This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Retaliation
Race, Gender, Age Discrimination

Craig Ross, Natalie Operstein v. Board of Trustees of California State University

Published: Oct. 29, 2021 | Result Date: Sep. 27, 2021 | Filing Date: Mar. 15, 2016 |

Case number: SC125558 Bench Decision –  Nonsuit

Judge

James A. Kaddo

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Pro Per


Defendant

Elisabeth A. Frater
(Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP)

Lorinda D. Franco
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Self-represented plaintiff Natalie Operstein was a probationary assistant professor in the Department of English, Comparative Literature and Linguistics in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at California State University. Plaintiff applied for and was denied early promotion and tenure in two different tenure review cycles, and then received a terminal year of employment. Her employment with the University ended on June 1, 2016.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Operstein claimed that the university's denial of tenure and promotion was based on her protected characteristics including race, gender, age and national origin, and retaliation. She also claimed the university was negligent in not promoting and retaining her, and sued for invasion of privacy and defamation.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Evidence was produced that she failed to meet the requirements for early tenure and retention, and as probationary faculty member, engaged in multiple instances of uncollegial, insubordinate and uncivil behavior with her department colleagues and her dean.
Defendant claimed that plaintiff chose to ignore university policies and deadlines. Rather than be accountable for her actions, and diligently seek other employment, plaintiff sued the Board of Trustees based on imaginary university policies she called "ethnic cleansing policy" and the "Hispanicization policy."

Damages

Plaintiff's husband, Craig Ross had a single cause of action for loss of consortium.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed emotional distress.

Result

The judge granted a nonsuit on all eight causes of action.


#137929

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390