Spatz v. Regents of the University of California

Background

Jordan Spatz graduated from the University of California, San Francisco medical school in 2021. He applied for residency programs in 2020, 2021, and 2022, including UCSF’s neurological-surgery program, but did not obtain a neurological-surgery residency. He also applied for neurology residencies and did not match with one. In 2022, he began a one-year preliminary surgery residency at Oregon Health & Science University, which the opinion says did not provide a path toward licensure unless he later matched into a categorical residency.

Spatz claimed that age affected UCSF’s residency-selection process. The opinion recounts statements by several physicians referring to his age, stamina, energy, durability, or ability to complete a long surgical residency. Spatz also alleged that UCSF failed to investigate age-discrimination complaints adequately, retaliated against him, and failed to give him authorship credit for work performed in the Aghi Laboratory. His claims included alleged violations of federal and state laws, including a claim under the federal Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

The Regents disputed Spatz’s account and presented evidence that UCSF accepted about three of roughly 300 neurosurgery applicants each year. The Regents’ evidence emphasized concerns about Spatz’s clinical internships, including reports of tardiness, inadequate preparation, leaving early, and other professionalism issues. Spatz responded that he received the highest score in every UCSF internship in 2020, had not received some of the negative feedback during the relevant period, and had positive evaluations.

Motion and legal standard

Spatz moved for a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order issued before the case is finally decided. He asked the court to require the Regents to give him a neurological-surgery residency at UCSF immediately or keep a position open while the age-discrimination allegations were litigated. He also asked the court to prevent the Regents from denying him authorship credit for his Aghi Laboratory work and to appoint a special master to observe UCSF’s residency-selection and recommendation processes.

The court applied the four preliminary-injunction factors: likelihood of success on the merits, likely and immediate irreparable harm without an injunction, the balance of hardships between the parties, and the public interest. The court noted that the same standards apply to temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.

Analysis

The court held that Spatz had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or, alternatively, sufficiently serious questions supporting preliminary relief. The evidence included age-related comments, but the court also found evidence that some comments were taken out of context. The court described the central evidence about the application process as mixed and identified substantial questions about whether UCSF’s decisions were driven by Spatz’s core competencies rather than his age.

The court also found that the record did not establish a likelihood of success on Spatz’s theories that UCSF was deliberately indifferent in failing to investigate age discrimination or that Dr. Aghi or others retaliated against him. The court said factual disputes remained about whether competencies, rather than retaliation, informed UCSF’s decisions. It further stated that the record did not permit a conclusion about the alleged failure to credit Spatz for his laboratory work.

The court considered irreparable harm a closer question but found that any appropriate relief could be awarded after the factual disputes were tested through the litigation. It also noted evidence of other options, including other residencies or research. The balance of equities did not favor Spatz because adding a residency position would create a hardship, with program size driven by patient volume and accreditation. Finally, the court found that the injunction was not in the public interest because the requested relief implicated public safety and the training of doctors in a competitive and technical field.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler denied Spatz’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order states that this disposition resolved ECF No. 56. The opinion did not enter a final ruling on the underlying discrimination, retaliation, investigation, or authorship claims.