Former CSU President Named in Harassment Lawsuit Receives $343,920 University Position

Editorial Note

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

The allegations discussed below were raised in a civil lawsuit filed by two former Cal State San Bernardino administrators. California State University settled the case for $12 million while continuing to deny wrongdoing. The settlement did not constitute a court finding that former President Tomás Morales personally committed discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.

Morales remains classified by CSU as being in good standing. That designation made him eligible for the executive transition assignment discussed in this article.

California State University is facing renewed questions about executive accountability after assigning former Cal State San Bernardino President Tomás Morales a one-year position paying $343,920.

Morales will work on international education initiatives and global partnerships for the CSU system from August 3, 2026, through August 2, 2027. The assignment was announced shortly after CSU settled a lawsuit accusing Morales and another former campus administrator of gender-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for $12 million.

CSU has denied wrongdoing and says Morales remains eligible for the transition program because the system has not determined that he violated university policy or engaged in serious misconduct.

Critics argue that paying a departing executive more than $340,000 after such a substantial settlement sends the wrong message to employees, students, and taxpayers. Supporters of the arrangement may respond that allegations and settlements are not the same as findings of personal misconduct and that CSU is following an employment program available under Morales’ contract.

The controversy raises a difficult question for public universities: when serious allegations lead to a multimillion-dollar settlement, should an executive remain eligible for a highly compensated transition position even when the institution denies legal liability?

Who Is Tomás Morales?

Tomás Morales served as president of California State University, San Bernardino, for more than a decade before leaving the presidency at the end of the 2025–2026 academic year.

He announced his planned departure in August 2025. CSU has presented his tenure as a period that included institutional growth, expanded student opportunities, and increased international engagement.

At a July meeting of the CSU Board of Trustees, Chancellor Mildred García praised Morales’ leadership and announced that he would receive a transition assignment focused on international education and global partnerships. Trustees also granted him president emeritus status.

The transition appointment is not the presidency of another campus. It is a temporary system-level assignment that allows Morales to continue receiving compensation while working on designated CSU projects before potentially moving into a faculty role.

What the Lawsuit Alleged

The controversy surrounding Morales developed from a 2023 lawsuit filed by former Cal State San Bernardino administrators Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers.

The plaintiffs accused Morales and former Palm Desert campus dean Jake Zhu of gender-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

According to reporting on the lawsuit, the women alleged that they faced discriminatory bullying and were pressured to resign after raising concerns involving gender pay disparities and workplace treatment. The complaint also reportedly accused Morales of directing angry verbal outbursts toward female employees.

These were civil allegations rather than findings reached after a completed trial.

CSU denied wrongdoing and ultimately agreed to resolve the case through a $12 million settlement. Settlements may occur for many reasons, including the cost, uncertainty, and disruption of continuing litigation. They do not automatically establish that every allegation was proven.

Why CSU Paid $12 Million to Settle the Case

The $12 million settlement resolved claims brought by the two former administrators.

CSU has said that settling the lawsuit allowed the university system to avoid the continuing cost and uncertainty associated with litigation. The system maintained its denial of wrongdoing and did not publicly announce a finding that Morales personally violated CSU policy.

That distinction is central to CSU’s defense of the transition assignment.

From the institution’s perspective, a financial settlement does not automatically make an executive ineligible for benefits provided under existing employment policies. The university system says Morales remains in good standing, which is one of the conditions for entering the executive transition program.

Critics, however, argue that accountability should involve more than whether an individual was formally found responsible through an internal process or court judgment.

They contend that a $12 million settlement is significant enough to justify greater scrutiny before granting an executive another well-paid public position.

What Morales Will Do in the New Position

Morales’ new assignment is expected to focus on strengthening CSU’s international education programs, global partnerships, and related initiatives.

The one-year appointment will pay $343,920 and is scheduled to begin in August 2026. CSU has described that compensation as consistent with the executive transition program available to qualifying university leaders.

The exact measurements that will be used to evaluate Morales’ work have not been widely explained in public reporting.

That lack of detail is contributing to the criticism.

When public universities create highly paid advisory or consulting positions, faculty members and taxpayers may reasonably ask what specific work will be performed, how often progress will be reported, and what outcomes the institution expects to receive in return.

Clear deliverables would allow CSU to demonstrate that the assignment serves a legitimate institutional need rather than functioning primarily as a transition benefit for a departing executive.

Why the $343,920 Salary Is Controversial

The controversy is not based only on the amount of money.

University presidents commonly earn considerably more than professors, staff members, and other campus employees because they oversee large budgets, complex organizations, fundraising, government relationships, and institutional strategy.

The issue is whether an executive should continue receiving substantial compensation after leaving the presidency while the university system is also facing criticism over allegations connected to that leader’s administration.

Faculty and employee advocates argue that CSU should prioritize student services, classroom resources, employee compensation, and the prevention of workplace harassment.

From that perspective, paying $343,920 for a one-year transition role may appear disconnected from the financial pressures experienced elsewhere in the university system.

CSU’s position is that Morales qualifies under an established program and has not been found responsible for misconduct. The institution therefore views the appointment as an employment and transition matter rather than a reward for behavior alleged in the lawsuit.

Allegations Are Not the Same as Findings

It is important to distinguish among allegations, settlements, internal findings, and court judgments.

An allegation is a claim made by one party against another.

A settlement is an agreement that resolves a legal dispute without requiring a full trial or final decision about liability.

An internal finding occurs when an institution completes its own review and determines whether a policy was violated.

A court judgment generally follows litigation in which a judge or jury reaches a legal conclusion based on the evidence and applicable law.

In Morales’ case, the public controversy involves serious allegations and a substantial settlement, but CSU says he remains in good standing. No final trial judgment identified in the reviewed sources found Morales individually liable for the alleged discrimination or harassment.

That does not mean the plaintiffs’ allegations were insignificant or false. It means the lawsuit was resolved without a final public adjudication of every disputed claim.

Why “Good Standing” Matters

CSU’s executive transition program makes eligibility dependent in part on whether a departing administrator remains in good standing.

An executive may become ineligible if the chancellor determines that the individual violated university policy or engaged in serious misconduct.

Because CSU did not make such a finding against Morales, he remained qualified for the transition arrangement.

This creates a broader accountability concern.

When an institution settles a major lawsuit but does not complete or disclose a finding against the executive involved, the leader may continue to qualify for compensation and professional benefits.

Critics may see that outcome as a weakness in the system. It allows the institution to settle litigation while treating the executive’s employment status as if no disqualifying misconduct occurred.

CSU may respond that it cannot impose employment penalties based solely on disputed allegations, particularly when no final internal or judicial finding established a policy violation.

Both positions reflect legitimate concerns about fairness, due process, institutional responsibility, and public accountability.

CSU’s Executive Transition Program

Executive transition arrangements allow some departing CSU presidents and senior administrators to move temporarily into other duties before returning to faculty positions or leaving the system.

These programs may provide universities with continued access to the experience and professional relationships of former leaders.

They may also exist because senior administrators sometimes retain faculty appointment rights under their employment agreements.

However, transition programs have faced criticism when assignments appear loosely defined or when departing leaders receive salaries far above typical faculty compensation.

A Los Angeles Times investigation previously reported that CSU had paid millions of dollars to former executives through transition arrangements. CSU later changed aspects of the program for executives hired after March 2022, but Morales was eligible under the earlier structure.

The Morales controversy shows why the system continues to attract scrutiny. Even when an appointment follows existing rules, the result may still appear inconsistent with public expectations of accountability.

Faculty Members Question CSU’s Priorities

Faculty advocates have sharply criticized the decision.

Tiffany Jones, president of the California Faculty Association’s San Bernardino chapter, described the arrangement as a failure of accountability and argued that university resources should be directed toward students and employees rather than a departing executive.

That criticism reflects longstanding frustration over differences between executive compensation and the financial conditions facing many campus workers.

Faculty members may teach large course loads while seeking additional funding for research, student support, and classroom materials. Staff members may manage complex responsibilities while confronting housing costs and wage concerns.

Against that background, a $343,920 transition assignment can become a symbol of what employees view as unequal institutional priorities.

CSU officials may argue that executive contracts, faculty salaries, and student-service budgets involve different funding and employment structures. However, those technical distinctions do not necessarily resolve the public perception problem.

What Transparency Should Look Like

CSU can respond to the controversy by releasing clear information about the transition assignment.

That information could include the position description, expected workload, specific international initiatives, reporting requirements, travel responsibilities, measurable goals, and final work products.

The university system could also explain how it calculated the salary and whether the assignment could be ended if expectations are not met.

Transparency would not eliminate disagreement over whether Morales should have received the position. It would allow the public to evaluate whether the role provides meaningful value.

Public universities depend on trust. Students, families, employees, and taxpayers should be able to understand why a position exists and how its compensation serves the institution’s mission.

The Role of Due Process

Accountability should not require institutions to treat unproven allegations as established facts.

Employees, including university executives, generally deserve fair procedures before losing contractual rights, compensation, or professional standing.

If CSU had no internal finding that Morales violated policy, the system may have believed that denying him the transition arrangement would create legal or contractual concerns.

However, due process and accountability are not opposites.

An institution can respect an employee’s rights while still conducting a thorough investigation, documenting its conclusions, reviewing whether existing transition policies remain appropriate, and explaining how public funds are being used.

The deeper concern is whether university systems have created arrangements that make it difficult to respond when leaders leave office under a cloud of unresolved controversy.

Why This Matters Beyond One CSU Campus

The case has implications for colleges and universities across the country.

Higher-education institutions regularly enter employment contracts with presidents, chancellors, coaches, and other senior leaders. These agreements may include severance provisions, faculty retreat rights, consulting roles, housing benefits, and transition assignments.

Those arrangements can become expensive when a leader resigns, retires, or becomes involved in litigation.

Universities must balance several competing interests: honoring contractual commitments, protecting employee due process, managing legal risk, maintaining institutional stability, and demonstrating accountability to the public.

The Morales appointment shows what can happen when those interests conflict.

An arrangement may be contractually permissible while still appearing ethically questionable to faculty members, students, and taxpayers.

How New To Education Covers Institutional Accountability

New To Education publishes accessible reporting and analysis on university leadership, educational law, employment disputes, student rights, discrimination, and institutional accountability.

Major settlements and executive appointments can appear to involve only senior administrators. In reality, they affect how campus communities understand fairness, financial priorities, workplace protections, and trust in university leadership.

Our goal is to explain both the allegations generating public concern and the legal protections that prevent disputed claims from automatically being treated as proven facts.

Key Takeaways

Former Cal State San Bernardino President Tomás Morales will receive $343,920 for a one-year CSU transition assignment focused on international education and global partnerships.

Morales and a former campus dean were named in a 2023 lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against two former administrators.

CSU settled the case for $12 million while denying wrongdoing.

The settlement did not produce a final court judgment finding Morales personally liable for the alleged conduct.

CSU says Morales remains in good standing, making him eligible for the executive transition program.

Faculty critics argue that the appointment represents a failure of accountability and that the money should instead support students and campus employees.

The controversy raises larger questions about executive contracts, public spending, due process, transparency, and how universities respond when leaders are associated with major legal settlements.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is receiving the $343,920 assignment?

Tomás Morales, the former president of California State University, San Bernardino, will receive the one-year transition assignment.

What work will Morales perform?

CSU says he will advise on international education initiatives, international partnerships, and global engagement across the university system.

Was Morales found legally responsible for harassment?

No final court judgment identified in the reviewed sources found Morales personally liable. The claims were resolved through a $12 million settlement, and CSU continues to deny wrongdoing.

Why is Morales still eligible for the position?

CSU says he remains in good standing and has not been found to have committed a policy violation that would disqualify him from the executive transition program.

Did Morales resign because of the lawsuit?

Morales announced his planned departure in August 2025 and left the presidency at the end of the 2025–2026 academic year. The lawsuit had already been filed, but CSU has not characterized the departure as a disciplinary removal.

Is $343,920 his permanent salary?

The amount applies to the one-year transition assignment scheduled to run from August 3, 2026, through August 2, 2027.

What was the $12 million settlement about?

The settlement resolved claims brought by two former administrators alleging gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and workplace mistreatment involving Morales and former dean Jake Zhu.

Final Thoughts

The dispute over Tomás Morales’ transition assignment involves two principles that universities must take seriously.

The first is due process. Allegations should not automatically be treated as proven misconduct, and employees should not lose contractual rights without a fair basis.

The second is public accountability. A $12 million settlement involving serious workplace allegations cannot simply be separated from a decision to provide one of the named executives with another position paying more than $340,000.

CSU may be following the technical rules of its transition program. That does not mean the public is wrong to question whether those rules serve students, employees, and taxpayers.

The most constructive response would be greater transparency.

CSU should explain exactly what Morales will do, how his performance will be evaluated, what outcomes the system expects, and why the assignment is worth its cost.

The controversy is ultimately about more than one former president. It is about whether public universities can protect due process without allowing executive employment arrangements to weaken meaningful accountability.

Support New To Education

New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, higher education, university accountability, discrimination, student rights, and policies affecting educators and families.

Readers can support our work by sharing this article, subscribing to New To Education updates, exploring our educational and professional services, or using the support options available through the website.

https://newtoeducation.com/

California Student’s Antisemitism Lawsuit Tests School Duties During Political Conflict
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/california-students-antisemitism-lawsuit-tests-school-duties-during-political-conflict-6a5ebba4eb80d

Chinese American Professor’s Estate Advances Discrimination Lawsuit Against Northwestern
https://www.newtoeducation.com/view-blog/chinese-american-professors-estate-advances-discrimination-lawsuit-against-northwestern-6a5e03057f0ce