Spatz v. Regents of the University of California

Background

Dr. Jordan Spatz, a 2021 medical-school graduate, applied for residency programs in 2019 and 2020 but did not obtain a position. He also applied for 45 positions through the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program in 2020 and 2021 and was not selected. Spatz alleged that the Regents’ employees or agents made comments reflecting age-based bias, including statements that he was too old for overnight call and would be placed in a nursing home after residency.

Spatz asserted seven federal and state-law claims. The Regents’ motion addressed his claim under the federal Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Spatz alleged that he filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights on March 26, 2021, before filing his original complaint in court. The court had previously dismissed the Age Discrimination Act claim because exhaustion was not adequately pleaded, but allowed Spatz to amend. He then filed the First Amended Complaint.

Issue

The issue was whether Spatz had adequately alleged that he exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Age Discrimination Act, particularly for conduct occurring more than 180 days before his administrative complaint. The Regents argued that Spatz had not alleged that the Office for Civil Rights formally granted a good-cause extension of the 180-day filing period. The Regents also argued that conduct after September 26, 2020 was insufficient to state an age-discrimination claim.

Legal standard

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At that stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly support a legal claim. The court does not decide whether the allegations are ultimately proven.

The Age Discrimination Act requires administrative exhaustion before a court action may be brought. Under the statute and regulations, an administrative complaint generally must be filed within 180 days after the complainant first learns of the alleged discrimination, although the agency may extend that period for good cause. The court explained that the agency—not the court—has authority to grant such an extension.

Analysis

The court held that the law did not require Spatz to specifically plead that the Office for Civil Rights had formally declared that good cause existed. According to the First Amended Complaint, an agency representative said that, based on the complaint and its ongoing nature, the agency would not exclude incidents outside the 180-day period. The agency also referred the complaint to mediation. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly supported Spatz’s position that the agency had granted, or effectively recognized, a good-cause extension.

The court also noted that Spatz filed his administrative complaint within 180 days of learning of the March 2021 admission decision. The Regents conceded that Spatz exhausted his administrative remedies for claims concerning conduct in March 2021. The court therefore concluded that, at minimum, the claim based on the March 2021 admissions decision was plausible.

The court rejected the Regents’ argument that all facts predating September 26, 2020 had to be excluded. It explained that the 180-day rule governs the deadline for filing an administrative complaint, not the entire scope of evidence that may support a timely discrimination claim. In addition, the court said that even if it considered only conduct occurring on or after September 26, 2020, the alleged March 2021 conduct was enough to support a plausible claim.

Disposition

The court denied the Regents’ motion to dismiss the Age Discrimination Act claim. The order disposed of the motion identified as ECF No. 33. It did not resolve whether Spatz ultimately experienced unlawful age discrimination.