A federal judge agreed with the University of Colorado that a longtime cancer researcher failed to show he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race, religion or national origin, or was otherwise threatened with termination.

Priya N. Werahera, an associate professor focused on prostate cancer research at the University of Colorado’s Anschutz Medical Campus, claimed his administrators discriminated against him as an older man, a Buddhist and a Sri Lanka native. He also alleged university officials treated him differently from his white male colleagues.

Specifically, Werahera pointed to two alleged professional slights he endured: The university’s decision to withhold donor funds and an endowed chair position he claimed he was entitled to, and his supervisor changing his 2020 performance rating to “below expectations.”

But last month, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang found the evidence fell short of establishing a violation of federal employment discrimination law.

“Dr. Werahera further fails to explain how, and the Court disagrees that, the refusal of access to donor funds, not appointing him the endowed professorship chair, and the altering of his 2020 performance review rise to the level of severe or pervasive conduct to support a hostile work environment claim,” she wrote in an Oct. 27 order. “Dr. Werahera fails to make any legitimate argument that any of the above conduct was based on his national origin, ethnicity, age, or religion.”

In Werahera’s telling, the chair and vice chair of the Department of Pathology “concocted a scheme” to terminate him, in the process shutting off his access to research donations and simultaneously blaming him for not securing funding. The university, in contrast, noted that administrators’ issues with Werahera’s performance were legitimate, and that he could point to no derogatory reference his supervisors ever made about his legally-protected traits. Further, Werahera remains a full-time employee at CU Anschutz.

Werahera, who has an advanced degree in electrical engineering, began working as a researcher at CU’s medical school in 1996, later being promoted to a research professor. He works within the pathology and bioengineering departments, specifically on the detection of prostate cancer.

In his lawsuit, Werahera mentioned multiple incidents he claimed showed “discriminatory animus” from his superiors. For instance, he wrote that Steven Anderson, the vice chair for research, entered a conference room while Werahera was giving a presentation and questioned him “in a menacing and authoritative manner” – for which Anderson later apologized. Anderson also allegedly told other employees he “does not like” Werahera.

Of bigger concern, Anderson met with Werahera in January 2021 for Werahera’s 2020 performance review. Werahera left with the impression he had met expectations and, when he signed and submitted his faculty evaluation form, he checked the “meets expectations” box. Later, Anderson informed Werahera he would actually be rated “below expectations” based on his need to clarify his role with a private company and to sustain funding for his research from outside the university.

Finally, Werahera alleged the chair of the pathology department, Ann Thor, thwarted his “unquestionable right to funding” from a set of accounts, totaling $502,000. They were established by E. David Crawford, a now-retired professor who collaborated with Werahera on research. Crawford proposed in 2018 that the funds would be placed under Werahera’s direction upon Crawford’s retirement.

However, an earlier document from 2006, signed by Crawford, provided that the chair position associated with the funds would actually be named by the medical school and department of radiation oncology – not Werahera’s pathology department.

Based on the circumstances, Werahera alleged Anderson and Thor had a “systemic real strategy” to terminate his job with the department.

“I think there’s an added component of my skin color or my hair color or something, or even plain professional jealousy,” Werahera said in a deposition. “I accomplished far more than either one of them, Dr. Anderson and Dr. Thor. Far more. … Probably thinking that, ‘Hey, this guy came from Sri Lanka and, with a Ph.D. degree, he’s doing all these great things for his patients.'”

In August, Wang narrowed down Werahera’s legal claims, dismissing the allegations that Werahera was subjected to employment discrimination because he was not given access to Crawford’s donor funding or appointed to the chair position. She found Werahera had not submitted his claim of discrimination to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in time. Wang also dismissed the claims against the university’s governing body, the board of regents.

On Werahera’s remaining allegations, the university argued a negative performance review by itself and the expectation that he obtain outside sources of research funding did not amount to a hostile work environment.

“Plaintiff admits that he cannot name a single instance of Defendant Thor referencing his national origin, ethnicity, age, or religion in a derogatory manner,” wrote Special Assistant Attorney General Hermine Kallman. “Further, Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant Anderson’s purported comments about not liking Plaintiff were in any way related to Plaintiff’s national origin, race, or religion. Indeed, Plaintiff surmises that it could be because of ‘professional jealousy.'”

Werahera countered that Thor and Anderson complained about his inability to obtain funding at the same time he was being denied access to the Crawford accounts. He argued white faculty members were not placed in a similar situation, suggesting the defendants “concocted a scheme” with the goal of eventually terminating him.

Wang, however, was unconvinced.

“These general allegations of ‘threatened’ termination lack any factual basis in the record,” she wrote. Even if Werahera had evidence about such threats, Wang added, they would not amount to negative employment action under federal law.

As for the white employees Werahera identified, he failed to show how they were similarly-situated to him and yet received disparate treatment, the judge noted. Finally, Wang pointed out that Werahera himself alleged his supervisors’ concern about research funding dated to 2014, years before the Crawford accounts became an issue.

She concluded Werahera had failed to establish a case of discrimination, and that Thor and Anderson were entitled to immunity as government employees.

The case is Werahera v. The Regents of the University of Colorado et al.

Editor’s note: Colorado Politics’ parent company Clarity Media is a subsidiary of the Anschutz Corporation.