Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00287/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00287-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Goldman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the Department

of Veterans Affairs; et. al., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________

Steven Goldman, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the Department

of Veterans Affairs, et al.,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-287-TUC-HCE (lead case)

No. CV 11-609-TUC-HCE

CONSOLIDATED

ORDER

The Magistrate Judge has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the parties’

consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 14). 

Plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint in this consolidated matter naming the

following Defendants: Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs;

United States Department of Veterans Affairs; Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health

Case 4:11-cv-00287-CRP Document 20 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 3
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

The record reflects that the original complaint in CV 11-287 named the same

defendants who are named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 1). Defendants

included a similar motion to dismiss in their Answer (Doc. No. 8) and the parties

subsequently stipulated to dismissal of all defendants except Defendant Shinseki. (Doc. No.

9).

- 2 -

Care Center of Tucson, Arizona; Jonathan Gardner, Director of the Southern Arizona

Veterans Affairs Health Care Center; and Jayendra Shah, M.D., Chief of Staff of the

Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care Center. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants discriminated against him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. (hereinafter “ADEA”) including amendments added by the

Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990, and that Defendants retaliated against him

for complaining of the discrimination, also in violation of the ADEA. 

Defendants included in their Answer a “Motion to Dismiss Improper Parties.” (Doc.

17). According to Defendants, the proper defendant in such a case is the head of the

department, agency, or unit, as appropriate and thus, “the Secretary of Veterans Affairs [Eric

Shinseki] is the only proper defendant.” (Doc. 17 at p.2) (citations omitted). In response,

Plaintiff “agrees to dismiss the Defendants Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care

System [sic] of Tucson, Arizona, Jonathan Gardener [sic], and Jayendra Shah.”1

 (Doc. 18).

However, “Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Complaint to add the individual

Defendants should matters learned during the discovery process implicate them in related

claims for which they may be personally liable.” (Id.). Plaintiff’s Response does not

indicate his position regarding dismissal of Defendant United States Department of Veterans

Affairs. Defendants object to any such reservation because the specified defendants are not

proper defendants in an ADEA case. (Doc. 19).

Because “[t]he ADEA does not specify who should be named as defendant in an age

discrimination action”, the Ninth Circuit relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq., for guidance on this issue. Romain v. Shear, 799 F.2d 1416,

1418 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held “that 42 U.S.C. §2000eCase 4:11-cv-00287-CRP Document 20 Filed 05/25/12 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff has provided no basis whatsoever as to why Defendant United States

Department of Veterans Affairs should not be dismissed.

- 3 -

16(c), identifying the proper defendant in Title VII discrimination actions, also applies to age

discrimination claims brought under the ADEA.” Id. Under section 2000e-16(c), the proper

defendant in an ADEA suit filed by a federal employee is “the head of the department,

agency, or unit, as appropriate....” 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16(c). Accordingly, Defendant

Shinseki is the only proper defendant with regard to Plaintiff’s ADEA discrimination and

retaliation claims, and the parties seemingly agree on this issue.2

 The Court reads Plaintiff’s

reservation regarding dismissal of the other defendants as Plaintiff’s indication that in the

event discovery may lead to non-ADEA claims against these defendants, Plaintiff reserves

the right to amend the complaint to allege such claims. Resolution of whether Plaintiff can

sue the Defendants on non-ADEA claims is premature, thus Plaintiff’s reservation must

stand. All that is before the Court at this point is Defendant’s motion to dismiss all

Defendants except Defendant Shinseki from the only two claims alleged in Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint both of which arise under the ADEA. As the law indicates, and the

parties agree, such dismissal is warranted. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is

GRANTED and the following Defendants are DISMISSED: United States Department of

Veterans Affairs; Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care Center of Tucson, Arizona;

Jonathan Gardner, Director of the Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care Center;

and Jayendra Shah, M.D., Chief of Staff of the Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health

Care Center.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00287-CRP Document 20 Filed 05/25/12 Page 3 of 3