Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Exclusion From Medical Residency Program By UC Constitutes ‘Employment Practice’
Opinion Says Age Discrimination Act Doesn’t Apply
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the Regents of the University of California in an action under the federal Age Discrimination Act of 1975 brought by the holder of a medical degree who was denied admission to the neurological surgery residency program because the statutory scheme exempts from coverage “any employment practice of any employer,” the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday.
Circuit Judge authored the opinion which affirms a decision by Magistrate Judge Laurel D. Beeler of the Northern District of California. Beeler found that plaintiff Jordan Spatz is not protected by the Age Act in his challenge to being turned down for residency at the University of California at San Francisco.
Koh wrote:
“The central question is whether the decision not to accept plaintiff into UCSF’s neurological surgery residency program constitutes an ‘employment practice of any employer.’…Neither the Age Act nor its implementing regulations define the terms ‘employer’ or ‘employment practice.’…Nor do the parties cite any case construing these terms in the context of the Age Act. We accordingly give these terms their ordinary common-law meaning.”
Quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, she said:
“At common law, an ‘employee’ is generally defined as ‘[sjomeone who works in the service of another person (the employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the employer has the right to control the details of work performance.’ ”
Paid a Salary
The judge declared that “virtually every one” of the relevant factors “suggests that ranking medical residents is akin to hiring an employee.” Among those factors is that “medical residents are paid a salary.”
She pointed to Khoiny v. Dignity Health, decided in 2022 by Div. Eight of this district’s Court of Appeal. Then-Justice (now Presiding Justice) Maria E. Stratton wrote:
“This case presents an issue of first impression under California law: whether a medical resident’s claim that she was dismissed from her residency program due to gender discrimination and in retaliation for complaints about discrimination and workplace safety is subject to the rule of academic deference. We hold the predominant relationship between a medical resident and a hospital residency program is an employee-employer relationship, and so academic deference does not apply to the jury’s determination whether the resident was terminated for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.”
Categorization Unnecessary
Koh set forth:
“Ultimately, we need not definitively categorize medical residents as employees or students to resolve the case before us. Instead, we hold that ranking medical residents is an employment practice to which the Age Act does not apply.”
She noted that Spatz weas unable to bring an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 because he was “under 40 at the time of the relevant conduct.”
The case is Spatz v. Regents of the University of California, 24-2997.
On Aug. 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit, in a memorandum opinion, affirmed Beeler’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Spatz, saying:
“[T]he facts do not clearly favor Dr. Spatz’s position that he was not hired based on his age or in retaliation for his complaints rather than his poor clinical performance….Additionally, UCSF would face substantial hardship if forced to expand its neurosurgery residency program, relief can be accorded to Dr. Spatz after resolution on the merits…, and the public interest favors maintenance of high standards in medical training.”
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company