I understand that this is a very subjective and generalized question. I recently had someone tell me that he’s been dismissed in academia and I was quite surprised to hear that.
He remains extremely influential and taken seriously. In the Anglophone world, he is sometimes treated as a "social theorist", but this is often ignoring the the fact he did empirical work prior to writing his La Distinction, including empirical work on schools. This is important because sociologists are often emphatic that we aren't just social thinkers, but empirical. Nobody, I assure you, in sociology, can study social stratification with any deal of depth and awareness of the theoretical literature seriously without being at least acquainted with Bourdieu (and we may add Marx and Weber, but Bourdieu being more recent is maybe an even heavier contender). In Britain, one of the more influential studies of British class society, has been the classification schema of Michael Savage and partners (2013: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0038038513481128). This draws heavily on Bourdieu. Now, this is influential, but has detractors, I noticed. The detractor I know of near me happens to be a bit up his own arse (for reasons aside from his own analysis), but whatever, I will make note of this regardless.
I myself do not study social stratification with the greatest detail, but even then he find his way in my studies. For instance, in my field, if you want to see an "applied" use of Bourdieu's theoretical framework, you may be interested in Van Hear's application of it to explaining the relation between migration and class: https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2009_20.pdf
Outside of just class, but also Bourdieu's concepts of the field and of habitus have also been quite popular. Habitus is often imagined as a response to the structure-agency problem (which any student of sociology---and I may even say the social sciences more broadly---will be aware of).
Who might dislike Bourdieu? Probably people who aren't inclined to, I guess, a certain way of doing sociology. I speak vaguely, but I imagine the highly theory-averse and the highly macroscopic and statistical are less likely to appreciate Bourdieu. That is my guess anyway.
Now, does everyone like him? Of course not, there are and have been detractors. But he is still a mainstay of sociology. His framework of capitals remains particularly strong, even as people continue to innovate onto it. Okay, well, have people maybe grown less appreciative of him? Perhaps. But to say he's been dismissed in sociology writ large, as if he has the status of Lacan in mainstream psychology for example (I don't even say this as a diss, I kinda kinda like him!), is utterly, utterly, demonstrably incorrect. I rarely make such a definitive statement about sociology, but I feel justified in doing so here.