Recent Developments from Around the States

The UCLA School of Medicine Residency Training Program is a 3-year program with reappointments made each year. In 1994, near the end of David Dixon's first year, he was told he would not be rehired for a second year of the program because he had performed poorly. Dixon, feeling he was the victim of racial discrimination, initially obtained a right to sue letter under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and then elected to pursue the internal administrative hearing process provided by UCLA. However, after more than 2 years of hearings, Dixon notified UCLA he was abandoning the administrative hearing process, because there appeared to be no end to the review process. The trial court granted UCLA's motion to dismiss for Dixon's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Typically, a discrimination complainant who invokes the university's hearing process must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to court under the FEHA.)

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, disagreed, noting that the “futility” exception applied to Dixon's case. At the time of decision, it was more than 9 years since Dixon was notified he would not have his employment renewed for a second year. The court held that, under the futility doctrine, Dixon clearly had exhausted his available remedies. “Anything further would have been idle, futile and practically useless,” the court wrote wrote. “He was in the position almost akin to that of someone trying to punch a hole through the 'Pillsbury Doughboy.' It is now almost 10 years since the events that precipitated this lawsuit occurred. What was and is required is exhaustion of administrative and judicial remedies, not exhaustion of Dixon.” The court thus reinstated Dixon's discrimination claim.

CALIFORNIA

Failure to Complete Internal Review Does Not Bar Discrimination Claim

An African-American doctor who claimed he was discriminatorily dismissed from a medical residency program at the University of California at Los Angeles is entitled to pursue a claim under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act in state court, despite his failure to complete the university's internal review procedure, a California appeals court has held. Dixon v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. , 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 564 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 23).

The UCLA School of Medicine Residency Training Program is a 3-year program with reappointments made each year. In 1994, near the end of David Dixon's first year, he was told he would not be rehired for a second year of the program because he had performed poorly. Dixon, feeling he was the victim of racial discrimination, initially obtained a right to sue letter under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and then elected to pursue the internal administrative hearing process provided by UCLA. However, after more than 2 years of hearings, Dixon notified UCLA he was abandoning the administrative hearing process, because there appeared to be no end to the review process. The trial court granted UCLA's motion to dismiss for Dixon's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Typically, a discrimination complainant who invokes the university's hearing process must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to court under the FEHA.)

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, disagreed, noting that the “futility” exception applied to Dixon's case. At the time of decision, it was more than 9 years since Dixon was notified he would not have his employment renewed for a second year. The court held that, under the futility doctrine, Dixon clearly had exhausted his available remedies. “Anything further would have been idle, futile and practically useless,” the court wrote wrote. “He was in the position almost akin to that of someone trying to punch a hole through the 'Pillsbury Doughboy.' It is now almost 10 years since the events that precipitated this lawsuit occurred. What was and is required is exhaustion of administrative and judicial remedies, not exhaustion of Dixon.” The court thus reinstated Dixon's discrimination claim.