An Israeli chemist who resigned from Stanford University is suing the school after he claims it was complicit in antisemitism that he faced at the school — including the alleged tampering with his lab results, Jewish Insider has learned. 

The Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Los Angeles-based law firm Cohen Williams LLP filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday on behalf of Shay Laps, a Jewish Israeli postdoctoral researcher who was hired by Stanford in April 2024 after being recommended by a Nobel laureate. Laps’ research focused on synthetic and “smart” insulin, aiming to revolutionize diabetes treatment. 

According to the lawsuit, after arriving in professor Danny Chou’s Stanford lab, Laps was targeted by a lab staffer who knew that he was a Jewish scientist from Israel. At their first meeting, the suit alleges, the staffer told Laps, the only Israeli in the building, never to speak to her, and later excluded Laps from sitting with her and other staffers during lunch. Laps expressed that the staffer treated other colleagues kindly. 

The complaint also names Chou, an associate professor of pediatrics and the lab’s leader and mentor, as a defendant. 

The discrimination escalated when, according to Laps, the lab staffer tampered with his research, producing fraudulent results without his knowledge. Laps said that upon the discovery of the alleged sabotage of his experiments, Chou refused to address the issue — and eventually pressured Laps to leave the country by falsely claiming that Stanford’s Title IX Office had alerted Chou to a complaint and formal investigation against Laps and that his immigration status was on the line. Stanford’s Title IX Office later confirmed that there was no complaint or investigation against Laps, according to the suit. 

Stanford President Jonathan Levin and the School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor disregarded Laps’ attempts for help, the lawsuit alleges. Ultimately, Laps felt he had no choice but to resign.

Talia Nissimyan, a lawyer at Cohen Williams who is representing Laps, said that as Laps “suffered discrimination and retaliation based on his religion, national origin, and ethnicity, the university preferred not to look.”

“Instead, they attempted to bury Dr. Laps’ career, and when that didn’t work, to bully him into rescinding his complaints,” Nissimyan said in a statement. “Stanford succumbed to the rising tide of campus antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias, costing Dr. Laps critical years of his career, and costing the world the potential fruits of his talents.” 

Barnard College reached a settlement on Monday in a lawsuit brought by Jewish students which claimed that the school violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to address antisemitism. 

Under the agreement reached, Barnard will adopt an anti-masking policy at demonstrations; refuse to meet with anti-Israel campus groups, including Columbia University Apartheid Divest; “consider” adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism; require students, faculty and staff to complete antisemitism training; and expand its discipline policy to include harassment that occurs off campus or online. 

Barnard will also hire a coordinator to review new allegations of Title VI violations and agreed not to divest from companies that have ties to Israel. 

The complaint, Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, filed in district court in New York in February 2024 against Columbia University and Barnard, detailed several instances of antisemitism, including physical assaults of Jewish students. The complaint alleges that faculty members and students routinely referred to Hamas’ Oct.7, 2023 attacks as “awesome” and a “great feat.” 

Barnard also recently expanded its partnership with the Jewish Theological Seminary. Jewish studies courses at JTS — located near Barnard’s Morningside Heights campus — will now count toward Barnard degree requirements, with students able to participate with no additional tuition costs.

Laura Ann Rosenbury, president of Barnard, said in a statement that the settlement “reflects our ongoing commitment to maintaining a campus that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all members of our community.” 

Monday’s settlement comes as Barnard — which is closely affiliated with Columbia but has independent administration and affiliation — remains under investigation by the Trump administration for violating Title VI.

Barnard faced several major incidents of antisemitism on its campus during the last academic year. A staff member was assaulted and sent to the hospital in February by anti-Israel demonstrators who stormed the college’s main administrative building and remained there for several hours, chanting “resistance is justified when people are occupied” and “intifada revolution.” 

The demonstration was a response to the school’s decision just days earlier — in its most forceful response to anti-Israel activity on campus to date — to expel two second-semester seniors who disrupted a “History of Modern Israel” class on Columbia’s campus by storming in, banging on drums and distributing posters to students that read “CRUSH ZIONISM.” 

​​Marc Kasowitz of Kasowitz LLP, counsel for the plaintiffs, praised Barnard’s “commitment to take meaningful actions to combat antisemitism demonstrates its leadership in the fight against antisemitism and upholding the rights of Jewish and Israeli students.”

Kasowitz continued, “These commitments are not only the right thing to do, but are essential to creating a welcome and inclusive campus for all members of the Barnard community. I encourage other colleges and universities to do the right thing and follow Barnard’s lead.”

One November afternoon last year, Jackie Junger and Jacqueline Katz, both therapists at a private practice in Dallas, sat down with their colleagues for their weekly team meeting. This one-hour gathering was a lifeline for the therapists, where they could discuss challenges their clients were facing and receive advice from their fellow practitioners. 

When a non-Jewish therapist asked for help better understanding a Jewish client who was “experiencing trauma with everything going on,” Junger and Katz — both Jewish — were eager to offer insight about the surge in antisemitism in the United States, in the hopes of helping their colleague better serve her client. But before Junger, 29, and Katz, 61, could speak, their supervisor, Dr. Dina Hijazi, shut down the conversation. 

“I don’t think that’s a good idea, because you’ll get a one-sided response,” Hijazi told the therapists, according to legal filings. 

The next day, Hijazi emailed the team and asked them to avoid discussing the “Palestine Israel topic” because she has “great pain” around the issue. But no one had mentioned the events in the Middle East at that meeting. Junger and Katz each responded to Hijazi’s note: Why, they wondered, would it be considered “one-sided” for Jewish therapists to speak about their understanding of antisemitism and Jewish trauma?  

Over the next five days, Junger and Katz would see their lives upended after they chose to raise concerns about antisemitism and double standards against Jewish practitioners and clients. 

That’s the key allegation at the heart of a federal lawsuit that Junger and Katz filed last month against D2 Counseling and its co-owners, Hijazi and Rev. Daniel Gowan. The two Jewish therapists claim they were discriminated against for objecting to their supervisors’ handling of antisemitism — and that, ultimately, they faced unlawful retaliation when they were fired days later. On the Monday before Thanksgiving, both received identical voicemails letting them know they had been terminated, saying they were no longer a “good fit” for D2. (An attorney representing Hijazi and Gowan declined to respond to detailed questions, citing the ongoing legal proceedings. The account in this article is based on an interview with Katz and Junger, allegations in their lawsuit and information shared by their lawyer.)

The incident was jarring for both Katz and Junger, they told Jewish Insider this week. But the biggest travesty, they said, is not that they lost their jobs: It’s that Jewish clients at their old practice should no longer expect to receive the highest level of care — because of their religion.

“This Jewish client — I don’t know who it is, obviously, I just know that it’s a Jewish client who is genuinely seeking support for something that they’re having trouble with in their life. It’s real trauma. I think most Jews can appreciate that it’s really traumatic, what’s happening,” Junger told JI. “And they’re not allowed to get competent health care. They have no clue.” 

*****

This case is only a single incident experienced by just two of the nation’s more than 100,000 licensed therapists. But it comes amid what Jewish mental health professionals in the United States have described as an increasingly hostile professional environment, where denunciations of Israel are expected and outright antisemitism is no longer a taboo, particularly after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks in Israel. 

Earlier this year, the state of Illinois formally reprimanded a social worker who had created a blacklist publicly naming “Zionist” therapists. (The clinicians included on the list said it was just a pretext for targeting Jews.) 

In May, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) warned of a “persistent and pernicious pattern of antisemitism” at the American Psychological Association, the preeminent professional organization for psychologists in the U.S. 

Empathy is supposed to be the central tenet of the mental health field, but compassion and understanding are not always extended to Jewish therapists — or worse, their clients.

“Our role is really to facilitate the discussion, to honor their feelings, and to create a safe space — to create a space that [clients] can communicate what they’re experiencing internally, without any sort of feeling that, ‘I’m going to be shut down or marginalized or not taken seriously,’” Katz explained.  

It was clear to Junger and Katz soon after the Oct. 7 attacks that team conversations about what was happening in the Middle East would be different from other issues they’d been discussing for years. 

“We talk about current events a lot because these things affect our clients,” said Katz. The D2 team had talked about the war in Ukraine soon after it started; abortion access following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022; and gun control after a mass shooting at a Texas mall in 2023. 

A therapist helping a client work through issues with their sexuality might seek advice from a gay co-worker. Past meetings also included discussions of Mormonism and Islam, according to the complaint filed by Katz and Junger. Hijazi led a conversation about how to help clients who were having an emotional reaction to President Donald Trump’s reelection shortly after it occurred, according to the lawsuit.

“It’s very common to seek peer consultation, supervision from someone who has expertise, whether it’s lived experience or clinical experience,” Junger told JI. “If someone, let’s say, had cancer, and I had a client who’s going through cancer, I might reach out and say, ‘Hey, what would be helpful for me to know?’” 

Three days after the Oct. 7 attacks, when the D2 team gathered as they do each Tuesday, Hijazi and Gowan did not address the recent terror attacks. 

“We were all very shocked that we weren’t going to address the elephant in the room, as it were, and it quickly fell apart because one of my coworkers brought it up. ‘Aren’t we going to talk about what happened? We’re all very upset and suffering here,’” said Katz. “And it was shut down.” 

Lesson learned, according to Katz and Junger: Don’t bring up Israel or Gaza again. It wasn’t an overt order, but the palpable discomfort from Hijazi and Gowan kept a lid on future conversations.

Still, Hijazi’s strong reaction to the conversation about antisemitism a year later, in November 2024, surprised Junger and Katz. No one had mentioned Israel or Gaza. But Hijazi followed up with an email requesting that the “Palestine Israel topic” not be discussed. 

“I have great pain around this as I know some of you do as well,” Hijazi wrote in the email, which was shared with JI. “In order for me to work and be present with my clients I have asked that this be kept out of the noon meeting.” (What Hijazi did not share is that her family is Palestinian — a fact her daughter discussed in an online blog post viewed by JI, but one Hijazi didn’t mention to colleagues.) 

Katz and Junger did not see how a question about the trauma of a Jewish patient in Texas could be extrapolated to extend to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor did they understand why Hijazi chose to shut down future discussions of Jewish trauma. Separately, they each responded with lengthy emails, screenshots of which were included in the lawsuit.

“I believe every single one of us has Jewish clients, and the more we understand, the better we can service our clients,” Junger wrote in her email.

Katz took issue with Hijazi letting her own emotions guide the discussion, a therapist no-no. 

“As a managing partner in this practice I think it was essential for you to be able to manage the inquiry without adopting the victim role and personalizing it to your pain,” Katz wrote in another email. “I understand that you were protecting yourself by leaving the room, however the impact was that some of us felt shut down and unheard.” 

The matter only escalated from there, playing out like most modern office dramas: over email, leaving a lengthy digital record. 

Hijazi banned the expression of “political or religious opinions” in the group meetings, under the rationale of “safety in the workplace.” “Emotional safety for the group,” she wrote, “will always come before personal agendas.” 

But Katz and Junger were still unsure what was political about their earlier meeting and decided to press the point about their concern for Jewish clients. “I think your failure to see that this was not a political conversation is a huge blind spot for you,” wrote Katz. Gowan responded by telling her she was “way over the line,” a sentiment Hijazi echoed. 

Over that weekend, on Sunday night, Junger chimed in, too. “I would love some clarification, as I am feeling lots of confusion,” she wrote. “Would wanting more clarity on a Black client experiencing racism violate that policy as well? How about talking about a client who is part of the LGBTQ community and experiencing trauma and discrimination? Are we allowed to talk about their lived experience? Or does this rule only apply to Jewish clients?” 

That was Junger’s final message to her bosses about the matter. Katz chimed in after, saying she had the same questions. 

A day later, they were both fired. 

“It was just outrageous behavior on their part, I think, and so punishing, really. You open your mouth here, and this is what happens to you,” said Katz. “If we weren’t Jewish, [the other therapist] wouldn’t have asked us for supervision. If we weren’t Jewish, we wouldn’t have spoken up. If we weren’t Jewish, we wouldn’t have been let go.”

Their contract required D2 to give them 30 days to finish seeing clients. But they were forced to move to a different office, and asked to pay tens of thousands of dollars stemming from a part of the contract with buyout options and a non-compete clause. (They have refused to pay.)

“I knew antisemitism was on the rise, but to have it so blatant in my face in this way was really shocking. It was honestly a little scary,” said Junger.

*****

Winning an employment discrimination suit is not an easy task. But the lawyers at the Lawfare Project and Winston & Strawn representing Katz and Junger are confident that they have a strong case. 

“It’s very rare to see a case like this, a discrimination retaliation case like this, where the employer’s actions are so brazen,” said Jaclyn Clark, the Lawfare Project attorney who brought the case. “I strongly suspect that the employer in this instance just thought that they could get away with it … So from my standpoint, beyond just shining a light on the issue of antisemitism in the mental health field, the politicization of Jewish trauma and all of those things, is also to put these smaller employers on warning.”

Orly Lobel, an employment law expert at the University of San Diego who looked over the complaint, described it as “a strong case, since it is all documented with email exchanges and there is no pretextual reason for the termination,” she told JI. 

Junger and Katz’s attorneys allege that they faced discrimination as members of a racial minority, leaning on a 1987 Supreme Court ruling as precedent. L. Camille Hébert, a professor at The Ohio State University’s law school, said the race-based argument could be a tougher bar to clear than if the therapists made an argument about religious discrimination. But she noted that the facts laid out in the complaint paint a picture of discrimination.

“If the facts are as alleged, that all subjects were allowed to be addressed in the meetings other than antisemitism, then there might be a cognizable claim of discrimination based on religion.  The defense of ‘workplace safety’ seems not to be a particularly strong one,” Hébert said after reviewing the complaint. 

*****

Jewish therapists aren’t the only ones worried about antisemitism in the field. People seeking mental health care are, too, and Junger and Katz say they are right to be concerned. 

After she was fired by D2, Junger created a list of Jewish therapists in the Dallas area to share with the people in the Jewish community who come to her asking for a referral. Since Oct. 7, she has seen more people seeking out a therapist who understands Jewish issues — and she understands why. 

“Maybe a while ago I would have been like, ‘No, it’s a therapist job to [listen]. They’re not political. It’s OK,’” said Junger. “Now I’m like, ‘I get that.’ It makes sense to want to have safety and know that you have a real safe space to be able to process things that are directly impacting us.”

The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts on Wednesday on behalf of two Jewish students, alleging that the university and a tenured professor violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including harassment on social media and in mass emails. 

“This is a textbook example of neglect and indifference,” Kenneth Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center, said of the lawsuit, shared exclusively with Jewish Insider. “Not only were several antisemitic incidents conducted at the hands of a professor, but MIT’s administration refused to take action on every single occasion,” said Marcus, who served as U.S. assistant secretary of education in the Bush and Trump administrations. 

While the lawsuit, Sussman v. MIT, addresses several antisemitic incidents caused by students, a large portion of the 71-page complaint focuses on alleged antisemitic actions from Michel DeGraff, a tenured linguistics professor. 

The complaint states that through the spring and fall of 2024, DeGraff publicly harassed Lior Alon, an Israeli postdoctoral student, for serving in the Israel Defense Forces — posting Alon’s name and image on social media, and tagging Al Jazeera. The professor then published an article in European newspaper Le Monde in which he singled out the Alon by name, writing that the Israeli, “like many other Zionist counter-protesters, participate in well-rehearsed propaganda that erases the anti-Zionist Jewish students and misrepresents them.” 

As a result, Alon said he was confronted by strangers in various locations, including his child’s daycare and at the grocery store. Alon emailed MIT President Sally Kornbluth expressing fears for his safety and the safety of his family, and requested that the posts be taken down.

Kornbluth — who is the only one of the three college presidents who testified in a now-infamous December 2023 congressional hearing on campus antisemitism who remains in her position — never responded to Alon’s concerns, according to the lawsuit, and no action was taken.

In November 2024, the complaint states that DeGraff harassed another Jewish student by sending a series of mass emails to his entire department, copying Kornbluth and other administrators, accusing the student of having a Jewish “mind infection” and threatening to use him as a “real-life case study” in a class the professor was teaching. 

That same day, flyers were slipped under doors in a dormitory where this student previously lived, targeting him specifically in white lettering on a green band, styled after Hamas headbands, advocating for violence against Jews. 

As a result of the harassment, the student left MIT before completing his Ph.D. program.  

Other instances of antisemitic harassment detailed in the lawsuit include students occupying buildings and disrupting classes with antisemitic chants, students distributing “terror maps” promoting violence at campus locations deemed Jewish and an individual urinating on the Hillel building.

The Massachusetts school was among the 45 universities against which the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened Title VI investigations in March. 

Wednesday’s lawsuit comes at a time when many elite universities are acquiescing to the Trump administration’s demands to crack down on the rise of antisemitic activity on campus that began in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks. MIT, however, joined a lawsuit last month challenging the federal government’s attempt to cut research funding from schools that the administration says have not adequately addressed antisemitism. 

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the victims of Palestinian terrorist groups on Friday in a case regarding the constitutionality of a U.S. law allowing lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization in American courts over payments to terrorists and their families through the “pay-for-slay” program.

The Supreme Court victory in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization is a hard-fought win for the families, and comes following a decades-long series of efforts by American terror victims and their families to sue the Palestinian groups.

Previously, the Second Circuit had repeatedly ruled that legislation passed by Congress to assert U.S. jurisdiction over the PLO and PA, designed to allow victims to sue the groups, was unconstitutional.

Those rulings prompted a back-and-forth between the courts and Congress, which has repeatedly passed legislation designed to address the issues raised by the courts and re-establish a path for terror victims to use the PLO and PA.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the most recent of those bills, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), which stated that the PLO and PA would be subject to U.S. jurisdiction if they continued the terror payments or carried out activities in the United States, was constitutional, reversing the Second Circuit’s decision.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the PSJVTA was reasonable, tying jurisdiction to PLO and PA activities involving the U.S. and sensitive foreign policy matters in which Congress and the executive branch should enjoy broad discretion.

He wrote that the Constitution allows the federal government authority inside and outside the United States, particularly in cases involving U.S. nationals attacked outside U.S. borders.

The case was named for Ari Fuld, who in 2018 was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist whose family subsequently received payments from the PA. Fuld’s wife was one of several family members of terror victims who were party to the suit.

“This is a big deal indeed,” Hillel Fuld, an American Israeli columnist and Ari’s brother, said on X. “Now any American citizen affected by Palestinian terror can sue the Palestinian authority in American courts.  Pretty unprecedented! Wow.”

“Ari continues to change the world even after his death,” Fuld continued.

The Supreme Court’s decision should also allow a previous $650 million judgement in the case Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which was struck down by the Second Circuit, to move ahead.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should have gone further in its decision, saying that he is “skeptical” that groups such as the PLO and PA are entitled to “any constitutional rights at all, let alone qualify as ‘person[s]’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.” Thomas also cast doubt on the idea that the Fifth Amendment restrains in any way Congress’ authority to expand U.S. jurisdiction beyond U.S. borders.

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas’s concurrence in part.

“It’s a big win for the plaintiffs,” Mark Pinkert, an attorney for Holtzman Vogel who filed an amicus brief on behalf of a slew of Jewish organizations, told Jewish Insider. “It’s a very big win for victims of terrorism. It’s a really good day.”

He said the case should bring to an end the long-running battle over whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction in these cases.

“For the Sokolow plaintiffs, who already got a jury award, that should be it, and that should allow them to have that jury award reinstated,” Pinkert continued. “Now there’s questions about how they collect on it, but as far as having a judgment in hand that says, ‘You owe me $600 million,’ it should be the nail in the coffin.”

The Fuld case will still need to proceed to trial, but he said it’s “not a stretch to say the Fuld plaintiffs” will be able to successfully argue their case, given the results in Sokolow.

Pinkert explained that in their decision, the justices largely declined to address broader constitutional questions about the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment raised during oral arguments, only declaring that this case did not violate it.