Skip to main content
Education

Regents of the University of California

39 federal employment cases from public court records (20022026)

12 with a published ruling · 27 open dockets

What public court records show

Public federal court records list Regents of the University of California as an employer in 39 employment matters between 2002 and 2026.

Of the 12 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 6 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 were dismissed, 2 had a mixed result, and 1 were sent back to a lower court.

Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 8% of matters with a recorded outcome.

The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination.

Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in CA.

These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.

39
Federal Cases
8%
Plaintiff Win Rate

Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.

3
States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

Regents of the University of California appears in 12 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the education sector, where Title IX intersects with Title VII and tenure-revocation cases raise heightened procedural protections. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.

The cases primarily involve Discrimination (3 of 12), Retaliation (3 of 12), Wrongful Termination (2 of 12). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Wrongful Termination.

Rulings span California (6), Tennessee (1), Ohio (1). California is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. California rulings, Tennessee rulings and Ohio rulings.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
6 (50%)
Dismissed
2 (17%)
Mixed Result
2 (17%)
Remanded
1 (8%)
Plaintiff Win
1 (8%)

Case Stages

The stage at which courts issued Regents of the University of California’s 12 stage-identified rulings.

Appeal
8 (67%)
Summary judgment
2 (17%)

Of the 2 summary-judgment rulings, 1 ended the case in Regents of the University of California’s favor and 1 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
2 (17%)
What do these stages mean?
Appeal
A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
Summary judgment
A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
Motion to dismiss
An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.

Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.

Facing something similar? Check your rights →

Federal cases

public court records

One row per case · a badge means the case reached a published ruling · plaintiff names redacted

United States v. Regents of The University of California
C.D. Cal. · Feb 2026
Open docket
Employee v. The Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Mar 2025
Open docket
Employee v. Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Mar 2025
Open docket
Employee v. Regents of The University of California
C.D. Cal. · Jan 2025
Open docket
Employee v. The Regents of the University of California (erroneously sued as UCSF Medical Center)
N.D. Cal. · Oct 2024
Open docket
The Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. v. Employee
N.D. Cal. · Oct 2024 · California · Discrimination
Dismissed
Employee v. Bajco 100, LLC
N.D. Ohio · Feb 2023 · Ohio · Premises Liability
Defendant Win
Employee v. The Regents of the University of California
C.D. Cal. · Nov 2021
Open docket
Employee v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd. CA2/8
Cal. Ct. App. · Aug 2021 · Retaliation
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. The Regents of The University of California
C.D. Cal. · Nov 2020
Open docket
Employee v. The Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Nov 2020
Open docket
Employee v. Pub. Employment Relations Bd.
Cal. Ct. App. · Jun 2020 · Whistleblower
Defendant Win
Employee v. Regents of The University of California
C.D. Cal. · Jun 2020 · California · Disability Discrimination
Remanded
Employee v. Kohler Co.
W.D. Tenn. · Dec 2019 · Tennessee
Defendant Win
Employee v. Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Oct 2019
Open docket
Employee v. Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Apr 2017
Open docket
Employee v. The Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Oct 2016
Open docket
Employee v. Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Sep 2016
Open docket
Employee v. Regents of the University of California at Los Angeles
C.D. Cal. · Oct 2015
Open docket
Employee v. The Regents of The University of California
C.D. Cal. · Aug 2015
Open docket
Employee v. The Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Apr 2015
Open docket
Employee v. The Regents of the University of California
C.D. Cal. · Dec 2014
Open docket
Employee v. University of California Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
N.D. Cal. · Nov 2014 · California · Disability
Mixed Result
Employee v. Regents of the University of California, The
S.D. Cal. · Oct 2014
Open docket
Employee v. Regents of the University of California
N.D. Cal. · Jun 2014
Open docket
Showing 25 of 39

Understand your employment rights

Free, private, no sign-up required.

Check My Rights

Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.