Adi Prakash and Urmi Bhattacheryya pose infront of Champions Plaza statue in Boulder, Colorado. (Courtesy of Adi Prakash)
The University of Colorado settled in a lawsuit filed by two doctoral students who sued the university for racial discrimination and retaliation. Adi Prakash and Urmi Bhattacheryya sought damages for academic, professional and personal harm. The international students filed the complaint in September.
The anthropology students were given $200,000 in damages along with granting them both master’s degrees in the settlement. In exchange, they withdrew the complaint and cannot apply to be students or faculty at CU going forward.
The events outlined in the complaint began two years prior to the students filing the lawsuit. Prakash was heating palak paneer in the anthropology department kitchen, when administrators made racist comments about the smell of his food. When he tried to explain the impact of their comments, he received a formal complaint, claiming he threatened the administrators. The department later dismissed his concerns and completely banned students from using the microwave. Prakash’s partner and now fiancé, Bhattacheryya, was removed from her teaching assistant position because of the conflict, according to the complaint.
The students reported acts of retaliation including collective resignation of their advisory committees, negative performance reviews, downgrading of student status, denial of credit transfers and loss of funding.
The complaint alleges they suffered substantial damages including, “loss of contractual benefits, diminished academic and professional opportunities, economic harm, and emotional distress.”
“The university reached an agreement with the plaintiffs and denies any liability. The university has established processes to address allegations of discrimination and harassment, and it adhered to those processes in this matter.” CU Spokesperson Deborah Méndez-Wilson said in a statement. “CU Boulder remains committed to fostering an inclusive environment for students, faculty and staff.”
The university did not comment further on the allegations outlined in the complaint.
“The [settlement] amount matters, so that generations after us can know that when you do protest, it doesn’t just end badly for you,” Prakash said in an interview with the CU Independent. “You can get the means to pick up your life and move forward.”
The Incident
The first incident occurred on Sept. 5, 2023, when Prakash used a microwave to heat his lunch, palak paneer, in the Hale Science building. The anthropology department’s main office is housed in the building. Prakash said using the microwave was a common practice for students and faculty in the anthropology department.
The complaint claims two administrative assistants entered the kitchen and one remarked how “pungent” Prakash’s food smelled. The same administrator said there was a rule against heating foods with strong odors in the kitchen.
Prakash said when he inquired about what defines “pungent” food, he did not receive a consistent answer. Both administrators defended their statement. The complaint said he returned to his desk feeling “othered and saddened.”
“I’m just heating my food in a common microwave,” Prakash said. “It just seemed very inequitable.”
He later approached one of the staff members in her office to explain why her comments were hurtful. Prakash said the staff member interrupted him to call another staff member into the office. They maintained that he was prohibited from using the microwave to heat curry.
“Throughout the short conversation, Mr. Prakash maintained his composure, speaking in a calm and informative manner while maintaining a respectful distance,” the complaint read.
Prakash explained that this interaction was particularly hurtful, since food discrimination is one major forms of racism used against Indian people in the U.S. Another form of racism against Indians he identified was “how we speak.”
“Imagine being conscious every moment of what you’re eating or how you’re speaking,” he said. “It is a significant erosion of the self.”
Two days later, Prakash and four doctoral students, including Bhattacheryya, used the microwave again to heat Indian food. One of the two administrators from the previous interaction was in the kitchen at the time.
The complaint claims one of the graduate students explained to the administrator that calling someone’s ethnic food pungent is a microaggression. The administrator denied making the statement.
“The only reason why this lunch act is being considered political is because other people felt bad for me, that’s just what human beings do,” Prakash said. “If someone’s being victimized, other people bringing the same food is just a show of solidarity.”
Bhattacheryya was a teaching assistant for an undergraduate anthropology course that semester. She invited Prakash to speak to the two recitation sections she taught the same day. The class was learning about cultural relativism, according to the complaint.
The complaint defines cultural relativism as, “the ways in which various cultures and societies have different ethical and cultural practices and moral codes, and encourages people to see such practices from a factual lens within their cultures and historical contexts, rather than assigning normative judgments from a singular perspective of one’s own culture.”
Prakash shared his experiences living in Rome and attending a university in India. In one of the recitations, he spoke about the administrator calling his food “pungent” and the conversation that followed. He did not name the individuals involved to the students.
The complaint states he spoke about it to, “encouraged students to consider cultural relativism in the context of everyday life.”
“I always feel, pedagogically, students should be taught not just through books and theory, but through ethics and action,” Prakash said.
Prakash said he was called into a meeting with three members of his Ph.D. advisory committee on Sept. 12, 2023. The professor Bhattacheryya worked for as a teaching assistant was present as a committee member, according to the complaint.
Prakash said that he “felt like something was off,” going into the meeting. He said he recorded the meeting due to his instinct from working as a journalist.
In the meeting, Prakash was told the staff members he spoke with on Sept. 5 had reported him to Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution. Prakash said the staff members claimed they felt physically threatened by him during the interaction.
“That was really disturbing for me,” Prakash said. “It’s a very serious allegation against any person and especially a man of color.”
Prakash said his committee members said the policy prohibiting strong-smelling foods from the community kitchen had previously been enforced. They reiterated that the policy was not racially targeted. He said his committee “wouldn’t let him speak” in the meeting.
The professor who Bhattacheryya worked for mentioned Prakash’s lecture to the recitation regarding the incident in the kitchen. The complaint states the professor said Prakash’s mention of it was a “big problem.”
The following day, the department chair sent an email titled “Hale Kitchen Use Policy.” The department-wide emailed stated graduate students were no longer allowed to heat their food in the kitchen, according to the complaint.
Prakash replied to the email and addressed it to the entire department, explaining the situation leading to the policy change. He shared why he believed the policy was discriminatory and how many Indian people in the west fear “ridicule and pejorative comments” regarding their food.
The complaint claims support for Prakash department members was “immediate, with a number of individuals expressing shock at the Department’s response.”
Prakash received an apology via email from one of the three administrators involved in the original incident. She acknowledged she had not listened to Prakash when he voiced his concerns, according to the complaint.
The professor who Bhattacheryya worked for asked to speak with Bhattacheryya the same day. The complaint wrote that Bhattacheryya responded with her concerns about the department’s treatment of Prakash. She said she would not enter Hale Sciences or teach recitations until the department, “took accountability or implemented changes.”
On Sept. 14, 2023, Bhattacheryya was allegedly “effectively terminated” from her teaching assistant job without discussion. She said the professor had revoked her access to the teaching assistant platform for the course. Around Oct. 4, one of the CU deans suggested Bhattacheryya start a new teaching assistant position. She began the position later that month.
The CU Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance (OIEC) contacted Prakash and Bhattacheryya on Sept. 16. The students filed complaints against the staff members involved in the initial microaggression against Prakash and the professor who terminated Bhattacheryya.
“We kind of enacted these OIC investigations, but we weren’t really hearing anything, week on end, month on end,” said Bhattacheryya.
On Sept. 18, two CU deans reached out to Prakash and Bhattacheryya in hopes of resolving the issues, according to the complaint.
The following week, they shared their terms for resolution with the deans. They sought, “repeal of the food policy, dismissal of the complaint labeling Mr. Prakash a threat, and an apology,” according to the complaint.
The complaint noted the department did not agree to the terms despite OIEC, “encouraging a resolution.” Prakash chose to pursue a formal investigation of two administrators involved in the food incident. The investigation excluded the administrator who gave Prakash an apology.
Bhattacheryya opened a formal investigation of the professor who removed her from her teaching assistant job. OIEC notified the administrators and professor of the investigations on Nov. 9, 2023.
Resignation of advisory committees
Both Prakash and Bhattacheryya reported receiving letters on Jan. 10, 2024, saying their entire Ph.D. advisory committees had resigned. They were notified of their new advisors, which were both outside of their subdisciplines. They said the letters provided no explanation of why their committees resigned.
Bhattacheryya emphasized the importance of having advisors that relate to her subfield so they can write informed recommendation letters and apply for government funding. She said the relevance of her advisor to her subfield reflected her personal competence when applying for government funding.
“It was important to have those professors in our field, and it was very important for our careers,” she said. “It was an unprecedented move.”
“Plaintiffs spent significant amounts of time submitting their own grant applications, adjusting their research, searching for additional committee members, and obtaining guidance through other professors,” the complaint read.
Prakash and Bhattacheryya still excelled academically, maintaining high grade point averages and securing competitive research grants, according to the complaint.
They opened an investigation with OIEC against their advisors who resigned without explanation. The complaint noted the advisors received a notice of allegations on May 6, 2024. Those notices were amended on June 4, 2024, that included additional information from Prakash and Bhattacheryya.
Negative Performance Evaluations
On the same day the notices were amended, both students received negative teaching assistant performance evaluations. The professor who terminated Bhattacheryya and resigned from both advisory committees completed both evaluations.
Their evaluations had near identical wording, according to the complaint. In their feedback, another professor they worked for claimed their grading was, “terse, unclear, or harsh.”
The feedback also noted that both Prakash and Bhattacheryya missed half of the classes they were expected to attend. The professor’s attendance policy for teaching assistance was that two teaching assistants needed to be present in lectures. While the requirement was allowed to be coordinated among teaching assistants, all were expected to attend at least half of the lectures. Prakash called the claim “preposterous” saying the student knew they were attending the lectures.
Prakash was notified his student status was being downgraded, saying he was, “no longer making adequate progress toward his degree.” The complaint explained his downgraded status made him ineligible for program funding like dissertation funding, professional development funds and scholarships.
Prakash claimed his downgraded student status was because he did not complete his master’s thesis by its deadline. He said his advisor’s resignations impacted his ability to submit the thesis in the timeline outlined in the graduate student handbook.
“The handbook says that you need to do it by semester four,” Prakash said. “Does the handbook say that your entire committee will also go and leave in semester four because there’s no mention of that.”
Prakash stated that later during his master’s defense, one of his advisors claimed he was defending an independent paper. He said an independent paper is presented, rather than defended.
“You present a paper, you defend a thesis, so you can see the kind of chicanery that was going on over there,” he said.
Denial of Transfer Applications
Bhattacheryya sent further communications to the two CU deans regarding their negative evaluations and Prakash’s downgraded student status on Sept. 3, 2024. The complaint stated the deans acknowledged the events as racist and retaliatory over a Zoom meeting on Sept. 18, 2024.
The complaint claims the deans said they would assist in securing funding and program transfers for both students. Prakash and Bhattacheryya applied to CU’s Geology and Critical Media Practices doctoral programs.
Prakash and Bhattacheryya were denied admission to the programs. The complaint alleges the deans later claimed they had no influence over the admissions process.
“There was this atmosphere of gaslighting and them wanting you to stay in this position of subjugation and not speaking out, even when it’s wrong,” Bhattacheryya said.
Denial of Credit Transfers
Throughout the year, both students discussed transferring program credits with their advisors, according to the complaint. Bhattacheryya transferred from a doctoral program at the University of Southern California to her program CU in 2023. The complaint mentions her previous advisor assured her credits from that program would be transferred.
Prakash requested to take a linguistic anthropology course a second time as it was central to his project. He said that due to his committee resigning, he needed to adjust his project to further overlap with the subfields of his new advisors. The complaint stated the professor teaching the course provided a letter of support for Prakash, as she had done for students in the past.
Prakash’s and Bhattacheryya were assured by their new advisors that they would support their credit transfers. Prakash submitted all relevant paperwork for his credit transfer in November. The complaint said Prakash followed up with his advisors in January after being notified that his application was never received.
Prakash discovered one of his advisors did not submit the request to the graduate committee. When he followed up with the advisor, he said it was Prakash’s responsibility to monitor all paperwork. The complaint alleges that during this interaction, the advisor accused Prakash of being “imperious.”
Prakash’s credit transfer request was later denied, claiming the university prohibited taking the course twice. Bhattacheryya’s request was denied in December 2024, despite support from her former and current advisor, according to the complaint.
Downgraded Student Status and Loss of Funding
Prakash and Bhattacheryya received their performance evaluations from their department in June 2025. The complaint alleges that their evaluations stated they were making insufficient progress toward their degrees and were ineligible for teaching assistant jobs. The department’s revocation of the teaching assistantships led to the student’s doctoral program funding being revoked.
Prakash and Bhattacheryya chose to take a leave of absence for the Fall 2025 semester due to the revoked funding. As international students, they said they would be expected to pay CU around $30,000 in tuition fees for the semester.
Bhattacheryya recalled her thought process when returning to the U.S. after their downgraded student status.
“We’ve lost our jobs, we don’t have any money right now, we are expected to pay for our classes,” Bhattacheryya said. “We’re fighting this behemoth with very little resources at our fingertips that we can kind of accrue here.”
The complaint detailing the timeline was then filed on Sept. 5, 2025. It outlined how the retaliatory actions against the students had caused academic and professional harm.
“Both Plaintiffs have suffered reputational harm within their academic field due to the University’s characterization of their legitimate concerns as threatening behavior and their subsequent academic difficulties,” read the complaint. “In addition, the negative performance evaluations, despite their exemplary academic records, have damaged their professional standing and future career prospects in academia.”
The lawsuit filed against the university was settled in late 2025. Bhattacheryya and Prakash said they received their master’s degrees on Dec. 17. Now back in India, the students said that the situation caused long-lasting harm.
Lasting Impact
Both students said they suffered physical health conditions due to the stress the situation caused. Bhattacheryya experienced painful flare-ups of a pre-existing medical condition. Prakash said he developed a health condition from the stress of the lawsuit and events leading to it.
“I started seeking a lawyer because I could see what this was doing to her health wise,” Prakash said.
While they said the racism, retaliation and the lawsuit caused significant emotional distress, they were satisfied with the lawsuit outcome. Bhattacheryya said she felt the settlement amount was a form of justice.
“We’re coming out of this having made a stand, having set a precedent and getting this money from the university,” she said. “I think it’s important to show that you can get something out of this.”
Among the reasons they chose to file the complaint, dismissal of racism against Indians was one of them. He said that racism against Indians is often chalked up to “fun and games.”
“Racism against Indians is not considered racism in the U.S. and that’s the fight that we fought with this case,” Prakash said.
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Prakash applied to the CU Geology doctoral program and Bhattacheryya applied to the Critical Media Practices program. Both former students applied to both programs.
Contact CU Independent News Editor Avery Clifton at avery.clifton@colorado.edu
