CSU Hit With $6M Verdict in Gender Harassment Lawsuit 2025
Table of Contents
Case Background
A Los Angeles County jury awarded $6 million to Anissa Rogers, a former Associate Dean at California State University, San Bernardino's Palm Desert campus, after finding the university subjected her to severe gender-based harassment, failed to prevent the harassment, and retaliated against her when she reported the misconduct. The verdict, delivered on October 20, 2025, concluded a trial that exposed a pattern of discriminatory treatment toward female employees at the institution.
Cause
Rogers filed her complaint in March 2023 alongside co-Plaintiff Clare Weber, alleging multiple violations of California law. The lawsuit claimed the Board of Trustees of the California State University, along with university President Tomas Morales and Palm Desert Campus Dean Jake Zhu, engaged in systematic gender discrimination and harassment. Rogers accused Zhu of subjecting her and other female employees to screaming rampages, using gender stereotypes to demean them, and creating an atmosphere where women were routinely belittled while male colleagues received preferential treatment.
Injury
Rogers suffered significant emotional and psychological harm from the hostile work environment. According to the complaint, Zhu deliberately attempted to make female employees cry during meetings, then used their emotional responses against them when considering promotions. Rogers was subjected to constant interruptions, mocking, and attempts at intimidation, including Zhu pacing menacingly outside her office door. The harassment was so severe that Rogers was forced to resign her position in January 2022 and return to a lower-paying faculty role.
Damages Sought
Rogers sought compensatory damages for mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical pain, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. The complaint also requested public injunctive relief to address what Plaintiffs described as a systemic culture of gender harassment and discrimination throughout the California State University system.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Anissa Rogers
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Andrew H. Friedman | Derubertis David | Friedman Andrew Henry
Defendant: Board of Trustees of the California State University
· Counsel for Defendant: Margaret C. Bell | Michael W. Healy | Corey J. Randenberg | Jenny Yu | Healy Michael William | Lee Courtney Abrams | Webster Joshua Michael
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff's counsel presented extensive witness testimony corroborating the harassment allegations. Multiple employees attested under penalty of perjury that Zhu was exceptionally sexist and misogynistic. Witnesses described how Zhu frequently used sexist stereotypes, telling female employees they were too emotional, too sensitive, or too ambitious. One witness stated that Rogers was chosen from over one hundred candidates for her position and was exceptionally qualified, but Zhu deliberately thwarted her ability to perform her job.
Claims
Rogers brought claims for harassment based on gender under California Government Code Section 12940(j), retaliation under Government Code Section 12940(h), failure to prevent harassment under Government Code Section 12940(k), and constructive discharge. The complaint also included claims for discrimination based on gender, violation of the California Equal Pay Act, retaliation under the Equal Pay Act, violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5(c), unlawful sex discrimination under the California Constitution, failure to produce personnel files, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defense
The Defendants filed a general denial of all allegations and asserted 35 affirmative defenses. This included failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, waiver and unclean hands, failure to mitigate damages, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and governmental immunities. The defense also argued that any adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons. Additionally, the defense invoked the Ellerth/Faragher defense, claiming the university exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any discriminatory behavior and that Rogers unreasonably failed to use available corrective procedures.
Jury Verdict
The jury answered yes to all liability questions on the special verdict form. The panel found that Rogers was personally subjected to harassing conduct because of her gender and that the harassment was severe or pervasive. Jurors determined that a reasonable woman in Rogers' circumstances would have considered the work environment hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive, and that Rogers herself considered it so.
The jury found that a supervisor engaged in the harassing conduct and that California State University knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The panel determined the harassment was a substantial factor in causing harm to Rogers.
On the failure to prevent claim, the jury found the university did not take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment and that this failure was a substantial factor in causing harm to Rogers.
Regarding constructive discharge, jurors found that California State University intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in Rogers' position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign. The jury confirmed Rogers resigned because of these conditions and that the working conditions were a substantial factor in causing her harm.
The jury also found in Rogers' favor on her retaliation claim. The panel determined she reported conduct she reasonably and in good faith believed was gender-based harassment, that the university subjected her to adverse employment action and constructively discharged her, that her report was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action, and that the university's actions were a substantial factor in causing her harm.
The jury awarded Rogers $3 million for past mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, physical pain, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress. The panel awarded an additional $3 million for future damages in these same categories, bringing the total verdict to $6 million.
The case was tried before Judge Maurice A. Leiter in Department 54 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The presiding juror signed the verdict form on October 20, 2025.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com