Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05281-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FANG-YUH HSIEH,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-5281 PJH 

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS DR. PHILIP LAVORI

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretary of 

the Department of Veteran Affairs and 

PHILIP LAVORI,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Now before the court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Dr. Philip Lavori from this

action. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered their arguments and

the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the

defendant’s motion for the following reasons. Because the court finds that defendant’s

motion, which has been noticed for hearing on September 12, 2007, is appropriate for

decision without oral argument, that hearing date is hereby VACATED. 

This is a Title VII action in which plaintiff Fang-Yuh Hsieh alleges discrimination in

federal employment. On May 23, 2007, after obtaining consent of defense counsel and

leave of the court to file an amended complaint that did not name his former supervisor, Dr.

Philip Lavori, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) adding Dr. Lavori as a

defendant. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated from his employment as a VA

statistician on account of his sex, national origin, and age. He also alleges his termination

was in reprisal for EEO activity. See SAC at 2. 

Defendants now move to dismiss Dr. Lavori on the basis that the only proper

defendant in actions alleging federal employment discrimination is the head of the relevant

agency. The motion is GRANTED, as the complaint does not proffer enough facts to state

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face against Dr. Lavori. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1966-67 (2007).

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 102 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

First, as stated in defense counsel’s declaration, defendant never consented to the

SAC as filed – with Dr. Lavori as a defendant. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave

to amend in light of defendant’s stated non-opposition. In light of this, the complaint,

insofar as it contains Dr. Lavori as a defendant, was not properly filed. Plaintiff submits no

declaration contradicting defense counsel’s assertions in this regard.

Second, the law is clear that only heads of the relevant agency are proper

defendants. Plaintiff brought this action under Title VII, alleging jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5. He is only allowed to bring a complaint alleging federal employment

discrimination under that provision against “the head of the department, agency, or unit, as

appropriate.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. See also White v. General Services Admin., 652

F.2d 913, 917 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Title VII remedy is against the government only, and not the

individual defendants”); Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, 157 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir.

1998) (“civil liability for employment discrimination does not extend to individual agents of

the employer who committed the violations, even if that agent is a supervisory employee”). 

 Plaintiff also seems to allege age discrimination, for which the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (“ADEA”), not Title VII supplies the exclusive remedy for such claims in

federal employment. See Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27695 (D.P.R. 2004)

(“Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for claims of race and gender discrimination in

federal employment and that ADEA provides the exclusive remedy for age discrimination

claims in federal employment.”). However, the presence of an ADEA claim does not alter

the analysis here, because “42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), identifying the proper defendant in

Title VII discrimination actions, also applies to age discrimination claims brought under the

ADEA.” Romain v. Shear, 799 F.2d 1416, 1418 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, Dr. Lavori is DISMISSED as a defendant in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2007 _______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Court

Case 4:06-cv-05281-PJH Document 102 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2