The warning said “further inquiry is warranted before action can be taken.” That inquiry is what happened when he was placed on administrative leave. And less t

The warning said “further inquiry is warranted before action can be taken.” That inquiry is what happened when he was placed on administrative leave. And less than three weeks later, he was reinstated. He's classifying it as a suspension but the university is going to say this was an investigation. A court will decide who is correct, assuming this isn’t thrown out on its face (which is what I am betting will happen). He doesn’t have tenure, which makes his rights at UCLA even more tenuous as it is — the university could have just opted not to renew his contract. But they took him off administrative leave and found he hadn’t violated any policies after the inquiry that HR recommended. We don’t know if the university followed policy or not. Nothing in the complaint proves that it didn’t, and it could very well be read that it did, based on the facts he made in the claim.