints constitute threats and intimidation.
  • By clearing protesters only after violence broke out and moving classes online, UCLA may have ratified an environment of threats interfering with plaintiff’s right to safely attend school.
  • Acts like forcefully restraining plaintiff and smacking his phone are independent crimes that satisfy the Bane Act’s requirement of threats, intimidation or coercion.

Keys to Proving a Bane Act Violation:

• • Establishing that the protesters and involved UCLA representatives used threats, intimidation or coercion to try to prevent plaintiff from freely exercising his legal rights.
  • Showing plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional or statutory right that was interfered with, such as the right to access education free of racial discrimination and harassment under federal and state civil rights laws.
  • Demonstrating that UCLA had actual or constructive knowledge of the civil rights violations occurring but failed to take reasonable steps to address the threats and coercion.
  • Introducing strong evidence like photos, videos, and witness testimony to illustrate the severity of the harassment, UCLA’s dismissive response, and the concrete harms to plaintiff.
  • Arguing for enhanced remedies like punitive damages and civil penalties to punish and deter UCLA’s alleged deliberate indifference to student civil rights.

FAQs:

• • What specific rights are protected by the Bane Act? It broadly prohibits interference with rights secured by the U.S. or California Constitutions or federal/state laws. For students this can include equal access to education free of discrimination.
  • Is UCLA immune from Bane Act liability as a public university? No, state entities like UC schools are subject to the Act’s civil penalties. They can also be liable for damages if an official policy/custom caused the violations.
  • Can plaintiff pursue a Bane Act claim against the protesters too? Yes, the Act allows lawsuits against private individuals in addition to organizations and government entities that interfere with civil rights.
  • How does plaintiff prove UCLA had an official policy allowing the violations? Evidence that UCLA had authority to control the encampment but refused to act and that high-level UCLA representatives participated could show an unwritten policy.
  • What damages can plaintiff recover under the Bane Act? Actual damages, treble/triple damages if constitutional rights were violated by threats/intimidation/coercion, minimum statutory damages of $4000, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Connecting the Alleged Facts to the Unruh Act:

• • UCLA, though a public university, likely qualifies as a “business establishment” subject to the Unruh Act when providing educational services to students .
  • By allowing protesters to block buildings and pathways, UCLA denied plaintiff and other students equal, non-discriminatory access to its facilities and educational opportunities.
  • The protesters’ anti-Israel views and targeting of perceived Jewish/pro-Israel students suggests their actions were motivated by discrimination against those protected groups.
  • UCLA’s alleged unwritten policy of enabling the encampment and harassment had the effect of discriminating against plaintiff as an African American and perceived pro-Israel “agitator.”
  • Even if UCLA argues it didn’t intend to single out plaintiff, its practices created an environment where he was subjected to unequal treatment due to his race and assumed beliefs.

Strategies to Prove an Unruh Act Violation:

• • Argue UCLA is a business establishment providing educational services subject to the Act, even if also a government entity. Cite cases applying the Act to UC schools.
  • Show UCLA had authority to regulate time, place and manner of campus speech/protests but chose not to despite clear discriminatory impact on plaintiff and others.
  • Demonstrate how UCLA’s policies and practices in handling the encampment and complaints had the effect (intentional or not) of enabling discriminatory and unequal treatment of plaintiff.
  • Illustrate severity and pervasiveness of hostile anti-African American and anti-Jewish/Israel environment permitted by UCLA with concrete examples of threats, slurs, and harassment.
  • Establish that protesters’ conduct went far beyond political disagreement into targeted discrimination by interfering with plaintiff’s ability to access the same educational services as others.

FAQs:

• • Is a public university like UCLA really a “business establishment?” The application of the Unruh Act to public universities is complex and debated. While some courts have extended the Unruh Act to certain non-traditional business entities, its application to public universities like UCLA is not universally accepted and remains a contested legal issue.
  • Does plaintiff have to prove UCLA intentionally discriminated against him? No, the Unruh Act applies to unintentional discrimination and business practices that are neutral on their face but have a discriminatory impact.
  • What if UCLA had policies forbidding discrimination that just weren’t followed? Having an official anti-discrimination policy isn’t enough – UCLA’s actual practices and handling of the situation are what matter under the Act.
  • How can plaintiff show he wasn’t just offended by the political views expressed? He must demonstrate that the protesters engaged in severe, pervasive harassment that interfered with his educational access based on protected traits like race or perceived religion.
  • What damages are available for Unruh Act violations? Actual damages suffered, treble (triple) damages in cases of extreme conduct, minimum statutory penalty of $4000 per violation, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Pointing to Evidence of Ralph Act Violations:

• • The protester who smacked plaintiff’s phone, threatened to shoot him, and stole his phone while physically restraining him committed acts/threats of violence.
  • Protesters physically surrounding plaintiff, pushing him, and refusing to let him leave could constitute false imprisonment – a criminal act satisfying the violence requirement.
  • UCLA administrators and police were informed of plaintiff being physically assaulted and trapped but failed to intervene, showing actual knowledge.
  • Protesters’ anti-Israel slurs, forcing plaintiff to say “Free Palestine,” and assuming he was a “Zionist” suggest he was targeted for perceived Jewish/pro-Israel views based on his race.
  • UCLA’s dismissive response to complaints of vandalism and violence could be seen as ratifying or encouraging continued threats against plaintiff and others.

Proving Ralph Act Liability Against UCLA & Perpetrators:

• • Argue the protesters’ conduct went beyond political speech into criminal acts/threats intended to intimidate plaintiff, thus meeting the Ralph Act’s violence requirement.
  • Show that anti-African American and anti-Semitic slurs, along with language assuming plaintiff’s race made him an “agitator,” demonstrate he was targeted based on protected traits.
  • Establish that plaintiff, other students, and even UCPD notified UCLA of the assaults and threats, but UCLA failed to take reasonable steps to prevent further incidents.
  • Cite individual incidents of violence like the physical assault, theft, and false imprisonment of plaintiff to argue for separate $25,000 statutory damages awards for each.
  • Seek a $25,000 civil penalty and attorney fees against UCLA and individual perpetrators to punish the alleged hate crimes and deter future incidents.

FAQs:

• • What’s the difference between the Unruh Act and Ralph Act? The Unruh Act targets discriminatory business practices generally, while the Ralph Act focuses specifically on hate-motivated acts/threats of violence.
  • Can plaintiff sue under the Ralph Act even if no criminal charges were filed? Yes, the Ralph Act provides an independent civil cause of action regardless of whether the conduct was criminally prosecuted.
  • Does UCLA have to condone the violence or threats to be liable? No, all that’s required is that UCLA had actual knowledge of the wrongful acts and failed to take reasonable steps to stop them.
  • What if UCLA claims the protesters were just expressing political views? The line is crossed when political disagreement escalates into criminal acts, violence or threats intended to intimidate others and interfere with their rights.
  • How can plaintiff show the perpetrators had racist or anti-Semitic intent? Slurs, hate language, and assumptions about his views/identity based on his race can circumstantially demonstrate discriminatory intent.

Potential Angles to Bolster These Claims:

• • Emphasize UCLA’s non-delegable duty to maintain a safe premises and provide educational services in a non-discriminatory manner, which can’t be avoided by pointing fingers at protesters.
  • Cite UCLA’s policies guaranteeing students freedom from discrimination and promising a safe learning environment to establish a contractual obligation.
  • Focus on the severity, offensiveness and harmful intent of the unwanted physical contacts protesters made with plaintiff to satisfy assault/battery elements.
  • Detail the emotional and psychological toll the harassment and intimidation has taken on plaintiff through lay and expert witness testimony.
  • Argue that continued encampments and disturbances since the lawsuit show UCLA hasn’t adequately remedied the hostile environment, justifying judicial intervention.

Tactics to Defeat Defenses to These Claims:

• • If UCLA argues it took reasonable steps by eventually removing encampment, show the weeks of delay and continued harassment thereafter made that too little, too late.
  • Challenge any claims that the harassment wasn’t severe or threatening enough to breach UCLA’s duties by emphasizing the criminal nature of the acts and restrictions on plaintiff’s movement.
  • Stress that even if UCLA didn’t directly authorize the individual perpetrators’ acts, it ratified the harassment culture by knowingly tolerating it without consequences.
  • Use experts in campus security and discrimination to testify how UCLA’s policies and practices fell short of reasonableness and enabled a hostile environment.
  • Argue that the pattern of harassment before and after the lawsuit shows UCLA’s deliberate indifference, justifying punitive damages and injunctive relief.

FAQs:

• • Can plaintiff bring a negligence claim even if UCLA didn’t intend to cause harm? Yes, negligence only requires showing UCLA failed to act reasonably, not that it had ill intent. Knowingly allowing a dangerous condition can suffice.
  • What damages are available for the assault and battery claims? Plaintiff can seek compensatory damages for physical injuries, medical bills, pain and suffering, and punitive damages if the conduct was particularly egregious.
  • Does UCLA have immunity from these common law tort claims? Government tort claims immunity is complex, but generally doesn’t apply when a public entity maintains a dangerous condition it has notice of.
  • How can plaintiff show his distress was severe enough? Testimony from treating mental health providers, friends/family, and experts on the impacts of trauma and discrimination can help prove serious distress.
  • What types of policy changes might plaintiff seek through an injunction? He could request court-ordered reforms to UCLA’s procedures for responding to discrimination complaints, monitoring protests, and disciplining harassers.

• Disclaimer

  This article discussing the lawsuit filed by the student against UCLA and several other defendants is for general educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

  The discussion of the various civil rights statutes and legal claims is based on the allegations of the complaint, which have not yet been proven in court. Application of the laws and viability of the claims may change as more facts emerge.

  If you have specific questions about campus discrimination and harassment or believe your educational rights have been violated, please contact an attorney licensed in your state for a personalized case evaluation. Every situation is unique, and a qualified lawyer can help assess your options and advise you on how to proceed.
  While every effort was made to ensure the accuracy and thoroughness of this article, it is not a substitute for independent legal research and competent counsel regarding your particular circumstances. Laws and legal precedent are subject to change, and the strategies that might apply to plaintiff’s case might not be appropriate for any other lawsuit.

  Individuals should not take or refrain from taking any action based on this article’s contents alone. The author and publisher disclaim any liability for losses or damages that may result from reliance on this article. When in doubt, seek guidance from a knowledgeable attorney to protect your rights and interests.