CRO Report Response

Confidential draft work product. Verify all deadlines, recipients, quotations, procedural requirements, and proposed submissions against the native July 29, 2026 transmittal, current UCLA procedures, and qualified counsel before use.

This edition preserves the substantive strategy, factual analysis, proposed arguments, hearing preparation, DGE and CDP planning, Bailey record-integrity analysis, counsel questions, and deployment sequence. It removes package manifests, file paths, hashes, internal identifiers, technical QA records, spreadsheet artifacts, repetitive control language, and other material that adds little value when heard through text-to-speech.

Immediate Action Command Sheet

Recommended route: Request a Procedure 230.2 hearing.

Why: All five formal findings are adverse. The disclosed investigation interviewed Cooper but interviewed no respondent or proposed third-party witness, resolved disputed motive and causation questions, did not itemize hundreds of pages it declined to rely on, and used later or outside interpretive materials. Those disputes are not adequately resolved through no-hearing comments alone.

Deadline control

Attachment B defines issuance as the date of transmission. The published text does not say whether July 29 is Day One or Day Zero. Use the earlier dates unless UCLA confirms otherwise in writing. A request for clarification or an extension does not itself stop a deadline.

Exact first action

Send the minimal hearing request to ada@saonet.ucla.edu as soon as possible. Use the drafted subject line, send from Cooper’s account, preserve the native sent message, and request written confirmation of receipt and routing.

The minimal request does not need a merits attachment. Do not delay it for counsel review or completion of a longer submission. It invokes the hearing route, disputes all five findings, states the current representation status, and preserves supplementation.

Same-day sequence

1. Send the minimal hearing request.
2. Save the native sent message and any automated or human receipt.
3. Send the clarification and good-cause extension request to grievance@saonet.ucla.edu, copying ada@saonet.ucla.edu.
4. Send the DGE abeyance and Investigation Materials notice through the existing DGE service channel.
5. Do not send the full grounds memorandum unless Cooper affirmatively elects to do so or UCLA confirms a supplement date. The recommended default is to preserve the hearing first and submit verified grounds after receipt confirmation, record clarification, and counsel review.

What to attach

• First email: No attachment is required. If an attachment is used, attach only a checked PDF of the minimal request.
• Clarification or extension email: Do not attach source records unless UCLA asks.
• DGE notice: Attach the sent hearing request only if doing so is easy and does not delay notice; otherwise identify the date sent and offer to provide it.

Receipt and source preservation

The July 29 transmission included the Notice of Outcome, the investigation report, the exhibit list, and Exhibits A through R. Preserve the native email, original attachments, sent messages, delivery evidence, and all later UCLA responses. Native PDFs control. Extracted text and prior analysis are only search and workflow aids.

Concise receipt facts

The transmission was received on July 29, 2026 at 1:39 p.m. Pacific time from Nico Anwandter. It included the Notice of Outcome, the final investigation report, the exhibit list, and Exhibits A through R. The native report contains a pagination anomaly: the final visible printed page is labeled page forty-two of forty-three, but no printed page forty-three appears in the transmitted report. Preserve that issue for clarification rather than assuming a page is or is not missing.

Do not rename, overwrite, recompress, or replace original materials. Keep source materials separate from drafts. Record later corrections as new versions rather than replacing the July 29 originals.

Do not concede

• that July 29 must be counted or excluded;
• that the DGE investigatory process is complete at initial report issuance;
• that adverse CRO findings decide DGE’s distinct mitigation question;
• that an extension request tolls a deadline;
• that omitted or uncited evidence was necessarily unconsidered;
• that Bailey’s acknowledged service defect creates an unrestricted sur-rebuttal right or itself establishes a constitutional violation; or
• that anticipated witness testimony has been confirmed.

User checks before sending

• Confirm the sender account and signature.
• Confirm the representation statement remains accurate.
• Confirm the proposed submission date remains feasible.
• Do not remove reservation language unless qualified counsel advises doing so.
• Preserve the sent item, headers, attachments, and receipt as new administrative-record materials.

Deadline and Submission Calendar

Protective action calendar

Source rules and unresolved ambiguity

• Days: University business days; Saturdays, Sundays, and campus-closure days are excluded.
• Issuance: The date of transmission.
• Hearing request: Within ten Days of investigation-report issuance.
• No-hearing comments: Within fifteen Days of issuance.
• No-hearing finalization: Within twenty Days of issuance.
• Extensions: Reasonable extensions may be granted for good cause.
• Unresolved point: Published sources do not state whether the transmission date is Day One or Day Zero.

REPORT PAGE BY PAGE DECOMPOSITION

Report Decomposition

Report Errors, Omissions, and Contradictions Restored from the Source Audit

The prior narration retained each report proposition but dropped the dedicated source-audit field identifying the corresponding error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved record problem. The following restores that substantive field in a narration-friendly format.

The document is a Confidential Investigation Report concerning Cooper Beaman and Drs. James Bisley, Carrie Bearden, and Felix Schweizer, authored by Nico Anwandter.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: No date appears on the cover; date is supplied on PDF p.4.

Priority: low.

The report structures factual investigation at printed pages 7-22 and findings/analysis beginning at printed page 22.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The TOC does not identify a standalone retaliation finding despite retaliation being within CRO’s stated mission and later discussed.

Priority: medium.

The TOC identifies waiver of accommodation, disparate-treatment analyses for Respondents 2 and 3, harassment analyses, and a conclusion at printed page 42.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: TOC says conclusion starts at printed page 42; native PDF ends there while footers say ‘of 43.’

Priority: high.

CRO states it applies University policy rather than federal or state law and may identify discriminatory behavior before it becomes a legal violation.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Later printed pp.23-24 expressly base elements on federal/state law and EEOC guidance.

Priority: high.

CRO says other allegations were untimely and/or customer-service actions that would not violate UC nondiscrimination policies even if substantiated.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The combined ‘and/or’ rationale does not disclose which ground applies to which allegation.

Priority: medium.

The report uses the January 1, 2026 Anti-Discrimination Policy as definitional guidance and announces five adverse findings.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report does not explain here why a policy effective after the 2024-2025 conduct can guide interpretation.

Priority: high.

The report defines discrimination and harassment and cites Procedure 230.2, the 2026 policy, APM 035, and APM 015.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: APM 035 and APM 015 are cited but are not separately identified in the Exhibit A-R list on printed pp.6-7.

Priority: medium.

Only Cooper was interviewed; each respondent was deemed ‘Unnecessary to reach factual findings in this matter.’

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report later makes affirmative findings about respondent motives and committee reasoning without direct respondent testimony.

Priority: critical.

Fifteen named potential witnesses are fully redacted and were rejected as insufficiently relevant, or insufficiently relevant where not otherwise redundant.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Names are black-box redacted although Cooper proposed them; reasons are formulaic.

Priority: critical.

Eight additional named potential witnesses were rejected as insufficiently relevant.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: No witness-specific explanation is provided for P-W.

Priority: critical.

The disclosed evidence table identifies Exhibits A-M, all shown as provided by UCLA CRO or Complainant.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: No disclosed respondent-origin investigation materials beyond statements embedded in Cooper-supplied records.

Priority: high.

Exhibits N-R are listed, and the report says all witnesses and all evidence were considered.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Footnote 4 says hundreds of pages were not relied upon and not itemized.

Priority: critical.

The report records ADHD-related executive-function limitations, exacerbation by stress and sleep deprivation, and says hundreds of pages were not relied upon or itemized.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The methodology promises credibility evaluation but identifies no respondent interview or explicit credibility rubric.

Priority: critical.

Cooper registered with CAE in his second quarter, received 150% time and distraction-free testing, and later recognized broader executive-function challenges.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Later analysis sometimes equates absence of an additional CAE letter with absence of disability causation.

Priority: high.

NSIDP expected a primary mentor within three rotations and granted a fourth; existing accommodations were applied to the written qualifying exam.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: No witness was interviewed about how often extensions or restarts occurred.

Priority: high.

Respondent 3 reportedly relayed that Individual A doubted Cooper could complete a PhD and later mentioned ‘internalized self-loathing.’

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The later finding supplies benign context by inference without interviewing the speaker.

Priority: high.

The Academic Plan warned that failure of any benchmark may lead to disqualification and referred students to CAE, while Cooper recalled Respondent 3 saying the lab match was most important.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report credits the strict benchmark later without resolving the oral-statement dispute through Respondent 3.

Priority: high.

At 9:06 a.m., Cooper wrote that he was registered for testing accommodations with CAE, described competing academic demands, and asked to take the midterm Thursday instead.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Printed p.25 later says the email ‘at no point alludes to a disability’ after omitting the CAE-registration sentence from its excerpt.

Priority: critical.

Cooper explained that the disability basis was his preexisting CAE registration and that he sought adjustment of existing test conditions; he had not contacted CAE about postponement.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: No CAE or Respondent 1 witness was interviewed on whether same-day case-by-case consultation was feasible.

Priority: high.

Respondent 2’s written course description arrived halfway through the rotation and she wrote that she had never prepared one for a rotation student before.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report resolves inconsistent-standard concerns without investigating how other rotation students were managed.

Priority: critical.

Cooper disclosed ADHD and deadline freezing; Respondent 2 urged him to seek help/accommodations and offered to submit the recommendation letter.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report treats the disclosure as only speculative causation without interviewing Respondent 2 about later decisions.

Priority: high.

The fellowship materials were submitted at the last minute, while Cooper said another project had been prioritized and his perception of Respondent 2’s attitude shifted after disclosure.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report converts absence of direct motive proof into affirmative legitimate-reason findings without interviewing Respondent 2.

Priority: high.

Cooper reported a March 11 conditional mentor offer based on external funding and significant improvement, followed by a March 17 refusal after a rushed March 12 presentation.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report does not resolve whether the offer occurred or why Respondent 2 later denied it.

Priority: critical.

On March 31 Cooper told Respondent 3 he was pursuing CAE accommodations; they discussed transfer, leave, direct admission elsewhere, or withdrawal.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report infers a preexisting likely recommendation without direct testimony from Respondent 3 or the committee.

Priority: critical.

Cooper asked CAE for lab-level interactive-process help and described ADHD-linked rotation difficulties, late feedback, and funding constraints.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: No CAE participant was interviewed about what interactive process occurred between March 31 and April 10.

Priority: critical.

An April 1 Student Affairs email discussed a recommendation for disqualification one day after the CAE discussion; Respondent 3’s April 2 email proposed creative options.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report later concludes a petition began around March 12 based on a later email account, without the decision-maker testimony or underlying petition.

Priority: critical.

Respondent 2 asked whether ‘creative ideas’ excluded staying in NSIDP; on April 10 CAE said no other accommodations were available through CAE at that time.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report later treats the April 10 statement as dispositive and retrospective, despite its ‘at this time’ wording and no CAE interview.

Priority: critical.

The department described committee review before DGE; the April 28 notice cited insufficient progress and no primary mentor; Cooper identified another student who used six rotations.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report later distinguishes the comparator ‘without looking into this any further.’

Priority: critical.

Cooper alleged unprecedented disqualification timing, a six-rotation comparator, and post-hoc expansion to M203 and rotation grade; he also described late feedback and ambiguous plan language.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: No standalone retaliation finding appears; the post-hoc issue is later declared outside CRO scope after being used to support legitimate reasons.

Priority: critical.

The report states six accommodation elements, including a request, knowledge, reasonableness, no fundamental alteration/undue burden, and no choice to forgo.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The cited EEOC authority is outside Exhibit A-R and the report does not show where Procedure 230.2 creates element six.

Priority: critical.

The report quotes UCOP roles-and-responsibilities guidance and PACAOS 140, then finds documented disability and CAE registration undisputed.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The UCOP guidance is not an A-R exhibit and was last visited July 26, 2026, shortly before issuance.

Priority: high.

The analysis excerpts the rescheduling request but omits the preceding CAE-registration sentence, then says the email ‘at no point alludes to a disability.’

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Direct contradiction: full email says Cooper was registered with CAE; analysis says the email never alluded to disability. The case-by-case language is treated as a categorical bar.

Priority: critical.

The report says Cooper should have known by the night before, finds his account contradicted by an earlier desire to drop, and treats the request as a preference unrelated to disability.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report conflates knowing one felt unprepared six days earlier with knowing a disability-related adjustment was needed and feasible before exam day.

Priority: high.

The report acknowledges the CAE reference but finds it insufficient, treats no further documentation as dispositive, and declares fundamental alteration/undue burden moot.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Footnote 56 says Cooper ‘fails to state a claim’ after a full merits investigation; no fundamental-alteration or undue-burden evidence was developed.

Priority: critical.

The report says Cooper ‘essentially waived’ accommodation by not making a timely request, giving a valid medical reason, or providing documentation; it then adopts a significant-contributing-cause formulation.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report does not identify Procedure 230.2 language authorizing ‘waiver’; the Kang memorandum is not an A-R exhibit.

Priority: critical.

CRO finds declining mentorship impaired advancement but credits funding deficiencies and student performance as legitimate reasons.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The $2,000 disability scholarship for coaching is treated as if it could address lab funding, an inapt comparison; no funding records are cited.

Priority: critical.

The report treats the written expectations, late fellowship materials, and failure to contact CAE as supporting the performance rationale.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report assumes the late written requirements were neutral without investigating their timing, comparators, or changes in priority.

Priority: high.

The report finds no data of improvement, says a priority shift did not waive prior goals, and evaluates the alleged March 11 conditional offer against the March 12 presentation.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Heading says ‘Lab Meeting Scheduled for March 12, 2024’ although the narrative and chronology establish 2025.

Priority: critical.

CRO calls the April 2 tone potentially flippant but finds no disability motive and relies on funding, performance, and CAE’s April 10 statement.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Footnote 69 uses an April 10 statement to negate whether accommodation could have affected an earlier rotation and treats ‘no additional accommodations at this time’ as dispositive.

Priority: critical.

CRO finds academic disqualification adverse but legitimate because of unmet benchmarks; footnote 71 distinguishes the six-rotation comparator without further investigation.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The phrase ‘without looking into this any further’ expressly confirms the comparator was resolved without investigation.

Priority: critical.

CRO calls retaliation speculative, relies on committee review, and says post-hoc expansion is a DGE procedural issue outside this investigation.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report uses the expanded benchmarks as legitimate reasons while declaring the fairness of that expansion outside scope.

Priority: critical.

The report infers a formal petition was initiated around March 12 and says the March 31 request ‘puts the cart before the horse.’

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The actual petition and committee records are not cited or exhibited; the grammar ‘would be explain’ reflects drafting error.

Priority: critical.

CRO finds legitimate academic reasons, says Cooper received more chances than any prior student, and begins the harassment analysis.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report itself records a student with six rotations while Cooper had five, then distinguishes the situation without investigation.

Priority: high.

The report applies unwelcome conduct, significant contributing cause, and severe/persistent/pervasive interference elements, citing the Kang memorandum.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Kang is not disclosed in the exhibit list and no opportunity to respond is shown.

Priority: critical.

CRO analyzes the March 17 criticism, relayed denial of the conditional offer, and April 2 email; it starts reasoning that PhD participation invited feedback.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report equates enrolling in a PhD program with inviting/consenting to the particular challenged feedback.

Priority: high.

The report says Cooper ‘invited and consented’ to feedback, the April 2 email was not objectively unwelcome, and the comments had nominal impact compared with academic decisions.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Inviting general academic feedback does not necessarily establish consent to every allegedly disability-linked statement.

Priority: high.

The report invokes academic freedom for curriculum performance and scholarship, then analyzes Respondent 3’s two comments as invited or constructive.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: The report does not explain how ‘internalized self-loathing’ is legitimately related to course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary.

Priority: high.

CRO supplies benign context for the self-loathing comment, finds no protected-basis nexus, and deems the two comments insufficiently severe.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Missing context is used to construct a favorable hypothetical for Respondent 3 rather than retained as unknown.

Priority: high.

The report repeats all five adverse findings under the preponderance standard.

Error, omission, contradiction, or unresolved issue: Footer says ‘Page 42 of 43,’ but the native 44-page PDF ends here; no printed page 43 is present.

Priority: critical.

FINDINGS ELEMENTS AND REASONING AUDIT

Complete Findings Summary

All five formal conclusions are adverse. Each summary below states UCLA’s strongest position, the narrowest record-grounded response, the most useful hearing questions, and the independent DGE or CDP value.

Finding 1: Failure to accommodate concerning the February 11, 2025 NEURO M203 midterm

Respondent: Respondent 1 — Dr. James Bisley.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 1 did not violate University policy prohibiting discrimination by failure to accommodate.

Strongest UCLA position: The request arrived at 9:06 a.m. after a 9:00 exam began, asked for two more days to study, did not ask CAE to amend an accommodation, and was never followed by medical documentation. Existing approved accommodations were fully provided.

Best record-grounded response: The hearing challenge should not claim that a postponement was necessarily required. It should show that the report reached its result through a demonstrably inaccurate statement about the full email, treated expressly case-by-case guidance as categorical, and skipped respondent/CAE testimony and feasibility. Those defects warrant correction, fuller fact finding, and an alternative merits analysis.

Hearing and cross-examination focus: Why did the analysis excerpt omit the CAE-registration sentence printed in full at report p.11? What did Respondent 1 understand ‘registered for testing accommodations with the CAE’ to mean? What same-day options, referrals, pauses, or documentation channels existed? What Procedure 230.2 text supplies the waiver element? Why was fundamental alteration/undue burden not addressed in the alternative?

Hearing priority: critical.

DGE or CDP value: High favorable mitigation value even if the accommodation violation is not proven: documented ADHD, executive-function limits, exam impairment, stress, and University knowledge are all recorded.

Finding 2: Disparate treatment in declining to serve as primary faculty mentor

Respondent: Respondent 2 — Dr. Carrie Bearden.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 2 did not violate University policy prohibiting disability discrimination.

Strongest UCLA position: Respondent 2 responded supportively to the ADHD disclosure, urged CAE involvement, repeatedly identified funding needs, and had documented performance reasons including late materials, unmet projects, an inadequate presentation, and an unsatisfactory grade.

Best record-grounded response: Those are serious and partly undisputed defenses. The best challenge is not to deny performance problems but to show that CRO affirmed Respondent 2’s actual motive without interviewing her, verifying funding, investigating the unprecedented mid-rotation expectations or comparators, or resolving the conditional-offer/denial conflict. A hearing is needed to distinguish genuine legitimate reasons from post-hoc reconstruction and to determine whether disability was nonetheless a significant contributing cause.

Hearing and cross-examination focus: Did Respondent 2 make the March 11 conditional offer, and if so, what exactly were its conditions? Why did she later reportedly deny making it? When did she decide not to mentor Cooper? What lab funding amount and source were required, and how was that rule applied to other rotation students? Why were written expectations unprecedented and delivered halfway through the rotation? How did shifted priorities affect completion of the original project? What did the April 2 email mean?

Hearing priority: critical.

DGE or CDP value: Very high: the report admits the refusal impaired advancement, funding constrained mentor availability, expectations were unusual/late, and ADHD-linked executive-function challenges affected performance.

Finding 3: Disparate treatment and retaliation in recommending academic disqualification

Respondent: Respondent 3 — Dr. Felix Schweizer.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 3 did not violate University policy prohibiting disability discrimination.

Strongest UCLA position: Cooper had no right to a sixth rotation, had already received exceptional extensions, missed three written benchmarks, and a committee-driven academic process began before the March 31 accommodation request.

Best record-grounded response: The missed benchmarks and lack of entitlement are substantial defenses. The hearing challenge should focus on what CRO did not establish: the actual initiation date, contemporaneous grounds, committee independence, comparator facts, and Respondent 3’s account. The report’s categorical conclusions rely on a petition it did not disclose, witnesses it did not interview, and a comparator it expressly declined to investigate.

Hearing and cross-examination focus: Produce the native petition, drafts, metadata, committee notice, minutes, votes, and transmission records. Who first proposed disqualification, on what date, and on what grounds? What did Respondent 3 know on March 31 and April 1? Why did the April 28 notice identify degree progress and no mentor, while later records added M203 and the unsatisfactory grade? What is the comparator’s actual rotation and performance history? Why was retaliation discussed but not separately stated as a formal finding?

Hearing priority: critical.

DGE or CDP value: Very high: the timing, post-hoc-ground, committee-record, mentor-market, and comparator issues directly affect DGE record integrity; the disability-performance facts independently support mitigation.

Finding 4: Disability-based harassment through performance comments, denial of the conditional-offer understanding, and the April 2 email

Respondent: Respondent 2 — Dr. Carrie Bearden.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 2 did not violate University policy prohibiting harassment based on a disability.

Strongest UCLA position: The conduct consisted of a small number of academic/administrative communications grounded in documented performance and funding issues, with no express disability reference, and could not meet the severe/persistent/pervasive threshold.

Best record-grounded response: Do not overclaim this finding. The best response is that CRO used an overbroad ‘invited and consented’ theory, relied on inferred motive without interviewing Respondent 2, and invoked academic freedom without statement-specific analysis. Those defects justify hearing scrutiny even though UCLA retains a substantial threshold defense.

Hearing and cross-examination focus: What exact words were used March 17, and in what tone and setting? Did Respondent 2 make or later deny the conditional offer? What did the April 2 email mean? Why did CRO equate PhD enrollment with consent to all challenged conduct? Which specific statement was course content, teaching method, scholarship, or public commentary?

Hearing priority: medium high.

DGE or CDP value: Moderate: the conduct and its impact provide context, but the stronger DGE use is the report’s admission of late expectations, disability knowledge, and impaired progression.

Finding 5: Disability-based harassment through relaying Individual A’s opinion and mentioning ‘internalized self-loathing’

Respondent: Respondent 3 — Dr. Felix Schweizer.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 3 did not violate University policy prohibiting harassment based on a disability.

Strongest UCLA position: The two alleged remarks were isolated, facially academic or ambiguous, nonthreatening, and unsupported by evidence of disability nexus or substantial interference.

Best record-grounded response: This is a comparatively difficult merits claim. The strongest hearing points are methodological and epistemic: CRO did not interview either speaker, treated asking for reasons as consent, created a hypothetical benign context for the self-loathing remark, and declared Respondent 3’s motive ‘clear’ without testimony. Seek a reliable record while candidly recognizing the severity and nexus risks.

Hearing and cross-examination focus: What exactly did Individual A say, and what did Respondent 3 relay? Why did Respondent 3 raise internalized self-loathing, and what context did he understand? Did the discussion concern disability, executive function, academic performance, or something else? Why did CRO infer a benign invitation rather than treat context as unknown? What independent effect did the comments have?

Hearing priority: medium.

DGE or CDP value: Low-to-moderate as a standalone issue; stronger as contextual evidence of the environment and need for careful mitigation.

Complete Element Audit

The source workbook audited twenty-eight distinct elements or issues. The prior narration retained sixteen. This section restores the complete element-level record in a listening-oriented format.

Finding 1: Failure to accommodate concerning the February 11, 2025 NEURO M203 midterm

Respondent: Respondent 1 — Dr. James Bisley.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 1 did not violate University policy prohibiting discrimination by failure to accommodate.

1. Disability

Report treatment: Satisfied. The report says it is undisputed that Cooper had a documented disability and registered with CAE in 2024.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Favorable admission. Preserve without qualification.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The existence of a disability does not establish that this particular rescheduling request was disability-related or reasonable.

Best reply: Correct as a legal distinction; the disability element is nonetheless conclusively favorable and makes accurate treatment of notice and the CAE reference essential.

Status: Established Favorable. Priority: critical.

2. Request for accommodation

Report treatment: Not satisfied. The report says the email did not qualify because it ‘at no point alludes to a disability’ and emphasized insufficient preparation.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Materially defective characterization. The full email printed at native PDF p.13 / printed p.11 says Cooper was ‘registered for testing accommodations with the CAE’ and then requests a concrete change in exam date. The analysis omits that sentence from its excerpt.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: A general statement of CAE registration did not say that disability caused the need for two more study days, did not ask CAE to change an accommodation letter, and came after the exam began.

Best reply: Those points may ultimately defeat reasonableness or sufficiency, but they do not support the absolute statement that the email never alluded to disability. At minimum, the CAE reference plus a concrete adjustment request required accurate characterization and case-specific analysis.

Status: Material Factual And Reasoning Dispute. Priority: critical.

3. Respondent knowledge

Report treatment: General disability knowledge satisfied; specific knowledge of a need beyond approved accommodations rejected.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The report acknowledges Respondent 1 knew of disability and acknowledges the CAE-registration sentence in footnote 53, but treats it as legally insufficient. That is a mixed fact/policy judgment, not absence of notice.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Faculty reasonably could understand the email as a study-time preference rather than notice that disability required a new accommodation.

Best reply: That interpretation is plausible, but Respondent 1 was never interviewed. His response asked for a ‘valid medical reason’ and doctor’s note, confirming that medical justification was at least in view. The hearing should test what he understood and what options he considered.

Status: Contested. Priority: critical.

4. Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation / interactive response

Report treatment: Not satisfied because every CAE-approved accommodation was implemented and no other need was adequately communicated.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The report equates implementation of existing letters with resolution of a new request. It did not interview Respondent 1 or CAE about whether any case-by-case adjustment, brief pause, referral, documentation opportunity, or other response was feasible.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: A professor need only implement approved accommodations; a same-day two-day postponement after an exam starts is not an accommodation the professor can improvise.

Best reply: That may be the strongest merits defense. The narrower audit point is that the report should establish it with evidence and address the CAE page’s own ‘case-by-case’ language, not treat late timing as a categorical invalidity.

Status: Incompletely Investigated. Priority: critical.

5. Fundamental alteration or undue burden

Report treatment: Declared moot because no reasonable request was made.

Record-grounded audit assessment: No finding was made and no feasibility/burden evidence was developed. This leaves a necessary alternative question unanswered if the hearing finds that the email was a request.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: There was no need to reach an alternative element after finding no qualifying request.

Best reply: A complete preponderance analysis could make an alternative finding, particularly where the report itself quotes case-by-case handling and all facts are supposed to be resolved for a hearing record.

Status: Not Reached. Priority: critical.

6. Alleged waiver / choice to forgo

Report treatment: CRO says Cooper ‘essentially waived’ accommodation by failing to make a timely request, provide a valid medical reason, and provide documentation.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The report does not identify text in Procedure 230.2 creating a standalone waiver element, and its waiver conclusion repeats the contested request and documentation premises.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Whatever the label, a student cannot obtain a remedy for an accommodation process he did not timely invoke or support.

Best reply: Timeliness and documentation may matter without converting them into waiver. The source, scope, and consequences of ‘waiver’ should be established rather than assumed.

Status: Policy Source Dispute. Priority: critical.

Finding 2: Disparate treatment in declining to serve as primary faculty mentor

Respondent: Respondent 2 — Dr. Carrie Bearden.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 2 did not violate University policy prohibiting disability discrimination.

1. Adverse or unequal treatment

Report treatment: Satisfied. The report says the refusal inherently impaired Cooper’s prospects for advancement.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Strong favorable admission. The report connects the mentor decision directly to academic progression.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: An adverse academic decision is not discrimination absent protected-basis causation.

Best reply: Correct, but adverse effect is established and highly relevant to DGE mitigation and remedy.

Status: Established Favorable. Priority: critical.

2. Disability and Respondent 2 knowledge

Report treatment: Knowledge is effectively established through the January 30, 2025 ADHD disclosure; causation is not.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The contemporaneous email is double-edged: Respondent 2 was supportive and offered structure, but unquestionably knew ADHD affected deadline behavior.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Her immediate supportive response is affirmative evidence against animus.

Best reply: It is meaningful evidence for UCLA and should be conceded. It does not conclusively establish the motive for a later decision after an alleged shift, conditional offer, performance disputes, and April 2 email.

Status: Knowledge Established Causation Disputed. Priority: critical.

3. Protected category as a significant contributing cause

Report treatment: Rejected as speculative.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The record contains timing and knowledge evidence, disability-linked performance concerns, an alleged conditional offer, its later denial, and the April 2 email. Those facts do not prove discriminatory motive, but they create material questions that were resolved without interviewing Respondent 2.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Knowledge plus timing is not enough; the contemporaneous record shows supportive conduct and repeated, disability-neutral funding/performance concerns.

Best reply: That is a substantial defense. The procedural reply is strongest: CRO made an affirmative motive finding without asking Respondent 2, obtaining funding records, resolving whether the offer occurred, or investigating comparable rotation standards.

Status: Material Credibility And Causation Dispute. Priority: critical.

4. Proffered legitimate reason — funding

Report treatment: Accepted as legitimate.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Funding was repeatedly mentioned and is a strong UCLA reason. But the report cites no lab budget, funding threshold, treatment of other students, or Respondent 2 testimony. It oddly contrasts a $2,000 CAE disability scholarship for coaching with lab funding needs.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Any new lab member needed to contribute external funding; Cooper applied to only one fellowship and secured no lab funding.

Best reply: The premise may be true, but the record should establish the rule, decision date, consistency, and whether the alleged March 11 offer made funding a condition. The disability scholarship was never represented as lab funding and should not be used as if it failed a lab-finance test.

Status: Plausible But Unverified. Priority: critical.

5. Proffered legitimate reason — performance

Report treatment: Accepted as legitimate based on late fellowship materials, incomplete projects, a rushed presentation, and an unsatisfactory rotation grade.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Substantial record evidence supports performance concerns. The remaining disputes concern late/unprecedented expectations, shifting priorities, third-party dependency, the conditional offer, and whether disability-linked performance was improperly treated as wholly unrelated to disability.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Cooper admitted multiple missed expectations and described the decisive presentation as rushed and inadequate.

Best reply: Concede the missed expectations. The hearing issue is whether standards were timely, consistent, and fairly applied and whether Respondent 2’s actual reasons match the report’s inferred reasons.

Status: Strong Ucla Evidence With Material Context Disputes. Priority: critical.

6. Material interference

Report treatment: Satisfied through inherent impairment of advancement.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The report’s own language strongly supports substantial academic impact.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Impact alone does not show prohibited causation.

Best reply: Agreed; preserve the impact admission for DGE and remedy.

Status: Established Favorable. Priority: critical.

Finding 3: Disparate treatment and retaliation in recommending academic disqualification

Respondent: Respondent 3 — Dr. Felix Schweizer.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 3 did not violate University policy prohibiting disability discrimination.

1. Adverse or unequal treatment

Report treatment: Satisfied. The academic-disqualification recommendation is treated as adverse.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Favorable admission; the action directly threatened continuation.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Adverse action is permissible when based on academic progress rather than protected status.

Best reply: Correct; causation, chronology, comparators, and stated reasons remain the disputed elements.

Status: Established Favorable. Priority: critical.

2. Disability/protected-activity knowledge

Report treatment: Knowledge is implicit; causation is rejected.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Respondent 3 knew of executive-function issues and learned on March 31 that Cooper was pursuing CAE accommodations.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The academic process had begun before March 31 and was independently driven by missed benchmarks.

Best reply: That is the decisive factual dispute and should be proven with the actual petition, timestamps, drafts, and decision-maker testimony.

Status: Knowledge Established Chronology Disputed. Priority: critical.

3. Significant contributing cause / retaliation timing

Report treatment: Rejected as speculative; CRO relies on a committee process and an inferred petition start around March 12.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The report never interviewed Respondent 3, any committee member, or the Student Affairs author. The actual petition and committee records are not cited. April 1 proximity is acknowledged but displaced by an unverified earlier initiation date.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: A multi-member committee reviewed a preexisting academic problem; Cooper had already missed core benchmarks and had no entitlement to a sixth rotation.

Best reply: Committee structure does not prove independent timing or motive. The actual records can readily show when the recommendation began, what grounds were presented, who participated, and whether the March 31 request played any role.

Status: Critical Undeveloped Fact Dispute. Priority: critical.

4. Legitimate reason — insufficient degree progress

Report treatment: Accepted based on failure to complete M203, receive a satisfactory fifth-rotation grade, and secure a primary mentor.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The missed benchmarks are strong UCLA evidence. The remaining issue is whether all were contemporaneous grounds, whether the plan’s ‘may’ language was fairly applied, and whether the grounds expanded after appeal.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The Academic Plan clearly warned that failure of any benchmark may result in disqualification, and all three were missed.

Best reply: Concede the written warning and missed benchmarks. Require contemporaneous proof of which grounds the committee actually used and why later specificity was not post hoc.

Status: Strong Ucla Evidence With Notice And Post Hoc Dispute. Priority: critical.

5. Comparator / unequal exercise of discretion

Report treatment: Rejected. Footnote 71 distinguishes a student who initially matched within three rotations and later needed three more, expressly ‘without looking into this any further.’

Record-grounded audit assessment: The comparator may ultimately be distinguishable, but the report’s own words confirm it was resolved without investigation. No anonymized records or witness testimony support the factual distinctions.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The comparator had first demonstrated the ability to match and was not on Cooper’s Academic Plan; the situations are materially different.

Best reply: That is a plausible distinction to test, not assume. Obtain the comparator’s rotation sequence, standards, funding, performance status, and decision-makers under privacy protections.

Status: Incompletely Investigated. Priority: critical.

6. Post-hoc grounds and scope

Report treatment: CRO says any improper post-hoc expansion is a DGE procedural objection outside this investigation.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The report simultaneously relies on all three benchmarks as legitimate reasons. It cannot use the expanded grounds to defeat causation while refusing to examine whether they were contemporaneous.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The original notice’s phrase ‘insufficient degree progress’ encompassed all benchmarks; procedural specificity belongs to DGE.

Best reply: That reading is contested and requires the committee record. At minimum, CRO should not treat later-expanded grounds as proved contemporaneous motives without examining the record.

Status: Internal Scope And Reasoning Tension. Priority: critical.

Finding 4: Disability-based harassment through performance comments, denial of the conditional-offer understanding, and the April 2 email

Respondent: Respondent 2 — Dr. Carrie Bearden.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 2 did not violate University policy prohibiting harassment based on a disability.

1. Challenged conduct

Report treatment: Three acts are identified: March 17 criticism, a relayed denial of the conditional offer, and the April 2 email about whether staying in NSIDP remained on the table.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The acts are identified, but the exact March 17 words and full context were not obtained from Respondent 2.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The acts were ordinary academic feedback and administrative clarification.

Best reply: That may be true; a hearing should establish the actual words, context, and purpose before classifying them.

Status: Conduct Identified Context Incomplete. Priority: medium high.

2. Subjectively and objectively unwelcome

Report treatment: Rejected. CRO says that by participating in a PhD program Cooper ‘invited and consented’ to feedback; it acknowledges subjective offense from the April 2 email.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Categorical consent is overbroad. Consent to academic evaluation is not necessarily consent to every allegedly disability-linked formulation or private continuation discussion. The report also acknowledges subjective offense.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: A reasonable doctoral student expects candid performance critique and questions about academic continuation.

Best reply: Yes, ordinary critique is expected. The required analysis remains statement-specific and should not collapse objective reasonableness into blanket consent.

Status: Policy Application Dispute. Priority: medium high.

3. Based on disability

Report treatment: Rejected as remote, trivial, or speculative.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Knowledge and disability-linked performance concerns create some circumstantial context, but direct nexus evidence is limited. The principal defect is that motive was resolved without Respondent 2 testimony.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The comments addressed facially legitimate performance, funding, and program-continuation subjects; no disability reference appears.

Best reply: That is strong merits evidence. The narrower reply is that the report should not convert incomplete motive evidence into an affirmative certainty and should examine the speaker.

Status: Weak Merits Challenge Strong Method Challenge. Priority: medium high.

4. Severe, pervasive, or persistent / substantial interference

Report treatment: Rejected; CRO deems three comments collectively insufficient and nominal compared with the academic decisions.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The limited number of comments is a strong UCLA defense. The report’s comparison to ‘legitimate’ underlying decisions is somewhat circular, and it does not fully separate effect from merits.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Three isolated communications, none threatening, cannot meet the threshold and did not independently limit participation.

Best reply: This is likely UCLA’s strongest point. Preserve the issue without overstatement; seek accurate context and effect evidence, but recognize the threshold risk.

Status: Strong Ucla Defense. Priority: medium high.

5. Academic freedom

Report treatment: CRO says curriculum-performance feedback and scholarship inquiry fall squarely within academic freedom.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Academic freedom plausibly covers genuine performance feedback. The private April 2 program-continuation email and an alleged denial of a conditional offer require separate analysis and are not self-evidently course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Mentor selection, scholarly readiness, and lab performance are core academic judgments.

Best reply: Academic judgment deserves weight but is not a categorical exemption from nondiscrimination review; apply the policy to each statement and decision.

Status: Statement Specific Dispute. Priority: medium high.

Finding 5: Disability-based harassment through relaying Individual A’s opinion and mentioning ‘internalized self-loathing’

Respondent: Respondent 3 — Dr. Felix Schweizer.

Formal conclusion: It is more likely than not that Respondent 3 did not violate University policy prohibiting harassment based on a disability.

1. Challenged conduct

Report treatment: Two statements are identified: relaying that Individual A doubted Cooper could complete a PhD, and mentioning an article about internalized self-loathing.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The report records the statements only through Cooper’s account; neither Respondent 3 nor Individual A was interviewed.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Even accepting Cooper’s account, one statement answered his question and the other was a vague isolated remark.

Best reply: That is a strong threshold defense, but the actual context and motive remain unknown because the relevant speakers were not interviewed.

Status: Conduct Recorded Context Unknown. Priority: medium.

2. Subjectively and objectively unwelcome

Report treatment: Rejected. CRO says Cooper invited the Individual A statement by asking why he was declined and hypothesizes that his meeting notes invited discussion of self-worth.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Asking for a reason does not necessarily consent to the form of the answer. More importantly, the self-loathing explanation is expressly hypothetical: Respondent 3 ‘could reasonably have interpreted’ the notes as an invitation.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: A reasonable student seeking candid reasons should expect difficult feedback, and Cooper’s own notes raised insecurity and self-worth.

Best reply: That context is relevant but not conclusive. The report should retain missing context as unknown rather than construct a respondent-favorable motive without interviewing him.

Status: Unsupported Benign Inference. Priority: medium.

3. Based on disability

Report treatment: Rejected; no more than remote, trivial, or speculative nexus.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Direct nexus evidence is limited. The report nevertheless states Respondent 3’s ‘clear motivation’ without his testimony.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: The Individual A statement concerned academic capability; the self-loathing remark never mentioned disability.

Best reply: That is strong facial evidence. The narrower response is that ‘clear motivation’ cannot be established from silence and should be tested through testimony.

Status: Weak Merits Challenge Strong Method Challenge. Priority: medium.

4. Severe, pervasive, or persistent / substantial impact

Report treatment: Rejected because two isolated comments were not sufficiently severe and did not limit access.

Record-grounded audit assessment: The small number and limited record are strong UCLA defenses. The report does not deeply analyze Cooper’s claimed shock or the power imbalance, but that may not change the threshold.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Two nonthreatening remarks, one relayed and one vague, cannot reasonably satisfy the harassment threshold.

Best reply: Acknowledge the threshold difficulty; preserve context, effect, and cumulative environment for hearing without promising a favorable result.

Status: Strong Ucla Defense. Priority: medium.

5. Academic freedom

Report treatment: The relayed academic-capability feedback is treated as protected academic feedback.

Record-grounded audit assessment: Academic-capability feedback plausibly implicates academic freedom. The self-loathing statement is not self-evidently related to curricular performance, and the report does not make a statement-specific policy showing.

Strongest UCLA counterargument: Faculty and program chairs must be free to discuss academic readiness and mentoring fit.

Best reply: Agreed as to legitimate academic evaluation; academic freedom does not explain or immunize unrelated disability-linked commentary if proved.

Status: Partly Applicable. Priority: medium.

EXHIBIT A TO R PAGE INDEX

Summary

Page Index

REPORT EXHIBIT RECORD CONTRADICTION MATRIX

Summary

Contradictions

OMITTED EVIDENCE AND WITNESS MATRIX

Summary

Omitted Evidence

Witness Proffers

Methodology and Fairness Analysis

Bottom line

The July 29 report is facially complete as a transmitted report, but its method creates several material hearing issues. The strongest argument is not that Procedure 230.2 required CRO to interview every proposed person. It did not. The stronger, narrower point is that CRO made outcome-determinative findings about knowledge, reasons, timing, academic practices, comparative treatment, and causation after interviewing only Cooper, while declining to interview all three respondents and every other identified witness. A hearing is the express mechanism for presenting witnesses, testing adverse evidence, and creating findings from the evidence presented there.

The principal methodology issues are:

1. findings about respondent knowledge and reasons without respondent interviews;

2. a comparator conclusion made expressly “without looking into this any further”;

3. a non-itemized exclusion of hundreds of pages as insufficiently relevant and/or redundant;

4. use of a later interim policy and other outcome-bearing authorities without a source-by-source applicability analysis;

5. an unclear formal disposition of the request-for-accommodation retaliation theory; and

6. multiple findings that convert documentary fragments or attributed accounts into broad conclusions without live testing.

These issues support focused hearing development. They do not, by themselves, prove bias, bad faith, a policy violation, or that any omitted witness would have changed the result.

Controlling procedural baseline

Procedure 230.2 requires the ADA/504 Compliance Officer to ensure “a thorough factual investigation and analysis of relevant policies” and to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, whether Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation occurred and caused harm. The report must contain findings of fact, a discrimination/retaliation conclusion, and harm analysis. [Procedure 230.2, §VI.A.1–2, printed pp. 4–5 / file pp. 4–5.]

Attachment B describes the process as fair and equitable and says the parties should have reasonable access to sources of information and advice on fair terms. [Attachment B, §I.C, printed p. 1 / Procedure file p. 12.]

The hearing is not merely written reconsideration of the investigator’s work. The parties may present evidence and witnesses and cross-examine each other’s witnesses; evidence is limited to the written grievance and matters reasonably related to it, and must be material on which reasonable persons rely in serious affairs. The Hearing Officer makes findings from the evidence presented at the hearing under a preponderance standard. [Procedure 230.2, §VI.B.3–8, printed pp. 5–6.]

No cited provision:

• requires an investigator to interview every proposed witness;

• creates formal discovery, subpoena power, or compulsory process;

• makes noncitation proof of nonconsideration;

• requires CRO to itemize every rejected document; or

• makes a methodological shortcoming an automatic merits finding.

What the report says it did

Issue analysis

1. Findings about knowledge and reasons without direct respondent evidence

The report concludes that:

• Bisley lacked notice of a need for an additional disability accommodation and acted consistently with existing CAE arrangements; [Report pp. 24–28.]

• Bearden declined mentorship for funding and performance reasons, not disability; [Report pp. 28–32.]

• Schweizer and the committee recommended academic disqualification for legitimate insufficient-progress reasons, not disability or a request for accommodation. [Report pp. 32–36.]

Those conclusions are based on contemporaneous communications, academic documents, Cooper’s interviews, and program statements contained in the DGE record, not on direct interviews of the three respondents. Documentary evidence can support findings, and Procedure 230.2 does not require a respondent interview. The material fairness question is more specific: whether live testimony would add noncumulative evidence about knowledge, criteria, timing, decision processes, alternatives considered, and the authenticity or completeness of the stated reasons.

Hearing use: identify no more than two or three decisive topics for each respondent and ask the Hearing Officer to require a complete contemporaneous basis for each stated reason. Avoid a generalized demand to “redo the investigation.”

Strongest UCLA response: the contemporaneous documents and Cooper’s own admissions were sufficient; respondent interviews would have been cumulative; the investigator reasonably declined them.

Narrow reply: that response may prevail on some issues. It does not resolve issues that turn on direct knowledge or intent, such as Bearden’s precise mentorship criteria and March communications, Schweizer’s committee chronology and the relationship between the April 28 rationale and later grounds, or Bisley’s understanding of the complete February 11 email.

2. Comparator analysis was expressly truncated

The report acknowledges Cooper’s comparator involving a student who completed six rotations, then states the cases were “sufficiently distinguishable without looking into this any further.” [Report p. 33 n.71.] The report may ultimately be correct that the comparator was not similarly situated because the other student first secured a mentor and later re-entered the matching process. The methodology issue is that the report drew that conclusion without confirming the program rule, the complete histories, or consistent criteria.

Hearing use: seek aggregate or privacy-protected evidence of the governing rotation criteria and the bases for extensions, not unrestricted access to another student’s record. A comparator witness should be used only with confirmed firsthand knowledge, consent where needed, and a concrete similarity foundation.

Strongest UCLA response: the admitted distinction was dispositive, and privacy and academic differences made further inquiry unnecessary.

Narrow reply: test only whether the distinction actually controlled under a preexisting program criterion and whether “unprecedented” treatment was accurately characterized. If the admitted distinction is dispositive, concede it.

3. Non-itemized exclusion of hundreds of pages prevents item-specific review

CRO’s statement that it considered all submissions is evidence of consideration. Noncitation is not proof of nonconsideration. The problem is narrower: because the report groups hundreds of pages into the labels “insufficiently relevant” and/or “redundant,” Cooper cannot determine whether a particular load-bearing item was considered-but-not-cited, deemed cumulative, outside scope, unavailable, or rejected on another ground.

Hearing use: submit a short table limited to material items:

1. native identifier and proof of submission;

2. exact proposition;

3. allegation/element affected;

4. why it is noncumulative;

5. report treatment if identifiable; and

6. requested admission or clarification.

Do not submit the full upload index as merits proof. An index establishes listed submission activity; the underlying native exhibit establishes content and authenticity.

Strongest UCLA response: Procedure 230.2 does not require an exhaustive evidentiary appendix, and an investigator may reasonably exclude cumulative submissions.

Narrow reply: agree, but require an item-specific answer only for a small number of outcome-bearing exhibits so that the Hearing Officer can decide admissibility and weight.

4. Credibility and inference without transparent criteria

The report says disputed facts will be substantiated where possible and otherwise evaluated for credibility. [Report p. 7 n.5.] It then:

• finds Cooper’s same-day M203 explanation contradicted by an earlier statement that he felt unprepared; [Report p. 25.]

• makes reasonableness judgments about when he should have recognized his need; [Report p. 25.]

• credits Bearden’s funding and performance explanations without interviewing her; [Report pp. 29–32.]

• infers that a disqualification recommendation was already very likely by March 31; [Report pp. 34–35.]

• treats several comments as invited, consented to, constructive, or legitimate academic critique. [Report pp. 38–41.]

Not every inference is a credibility finding, and the report does not expressly say it disbelieved Cooper wholesale. The hearing presentation should therefore isolate the exact inference, the evidence on both sides, and why live testimony or a complete document thread changes the evaluation.

5. Retaliation disposition should be clarified

The NOI and Notice of Outcome describe the Schweizer discrimination allegation as based on disability “and/or request for accommodation.” The report analyzes Cooper’s theory that the disqualification recommendation followed the March 31 accommodation request and calls that theory speculative. [Report pp. 33–35.] The formal findings, however, label the outcome as disability discrimination and do not separately state whether Retaliation—as defined in Procedure 230.2—occurred. [Report pp. 2, 42.]

This is not a claim that the theory was ignored. The report plainly discusses it. The question is whether that discussion constitutes the required formal conclusion on Retaliation, or whether CRO treated the request-for-accommodation theory only as discrimination causation.

Requested hearing clarification: identify the exact retaliation allegation within the written grievance, determine whether it is within the hearing’s “written grievance or reasonably related” scope, and issue a separate conclusion if it is properly before the Hearing Officer.

6. Harm analysis is dispersed rather than expressly mapped

Procedure 230.2 says the report will analyze whether the alleged act, incident, or behavior resulted in harm. The report identifies several consequences—for example, Bearden’s decision “inherently impaired” prospects for advancement and Schweizer’s recommendation initiated the disqualification path—but does not present a separate allegation-by-allegation harm table. [Report pp. 29, 33.]

This is likely a form issue rather than an independent outcome-changing defect. Use it to request clear findings and remedy predicates at hearing, not as a standalone claim that the report is void.

Focused cure requested through the hearing

Ask the Hearing Officer to:

1. define the hearing issues allegation by allegation, including whether a separate Retaliation conclusion is required;

2. require the parties to disclose the complete exhibit and witness material on which they will rely, with privacy-protective redactions where appropriate;

3. receive direct testimony only where it adds noncumulative evidence on knowledge, criteria, timing, causation, or harm;

4. require complete communication threads rather than excerpts;

5. identify the governing policy version and each outcome-bearing interpretive authority;

6. make express findings on the five report conclusions and any properly scoped retaliation theory;

7. distinguish facts, attributed accounts, program positions, credibility determinations, and inferences; and

8. state the harm and remedy analysis for any substantiated allegation.

What not to argue

• Do not say CRO interviewed “nobody”; it interviewed Cooper four times.

• Do not say respondents supplied no evidence; their communications and positions appear in documents Cooper provided.

• Do not say every identified person had to be interviewed.

• Do not say all omitted documents were ignored.

• Do not call the report fraudulent, biased, collusive, or predetermined without separate evidence.

• Do not treat a proffer as testimony or an upload index as proof of contents.

• Do not ask the Hearing Officer to decide the 2025 DGE procedural-error appeal, Bailey service defect, academic-disqualification merits, or a constitutional claim.

Policy, Scope, and Standard Analysis

Executive position

The report says Procedure 230.2 governed the investigation and that the January 1, 2026 UC Interim Anti-Discrimination Policy supplied “guidance” on relevant definitions. [Report p. 2; Notice of Outcome p. 1 n.1.] The alleged conduct occurred principally in 2024–25. The report then used additional sources to formulate outcome-bearing rules, including federal and state law, EEOC guidance, PACAOS 140, a July 2023 UCOP roles document, current CAE web text, and Jerry Kang’s June 30, 2020 interpretive memorandum.

The record supports a focused version-and-authority objection, not a categorical conclusion that the later policy was unlawfully retroactive. The hearing request should ask:

1. which text supplied each operative element;

2. whether the text was binding, incorporated, or merely persuasive;

3. which policy definition applied to conduct on each date;

4. whether any later text changed the required showing rather than clarified it; and

5. whether the parties received the complete source and a fair opportunity to address it.

Source hierarchy and status

Version issue

The attached/current UC policy expressly states an effective date of January 1, 2026. The report’s alleged events predate that date. The policy’s revision history says the policy was first issued in February 2024, but the package does not contain the complete February 2024/August 2024 conduct-date text or a source stating that the January 2026 definitions govern earlier conduct. Stage A appropriately classified the applicability question as unresolved.

The current policy contains one express transitional sentence for procedural provisions involving Registered Campus Organizations: those provisions apply to reports received after the effective date and pending matters not fully adjudicated, while the prohibited-conduct definitions at the time of the incident apply. [UC Interim Anti-Discrimination Policy, p. 18 n.2.] That footnote does not expressly establish a general transition rule for this case, but it confirms that the policy itself can distinguish current procedure from conduct-date definitions in at least one context.

Best hearing formulation:

The report identifies the January 1, 2026 interim policy as interpretive guidance for 2024–25 conduct. Please identify the operative conduct-date definition for each allegation; identify any later text used only as clarification; and explain whether the result would be the same under the conduct-date source. Cooper does not ask the Hearing Officer to presume either retroactivity or nonapplicability.

Outcome-bearing element questions

Failure to accommodate

Procedure 230.2 defines failure to accommodate and requires a student to follow University accommodation procedures before grieving. The report created a six-part test, including that Cooper “did not choose to forgo the accommodation,” based on federal/state law and EEOC guidance. [Report pp. 22–23 & n.44.] It later states Cooper “essentially waived his right” by failing to make a timely request, provide a valid medical reason, and produce requested documentation. [Report p. 28.]

Questions for the Hearing Officer:

1. What source makes “did not choose to forgo” a separately required element in this student grievance?

2. Is “waiver” the governing doctrinal label, or is timeliness/notice instead part of request, reasonableness, or University procedure?

3. Does the record show an intentional relinquishment, or only a disputed same-day request and failure to follow up?

4. Does the CAE text create a categorical seven-day bar? The quoted text says short-notice requests are reviewed case by case and that the University “may” be unable to arrange them.

5. Did the complete February 11 email—expressly mentioning CAE registration—give notice sufficient to require any clarifying inquiry, even if it did not itself establish a valid request?

6. Was a doctor’s note a permissible and necessary requirement on these facts, and what source establishes that proposition?

These questions do not erase the major contrary facts: the request came six minutes after the scheduled exam began; existing CAE accommodations were in place; Cooper did not contact CAE about rescheduling; and he did not respond with a medical reason or documentation.

Disability discrimination and causation

The report treated a protected category as a contributing cause only if it was “significant” and more than remote, trivial, or speculative, citing the Kang memorandum. [Report pp. 28–29 n.58.] The January 2026 policy text says an unfavorable action does not exist where the action would have occurred regardless of the protected category. It does not itself use the report’s “significant contributing cause” phrasing.

Questions:

1. Is the Kang standard binding University policy, an official interpretive directive, or persuasive internal guidance?

2. Was the complete memo operative for disability grievances under Procedure 230.2 during 2024–25?

3. Does the “significant” formulation alter or explain Procedure 230.2’s “on the basis of disability” language?

4. How does the test relate to the later policy’s “would have been taken regardless” sentence?

5. Would the result change under any plausible conduct-date formulation?

Retaliation

Procedure 230.2 expressly defines and prohibits Retaliation, including adverse educational action based on a report of Disability Discrimination, participation in the grievance process, or assertion of disability rights. The report discusses whether the March 31 request led to the academic-disqualification recommendation, but the formal conclusion is labeled disability discrimination “and/or request for accommodation,” not a discrete Retaliation finding. [Report pp. 33–35, 42.]

The Hearing Officer should determine:

• whether the written grievance asserted a Procedure 230.2 Retaliation theory;

• whether the theory is within the written grievance or reasonably related to it;

• the protected activity, decisionmaker knowledge, adverse action, and causation standard; and

• whether a separate formal conclusion is required.

This CRO merits lane is distinct from the DGE Bailey service defect. The 2025 service sequence is not automatically retaliation.

Harassment, “unwelcome,” and consent

The report cites the Kang memorandum for the proposition that conduct is unwelcome only where Cooper reasonably found it objectionable and neither invited nor consented to it. It then concludes that participation in a Ph.D. program invited and consented to Bearden’s feedback and that questions seeking reasons invited relayed critiques. [Report pp. 37–40.]

Questions:

1. What conduct-date policy text makes “invitation” or “consent” dispositive?

2. Does consenting to academic evaluation consent to every alleged form, wording, setting, or protected-status basis of feedback?

3. Should “unwelcome” be evaluated separately from whether conduct was based on disability and whether it was sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive?

4. Was the analysis allegation-specific as to exact words, context, audience, frequency, and effect?

The University has a strong response: routine academic feedback and an answer to a direct question can be invited, non-objectionable, and unrelated to disability. The reply is not that criticism is harassment; it is that program participation should not operate as blanket consent before the exact conduct and nexus are evaluated.

Academic freedom

The January 2026 policy requires academic-freedom consideration and describes consultation with an appropriate academic officer when an investigation implicates academic freedom. The report concludes that curricular performance feedback and an inquiry about scholarship fall squarely within academic-freedom protection. [Report pp. 39, 41.]

Questions:

1. Which academic officer, if any, was consulted, under what procedure, and on what precise question?

2. What evidence established that each disputed statement was legitimately related to course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary?

3. Was academic freedom treated as context within the harassment analysis or as a categorical exemption?

4. Does the report’s result remain the same under Procedure 230.2’s own harassment text without the later policy language?

No submission should suggest academic freedom is irrelevant or that ordinary performance feedback is actionable merely because it is upsetting.

Scope controls

CRO hearing scope

Procedure 230.2 limits the hearing to whether Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation occurred and to matters in the written grievance or reasonably related thereto, as determined by the Hearing Officer. The April 8 NOI is a critical scope map, but the procedure refers to the written grievance rather than only the NOI.

Use:

• the eight scoped acts in the NOI as the default allegation map;

• contextual actors only for notice, chronology, causation, credibility, harm, or remedy;

• no separate finding against an actor excluded from the NOI unless the Hearing Officer expressly determines the matter is properly within scope; and

• a written scope order before witness and exhibit deadlines.

DGE procedural-error lane

The Graduate Standards separately governed the 2025 procedural-error appeal. CRO itself stated before the NOI that procedural error was outside its purview, and the report repeats that a post-hoc-rationale objection belongs to DGE. [Case Record 12, Feb. 23, 2026 email; Report p. 34 n.75.]

Do not ask the Hearing Officer to reopen the DGE procedural-error decision. Evidence from that record may be used only if relevant to a properly scoped discrimination/retaliation issue or to test a source CRO relied upon.

DGE mitigation lane

DGE’s later question is whether Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance. That is not the CRO preponderance/liability test. A no-violation result does not automatically defeat mitigation; a favorable CRO result does not automatically reverse academic disqualification.

Service-defect lane

The Bailey issue concerns DGE’s admitted failure to provide the Chair response to Cooper within the same stated service period. It supports a bounded record-integrity request. It is not, without additional proof, CRO discrimination, retaliation, academic mitigation, or a constitutional violation.

Constitutional/external lane

Any due process, judicial review, mandamus, external-agency, limitations, immunity, exhaustion, or protected-interest theory is reserved for qualified counsel. None is established by the report or Bailey correspondence alone.

Requested authority protocol for the hearing

Ask for an order requiring each party to identify, before the hearing:

1. every policy, law, guidance document, memorandum, website, or interpretive source it will ask the Hearing Officer to apply;

2. title, issuer, version, effective date, URL or native copy, and exact proposition;

3. whether the source is asserted to be binding, incorporated, or persuasive;

4. the conduct date(s) to which it applies;

5. any transition or retroactivity provision;

6. whether it was included in Exhibit A or otherwise disclosed; and

7. whether a different conduct-date source would change the result.

Official-source verification

As of July 29, 2026:

• UCLA’s official APP site continues to publish Procedure 230.2 and its hearing framework: https://

• UCLA DGE continues to publish the September 2025 Standards handbook: https://

• UCLA Academic Senate Appendix VI continues to direct graduate-disqualification appeals to the Graduate Council-approved Standards: https://

• The reviewed current public sources still do not disclose the referenced CDP-approved personal-appearance procedures.

• UC’s official policy site identifies the Interim Anti-Discrimination Policy as issued December 1, 2025 and effective January 1, 2026: https://

Hearing Versus Written Comments

Recommendation

The verified record produces a strong hearing signal. If Cooper wishes to challenge the five adverse findings, the preferred route is a timely, protective hearing request followed by a focused grounds, witness, and exhibit package. Written comments are the fallback only if Cooper decides not to seek live fact development, cannot responsibly prepare a hearing record, or receives focused counsel advice that a different route better protects his objectives.

The recommendation rests primarily on concrete live-evidence value:

• CRO interviewed none of the three respondents and none of the other identified persons;

• the report made findings about respondent knowledge, reasons, decision timing, program practice, and causation;

• the report terminated comparator inquiry “without looking into this any further”;

• the report excluded, without itemization, hundreds of pages as insufficiently relevant and/or redundant;

• outcome-bearing “waiver,” significant-contributing-cause, invitation/consent, and academic-freedom rationales depend on sources and applicability questions not fully disclosed in Exhibit A; and

• the request-for-accommodation retaliation theory is discussed but not separately labeled in the formal findings.

This is not a prediction that a hearing will produce a favorable result. It is a judgment that a live record can add material, noncumulative evidence that comments cannot.

Protective date control

The native email transmitted the report on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 at 1:39 p.m. PDT. Attachment B defines “issuance” as the date of transmission. Procedure 230.2 defines Days as University business days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and days the campus is closed.

The source does not say whether the transmission day is counted. With no confirmed campus closure between July 29 and August 12:

These are hypothetical procedural calculations, not deadline advice. Verify recipient, time of receipt, extensions, campus closures, and any UCLA confirmation. Procedure 230.2 permits reasonable written extension requests for good cause.

The Notice of Outcome directs a hearing request to ada@saonet.ucla.edu or by phone at (310) 825-7102. The main Procedure and Attachment B describe written notice. Use written email, preserve the native sent item and delivery record, and request receipt confirmation. No message has been sent.

Weighted scorecard

The V2 decision system assigns positive values to hearing factors and negative values to comment factors. The following actual-report scoring uses the workbook’s 0–5 intensity scale and weights. It is decision support, not a legal rule.

Score sensitivity

Even if F01, F02, F04, and F06 are reduced to zero, the remaining score is +41. The recommendation therefore does not depend on claiming a proven factual error, formal credibility finding, or omitted allegation. It principally depends on the absence of direct witnesses, contestable evidence treatment, and concrete examination value.

Hard-trigger screen

Why comments are insufficient for the principal disputes

Comments can:

• identify exact textual or arithmetic errors;

• preserve favorable factual statements;

• challenge policy version and legal elements;

• submit a short DGE mitigation crosswalk; and

• request clarification or correction.

Comments cannot:

• require direct answers from Bisley, Bearden, Schweizer, the investigator, or other witnesses;

• cross-examine University witnesses;

• create a live record on knowledge, criteria, timing, reasons, or disputed statements;

• test whether a complete communication changes the meaning of an excerpt; or

• obtain a Hearing Officer’s independent findings from evidence presented at a hearing.

The Procedure says that if no hearing is requested, the report becomes final through the no-hearing route after comments are appended. Attachment B also uses “accepts” language that is not defined. A comments-only submission should not assume it preserves a later right to a hearing.

Hearing downside analysis

Route-changing facts

Reassess toward comments if:

• UCLA agrees to a written correction that removes the material factual and scope issues;

• the respondents and necessary witnesses will not appear and no other live evidence has noncumulative value;

• the complete evidence proves the disputed issues are wholly documentary;

• Cooper’s objective is limited to preserving report facts for DGE, not changing CRO findings; or

• qualified counsel identifies a route-specific waiver, exhaustion, finality, or strategic risk that outweighs live development.

Reinforce the hearing recommendation if:

• UCLA plans to present any respondent or program witness;

• a respondent’s direct reason differs from the report’s inferred reason;

• a source relied on by the report was not disclosed or cannot be authenticated;

• the comparator rule/practice is disputed and privacy-protected proof is available;

• CRO cannot identify the treatment of a load-bearing submitted exhibit;

• the Hearing Officer confirms a separate Retaliation issue is within scope; or

• DGE indicates it will rely on the initial adverse report while the hearing route remains active.

Protective request content

A minimal written request should:

1. identify the July 29, 2026 report and case number;

2. state unequivocally that Cooper requests a formal hearing because he disagrees with the findings;

3. state whether Cooper will be assisted by a representative, name that person, and state whether the person is an attorney; if undecided, obtain immediate written guidance rather than inventing an answer;

4. include any required release if a representative will receive materials;

5. preserve the July 29 counting ambiguity without conceding a later deadline;

6. ask for written receipt confirmation, Hearing Officer designation, scope/case-management process, and witness/exhibit schedule; and

7. ask that DGE sequencing be coordinated without assuming what event completes the investigation.

Do not put the entire merits brief in the initial request unless UCLA directs otherwise. The current goal is an unambiguous, timely election with enough detail to preserve the material issues.

Decision ledger

• Recommended: protective Procedure 230.2 hearing request, followed by focused hearing package.

• Fallback: written comments only after an informed decision not to seek live development.

• Separate and simultaneous: neutral DGE notice, materials/clock request, and Bailey preservation.

• Counsel review before election if feasible:, representation, policy-version, and external deadline questions.

• No action taken: this strategy package has not contacted UCLA or submitted anything.

Minimal Hearing Request - Ready to Send

To: ada@saonet.ucla.edu Subject: Timely request for formal grievance hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 - Cooper Beaman

Dear ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office,

I disagree with all five adverse findings in the Civil Rights Office investigation report concerning Dr. James Bisley, Dr. Carrie Bearden, and Dr. Felix Schweizer, issued by email transmission on July 29, 2026. I timely request a formal grievance hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2.

For clarity, I dispute the findings that:

1. Respondent 1 did not fail to accommodate me;

2. Respondent 2 did not discriminate against me based on disability;

3. Respondent 3 did not discriminate against me based on disability and/or a request for accommodation;

4. Respondent 2 did not harass me based on disability; and

5. Respondent 3 did not harass me based on disability.

I will not be assisted by a representative at this time.

This protective request preserves my disagreement with the findings and my right to present focused grounds, evidence, witnesses, and procedural objections after confirmation of the complete administrative record and the hearing schedule. It does not waive any favorable factual admission, request for clarification or less-redacted material, DGE/CDP position, post-hearing right, appeal right, or other available remedy.

Please confirm receipt and timeliness, route this request to the Grievance Coordinator as needed, and provide the next scheduling, Hearing Officer, record-access, and evidence/witness-disclosure steps. I will be traveling August 3 through August 11, 2026. I request remote participation or mutually agreeable scheduling after August 11, without conceding or altering any deadline.

Sincerely,

Cooper Beaman

Optional representative replacement - use only if accurate

If a representative has actually been selected before sending, replace the sentence “I will not be assisted by a representative at this time” with:

I will be assisted by [REPRESENTATIVE NAME], who [IS / IS NOT] an attorney. I will promptly complete any release UCLA requires for that person to receive case materials.

Do not leave brackets in the email. Do not identify a representative who has not agreed to serve.

Procedure 230.2 Hearing and Post-Hearing Package

Protective hearing request draft

Do not send until the representative fields and service channel are verified.

To: ADA/504 Compliance Office, at the hearing-request channel stated in the July 29 Notice of Outcome Subject: Timely request for formal hearing — the CRO grievance

I, Cooper Beaman, request a formal hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 concerning the investigation report transmitted to me on July 29, 2026 at 1:39 p.m. PDT in the CRO grievance.

I disagree with the report’s five findings that:

1. Respondent 1 did not fail to accommodate me;

2. Respondent 2 did not discriminate against me based on disability;

3. Respondent 3 did not discriminate against me based on disability and/or a request for accommodation;

4. Respondent 2 did not harass me based on disability; and

5. Respondent 3 did not harass me based on disability.

My principal hearing grounds are:

• the report made outcome-bearing findings about respondent knowledge, reasons, timing, academic practices, causation, and disputed statements without interviewing any respondent or other identified person;

• direct and cross-examination can add noncumulative evidence concerning the M203 request, the fifth-rotation/mentorship decision, the March 31 request and disqualification chronology, and the alleged comments;

• the report expressly ended comparator inquiry “without looking into this any further” and did not itemize hundreds of pages it classified as insufficiently relevant and/or redundant;

• the report used the January 1, 2026 interim UC policy and additional authorities to formulate outcome-bearing waiver, causation, invitation/consent, and academic-freedom rules for 2024–25 conduct without a complete conduct-date applicability analysis; and

• the report discusses the request-for-accommodation retaliation theory but does not separately label a Retaliation conclusion in its formal findings.

This request does not assert that every identified person had to be interviewed, that every submitted document had to be cited, or that a policy-version question has already been resolved in my favor. I request a focused hearing at which the material facts and governing sources can be tested under the preponderance standard.

Representative disclosure — select and complete one before service:

• [ ] I will not be assisted by a representative at this time.

• [ ] I will be assisted by [FULL NAME], who is not an attorney and is not otherwise a party or witness.

• [ ] I will be assisted by attorney [FULL NAME].

If a representative will receive relevant materials, I will provide the release required by the Procedure’s summary table. Please advise immediately if UCLA requires a particular form.

Please confirm receipt in writing; identify the Hearing Officer and any conflict-challenge process; provide the schedule and approved submission method; and establish deadlines for a scope statement, policy/source disclosures, witnesses, exhibits, authenticity stipulations, and any accessibility request. Please also confirm how later hearing materials will be coordinated with DGE without treating this request as a concession concerning the source-silent DGE completion milestone.

I submit this request by the earliest plausible protective date calculated from the July 29 transmission. I do not concede that the transmission day is counted or excluded for every purpose.

Sincerely, Cooper M. Beaman [DATE OF SERVICE]

Detailed grounds addendum

Ground 1 — Material live-evidence gap

The report interviewed Cooper on four dates but interviewed none of the three respondents and none of the other identified persons. [Report pp. 4–5.] It nevertheless found what respondents knew, why they acted, when decisions were made, and whether their actions were based on disability or protected activity. The requested hearing testimony is limited to direct, outcome-bearing topics that documents do not conclusively resolve.

Ground 2 — M203 request, notice, and “waiver”

The complete February 11 email expressly states that Cooper was registered with CAE for testing accommodations, requested a later exam, and described concurrent rotation, placement, and funding demands. [Report pp. 24–26; Ex. D.] The request was sent at 9:06 a.m. after the 9:00 start, a major adverse fact Cooper concedes. The report concludes the email did not communicate disability interference, was untimely, and “essentially waived” accommodation. [Report pp. 25–28.] Bisley’s direct understanding, the exact role of existing accommodations, any clarifying inquiry or alternative, and the source for the separate waiver formulation have noncumulative value.

Ground 3 — Bearden’s contemporaneous criteria and knowledge

The report finds Bearden’s decision impaired advancement and was based on funding and performance. [Report pp. 29–32.] It also establishes that she learned on January 30 that Cooper connected ADHD to deadline freezing and that she discussed CAE and a structured plan. [Report pp. 29–30.] Direct evidence is material to the relative weight of funding, performance, organization/time management, the March 11/17 discussions, project priorities, and the April 2 email.

Ground 4 — Schweizer chronology, committee basis, and protected-activity theory

The report finds legitimate insufficient progress and rejects the theory that the March 31 request caused the recommendation. [Report pp. 33–36.] Direct evidence is material to what had been decided before March 31, who knew of the request, what the committee considered, the relationship between the April 28 rationale and later grounds, and whether the formal hearing report should include a separate Retaliation conclusion.

Ground 5 — Comparator and evidence-treatment methodology

The report calls the six-rotation comparator distinguishable “without looking into this any further” and says hundreds of additional pages were not relied on but were not itemized. [Report p. 33 n.71; p. 7 n.4.] Cooper seeks only privacy-protected program criteria and a short, authenticated noncumulative-exhibit table. He does not infer nonconsideration from noncitation.

Ground 6 — Conduct-date policy and undisclosed interpretive sources

The report calls the January 1, 2026 interim UC policy “guidance” for conduct in 2024–25, and relies on EEOC, PACAOS, UCOP, CAE web, and Kang sources for outcome-bearing rules. [Report pp. 2–3, 22–29, 36–41.] The Hearing Officer should require complete copies and identify the operative conduct-date source, the status of each authority, and whether the result is the same under Procedure 230.2’s own text.

Requested disposition

Cooper requests allegation-specific hearing findings, a separate disposition of any properly scoped Retaliation theory, identification of the operative policy/standard, correction of unsupported conclusions, preservation of supported adverse and favorable facts, and authority-matched remedies or referrals. He does not ask the Hearing Officer to adjudicate the DGE procedural-error appeal, Bailey service defect, DGE mitigation, or constitutional theories.

Use and evidence boundary

This is private strategy work, not a filed hearing request. It assumes Cooper elects a hearing by the earliest plausible protective date. Every witness proposition below is anticipated and unconfirmed unless it appears in an authenticated exhibit or is admitted at hearing. A proffer, interview transcript, upload index, or report attribution is not testimony.

The hearing is limited to Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation raised in the written grievance or reasonably related thereto, as determined by the Hearing Officer. It is not the forum to decide:

• the merits of the 2025 DGE procedural-error appeal;

• whether the Bailey service defect independently invalidated the DGE decision;

• whether DGE must find mitigation;

• whether an academic grade or degree must be changed outside the authorized academic process; or

• constitutional, mandamus, external-agency, limitations, immunity, or damages theories.

Initial case-management requests

Ask the Hearing Officer or Grievance Coordinator for a written case-management order addressing:

1. Issue statement. Identify each of the five report findings and the underlying NOI acts; clarify whether the request-for-accommodation theory requires a separate Retaliation conclusion.

2. Scope. State which written-grievance matters are in scope and which contextual matters may be used only for notice, chronology, causation, credibility, harm, or remedy.

3. Policy and authority disclosure. Require each party to identify every policy, version, law, guidance document, memorandum, and website it will ask the Hearing Officer to apply, with exact proposition and binding/persuasive status.

4. Exhibit disclosure. Require complete native or reliably authenticated versions of all exhibits, including full communication threads and legible/redacted copies.

5. Witness disclosure. Require name, role, firsthand topics, and noncumulative purpose at least five Days before hearing; request seven Days if feasible to permit meaningful preparation.

6. Respondent attendance. Ask the University to confirm whether Bisley, Bearden, and Schweizer will appear and, if not, how the Hearing Officer will assess report findings about their knowledge and reasons.

7. Investigator attendance. Ask whether the report author will testify on nonprivileged methodology, source, and evidence-treatment questions.

8. Authentication/stipulations. Establish a deadline for stipulations to authenticity, transmission dates, and complete threads so hearing time is reserved for disputed issues.

9. Privacy protections. Use redaction, aggregate evidence, restricted exhibits, or proposition-level stipulations for student or personnel privacy; do not request unrestricted confidential records.

10. Order of proof. Confirm Cooper presents first and may cross University witnesses, consistent with Procedure 230.2.

11. Witness sequestration. Confirm witnesses attend only during testimony unless the Hearing Officer directs otherwise.

12. Recording. Confirm the single verbatim recording, preservation, post-hearing access procedure, and any accessibility arrangement.

13. Remote/hybrid procedure. Confirm platform, document display, private consultation, technical-failure protocol, identity verification, and accessibility.

14. Representative. Confirm Cooper’s representative, release, and permitted role. If the representative is an attorney, account for the Procedure’s University-counsel provision.

15. Schedule. Complete the hearing within 60 Days of report issuance unless a written good-cause extension is granted; define the “close of hearing” if there are multiple sessions.

16. Written rulings. Request written or on-record rulings on material scope, admissibility, policy-version, and conflict issues.

17. Later DGE use. Ask that the final hearing report identify superseded or supplemented findings so DGE can distinguish the initial report from the hearing record.

No cited provision supplies subpoena power. Frame attendance as a request for University coordination, not a claim of compulsory process.

Proposed issue architecture

Issue 1 — Bisley / M203 accommodation

Determine:

• what the complete February 11 email communicated, including CAE registration;

• what Bisley knew about Cooper’s disability and existing accommodations;

• whether the email was a request for a disability-related modification or only a request for more preparation time;

• whether any clarifying inquiry or alternative was reasonably available after the 9:06 a.m. request;

• what role timeliness, documentation, and CAE procedure played;

• whether “essential waiver” is an authorized and supported conclusion; and

• what academic harm, if any, resulted.

Issue 2 — Bearden / mentorship decision

Determine:

• the contemporaneous criteria for accepting a primary mentee;

• the relative role of funding, rotation performance, academic fit, and organization/time-management concerns;

• what Bearden knew on January 30 and thereafter;

• whether the March 11 discussion included a conditional offer and, if so, its terms;

• the meaning and decision use of the April 2 “allow him to stay in NSIDP” email; and

• whether disability was a contributing basis under the operative standard.

Issue 3 — Bearden / alleged harassment

For each of the three scoped acts, determine exact words, context, audience, frequency, protected-status nexus, objective and subjective effect, and academic-freedom relationship. Do not aggregate routine academic feedback with unrelated statements before deciding whether each act occurred and how it should be weighted.

Issue 4 — Schweizer / disqualification recommendation and request-for-accommodation theory

Determine:

• the contemporaneous grounds and committee process;

• what was decided before and after the March 31 CAE request;

• who knew about the request and when;

• whether the April 28 notice’s wording and later grounds are consistent;

• whether a request for accommodation contributed to the recommendation under the operative Retaliation/discrimination test; and

• the proper role of the comparator evidence.

The Hearing Officer should not decide whether the separate academic procedure was correctly followed, except to the limited extent a procedural fact is evidence of knowledge, chronology, causation, harm, or pretext within CRO scope.

Issue 5 — Schweizer / alleged harassment

For the relayed Ophoff opinion and the “internalized self-loathing” remark, determine exact words, source, context, invitation, disability nexus, audience, frequency, effect, and academic-freedom relationship. Ophoff’s own conduct was excluded from the NOI; Schweizer’s relay was scoped.

Exhibit plan

All exhibits require final page labels, authenticity, complete context, and a one-sentence relevance statement.

Tier 1 — presumptively necessary

Tier 2 — use only if noncumulative and authenticated

Exclude or hold

• prior AI analysis;

• unsent sur-rebuttal advocacy as proof;

• literature offered to prove individual causation without a proper expert or adjudicative basis;

• upload indexes as proof of exhibit content;

• cumulative character witnesses without firsthand material knowledge;

• private comparator information lacking a legitimate, protected method of presentation;

• settlement communications, privileged material, or unrelated personal information.

Witness priorities

Every witness must be confirmed. The order below is strategic priority, not proof that the witness will attend or testify as anticipated.

Do not call every proffered witness. A lean case is stronger: Cooper, the three respondents, the investigator, one CAE witness, and only one or two independent witnesses tied to decisive issues.

Direct examination of Cooper

Use open, non-leading questions. Do not ask Cooper to state another person’s motive or a legal conclusion.

Foundation and chronology

1. State your program, matriculation period, and status during the events.

2. What written Academic Plan did you receive on November 19, 2024?

3. What did you understand the three principal benchmarks to be?

4. Which contemporaneous records did you create or receive, and how do you recognize them?

Disability and functional limitations

1. What accommodations had CAE approved before February 2025?

2. What functional limitations did you experience, in your own experience, concerning organization, planning, and time management?

3. When did stress and sleep loss affect those functions, if at all?

4. Distinguish what CAE formally approved from what you later wanted to explore.

M203

1. Walk through the complete February 11 email and its 9:06 a.m. timestamp.

2. Why did you mention CAE registration?

3. What change did you request?

4. What response did you receive?

5. What did you do next, and why?

6. What is the strongest fact against your position—the timing after the scheduled start—and how do you understand it?

7. What course or academic consequence followed?

Fifth rotation and mentor decision

1. What written expectations did you receive and when?

2. What did Bearden say on January 30 after you disclosed ADHD-related deadline freezing?

3. What project priorities changed, if any, and what document supports your recollection?

4. What do you recall about the March 11 and March 17 discussions? Identify the limits of your recollection.

5. What happened at the March 12 presentation?

6. What did the April 2 email communicate to you, and what practical effect did it have?

March 31 request and disqualification chronology

1. What did you request from CAE on March 31?

2. What occurred in the March 31 meeting with Schweizer?

3. What written notice followed on April 1 and April 28?

4. Which facts support your timing theory, and which facts remain unknown to you?

Alleged comments and harm

1. State the exact words you remember, the setting, and who was present for each scoped comment.

2. What made each comment objectionable to you?

3. Did you ask for feedback or reasons? If so, explain the distinction you draw between inviting information and consenting to the alleged form or basis of the statement.

4. What concrete effect did the conduct or decision have on participation in the program?

5. What narrow outcome are you requesting from the Hearing Officer?

Cross-examination objectives

These are topics, not assumptions about testimony.

James Bisley

1. Establish receipt time and whether he read the entire February 11 message.

2. Confirm the message expressly said Cooper was registered with CAE for testing accommodations.

3. Identify what he understood Cooper to be requesting.

4. Identify what he knew about Cooper’s existing accommodations and whether he checked the letter.

5. Ask whether he sought clarification about a disability-related need.

6. Ask what alternatives were available after 9:06 and what actually occurred when Cooper arrived.

7. Establish the source and ordinary use of any doctor’s-note requirement.

8. Identify the academic consequence of the midterm and any later opportunity.

9. Concede the late request and test only whether the full context changed the response obligation.

Carrie Bearden

1. Identify all contemporaneous criteria for accepting a primary mentee.

2. Allocate the relative role of funding, performance, fit, lab capacity, and organization/time management.

3. Confirm the origin and purpose of the February 19 written expectations and whether they were unusual.

4. Establish what she learned from the January 30 ADHD disclosure.

5. Ask what structure or assistance she offered and whether any follow-up occurred.

6. Clarify project-priority changes and whether completion of the original project remained expected.

7. Determine whether a conditional offer was made March 11; if denied, identify the complete contemporaneous support.

8. Identify the criteria applied to the March 12 presentation and March 17 decision.

9. Place the April 2 email in its complete thread and ask what “still on the table” meant.

10. Ask whether disability itself, disability-related performance effects, a request for help, or anticipated accommodation played any role.

11. Separate academic feedback from the exact alleged statements and their setting.

Felix Schweizer

1. Identify Academic Plan authors, criteria, and who decided the fifth rotation.

2. Identify the committee, meeting date, vote or decision process, and contemporaneous record for disqualification.

3. Establish what was decided before March 31, what remained open, and what he said in the March 31 meeting.

4. Establish when he learned of the March 31 CAE request.

5. Compare the April 28 stated grounds with later references to the M203 and rotation grade.

6. Identify the basis for “unprecedented fifth rotation” and the criteria for additional rotations.

7. Explain the comparator distinction and whether any aggregate program records support it.

8. Identify the source and exact context of the relayed Ophoff opinion.

9. Identify the exact “internalized self-loathing” remark, article/context, and purpose.

10. Ask whether assertion of accommodation rights played any role in timing or recommendation.

11. Do not ask Schweizer to decide the Bailey service defect or DGE appellate authority.

Investigator/report author

1. Confirm the operative written grievance, NOI scope, and five formal findings.

2. Clarify whether Retaliation received a separate formal disposition.

3. Explain why each respondent was unnecessary to interview despite findings about knowledge and reasons.

4. Identify what evidence supplied each respondent’s reason and whether it was independently verified.

5. Explain how the six-rotation comparator was deemed distinguishable “without looking into this any further.”

6. Identify the inventory or method used to classify the non-itemized hundreds of pages as irrelevant/redundant.

7. For each selected omitted exhibit, state: considered but not cited, cumulative, irrelevant, out of scope, unavailable, or other.

8. Identify every policy/source used for the six-element accommodation test and “waiver.”

9. Identify the status and disclosure of the Kang memorandum and the exact propositions drawn from it.

10. Explain the conduct-date policy analysis for 2024–25 events and the January 2026 policy.

11. Identify whether an academic officer was consulted on academic freedom.

12. Explain how “invited and consented” was applied to Ph.D. feedback.

13. Identify the harm analysis for each allegation.

14. Distinguish report findings, Cooper-attributed accounts, program positions, and inferences.

15. Avoid questions seeking privileged legal advice or protected deliberations; focus on sources, procedures, and expressed methodology.

Anticipated defenses and disciplined replies

Opening statement draft

This hearing concerns five adverse report findings and a limited set of factual and policy questions that were not tested through any respondent or other-witness interview. Cooper does not ask the Hearing Officer to retry every academic disagreement, disregard legitimate standards, or infer discriminatory motive from an adverse outcome alone.

The evidence will focus on three linked events: the M203 later-date request; the fifth-rotation and primary-mentor decision; and the timing and basis of the academic-disqualification recommendation. The report correctly records difficult facts, including the late M203 request, unmet rotation expectations, lack of a primary mentor, and the University’s implementation of existing CAE exam accommodations. Those facts should remain in the record.

The disputed findings nonetheless depend on questions of knowledge, contemporaneous reasons, program criteria, timing, and the meaning of complete communications. CRO interviewed only Cooper and concluded that every respondent and every other identified person was unnecessary. The report also used a January 2026 interim policy and several additional authorities to formulate waiver, causation, consent, and academic-freedom rules for conduct in 2024–25. The hearing record should identify the governing source and test the decisive facts directly.

Cooper will present complete communications, authenticated academic records, and only witnesses with firsthand, noncumulative evidence. He asks for allegation-specific findings under the operative text, a separate answer to any properly scoped Retaliation theory, preservation of adverse facts that are proven, and correction of conclusions that the hearing evidence does not support. Any academic implementation should be recommended or referred to the office with authority.

Requested findings framework

Ask the Hearing Officer to issue numbered findings on:

1. the complete February 11 request, Bisley’s knowledge, response, available alternative, timeliness, and harm;

2. Bearden’s contemporaneous mentorship criteria and whether disability was a contributing basis;

3. each alleged Bearden statement/email, including exact conduct, nexus,, effect, and academic-freedom context;

4. Schweizer’s committee/recommendation chronology, knowledge of the March 31 request, and whether disability or protected activity contributed;

5. each alleged Schweizer comment under the same harassment elements;

6. the operative policy version and source for each element;

7. any material credibility determination and its evidentiary basis;

8. any properly scoped Retaliation allegation as a separate conclusion;

9. harm attributable to any substantiated act; and

10. the recommendation and implementing/referral office for any remedy.

Alternative findings are valuable even if no violation is found. Request clear statements about:

• undisputed disability and CAE registration;

• who knew what and when;

• the academic components affected;

• which reasons were independently established;

• which matters remained unresolved; and

• which report conclusions the hearing record confirms, modifies, or supersedes.

Remedy presentation

The Hearing Officer recommends; the Vice Chancellor decides. Discipline is separate. Rank remedies by authority and factual predicate.

Primary

1. corrected allegation-specific findings and a hearing report that supersedes inconsistent initial-report conclusions;

2. recommendation for a corrected, individualized academic review by the authorized academic body using the hearing findings;

3. recommendation that disability-related effects be separated from independent academic judgments;

4. a defined interactive-process step before any future academic plan or continuation decision, if supported;

5. record annotation or correction identifying the operative findings; and

6. policy/source clarification and targeted training where the hearing establishes a process gap.

Academic implementation by referral

• neutral reassessment of an affected course, rotation, or benchmark;

• accommodated continuation/reinstatement with objective requirements and a neutral reviewer, only if academically feasible;

• facilitated review by a consenting cognate program;

• evaluation of an authorized degree/transition path only if it actually exists;

• status, registration, tuition, funding, and health-coverage coordination by the responsible offices; and

• grade-change referral through the Academic Senate procedure if a discrimination finding bears on a grade.

Do not demand:

• assignment to an unwilling faculty mentor;

• a degree or grade directly from CRO;

• an unverified NSIDP master’s option;

• unrestricted expungement authority;

• a specific personnel discipline outcome; or

• money, fees, or external relief without verified authority and counsel.

Closing statement draft

The hearing record should be evaluated allegation by allegation, not as a referendum on whether Cooper met every academic expectation. The University has substantial evidence that the M203 request was late, that multiple fifth-rotation expectations were unmet, and that Cooper did not secure a primary mentor. Those facts are relevant and should be credited to the extent proven.

The remaining question is whether those academic facts resolve every protected-status issue. The report reached that conclusion without direct testimony from Bisley, Bearden, Schweizer, or any other identified person. At hearing, the decisionmaker can compare complete communications to live explanations, identify the contemporaneous criteria, and decide which inferences remain supported.

For M203, the decision should address the complete email, the express CAE reference, the late timing, the response, and any available alternative under the correct accommodation standard. For Bearden, it should identify the real weight of funding, performance, organization/time management, disability notice, and the disputed March communications. For Schweizer, it should identify the committee chronology, knowledge of the March 31 request, the actual grounds, and whether a separate Retaliation conclusion is required. For the harassment allegations, it should decide exact conduct, nexus, context, and effect without treating ordinary program participation as blanket consent.

Cooper asks for findings based on the evidence presented here, under the operative conduct-date sources. He does not ask for motive to be inferred from rank, delay, or disagreement. He asks that unsupported conclusions be corrected, supported adverse facts be preserved, and any remedy be matched to the office with authority.

Post-hearing control

Immediately after close

1. Obtain written confirmation of the “close of hearing” date.

2. Preserve the single recording and all admitted/rejected exhibit rulings.

3. Prepare an issue-by-issue proof table while recollection is fresh.

4. Calendar both start-counted and start-excluded dates for the hearing report, comments, Vice Chancellor decision, and appeal; verify with UCLA.

5. Request recording access promptly if comments are contemplated.

6. Notify DGE neutrally that a hearing occurred and request confirmation of how the hearing report will enter the Investigation Materials.

Hearing-report comments

Within the protective five-Day period:

• preserve favorable findings by exact page;

• identify only material factual error, omission, source error, or remedy mismatch;

• cite hearing exhibit and recording locator;

• request a precise correction;

• state whether the report answered each numbered issue;

• preserve the DGE completion/interlock question; and

• do not introduce evidence that should have been presented at hearing without explaining why it was unavailable.

Vice Chancellor decision

The Vice Chancellor considers the hearing report and comments and issues the decision. Review:

• whether each finding was adopted, modified, or rejected;

• what remedial action, excluding discipline, was ordered;

• whether any record or academic referral was omitted;

• the exact issuance/transmission timestamp; and

• the two limited appeal bases.

Internal appeal

Procedure 230.2 permits an appeal within five Days only when:

1. new evidence came to light that was not available at hearing; or

2. established procedures were not followed.

The appeal should contain:

• exact decision challenged;

• exact permissible basis;

• proof the evidence was genuinely unavailable or the procedure was established and not followed;

• materiality;

• narrow requested disposition; and

• preserved favorable findings.

Do not use the appeal to relitigate weight, credibility, policy interpretation, Bailey, or constitutional issues unless they fit an express ground and counsel confirms the framing.

Clarification and Good-Cause Extension Request

To: grievance@saonet.ucla.edu Cc: ada@saonet.ucla.edu Subject: Procedure 230.2 hearing - issuance, record, schedule, and good-cause clarification

Dear Grievance Coordinator and ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office,

On July 29, 2026 at 1:39 PM PDT, the Civil Rights Office transmitted the Notice of Outcome, redacted investigation report, Exhibit List, and Exhibits A-R in my matter. I have separately submitted a timely request for a formal hearing and do not condition that request on this message.

Attachment B to Procedure 230.2 states that “issuance” means the date of transmission. Procedure 230.2 defines “Days” as University business days excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and days on which the campus is closed. The published materials I reviewed do not state whether the transmission date is Day 1 or day zero.

My preserved calculations are:

Please confirm in writing:

1. the operative issuance date, time, and time zone;

2. whether July 29 is counted as Day 1;

3. the controlling 10-Day, 15-Day, and 20-Day dates;

4. the person or office that will act as Grievance Coordinator for the hearing;

5. the procedure and deadline, if any, for a focused grounds supplement;

6. the process for selecting and challenging the Hearing Officer;

7. the expected hearing schedule and evidence/witness-disclosure date;

8. whether the hearing may be conducted remotely;

9. the complete administrative-record index, including whether any material not included in Exhibits A-R was considered or will be provided to the Hearing Officer;

10. whether the 2020 Kang memorandum, UCOP guidance, CAE webpage, PACAOS 140 material, APM provisions, and other outside authorities cited or invoked in the Report are part of the hearing record and will be supplied;

11. whether less-redacted or unredacted materials will be available to the Hearing Officer and, under an appropriate confidentiality arrangement, to me where needed for a meaningful response; and

12. whether the Report’s reference to hundreds of pages not relied upon can be accompanied by a document-level index stating the disposition of each item without disclosing protected information.

To the extent UCLA requires detailed grounds, initial witness/exhibit identification, or other hearing particulars during the initial 10-Day period, I request a reasonable good-cause extension through August 26, 2026, or fifteen University business days after UCLA supplies the requested record clarification, whichever is later.

Good cause is supported by the volume and posture of the record: a 44-file-page report, Exhibits A-R totaling 119 pages, material redactions, the Report’s unitemized treatment of hundreds of additional pages, the need to reconcile outside authorities and source citations, and my previously scheduled travel from August 3 through August 11. I am acting diligently and will continue preparing while this request is pending.

This extension request does not withdraw, postpone, or narrow my hearing request, and I do not treat it as tolling any period unless UCLA confirms a revised date in writing. If the requested date is not available, please grant the longest reasonable period and identify the exact revised deadline and any effect on the independently anchored hearing-completion period.

Sincerely,

Cooper Beaman

Written Comments Fallback

Deployment rule

Use this draft only if Cooper knowingly decides not to request a Procedure 230.2 hearing. A comments-only route cannot provide witness testimony or cross-examination, and the main Procedure says the report proceeds to finalization when no hearing is requested. Attachment B also uses undefined “accepts” language. Confirm waiver, exhaustion, and finality consequences with qualified counsel if feasible.

The report was transmitted July 29, 2026 at 1:39 p.m. PDT. The hypothetical fifteen-Day comments dates are August 18 if the transmission date counts and August 19 if it is excluded, assuming no intervening confirmed campus closure. Treat August 18 as the earliest plausible date and verify it with UCLA. No comments have been sent.

Submission draft

To: Grievance Coordinator, through the channel stated in the July 29 Notice of Outcome Subject: Written comments on investigation report — the CRO grievance

I submit these comments concerning the investigation report transmitted on July 29, 2026. I preserve the report’s accurate factual statements, including the documented disability and CAE registration, the existing accommodations actually implemented, the complete academic benchmarks, the timing of the M203 email, and the report’s descriptions of independent academic concerns. I disagree with the five adverse policy conclusions and identify the material reasons below.

These comments do not assert that every proposed witness had to be interviewed, that every submitted item had to be cited, or that noncitation proves nonconsideration. They ask the University to preserve an accurate, reviewable record, identify the governing standards, and append these comments to any final report.

1. Policy version and source transparency

The report says Procedure 230.2 governed the investigation and that the January 1, 2026 UC Interim Anti-Discrimination Policy supplied guidance for definitions. [Report p. 2.] The principal alleged conduct occurred in 2024–25. The report does not identify the complete conduct-date policy text or explain whether each January 2026 element merely clarifies or changes it.

The report also relies on sources outside Exhibit A for outcome-bearing propositions:

• a six-part accommodation formulation based on federal/state law and EEOC guidance, including that I did not choose to forgo accommodation; [Report pp. 22–23 & n.44]

• PACAOS 140 and a July 2023 UCOP roles document; [pp. 23–27]

• current CAE web text; [p. 25]

• a June 30, 2020 Kang memorandum for “significant” contributing causation and invitation/consent; [pp. 28–29 n.58, 37–38 n.83]

• and January 2026 academic-freedom language. [pp. 39, 41.]

Requested treatment: identify the operative conduct-date source for each allegation; identify each additional authority’s version and status; attach or make available the complete Kang memorandum and other load-bearing materials; and state whether the result would be the same under Procedure 230.2’s own text. I do not ask the University to presume either retroactivity or nonapplicability.

Likely University response: the 2026 policy and other sources only clarify existing requirements.

Reply: if so, a same-result, element-by-element explanation should be possible and would resolve the version concern without a broad legal conclusion.

2. Investigation methodology and evidence classification

The report states that I was interviewed on four dates. It states that all three respondents were unnecessary to interview and that Individuals A–W were insufficiently relevant and/or redundant. [Report pp. 4–5.] It lists Exhibits A–R and says hundreds of additional pages were not relied on as insufficiently relevant and/or redundant without itemization. [Report pp. 5–7 & n.4.]

The report nevertheless makes findings about each respondent’s knowledge, reasons, timing, academic criteria, and causation. Documentary proof may support such findings, and Procedure 230.2 does not mandate an interview of every person. The record should still identify the source for each material respondent reason and, for any small number of outcome-bearing omitted items identified in an attached table, whether the item was considered-but-not-cited, cumulative, irrelevant, out of scope, unavailable, or not submitted.

Requested treatment: append a source-and-treatment clarification limited to load-bearing disputed facts. Do not treat this comment as a demand for an exhaustive evidentiary index.

3. Respondent 1 / M203

I acknowledge the strongest adverse facts: the exam was scheduled at 9:00 a.m.; my request was sent at 9:06; existing 150% time and distraction-free arrangements had been implemented; I did not contact CAE about rescheduling; and I did not later provide a medical reason or documentation. [Report pp. 24–28.]

The complete email nevertheless expressly said I was registered with CAE for testing accommodations and described the collision among M203, the fifth rotation, funding applications, and securing a dissertation laboratory. [Report pp. 24–26; Ex. D.] The report says the email did not allude to a disability interfering with the exam, while later acknowledging its CAE reference. That may support a finding that the message did not establish a specific accommodation need, but it should not be summarized as containing no disability-related context.

The report further states that I “essentially waived” a reasonable accommodation. [p. 28.] The source for a separate waiver rule is not identified in Procedure 230.2 or the attached January 2026 policy.

Requested treatment: revise or clarify the finding to state the complete context; identify the source and elements of “waiver”; distinguish the quoted CAE text’s case-by-case short-notice review from a categorical seven-day bar; and state whether any clarifying inquiry or alternative was considered. These requests do not erase the late timing.

4. Respondent 2 / mentorship discrimination

The report finds that Bearden’s decision inherently impaired my prospects for advancement and credits funding and performance as legitimate reasons. [Report pp. 29–32.] It also records that on January 30 I connected ADHD to deadline freezing; Bearden asked about accommodations, urged CAE contact, and said earlier notice could have allowed a more structured plan. [Report pp. 29–30.]

The report did not interview Bearden. It inferred the relative weight of funding, performance, project priorities, organization/time management, the March presentation, and the disputed conditional-offer account from documents and my statements.

Requested treatment: preserve the funding and performance evidence but identify the source and weight of each reason; distinguish Bearden’s contemporaneous statements from later inference; and explain how her documented knowledge of the disclosed functional issue was evaluated against the same organization/time-management domains used in the mentorship decision.

The report’s conclusion that disability-to-decision causation was remote, trivial, or speculative should identify whether the Kang formulation or the January 2026 “regardless” standard controlled, and whether the result would be the same under the conduct-date source.

5. Respondent 3 / disqualification recommendation and retaliation

The report finds that the committee’s recommendation rested on legitimate insufficient progress and three missed Academic Plan benchmarks. [Report pp. 33–36.] I acknowledge the report’s academic evidence and do not ask CRO to decide whether the separate DGE academic procedure was properly followed.

Two issues require clarification.

First, the report states that another student’s six-rotation situation was “sufficiently distinguishable without looking into this any further.” [p. 33 n.71.] The distinction may be valid, but the record should identify the program criterion or privacy-protected aggregate basis before the case is used to support “unprecedented” treatment.

Second, the report discusses my theory that the March 31 accommodation request preceded the recommendation and calls it speculative, but the formal finding is labeled disability discrimination “and/or request for accommodation,” not a separate Procedure 230.2 Retaliation conclusion. [Report pp. 2, 33–35, 42.]

Requested treatment: identify whether Retaliation was formally within scope; if so, state a separate conclusion using the operative protected-activity, knowledge, adverse-action, and causation elements. If CRO treated the theory only as disability-discrimination causation, say so explicitly.

6. Respondent 2 and 3 / harassment

I recognize the University’s strong position that legitimate academic feedback, an answer to a direct question, and isolated ambiguous statements are not disability harassment. The report should evaluate exact conduct, protected-status nexus,, and effect.

The report goes further by stating that participation in a Ph.D. program meant I invited and consented to Bearden’s feedback, and that asking for reasons invited relayed critique. [Report pp. 38, 40.] The complete Kang source and conduct-date basis for this invitation/consent formulation are not supplied.

The report also treats academic freedom as protecting curricular performance feedback. [pp. 39, 41.] The January 2026 policy describes academic-officer consultation when an investigation implicates academic freedom, but the report does not identify whether such consultation occurred.

Requested treatment: avoid treating program participation as blanket consent; identify the exact alleged conduct and whether it was invited; identify the policy source; and state whether an academic officer was consulted and what proposition was within that consultation. This does not ask the University to treat ordinary criticism as harassment.

7. Harm and report structure

Procedure 230.2 says the report will analyze whether each alleged act caused harm. The report identifies consequences—for example, the mentorship decision impaired advancement—but does not clearly map harm to each formal allegation.

Requested treatment: add an allegation-by-allegation table identifying the act, factual finding, policy conclusion, harm analysis, and any factual matter preserved for downstream DGE review.

8. DGE mitigation preservation

The Graduate Standards ask a different question: whether the Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance. I do not ask CRO to make that DGE determination.

Please ensure that any report transmitted to DGE preserves the following with their proper labels:

• documented ADHD and CAE registration; [Report p. 24]

• my attributed account of executive-function difficulties and stress/sleep effects; [p. 7]

• Bisley’s general knowledge of disability and the complete M203 email context; [pp. 24–26]

• Bearden’s January 30 knowledge and structured-plan/CAE response; [pp. 29–30]

• the report’s finding that the mentorship decision impaired advancement; [p. 29]

• the three academic components and the report’s contrary academic findings; [pp. 33–36]

• and the report’s classification of additional evidence. [p. 7 n.4.]

Do not treat these comments as an assertion that a no-violation result automatically requires CDP referral. DGE should apply its own possible-substantive standard.

9. Bailey/DGE boundary

The admitted delayed service of the 2025 program response remains a DGE record-integrity issue. It is not presented here as a new CRO allegation, a discrimination finding, or an unrestricted right to sur-rebuttal. If the report relied on the late-served program response, please ensure the relied-on proposition and source are identifiable so it can be tested in the appropriate record.

Requested disposition

Please:

1. append these comments to the report;

2. issue the narrow factual, source, scope, and harm clarifications requested above;

3. preserve supported favorable and adverse facts without treating attributed accounts as objective findings;

4. identify the complete final report and Investigation Materials transmitted to DGE and the date of transmission; and

5. confirm the no-hearing finalization event and timestamp without resolving the separate DGE completion question by implication.

Respectfully submitted, Cooper M. Beaman [verified SUBMISSION DATE]

Attachment controls

Attach only:

• a one-page correction/source table;

• the smallest native exhibit needed for each asserted correction;

• the policy-version memorandum or exact official pages;

• and a DGE mitigation crosswalk only if UCLA confirms it belongs with comments.

Do not attach the full strategy package, prior AI analysis, unconfirmed witness proffers, or a broad unsent DGE sur-rebuttal.

HEARING EXHIBIT LIST AND AUTHENTICATION

Exhibit List

HEARING WITNESS LIST AND PROFFERS

Witness List

Direct, Cross, and Investigator Question Plan

Governing controls

Procedure 230.2 permits both parties to present evidence and witnesses and cross-examine the other side’s witnesses. Cooper presents first. Evidence must concern the written grievance or matters the Hearing Officer finds reasonably related, and may be excluded if irrelevant or unduly repetitive. [Procedure 230.2, §VI.B.3–6, printed pp. 5–6.]

The questions below are objectives, not testimony. Every witness and anticipated proposition is requires confirmation until the witness appears, a declaration is authenticated and admitted, or the proposition is established by an admitted record. Do not ask a witness to adopt a proffer written by Cooper.

Witness necessity order

Do not call cumulative character witnesses. The preferred live case is Cooper, the three respondents, the investigator, one CAE witness, and no more than two other witnesses tied to a decisive issue.

Direct examination — Cooper

A. Foundation and chronology

1. Please identify your program and your role during the events at issue.

2. When did you matriculate, and what academic status did you hold in 2024–25?

3. What Academic Plan did you receive on November 19, 2024?

4. What did you understand the mentor, fifth-rotation, and M203 benchmarks to require?

5. Identify the contemporaneous emails and notes you sent, received, or created.

6. How do you recognize each document and know it is complete?

B. Disability and existing accommodations

1. What disability-related functional limitations did you personally experience?

2. What accommodations had CAE formally approved before February 2025?

3. Were those approved accommodations implemented?

4. When did you begin to understand that organization, planning, or time management might affect rotations?

5. How, if at all, did stress or sleep loss interact with those functions?

6. Distinguish what CAE had approved from what you later wanted to explore.

C. M203

1. What was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on February 11, 2025?

2. At what time did you send the email to Professor Bisley?

3. Read the complete request, including the CAE registration reference and concurrent demands.

4. What change did you request?

5. What did you intend the CAE reference to communicate?

6. What response did you receive?

7. What did you do next?

8. Why did you not provide a further medical reason or documentation?

9. What is the strongest fact against your position?

10. What academic consequence followed?

Do not ask: “Was this legally an accommodation request?” That is for the decisionmaker.

D. Fifth rotation and mentorship

1. When and how were the written expectations provided?

2. What did Bearden say about those expectations?

3. Describe the January 30 fellowship communication and your ADHD disclosure.

4. What did Bearden say about CAE and a structured plan?

5. What did you do after that exchange?

6. Which project priorities changed, and what documents support that recollection?

7. Describe the March 11 discussion, stating what you clearly remember and what you do not.

8. What happened at the March 12 presentation?

9. What did Bearden say on March 17?

10. What did the April 2 email say, in its full thread?

11. What effect did the mentorship decision have on your academic path?

E. March 31 request and recommendation

1. What did you request from CAE on March 31?

2. What occurred in the March 31 meeting with Schweizer?

3. What did he say about available options or the recommendation?

4. What written communication followed on April 1?

5. When did you first receive formal written notice of the recommendation?

6. Which facts support your timing theory?

7. Which facts about committee decision timing remain outside your personal knowledge?

F. Alleged harassment and harm

1. For each alleged Bearden statement, state the exact words remembered, setting, audience, and effect.

2. For each alleged Schweizer statement, do the same.

3. Did you ask for feedback or reasons? If so, what did you invite?

4. Why do you distinguish inviting an answer from consenting to every form or basis of a statement?

5. What concrete educational effect followed each alleged act?

6. Which effects resulted from the academic decision itself rather than the words?

7. What narrow hearing findings and remedies are you requesting?

Cross-examination — James Bisley

1. You received the February 11 email at approximately 9:06 a.m., correct?

2. You read the full email before responding?

3. It expressly said Cooper was registered with CAE for testing accommodations?

4. What did you understand that reference to mean?

5. What existing accommodation letter or information did you have?

6. What did you understand Cooper to be asking you to change?

7. Did you ask whether the request related to disability?

8. Did you contact CAE or identify a procedure for same-day clarification?

9. What alternatives were available after 9:06?

10. What actually occurred when Cooper arrived?

11. What course requirement or integrity concern would a Thursday exam have affected?

12. What source governed your request for a medical reason and doctor’s note?

13. Was the note requirement based on an acute illness rule, disability procedure, or your course practice?

14. What academic consequence did the midterm produce?

15. Did you provide or consider any later means to demonstrate the course material?

Concede the late request. Do not argue with the witness about a legal accommodation conclusion.

Cross-examination — Carrie Bearden

1. Identify every contemporaneous criterion you used to decide whether to become a primary mentor.

2. What weight did you give funding, academic fit, performance, communication, organization, and time management?

3. When were those criteria fixed?

4. Had you used a written rotation course description in this form before?

5. Who suggested it, and what was its purpose?

6. On January 30, what did Cooper tell you about ADHD and imminent deadlines?

7. What did you understand his functional issue to be?

8. You said earlier notice could have allowed a more structured plan—what structure did you have in mind?

9. Did any follow-up occur with CAE, Cooper, or program leadership?

10. What project priorities changed during the rotation?

11. Did shifting priority remove, defer, or retain the earlier task?

12. Did you make a conditional mentorship offer on March 11?

13. If not, what contemporaneous record supports your recollection?

14. What criteria did you apply to the March 12 presentation?

15. What did you communicate at the March 17 meeting?

16. What did you mean in the April 2 email asking whether an option allowing Cooper to stay was “still on the table”?

17. Was the question about authority, feasibility, your view of academic progress, or something else?

18. Did disability, disability-related performance effects, a request for help, or anticipated accommodation play any role in your decision?

19. What is the complete basis for the funding concern?

20. What is the complete basis for the performance concern?

Avoid suggesting faculty must accept a mentee or that all performance feedback is harassment.

Cross-examination — Felix Schweizer

1. Who authored and approved the November 19 Academic Plan?

2. Who authorized the fifth rotation?

3. What criteria governed additional rotations?

4. What does “unprecedented” mean, and what records support it?

5. Who was on the committee that recommended disqualification?

6. When did it meet, and what contemporaneous record shows that date?

7. What did the committee decide before March 31, if anything?

8. What remained open on March 31?

9. What did you say to Cooper in the March 31 meeting?

10. When did you learn of the March 31 CAE request?

11. What did you understand Cooper to be requesting?

12. What was the April 28 recommendation’s complete contemporaneous basis?

13. Why did later documents expressly discuss M203 and the fifth-rotation grade?

14. Were those grounds already part of the April 28 committee rationale?

15. What role, if any, did Cooper’s accommodation request play in timing or recommendation?

16. What criteria distinguish the student who completed six rotations?

17. Did the program confirm those differences through records, or rely on general knowledge?

18. What exactly did Ophoff tell you about Cooper’s capability?

19. Why and how did you relay it?

20. What exactly did you say about “internalized self-loathing,” and what was the context?

21. What academic purpose did each alleged comment serve?

Do not ask Schweizer to decide whether the DGE appeal service was legally defective.

Cross-examination — investigator/report author

Scope and dispositions

1. What written grievance and amendments defined the hearing-eligible issues?

2. How did the April 8 NOI map to the report’s five findings?

3. Was Retaliation under Procedure 230.2 formally investigated?

4. Where is the separate formal Retaliation conclusion, or why was one not required?

5. Which matters were treated only as context?

Interviews and evidence

1. Cooper was interviewed on four dates; no other person was interviewed, correct? [Report pp. 4–5.]

2. Why was each respondent unnecessary despite findings about their knowledge and reasons?

3. Which source supplied each respondent’s contemporaneous reason?

4. Was that source independently verified?

5. What criteria distinguished insufficient relevance from redundancy?

6. Was an inventory retained for the non-itemized hundreds of pages?

7. For each selected exhibit in Cooper’s narrow table, was it considered, cumulative, irrelevant, out of scope, unavailable, or not submitted?

8. Why was the comparator sufficiently different “without looking into this any further”? [Report p. 33 n.71.]

9. What evidence supported the “unprecedented” fifth-rotation statement?

Credibility and inference

1. What credibility criteria were used?

2. Which findings expressly turned on credibility?

3. How did you distinguish a contradiction from different context or timing?

4. What supported the inference that a recommendation was already very likely by March 31?

5. What supported the finding of Bearden’s legitimate reasons absent an interview?

6. What evidence was contrary to each conclusion, and how was it weighted?

Policy and authority

1. Which policy definition governed each 2024–25 conduct date?

2. What role did the January 1, 2026 interim policy play—binding rule, incorporation, or clarification?

3. What source supplies the sixth accommodation element that Cooper did not choose to forgo?

4. What source supplies “essential waiver”?

5. What version of PACAOS 140 applied?

6. Was the CAE web text archived from February 2025 or viewed in 2026?

7. What is the institutional status of the Kang memorandum?

8. Was the complete memorandum provided to the parties?

9. Does its “significant contributing cause” formulation differ from the January 2026 “regardless” text?

10. What source makes program participation an invitation and consent to feedback?

11. Was an academic officer consulted concerning academic freedom?

12. If so, what nonprivileged proposition and procedure were involved?

13. Would each result be the same under Procedure 230.2 without later guidance?

Harm and report use

1. Where is the harm analysis for each allegation?

2. Which factual statements are objective findings, which are attributed accounts, and which are program positions?

3. What will CRO transmit to DGE as Investigation Materials?

4. Will any hearing report or later decision supplement the initial report?

Do not ask for attorney-client communications or protected deliberations. Focus on stated methodology, sources, record classification, and nonprivileged facts.

Direct examination — corroborating or institutional witness

For any CAE, DGE, program, laboratory, or records witness:

1. Establish role and firsthand opportunity.

2. Authenticate the specific record.

3. Establish exact date, participants, words, and action.

4. Identify what the witness personally knows and what came from others.

5. Ask one noncumulative proposition tied to an allegation.

6. Address privacy and memory limits.

7. Avoid asking for legal or policy conclusions outside the witness’s role.

Objection and rehabilitation controls

• Hearsay/embedded statement: offer a complete communication for notice, effect, or stated reason where appropriate; do not automatically offer every embedded assertion for truth.

• Relevance/scope: identify allegation, element, and noncumulative proposition.

• Privacy: propose redaction, aggregate proof, or restricted review.

• Cumulative: state what the live witness adds beyond the document.

• Foundation: establish author/recipient, native source, completeness, and ordinary record practice.

• Speculation: ask what the witness knew, observed, decided, or communicated—not what another person intended.

• Rehabilitation of Cooper: acknowledge late timing, missed expectations, and memory limits; return to complete context and the precise disputed inference.

Hearing Opening, Closing, Requested Findings, and Remedies

Authority and boundary

The Hearing Officer reviews evidence presented at hearing, makes findings under the preponderance standard, and recommends a remedy. The Vice Chancellor decides whether Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation occurred and what non-disciplinary remedial action UCLA will take. Discipline is handled separately. [Procedure 230.2, §§VI.B.8–11, VI.C.3, printed pp. 6–7.]

The hearing is limited to matters in the written grievance or reasonably related thereto, and to Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation. The opening and closing should not ask the Hearing Officer to adjudicate DGE procedural error, the Bailey service defect, DGE mitigation, or constitutional theories.

Every factual statement below must be reconciled against admitted exhibits and actual testimony. No anticipated testimony is represented as fact.

Opening statement — full draft

Good morning or afternoon. This hearing concerns five adverse findings in the July 29, 2026 investigation report and a focused set of factual and policy questions that were never tested through a respondent or other-witness interview.

Cooper does not ask the Hearing Officer to retry every academic disagreement, disregard legitimate standards, or infer discriminatory motive merely because he experienced adverse outcomes. The report contains significant unfavorable facts that should remain in the record if proven: the M203 request came after the scheduled exam began; existing CAE exam accommodations had been implemented; multiple fifth-rotation expectations were not met; no primary mentor was secured; and the program identified insufficient progress.

The question is whether those facts resolve every element of the disability-discrimination and retaliation grievance.

The evidence will focus on three connected parts of the academic sequence.

First, the M203 request. The complete February 11 email was sent at 9:06 a.m. after the 9:00 start. It asked to take the exam later, expressly identified CAE testing-accommodation registration, and described the concurrent fifth-rotation, funding, and laboratory-placement demands. The report concluded that the message did not communicate disability interference, was untimely, and “essentially waived” accommodation. The hearing can determine what Professor Bisley understood, what existing information he had, what alternatives existed, and what source supplies the waiver rule, while fully accounting for the late timing.

Second, the fifth rotation and primary-mentor decision. The report finds that Dr. Bearden’s decision impaired Cooper’s prospects for advancement and credits funding and performance as legitimate reasons. It also records that on January 30 she learned that Cooper connected ADHD to freezing around imminent deadlines and responded by discussing CAE and a more structured plan. Direct testimony can establish the contemporaneous criteria, the relative role of funding and performance, the March discussions, project priorities, and the April 2 email. Cooper does not contend that a faculty member was required to accept him.

Third, the disqualification recommendation and the March 31 request. The report credits three missed benchmarks and legitimate insufficient progress, and it rejects the theory that the accommodation request caused the recommendation. Direct evidence can establish the committee chronology, who knew what on March 31, the relationship between the April 28 wording and later grounds, and whether the request-for-accommodation theory requires a separate Retaliation conclusion.

The hearing also presents a policy-source question. The report says the January 1, 2026 interim UC policy provided guidance for conduct in 2024–25 and uses other sources for outcome-bearing waiver, significant-causation, invitation/consent, and academic-freedom rules. Cooper does not ask the Hearing Officer to presume those sources are inapplicable. He asks the Hearing Officer to identify the operative conduct-date source, each authority’s status, and whether the result is the same under Procedure 230.2’s own text.

CRO interviewed Cooper on four dates but interviewed no respondent and no other identified person. That fact does not prove the report wrong. It explains why live evidence has noncumulative value now.

Cooper will present complete communications, authenticated academic records, and only confirmed witnesses with firsthand knowledge. He asks for allegation-specific findings, a clear decision on any properly scoped Retaliation theory, preservation of every supported adverse and favorable fact, correction of conclusions the hearing evidence does not support, and remedies directed to or referred through the office with authority.

Short opening — if time is limited

This hearing concerns whether the five adverse report findings remain supported after direct evidence from the people whose knowledge, reasons, and timing were decided without interviews. Cooper concedes the late M203 request, existing CAE accommodations, missed rotation expectations, lack of a mentor, and the program’s legitimate academic interests. He asks the Hearing Officer to test the complete communications, contemporaneous criteria, March 31 chronology, comparator framework, and policy sources, then make allegation-specific findings under the operative conduct-date standard. DGE procedural error, Bailey, mitigation, and constitutional issues remain outside this merits request.

Findings requested

General findings

1. Identify the complete written grievance and the matters reasonably related to it.

2. Identify the operative policy/version and standard for each alleged act.

3. State every material credibility determination and evidentiary basis.

4. Distinguish objective findings, attributed accounts, program positions, and unresolved facts.

5. State harm separately for each allegation.

Respondent 1 / M203

1. Exact content and time of the February 11 email.

2. Bisley’s knowledge of disability and existing CAE accommodations.

3. What he understood the requested change and reason to be.

4. Whether a clarifying inquiry or alternative was reasonably available.

5. The effect of the after-start timing, documentation, and CAE procedure.

6. Whether “waiver” is an applicable and satisfied rule.

7. Whether failure to accommodate occurred and what harm resulted.

Respondent 2 / mentorship discrimination

1. Bearden’s contemporaneous mentorship criteria.

2. The relative role of funding, performance, academic fit, communication, organization, and time management.

3. Her January 30 knowledge and response.

4. Whether a conditional offer occurred and its terms.

5. The meaning and role of the April 2 email.

6. Whether disability was a basis under the operative standard.

7. What educational harm resulted.

Respondent 2 / harassment

1. Exact words/conduct for each of the three scoped acts.

2. Context, audience, repetition, and protected-status nexus.

3. Whether each act was unwelcome under the operative source.

4. Whether program participation or a request for feedback constituted invitation/consent and to what extent.

5. Whether conduct was severe, persistent, or pervasive enough to interfere with participation.

6. What academic-freedom consideration applies and whether any consultation occurred.

Respondent 3 / recommendation and retaliation

1. Committee membership, timing, decision process, and contemporaneous grounds.

2. What was decided before March 31 and what remained open.

3. When Schweizer/committee learned of the March 31 request.

4. Relationship between April 28 wording and later grounds.

5. Whether disability contributed to the recommendation under the operative discrimination standard.

6. Whether the written grievance includes a Retaliation allegation based on assertion of accommodation rights.

7. If so, protected activity, knowledge, adverse action, causation, and a separate Retaliation conclusion.

8. The proper privacy-protected comparator finding and basis.

Respondent 3 / harassment

1. Exact Ophoff opinion relayed, original source, context, audience, and purpose.

2. Exact “internalized self-loathing” remark, context, audience, and purpose.

3. Invitation, objective and subjective welcome, disability nexus, effect, and academic-freedom analysis for each.

Alternative factual findings useful downstream

Even if no violation is found, request express findings on:

• documented disability and CAE registration;

• actor-specific notice;

• the academic components affected;

• the actual independent academic grounds;

• the timing and existence of any accommodation request;

• which initial-report findings are confirmed, modified, or superseded;

• and which facts may properly enter DGE’s Investigation Materials.

Remedy framework

Express or strong Procedure 230.2 fit

1. Corrected hearing findings and report. Supersede inconsistent initial-report conclusions.

2. Measures to stop/prevent recurrence and remedy effects. Tailored to any substantiated violation.

3. Reasonable accommodation or ongoing-treatment measures. Only where supported and coordinated with CAE/authorized academic office.

4. Policy development/change and targeted training. Where the evidence shows a source, notice, or process gap.

5. Referral for academic grade review. If a discrimination finding bears on a grade, use the Academic Senate route identified in Procedure 230.2.

6. Separate disciplinary referral. No requested personnel outcome; use the applicable separate process.

Plausible recommendation/referral, authority to confirm

1. Corrected individualized academic review. Authorized academic body separates report-affected inputs from independent academic judgments.

2. Neutral reassessment of M203, a rotation, a mentor benchmark, or aggregate progress.

3. Accommodated continuation or reinstatement. Only if academically feasible, with objective standards, responsible reviewer, interactive-process step, written feedback, and review date.

4. Record correction/annotation. Custodian identifies superseded or corrected findings.

5. Facilitated consenting-program review or authorized transition path.

6. **** Refer to offices with actual authority.

Requests to avoid

• forced assignment of a faculty mentor;

• direct award of a degree or grade by CRO/Hearing Officer;

• an unverified NSIDP master’s option;

• unrestricted expungement;

• a specific discipline result;

• monetary/external relief without verified authority and counsel;

• and a constitutional remedy within the Procedure 230.2 hearing.

Remedy argument draft

If the Hearing Officer finds a violation, the first remedy should be an accurate hearing report that states what initial findings are superseded. Without that, every downstream office risks relying on the wrong record.

The second remedy should be a recommendation for a corrected individualized academic review. That review should preserve essential standards and independent academic judgments, but should remove or appropriately adjust any input the hearing finds was affected by discrimination or retaliation.

If continued doctoral study is academically feasible, the recommended plan should identify objective benchmarks, a responsible or neutral reviewer, written feedback, an individualized accommodation step where supported, a realistic review date, and consequences. It should not force any faculty member to serve as mentor.

If continuation in NSIDP is infeasible, the fallback should be facilitated evaluation by a consenting cognate program or another confirmed degree/transition path. Any status, funding, tuition, record, or health-coverage consequences should be coordinated or referred to the office with authority.

Closing statement — full draft

The hearing record should be evaluated allegation by allegation, not as a referendum on whether Cooper satisfied every academic expectation.

The University has substantial evidence that the M203 request was late, that existing exam accommodations were implemented, that multiple fifth-rotation expectations were unmet, and that Cooper did not secure a primary mentor. Cooper has acknowledged those facts. Legitimate academic requirements remain legitimate.

The remaining question is whether those facts resolve every protected-status issue. The initial report reached that conclusion without direct evidence from Bisley, Bearden, Schweizer, or any other identified person. The hearing has now supplied—or, if a witness did not appear, failed to supply—the direct evidence needed to test knowledge, reasons, timing, criteria, and statements.

For M203, the decision should address the complete email, the express CAE reference, the after-start timing, Bisley’s understanding, the response and alternatives, and the source for “waiver.” A late request is a serious fact. It is not a substitute for identifying and applying the correct element.

For Bearden, the decision should identify the contemporaneous weight of funding, performance, academic fit, organization, time management, and the January 30 disability disclosure. It should resolve the March 11/17 account and the April 2 email from complete evidence. Cooper does not ask the Hearing Officer to compel mentorship; he asks whether disability was a basis under the governing standard.

For Schweizer, the decision should identify the committee chronology, what had been decided by March 31, who knew of the accommodation request, and whether the April 28 and later grounds were contemporaneously consistent. If assertion of accommodation rights was properly part of the written grievance, the hearing report should give Retaliation a separate formal answer.

For the alleged comments, the decision should distinguish routine academic critique from each exact statement, and should evaluate context, nexus, frequency, effect, and academic freedom. Participation in a Ph.D. program entails academic feedback. It should not be treated as blanket consent before the actual alleged conduct is evaluated.

Finally,, the decision should show that the same result follows under the conduct-date source.

Cooper does not ask for motive to be inferred from rank, delay, or disagreement. He asks that the findings follow the admitted evidence, that unsupported conclusions be corrected, that supported adverse facts remain, and that any remedy be matched to the office with authority. DGE procedural error, Bailey, mitigation, and constitutional issues remain reserved for their separate processes.

Short closing — if time is limited

Cooper concedes the late request and genuine academic shortcomings. The remaining findings should turn on complete communications, direct reasons, verified chronology, and the correct policy—not on untested inference. Please issue separate findings for the five report conclusions and any properly scoped Retaliation theory, identify the operative sources, preserve proven adverse facts, correct unsupported conclusions, state harm, and recommend only authority-matched remedies.

Post-Hearing Comments and Appeal Templates

Controlling procedure

After a hearing:

• the Hearing Officer forwards a written hearing report within ten Days following the hearing; the Procedure summary/Attachment B instead say within ten Days of the “close” of hearing; [Procedure 230.2, §VI.B.9 and summary; printed pp. 6, 9]

• both parties may submit comments within five Days of hearing-report issuance; [§VI.B.10, p. 6]

• a grievant considering comments may request access to review, but not copy, the single verbatim recording and may be accompanied by the hearing representative; alternative arrangements may be requested when ordinary on-campus access is infeasible; [id.]

• the Vice Chancellor issues a decision within fifteen Days of hearing-report issuance; [§VI.B.11, p. 6]

• an appeal may be filed within five Days of the Vice Chancellor decision only because new evidence unavailable at hearing came to light or established procedures were not followed; [§VI.C.1, p. 7]

• the Chancellor issues a final decision within ten Days of receipt of a timely appeal. [§VI.C.4, p. 7.]

“Issuance” means date of transmission. “Days” means University business days excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and campus-closed days. The sources do not say whether the anchor day is counted. For every future event:

1. preserve the native transmission timestamp;

2. calculate start-counted and start-excluded dates;

3. verify campus closures;

4. use the earlier plausible date as protective;

5. request written confirmation; and

6. request a written good-cause extension if necessary.

Immediate close-of-hearing checklist

1. Obtain on-record or written confirmation of the close date, especially if the hearing spans sessions.

2. Preserve the single recording, exhibit list, admitted/rejected rulings, witness list, and all written orders.

3. Prepare a proof table: issue → testimony/exhibit → adverse proof → requested finding.

4. Ask how and when the hearing report will be transmitted.

5. Ask how to request recording review immediately after transmission.

6. Pre-draft comments from actual rulings; do not wait for the five-Day window.

7. Notify DGE neutrally that the hearing closed and request how later CRO materials will enter the Investigation Materials.

Recording-access request

Subject: Request for prompt post-hearing access to review the verbatim recording — the CRO grievance

Dear Grievance Coordinator:

I am considering written comments on the hearing report transmitted on [DATE/TIME]. Under Procedure 230.2 §VI.B.10, I request prompt access to review the single verbatim hearing recording.

Please confirm:

1. the earliest available date and location or approved alternate arrangement;

2. the recording’s total duration and session divisions;

3. whether my hearing representative may accompany me;

4. whether I may take written notes and use the report/exhibit index during review;

5. the procedure for addressing an inaudible or missing segment; and

6. the protective comments date UCLA is using.

Because the comments period is five Days, please preserve the request date and provide the earliest practicable access. If access cannot be provided with enough time for meaningful comments, I request a reasonable good-cause extension in writing. This request does not concede a particular counting convention.

Sincerely, Cooper M. Beaman [DATE]

Five-Day hearing-report comments template

Subject: Comments on hearing report — the CRO grievance

Dear Vice Chancellor, through the Grievance Coordinator:

I submit these comments on the hearing report transmitted on []. Under the start-counted calculation the protective date is [DATE]; under the start-excluded calculation it is [DATE]. I submit by the earlier date without conceding which convention applies.

These comments preserve the hearing report’s favorable findings and identify only material errors, omissions, or remedy issues. They do not ask the Vice Chancellor to re-open every credibility or academic dispute.

1. Findings preserved

Preserve:

2. Material factual correction

At page [PAGE], the hearing report states: [EXACT QUOTATION].

The admitted record shows: [PRECISE PROPOSITION].

• Hearing exhibit: [ID/PAGE]

• Witness/recording locator: [SESSION/TIME OR TRANSCRIPT LOCATOR]

• Contrary evidence: [STRONGEST CONTRARY ITEM]

• Materiality: [DEPENDENT FINDING OR REMEDY]

Requested correction: [PRECISE REPLACEMENT OR FINDING].

Do not use this section for a difference in emphasis that does not change an element.

3. Credibility finding requiring explanation

At page [PAGE], the report credits [ACCOUNT] over [ACCOUNT]. The report identifies [STATED REASON OR NONE]. The record bearing on that reason is [CITATIONS].

Requested action: apply the same criteria to both accounts and state the material evidentiary basis. These comments do not infer bias from an adverse credibility determination.

4. Material issue omitted

The Hearing Officer admitted and received evidence on [ISSUE] at [CITATIONS], but the hearing report provides no identifiable finding or conclusion. This is not an assertion that the issue was unconsidered. It is a request to identify its disposition because the issue affects [].

Requested action: supplement the report with a finding and reasoning.

****

The report applies [SOURCE/VERSION] at page [PAGE] to conduct on [DATE]. The controlled source record shows [VERSION FACT OR SOURCE SILENCE].

Requested action:

1. identify the operative conduct-date source;

2. identify whether the later source is binding or interpretive;

3. apply the actual element; and

4. state whether the result changes.

Do not assert a retroactivity conclusion without counsel and source support.

6. Retaliation disposition

The written grievance/hearing scope included [EXACT PROTECTED-ACTIVITY THEORY]. The hearing report [DOES/DOES NOT] separately address Retaliation.

Requested action: state findings on protected activity, knowledge, adverse action, causation, harm, and conclusion, or identify why the theory was outside scope.

Do not use the Bailey service defect as a substitute for a CRO Retaliation showing.

7. Remedy correction

The hearing report finds [VIOLATION/HARM] but recommends [REMEDY OR NONE].

Requested action:

• primary: [AUTHORITY-MATCHED REMEDY];

• fallback: [REFERRAL/COORDINATION REMEDY];

• implementing office: [CONFIRMED OFFICE OR CONFIRMATION REQUEST];

• predicate: [EXACT FINDING].

Do not ask the Vice Chancellor to impose discipline, directly award a degree/grade, force a mentor, or control funding outside verified authority.

8. DGE record clarity

Please identify which hearing findings supersede or supplement the initial report and transmit the complete redacted hearing report/decision to DGE as UCLA determines appropriate. This request does not concede the DGE completion event.

Requested disposition

Please preserve the favorable findings at [PAGES], correct [MATERIAL ERROR], supply the omitted finding on [ISSUE], and adopt or refer the authority-matched remedy stated above.

Respectfully submitted, Cooper M. Beaman [DATE]

Vice Chancellor decision audit

Upon receipt, record:

Five-Day appeal gate

An internal appeal may proceed only if at least one row passes.

Policy interpretation, adverse credibility, and remedy disagreement are not independently listed appeal grounds. Counsel should determine whether any such issue fits a procedural-failure ground or belongs in separate preservation.

Appeal template — new evidence unavailable at hearing

Subject: Timely appeal from Vice Chancellor decision — new evidence unavailable at hearing — the CRO grievance

Dear Chancellor, through the Grievance Coordinator:

I appeal the Vice Chancellor decision transmitted on [DATE/TIME]. This appeal is limited to new evidence that was not available at the hearing, as permitted by Procedure 230.2 §VI.C.1.

New evidence

• Item: [NATIVE IDENTIFIER]

• Date discovered/received: [DATE/TIME]

• Source/authentication: [FOUNDATION]

• Evidence it was unavailable at hearing: [REQUESTS, CUSTODIAN RESPONSE, CREATION DATE, OR OTHER PROOF]

• Diligence: [STEPS TAKEN BEFORE HEARING]

• Proposition: [PRECISE FACT]

• Materiality: []

• Contrary evidence: [STRONGEST CONTRARY ITEM]

The item is not a new theory or cumulative submission. It could affect the decision because [NARROW CAUSAL EXPLANATION].

Requested disposition

Request the narrow authorized action counsel confirms, such as remand for the Hearing Officer/Vice Chancellor to consider the new evidence, correction of the affected finding, or other procedure UCLA identifies. Preserve all unaffected favorable findings.

Respectfully submitted, Cooper M. Beaman [DATE]

Appeal template — established procedures not followed

Subject: Timely appeal from Vice Chancellor decision — established procedures not followed — the CRO grievance

Dear Chancellor, through the Grievance Coordinator:

I appeal the Vice Chancellor decision transmitted on [DATE/TIME]. This appeal is limited to the failure to follow an established procedure, as permitted by Procedure 230.2 §VI.C.1.

Established procedure

The governing text states: [SHORTEST NECESSARY QUOTATION]. [Source: [DOCUMENT, SECTION, PAGE].]

What occurred

The verified record shows: [DATE, EVENT, AND NATIVE PROOF].

Noncompliance

The difference is: [PRECISE PROCEDURAL FAILURE].

Preservation and objection

The issue was raised at [], or could not reasonably be raised earlier because [REASON].

Materiality

The failure affected [] by [PRECISE EFFECT]. This appeal does not argue that any procedural variance automatically changes the merits.

Requested disposition

Request the narrowest effective cure: []. Preserve all unaffected favorable findings.

Respectfully submitted, Cooper M. Beaman [DATE]

Appeal issues that require counsel

• whether a policy-version/source-disclosure failure is an “established procedures” ground;

• whether denial of a timely hearing request, cross-examination, or recording access requires internal cure or separate preservation;

• whether an extension or late decision affects finality;

• whether the Vice Chancellor relied on undisclosed extra-record evidence;

• exhaustion and preservation of constitutional or external claims;

; and

• available relief if the Chancellor’s decision is final.

Post-hearing DGE notice

After each new CRO document, send a neutral, approved-channel notice:

UCLA transmitted [] on [DATE/TIME]. Please confirm whether DGE has received it, whether it is part of the Investigation Materials, whether it changes DGE’s completion or clock determination, and how it will be considered. I do not concede a source-silent completion milestone by providing this notice.

DGE Abeyance, Investigation Materials, and Clock Notice

To: UCLA Division of Graduate Education through the existing the existing DGE service request service channel (ucla@service-now.com in the preserved record) Subject: the existing DGE service request - CRO report receipt, continuing Procedure 230.2 hearing, Investigation Materials, and abeyance

Dear Mr. Bailey and Division of Graduate Education,

I am providing prompt notice that the UCLA Civil Rights Office transmitted a Notice of Outcome, redacted investigation report, Exhibit List, and Exhibits A-R on July 29, 2026 at 1:39 PM PDT. I disagree with all five adverse findings and have requested a formal hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2.

The Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA state that DGE holds the nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal in abeyance while the investigatory office is processing the allegations and until that process has completed. The published text does not define the completion milestone. This notice therefore does not concede that the July 29 report transmission, no-hearing finalization, hearing completion, a Vice Chancellor decision, or a later appeal decision is necessarily the controlling event.

Please:

1. confirm that the nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal remains active;

2. maintain the existing abeyance while the timely Procedure 230.2 hearing and any directly resulting internal review remain pending, or identify in writing any different completion interpretation before DGE acts;

3. identify every item DGE has received or expects to receive as “Investigation Materials,” including filename, version, sender, date, time, time zone, and channel;

4. state the event DGE regards as completion of the investigatory process;

5. state the exact date DGE would use to begin any 30-calendar-day period and whether the receipt date itself is counted;

6. confirm whether later hearing materials, post-hearing comments, the Vice Chancellor decision, and any permitted appeal decision will be added before DGE decides whether referral to the Committee on Degree Programs is warranted;

7. preserve this notice, my forthcoming report-to-mitigation crosswalk, the July 29 transmittal materials, and the complete DGE service record;

8. confirm the method and date by which I may submit a concise mitigation crosswalk; and

9. provide advance notice of any proposed action affecting status, funding, health insurance, records, access, or academic options while this sequencing question remains unresolved.

The adverse CRO merits findings do not answer DGE’s distinct question: whether the Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance. The Report itself records, among other matters, documented ADHD, executive-function limitations, University knowledge, academic effects, stress and sleep interaction, funding and mentor-market constraints, late or unusual written expectations, disputed accommodation-process facts, CAE contact, and the timing and effect of academic-disqualification activity. I will address those matters with source and epistemic labels, without treating a disputed allegation as an established fact.

This notice also preserves the previously acknowledged DGE service irregularity concerning the NSIDP response to the separate procedural-error appeal. I do not assert an unrestricted sur-rebuttal right or conflate that record-integrity issue with the CRO merits determination. I request preservation of the native response, addendum, attachments, metadata, decision materials, and the May 4, 2026 acknowledgment so that any overlapping assertion can be weighed on an accurate record.

Sincerely,

Cooper Beaman the existing DGE service request

DGE CDP ACTUAL REPORT MITIGATION CROSSWALK

Mitigation Crosswalk

Outcome Routing

Authority & Timing

DGE / CDP Post-Report Package

Current posture and governing standard

The July 29 Notice of Outcome says the CRO investigation is concluded and provides a hearing-or-comments route. It does not say that CRO has notified the Division of Graduate Education (DGE), identify what DGE received, or resolve whether a timely Procedure 230.2 hearing remains part of the investigatory office’s “process” for DGE-abeyance purposes. [Notice of Outcome pp. 3–4.]

The Graduate Standards provide:

• DGE holds the nondiscrimination appeal decision in abeyance while the investigatory office processes the allegations; the academic disqualification remains in place. [Standards, printed p. 33 / file p. 34.]

• after the investigatory office completes its process, it notifies DGE of the outcome and provides appropriately redacted written investigation report(s), defined as “Investigation Materials”; [id.]

• DGE decides whether the report reflects “substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected” academic performance; [id.]

• if the materials do not reflect possible substantive mitigation, DGE denies the appeal within 30 calendar days of receipt; [id.]

• if they do, the Dean refers the appeal and materials to the Graduate Council’s Committee on Degree Programs (CDP) within 30 calendar days of receipt; [id.]

• upon written request, the individual is entitled to a personal appearance before CDP; [id.]

• CDP recommends a disposition to the Graduate Dean, who retains final authority; DGE makes good-faith reasonable efforts to transmit a decision within 21 calendar days after receiving CDP’s recommendation. [Standards, printed pp. 33–34 / file pp. 34–35.]

The current official Standards and Academic Senate cross-reference were rechecked on July 29, 2026:

• https://

• https://

No current public UCLA source reviewed supplies the referenced CDP-approved personal-appearance procedures.

Five lanes that must remain separate

Source-silent questions requiring written confirmation

The Standards do not define:

• when CRO’s “process” is completed;

• whether initial report issuance, no-hearing finalization, a hearing report, Vice Chancellor decision, or later appeal controls;

• whether a timely hearing continues DGE abeyance;

• what documents besides the redacted report DGE will receive;

• how the receipt date is counted in the 30-calendar-day period;

• the CDP appearance request deadline, channel, duration, participants, advisor role, exhibits, questions, recording, accessibility, recusal, confidentiality, or recommendation timing; or

• whether later CRO materials supplement a DGE/CDP record already in process.

Do not answer these questions by inference. Ask DGE to state its administrative determination in writing.

Immediate neutral sequencing, materials, and clock request

Use: only after confirming the current DGE channel. No message has been sent.

Subject: CRO report and DGE nondiscrimination appeal — completion, Investigation Materials, receipt date, and sequencing confirmation

Dear DGE case contact:

UCLA’s Civil Rights Office transmitted the Notice of Outcome, redacted investigation report, and redacted Exhibits A–R to me on July 29, 2026 at 1:39 p.m. PDT. The Notice states that the CRO investigation is concluded and also provides a live Procedure 230.2 hearing-or-comments route.

I am preserving the CRO route and do not intend this notice to concede which event constitutes completion of the investigatory office’s process under the Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA or when a DGE period begins. Please confirm in writing:

1. whether DGE has received any materials from CRO;

2. each document, version, attachment, appendix, and redaction state received;

3. DGE’s date, timestamp, and method of receipt;

4. whether DGE treats those documents as the complete “Investigation Materials”;

5. whether DGE considers CRO’s process completed for the abeyance provision and the event/text on which that determination rests;

6. whether DGE considers a 30-calendar-day period to have begun, its anchor date, and calculated endpoint;

7. whether DGE will await a timely Procedure 230.2 hearing, hearing report, Vice Chancellor decision, or appeal, and if not, how later CRO materials will be added and considered;

8. the date and approved channel for a short, report-page-cited mitigation memorandum and crosswalk before DGE’s threshold determination;

9. whether DGE will provide notice and the complete record before issuing a final denial; and

10. confirmation that the April 24 and May 4, 2026 Bailey service correspondence remains preserved without being treated as a new CRO allegation or an unrestricted sur-rebuttal.

I do not seek unredacted confidential information. I seek an accurate materials and timing record so that the CRO, DGE mitigation, and record-integrity issues remain properly separated.

Sincerely, Cooper M. Beaman

If a hearing is requested

Add:

I timely requested a Procedure 230.2 hearing on [verified date]. The Standards do not state whether a hearing extends abeyance, and I do not assert that it necessarily does. Because the hearing may produce findings relevant to the mitigation crosswalk, I request continuing abeyance until UCLA gives a written completion determination. If DGE proceeds sooner, please preserve a defined process to add and consider the hearing report, Vice Chancellor decision, and any permissible appeal decision before final disposition.

If no hearing is requested

Add:

I selected the written-comments route on [verified date]. Please identify whether DGE will await the Procedure 230.2 no-hearing finalization notice and whether that notice or the initial report is the completion event DGE uses.

Actual-report mitigation crosswalk

The report’s factual-investigation section expressly says it contains subjective perspectives, not objective findings. [Report p. 7 n.5.] The table therefore labels each proposition.

Present threshold argument

The present report is an adverse, no-violation report with acknowledged disability-related circumstances. The strongest DGE argument is narrow:

1. the report accepts documented ADHD and CAE registration; [p. 24]

2. it records executive-function limitations in organization, planning, and time management; [p. 7, attributed account]

3. it establishes that Bearden knew on January 30 that Cooper connected ADHD to deadline freezing and that she identified structured planning and CAE support; [pp. 29–30]

4. it finds that Bearden’s decision impaired academic advancement and that organization/time management, communication, presentation, funding, and performance mattered to the decision; [pp. 29–32]

5. the same performance domains were inputs to the mentor/rotation benchmark later used in academic disqualification. [pp. 33–35]

That chain is sufficient to ask whether the materials reflect a possible substantive circumstance affecting performance. It is not an express CRO finding that ADHD caused the missed expectations. The report rejects disability causation as a basis for Bearden’s decision, finds no evidence another reasonable accommodation would have enabled success, and credits funding/performance reasons. [Report p. 32 n.69.] DGE should retain those findings and still explain whether its distinct “could have affected academic performance” threshold is met.

Six outcome-specific arguments

Outcome 1 — Favorable CRO liability finding

Current applicability: not present in the July 29 initial report. Use only if a hearing or later decision substantiates an allegation.

Argument: A substantiated violation affecting M203, fifth-rotation evaluation, mentorship, or the disqualification recommendation is facially tied to an academic component. DGE should not treat liability as automatic reversal, but should treat the finding as powerful evidence that a possible and substantive circumstance affected performance and refer the complete materials to CDP.

Counterargument: independent academic grounds remain.

Reply: CDP can preserve independent grounds while correcting the affected input.

Outcome 2 — Mixed liability findings

Current applicability: not present now; possible after hearing.

Argument: Disaggregate every favorable and adverse conclusion. A favorable finding concerning one operative benchmark can satisfy the referral threshold even if other allegations fail. Referral is the mechanism for calibrated academic judgment, not an average of wins and losses.

Counterargument: the favorable matter is narrow and non-dispositive.

Reply: referral requires possible substantive mitigation, not proof that one circumstance alone compels reversal.

Outcome 3 — No violation, but useful report facts

Current applicability: yes.

Argument: Preserve the five no-violation conclusions. Separately apply the DGE standard to report facts: documented disability; Bisley’s general knowledge; Bearden’s January 30 knowledge; the matching between disclosed executive-function domains and later performance criteria; the material mentorship consequence; and the three academic components. [Report pp. 7, 24, 26, 29–35.]

Counterargument: DGE should not use attributed accounts the report declined to credit.

Reply: distinguish express findings from attributed accounts. Ask DGE to decide whether the report as a whole “reflects” a possible circumstance, and do not call any rejected causal proposition established.

Outcome 4 — Adverse report with acknowledged disability-related circumstances

Current applicability: primary.

Argument: The adverse label is not dispositive of the different mitigation test. The report may conclude officials acted lawfully and that disability did not significantly cause their decisions while still reflecting a disability-related circumstance capable of affecting academic performance. The strongest connection is Bearden’s documented January 30 knowledge of ADHD-related deadline freezing, followed by evaluation of organization, communication, time management, and presentation in an academic component that impaired advancement. [Report pp. 29–32.]

Counterargument: the report expressly says the disability-to-decision link was remote, trivial, or speculative and that no evidence shows additional accommodation would have led to meeting expectations. [p. 32 n.69.]

Reply: accept that conclusion for CRO decision causation. DGE’s question concerns performance effect, not whether Bearden’s action was caused by disability or unlawful. If DGE concludes the same evidence is insufficient even for possible performance mitigation, it should identify the exact materials and reasoning in writing.

Outcome 5 — Narrow or incomplete mitigation record

Current applicability: conditional. The student transmission contained the report and Exhibits A–R; do not call it package-incomplete. The report nevertheless did not itemize excluded hundreds of pages, and DGE’s received packet is unknown.

Argument: ask DGE to identify the complete Investigation Materials and to avoid adverse inference from report silence. If a specific mitigation item is absent, classify its status and request a privacy-protected or report-page-cited supplement through the confirmed channel.

Counterargument: the Standards contemplate appropriately redacted reports, not the entire CRO file.

Reply: agree. The request is for an accurate inventory and opportunity to map what the report actually reflects, not discovery or reopening CRO.

Outcome 6 — Hearing requested; completion unresolved

Current applicability: use if Cooper timely elects a hearing.

Argument: the hearing can modify facts DGE uses. The Standards do not say whether DGE must wait or whether report issuance ends the investigation. Request a written completion determination, continuing abeyance if UCLA adopts that interpretation, or a defined supplementation/reconsideration mechanism if DGE proceeds.

Counterargument: “investigation” ends when the investigator issues the report; hearing is separate adjudication.

Reply: that may be UCLA’s interpretation, but no reviewed source states it for the DGE interlock. The opposite interpretation is also unproven; written coordination is the appropriate cure.

DGE referral request

Subject: Request for application of the possible-substantive-mitigation standard and CDP referral

Dear Dean of Graduate Education:

I respectfully request that DGE apply the standard stated in the Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA—whether the Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance—without using CRO’s no-violation conclusion as a categorical gate.

I accept the report’s five no-violation conclusions for this DGE threshold request. I rely on the following report material, with its limits:

• the report finds documented ADHD and CAE registration; [p. 24]

• it records my account of executive-function difficulty in organization, planning, and time management, exacerbated by stress and sleep deprivation; [p. 7]

• it establishes that Dr. Bearden knew on January 30 that I connected ADHD to deadline freezing and that she discussed CAE and a more structured plan; [pp. 29–30]

• it identifies organization, communication, time management, presentation, funding, and performance as matters affecting the fifth-rotation/mentorship decision; [pp. 29–32]

• it finds the mentorship decision impaired my prospects for advancement; [p. 29]

• and it identifies the mentor, fifth-rotation, and M203 components as grounds in the later academic decision. [pp. 33–35]

I do not represent that CRO found ADHD caused the missed expectations. It did not. The report credits independent academic reasons and rejects the causal showing needed for liability. [p. 32 n.69; pp. 33–36.] The narrower DGE question is whether the materials reflect a possible and substantive circumstance that could have affected the performance inputs.

Please identify the complete Investigation Materials and receipt date, state the threshold analysis in writing, and refer the appeal and materials to CDP if the possible-substantive standard is met. If DGE denies referral, please identify the precise materials reviewed and explain whether it concluded that the circumstances were not possible, not substantive, not connected to performance, or foreclosed by a specific report finding.

Sincerely, Cooper M. Beaman

CDP personal-appearance request

Use only after referral and through the confirmed channel.

I respectfully request the personal appearance provided by the Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA. My appearance will address report-reflected mitigation, the affected academic components, the strongest independent academic evidence, and a proportionate disposition. I will not ask CDP to retry CRO liability or adjudicate the Bailey defect.

Please provide the CDP-approved procedures, including:

• timeliness and completeness of this request;

• date, format, location, and expected duration;

• referral packet and a method to correct a missing item;

• written outline/exhibit rules and deadlines;

• whether an advisor/support person may attend and their role;

• member questions;

• recording or summary and record access;

• confidentiality, conflicts, and recusal;

• disability-related access-accommodation process and lead time; and

• expected recommendation timing.

Five-minute CDP presentation

Use only if referred; reconcile every sentence against the actual CDP packet. Approximate spoken length: 650–750 words.

Good morning or afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to appear.

My request is narrow. I ask the Committee to recommend a disposition that gives appropriate weight to substantive mitigating circumstances reflected in the Investigation Materials while preserving legitimate academic standards.

The Standards ask whether the materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance. That question is different from whether CRO proved a policy violation by a preponderance. I do not ask this Committee to change CRO’s five no-violation conclusions.

The academic decision rested on three connected components: securing a primary faculty mentor, satisfactory performance in the fifth rotation, and completion of NEURO M203. The report finds that all three benchmarks were missed and credits legitimate academic reasons for disqualification. I recognize those facts.

The report also contains a narrower mitigation chain. It finds that I had documented ADHD and was registered with CAE. It records my executive-function difficulties in organization, planning, and time management. On January 30, during the fifth rotation, Dr. Bearden learned that I connected ADHD to freezing around imminent deadlines. Her response—quoted in the report—urged me to use CAE and said that earlier notice could have allowed a more structured plan. The same report later identifies organization, communication, time management, and presentation as performance concerns affecting her mentorship decision, and finds that her decision impaired my prospects for advancement.

I do not overstate that sequence. CRO did not find that ADHD caused my missed expectations. It found that funding and performance were legitimate reasons, that I did not seek a further formal accommodation during the rotation, and that there was no evidence I would have met expectations with another reasonable accommodation. Those findings remain part of this record.

The DGE/CDP question is whether the materials nevertheless reflect a possible substantive circumstance affecting academic performance. Here, the disclosed functional domains and the evaluated performance domains overlap, during the academic component that became the principal mentor benchmark. That does not make Dr. Bearden’s decision discriminatory. It does make the circumstance relevant to a mitigation review.

M203 provides a second, more limited connection. The report records that my February 11 email requested a later midterm, identified my CAE registration, and described the concurrent demands of the fifth rotation, funding applications, and securing a laboratory. The request came after the exam started. CRO found it was not a valid, timely accommodation request and that existing CAE arrangements had been implemented. I accept that conclusion. For mitigation, the email still documents a collision among the same academic benchmarks and a performance consequence. The Committee can give that circumstance the limited weight it deserves without finding anyone acted unlawfully.

The program’s strongest position is substantial: the Academic Plan was clear; I missed multiple expectations; a fifth rotation was already an additional opportunity; and no faculty member was required to accept me. My request does not erase those points. It asks for a corrected individualized academic review that distinguishes independent academic judgments from performance inputs potentially affected by the report-reflected circumstance.

My primary requested disposition is a neutral academic reassessment and, if feasible, an accommodated continuation plan with objective benchmarks, a responsible reviewer, written feedback, and a defined review date. I do not request assignment to an unwilling mentor or lowered essential standards.

If continuation in NSIDP is not feasible, my first fallback is facilitated review by a consenting cognate program. A second fallback is evaluation of another authorized degree or transition path, but only if UCLA confirms it exists. For any outcome, I ask DGE to coordinate record, status, tuition, funding, and health-coverage consequences with the offices that hold authority.

Finally, I ask the Committee’s recommendation to state what circumstances it considered, which academic components they could have affected, what contrary evidence remained independent, and why the disposition is proportionate.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

Ten-minute CDP presentation

Use only if referred; approximate spoken length: 1,250–1,450 words.

Good morning or afternoon, Chair and members of the Committee. Thank you for reviewing my appeal and allowing me to appear.

I will address four points: the governing mitigation standard; the three academic components; the strongest contrary evidence; and a proportionate disposition.

The Standards ask whether the Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance. The referral branch uses the phrase “possible substantive mitigating circumstances.” This is not a second CRO investigation. I do not ask CDP to reverse the report’s five no-violation conclusions or infer misconduct the report did not find. I ask the Committee to assess whether circumstances reflected in the report could have materially affected the performance record used in my academic disqualification.

The academic sequence is documented. The November 19, 2024 Academic Plan required a fifth rotation, confirmation by March 14 that the rotation mentor would become my primary mentor, and completion of NEURO M203 with at least a B-minus. It warned that failure of a benchmark could lead to academic disqualification. The April 28 recommendation emphasized insufficient progress and the absence of a primary mentor. The later record also relied on the fifth-rotation grade and M203. The CRO report finds that all three benchmarks were missed and that the recommendation rested on legitimate insufficient-progress reasons.

Those are serious academic concerns. My mitigation request does not deny them.

The first component is the fifth rotation and primary-mentor decision.

The report finds that I had documented ADHD and was registered with CAE. It records my account that my principal functional difficulties involved organization, time management, and planning, and that stress and sleep deprivation worsened them. That account is attributed to me; it is not an independent medical finding in the report.

The report then establishes a direct notice event. On January 30, Dr. Bearden learned that I connected ADHD to freezing with imminent deadlines. She asked whether I had accommodations, urged me to seek help, and said that if I had told her earlier she could have helped create a more structured plan. The report credits that exchange.

The report also identifies the performance domains that mattered in the rotation and mentorship decision: advance communication, organization, time management, project completion, presentation quality, funding, and overall performance. It concludes that Dr. Bearden’s decision inherently impaired my prospects for advancement.

That is the mitigation connection. The functional domains disclosed on January 30 overlap with performance domains evaluated during the same rotation and used in a decision central to academic progress. I do not claim that overlap proves discrimination. CRO rejected that proposition. I claim only that it is a possible substantive circumstance affecting performance—precisely the DGE/CDP question.

The contrary evidence is important. The report finds that funding was a recurring concern, that I applied for only one fellowship, that materials for that application arrived late, that I did not satisfy multiple written expectations, and that my March 12 presentation was inadequately prepared. It also says I did not seek a further formal accommodation during the rotation, even after Dr. Bearden encouraged CAE contact, and finds no evidence another reasonable accommodation would have led me to meet the expectations.

The Committee can accept all of those points and still ask whether an individualized academic review gave proper mitigation weight to the performance circumstance. The answer need not be automatic reinstatement. It can be a corrected review that preserves each genuinely independent academic ground.

The second component is NEURO M203.

The report records the complete timing: the midterm was scheduled for 9:00 a.m.; I emailed at 9:06 asking to take it Thursday; the email stated that I was registered with CAE testing accommodations and described the simultaneous fifth-rotation, lab-placement, fellowship, and teaching-assistant demands; and Professor Bisley declined rescheduling without a valid medical reason and note.

The report’s adverse findings are clear. It concludes the message did not identify disability interference, the request was untimely, I did not contact CAE about rescheduling, existing approved accommodations were implemented, and I did not provide a medical reason or documentation. It also states that I essentially waived the requested accommodation. I do not ask CDP to change those conclusions.

For mitigation, the email documents that the M203 benchmark collided with the rotation, funding, and mentor-placement benchmarks during the period of reported executive-function difficulty. That may receive limited weight because the request was late and I did not follow up. The point is not to excuse the course result. It is to recognize that the performance record developed under simultaneous demands reflected in CRO’s materials.

The third component is the disqualification recommendation and placement pathway.

The report finds that the program granted a fifth rotation, that all three Academic Plan benchmarks remained unmet, and that no sixth rotation was guaranteed. It also finds the committee’s decision had legitimate academic bases and rejects the theory that the March 31 accommodation request caused the recommendation.

Again, I do not ask CDP to find retaliation. The mitigation question is whether the academic decision treated every performance input as independent of the acknowledged circumstances. The report itself maps the missed benchmarks to organization, communication, time management, presentation, funding, and mentor placement. The Committee can review those inputs with mitigation without second-guessing faculty scholarship judgments or forcing a mentor relationship.

I now address five likely objections.

First, DGE may say a no-violation report cannot support mitigation. The Standards do not use liability as the threshold. A circumstance can affect performance even when an official acted reasonably or causation for prohibited conduct was not proved.

Second, the program may say failure to secure a mentor was independently sufficient. The Committee should identify what part of the mentor outcome was a pure academic-fit judgment, what part reflected funding or capacity, and what part rested on performance domains potentially affected by the report-reflected circumstance. If the mentor ground remains fully independent after that analysis, it should be credited.

Third, the program may say substantial support was already provided. The fifth rotation, written plan, CAE exam accommodations, and Bearden’s January 30 response are relevant and should be credited. Prior support does not answer whether the eventual academic evaluation appropriately weighed mitigation.

Fourth, the report says no additional reasonable accommodation was shown to enable success. That is a serious limitation. My request therefore is not that CDP invent a past accommodation or declare that I necessarily would have succeeded. It is that any prospective disposition include an actual individualized process, clear benchmarks, and a neutral method to evaluate performance.

Fifth, the report’s factual section contains attributed accounts rather than objective findings. My crosswalk labels them. I ask the Committee to use an attributed account only as something the report “reflects,” give it weight consistent with the report, and not call it established if CRO did not.

My primary requested disposition is a corrected individualized academic review. If UCLA determines continuation is academically feasible, the plan should have: objective written benchmarks; an identified neutral or responsible academic reviewer; an interactive-process step tied to the actual functional barrier; periodic written feedback; a realistic review date; and stated consequences. It should not lower essential requirements or assign an unwilling faculty member.

If continuation in NSIDP is not feasible, my first fallback is a facilitated, nonpunitive evaluation by a consenting cognate program. My second fallback is evaluation of another authorized degree or transition path. I do not represent that NSIDP currently has an approved master’s degree; the available record does not establish that.

For any disposition, I ask DGE to coordinate or refer practical issues—status, registration, record, tuition, stipend, housing, and health coverage—to the offices that hold authority. I ask for no remedy beyond an office’s confirmed power.

Finally, I ask that the recommendation state: which report-reflected circumstances were considered; whether each was possible and substantive; which academic component each could have affected; which adverse evidence remained independent; why the disposition is proportionate; and what implementation requires DGE action or referral.

I remain committed to rigorous work in functional genomics, gene regulation, and computational neuropsychiatric genetics. I ask for an academic disposition that respects standards and also gives the Investigation Materials the distinct mitigation effect the Graduate Standards require.

Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

Remedy ladder