Ali Abbassi, a Persian Muslim man, was an employee at UCLA Extension, a division of the University of California, Los Angeles.
In November 2018, Abbassi was appointed as the Interim Senior Director of Marketing for UCLA Extension. UCLA Extension’s policy required an open recruitment process for director-level positions but allowed interim appointments in cases of immediate need. However, interim appointees were not guaranteed permanent positions. Despite this policy, Abbassi believed he would automatically receive the permanent Senior Director of Marketing position without undergoing the recruitment process. This assumption was contrary to multiple clarifications from UCLA Extension’s Associate Director of Human Resources and other supervisors, who informed him that his position was strictly interim.
During his time as Interim Senior Director, Abbassi had a contentious relationship with his supervisors. His work was occasionally praised but also criticized. He cited several incidents that he believed demonstrated unfair treatment. On one occasion, an interim co-dean publicly questioned him about a missed promotional email, which he perceived as an attempt to ridicule and berate him. In another instance, he had a disagreement with an interim co-dean who, while in a meeting, aggressively dismissed him from her office when he attempted to provide documentation supporting his position. Additionally, he experienced a reduction in his department’s budget, which he believed was a deliberate effort to set him up for failure. After a new dean took over in January 2020, he received further criticism regarding his financial analysis and marketing strategies. He alleged that this new dean ignored him in meetings, canceled previously scheduled discussions, and excluded him from certain decision-making processes.
Despite these conflicts, there was no evidence that his supervisors made comments about his national origin or religion. Two colleagues provided general statements about a “toxic” work environment and alleged “discrimination, lies, retaliation, and setups,” but these claims lacked specifics.
In January 2020, the new dean identified a need to restructure the marketing department. Instead of filling the Senior Director of Marketing role permanently, the dean created a new position, Executive Director of Strategic Communications and Marketing, which had different responsibilities. UCLA Extension conducted a national search for the new role, consistent with its stated hiring policies. Abbassi was informed of the job posting and encouraged to apply but chose not to. The position was ultimately filled by another candidate. In October 2020, Abbassi took medical leave and formally resigned from UCLA Extension on May 17, 2021.
Abbassi filed a lawsuit on February 18, 2021, against the Regents of the University of California, asserting a number of claims, including under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for discrimination based on race and national origin, and harassment based on race and national origin. The Regents filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing Abbassi’s claims. Abbassi appealed.
On Abbassi’s discrimination claim, the Court of Appeal applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, under which an employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment decision. The Court found that UCLA Extension had met this burden by demonstrating that the new dean restructured the marketing department to create a different position, conducted a national search for that role, and encouraged Abbassi to apply, which he chose not to do. The burden then shifted to Abbassi to establish pretext, but the Court of Appeal concluded that he failed to present specific, substantial evidence that UCLA Extension’s stated reasons were false or that discriminatory animus played a role in the hiring decision. Abbassi’s contention that he was treated differently from other employees was unpersuasive because there was no evidence that the three interim directors who had been appointed to permanent roles without a national search were similarly situated to him. Furthermore, general complaints about a toxic work environment and claims of unfair treatment were insufficient to support a finding of discrimination, particularly in the absence of any evidence that decision-makers harbored animus toward Abbassi’s race or religion. The Court also noted that because Abbassi had not applied for the restructured position, his claim that he was denied the role due to discrimination was inherently flawed.
On Abbassi’s harassment claim, the Court of Appeal reiterated that under FEHA, workplace harassment must be severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. The Court found that Abbassi’s allegations primarily concerned workplace criticisms, budgetary decisions, and management choices, none of which are considered harassment under FEHA. The Court emphasized that mere workplace disagreements and supervisory decisions do not constitute unlawful harassment unless they are motivated by discrimination and rise to the level of conduct that fundamentally alters an employee’s work environment. While two of Abbassi’s coworkers described UCLA Extension as a toxic workplace, their statements were general and lacked evidentiary support linking them to Abbassi’s claims of discrimination or harassment. The Court concluded that the alleged conduct, which included criticisms of Abbassi’s job performance, budget reductions, and exclusion from certain meetings, was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a harassment claim.
Accordingly, the judgment in favor of UCLA Extension was affirmed.
Abbassi v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Mar. 10, 2025) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2025 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 1427].)
Note: In this case, the Court found that generalized complaints about a toxic work environment were not enough to meet FEHA’s standards without specific, substantive evidence of discrimination. Furthermore, this case is an important reminder that schools should consistently follow their policies. Here, UCLA’s policy was that interim positions were not guaranteed permanent roles, and applying this policy consistency indicated that the University did not act with discriminatory animus.