Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Plaintiff Rests His Case, Defense Motion For Directed Verdict Denied

Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Plaintiff Rests His Case, Defense Motion For Directed Verdict Denied

The trial continued in the case of Prof. Gordon Klein versus the UC Regents and UCLA business school Dean Antonio Bernardo.

Legal Insurrection has been following the dispute since inception. Our prior trial reports are here:

• Trial Starts In Suit Against UCLA By Prof. Gordon Klein, Targeted and Smeared For Refusing Exam “Leniency” For Black Students
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Expert and Student Take The Stand
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Cross of Prof. Klein Wraps Up, Dean Bernardo Takes The Stand
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Dean’s Cross-Examination Continues, Supervisor Testifies
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Plaintiff’s Expert Values Damages At Over $13 Million
• Gordon Klein v. UCLA Trial Update – Dean Bernardo’s Testimony Wraps Up

Court continued on Thursday, July 31, and Friday, August 1.

Michael Simidjian (UCLA Dir. Academic Affairs)

UCLA Director of Academic Affairs, Michael Simidjian, testified on July 31, and delivered pivotal testimony regarding alleged procedural inconsistencies in UCLA’s handling of Professor Gordon Klein’s suspension. His appearance followed the conclusion of Dean Bernardo’s multi-day testimony and marked the official close of the plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff’s counsel walked Simidjian through a crucial June 2020 email in which he warned Anderson School leadership not to take action against Klein pending further inquiry. The message, sent before Klein was removed from the classroom, explicitly urged them to refrain from taking any action at this time as the matter was still under review. According to Simidjian, his goal was to slow what he viewed as an “eager” push by Anderson administrators to act without sufficient investigation.

Simidjian stressed the legal distinction under the UCLA union contract (of which Klein covered) between disciplinary “suspension” (which requires due process under Article 30) and “involuntary leave” (authorized under Article 12 with fewer rights to the employee). He said that calling Klein’s removal a suspension was “the wrong terminology” and that Dean Bernardo’s office appeared to be moving too fast without a broader conversation about contractual obligations.

Crucially, Simidjian testified that his advice was not merely against formal suspension, but also against involuntary administrative leave, emphasizing that both actions would have been premature and potentially inappropriate at that stage.

Simidjian confirmed that Klein properly filed a grievance under the union contract’s three step process and submitted a timely appeal at Step 3, which was never answered. A key element to the case involves the status of Klein’s union contract. Simidjian testified that the UC-AFT contract pertaining to Unit 18 lecturers expired on January 31, 2020. After that point, the university and the union entered into a “status quo” arrangement in which standard provisions of the old contract remained in effect, but unusual clauses such as the mandatory arbitration clause, did not carry over. Because of that lapse, Klein’s grievance was no longer restricted to private arbitration, paving the way for him to bring his claims in open court. Despite this, UCLA is now arguing that Klein lacks the right to sue, essentially seeking to block judicial review of its actions.

He also clarified that Klein was not under investigation for violating faculty-student relationship rules or creating a hostile classroom environment. Notably, Simidjian stated that no precedent exists for challenging administrative leave based on university discretion, further highlighting the uniqueness of this case.

Under cross-examination by UCLA, Simidjina revealed there’s no firm policy on whether notices of administrative leave are confidential. He said that Klein’s students, who were notified he was placed on leave without explanation, might have deserved a more transparent approach. He emphasized that UCLA had never previously publicized a faculty leave in this manner and had done so here with no formal policy violations in hand.

He also affirmed that continuing lecturers, like Klein, are not subject to the Faculty Code of Conduct cited in his leave notice, another major procedural misstep by the administration given that Klein’s union agreement specifically excludes him from being governed by that code.

Simidjian testified that in over a decade in his role, he had placed fewer than ten faculty members on involuntary leave and emphasized that such decisions typically require more thorough vetting. In Klein’s case, the university moved forward despite his warnings, undermining due process and likely violating established policy.

Plaintiff Rests His Case, Directed Verdict For Defense Denied

As the day ended, Klein’s attorney David Burg formally rested the plaintiff’s case. UCLA’s attorney immediately requested a directed verdict in their favor, effectively asking the judge to throw out the case without hearing the university’s side. The judge promptly denied the request, ordering the university to proceed with its defense.

With the plaintiff’s case now complete, the university must formally respond, putting its decision making process, and disregard for its own policies, under the spotlight.

Defense Case Starts – Anthony Solana (Director of Employee and Labor Relations)

Court resumed Friday, August 1st, with testimony from Anthony Solana, UCLA’s Director of Employee and Labor Relations. Solana, who has held the position for a decade, testified that his office provides contractual guidance to academic departments and does not dictate disciplinary outcomes.

Solana disputed a claim made by an Anderson School administrator in an email that Solana advised suspension with pay. Solana clarified that no such recommendation was made and that the correct contractual mechanism to remove a lecturer from the classroom was administrative leave with pay, especially since suspension with pay does not even exist. Solana explained that suspension without pay, termination, and demotion are the only forms of disciplinary action under the contract, each of which must follow a “Notice of Intent” procedure and afford the employee due process.

Importantly, Solana confirmed that disciplinary action requires “just cause” and cannot be taken unilaterally. When Klein was placed on leave, Solana said his team was simply advising whether administrative leave was permitted under the contract, not directing action. He also emphasized that administrators had discretion under Article 12.A.8 to place Klein on leave, but that discretion was not unlimited; bad faith or discriminatory motivations would still be unlawful.

During cross-examination, Solana was confronted with an email from UCLA’s Director of Academic Affairs, Michael Simidjian (who testified earlier in the case – see above) , advising that “no action should be taken” against Klein. Solana agreed that this meant no disciplinary action, including administrative leave, should occur at that time. Yet, he also testified that he understood Simidjian’s statement to apply only to that day, and not necessarily to actions taken later.

Solana further clarified that it was ultimately Dean Antonio Bernardo and the Anderson School of Management who made the decision to place Klein on involuntary leave, not his office.

Jerry Kang (Former UCLA Vice Chancellor For Equity, Diversity and Inclusion)

The defense then called Jerry Kang, former UCLA Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Kang testified that hundreds of emails reached his office following the controversy, and although he personally did not review them all, he maintained that volume alone suggested a serious matter. He defended the use of paid administrative leave as it isn’t a sign of wrongdoing, and testified that investigations by DPO and Title IX would proceed independently regardless of media coverage or student motives.

Kang also admitted that no Notice of Investigation was ever issued against Klein and that by the time Klein was reinstated, the DPO had not identified any new complaints beyond the initial social media posts. Under cross-examination, Kang confirmed that the university could have paused before placing Klein on leave to allow time for investigation but that choice was ultimately up to the Anderson School of Management.

Karla Irwin

To conclude the day, a videotaped deposition was played from Karla Irwin, a forensic accounting consultant who had previously referred business to Professor Klein. Irwin explained that once Klein’s leave was made public in summer 2020, her firm removed him from its website citing internal concerns and the reputational uncertainty created by UCLA’s actions. While she testified that no clients explicitly objected to Klein, she said that public knowledge of a suspension, especially one referencing potential misconduct, would require disclosure to any future client.

Testimony from Irwin revealed that when Klein’s email surfaced publicly, she was actively working on a case with him as one of the expert witnesses. A student had flagged a news article to her, which quickly circulated and included the infamous email exchange and mention of Klein’s administrative leave.

Irwin and her team immediately notified the lead partner on the matter, and directive from leadership was to inform counsel for any cases involving Klein, but notably she testified that they didn’t see it as a dealbreaker. Klein remained on the case, gave a deposition, and ultimately testified in a bench trial. However, Irwin did confirm that when her firm later decided to remove Klein from their webiste and stop referring work to him, the key factors were the tone of the email, the surrounding media attention, and internal concerns from employees, especially given the fact that Klein had been placed on leave.

Upcoming Trial Dates

Trial continues the week of August 11, at which point the trial is expected to conclude.

======================

Rianna Dy is a recent UCLA graduate with a Bachelors of Arts in Business Economics.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.