Steshenko v. Gayrard
2014 WL 4904424
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Steshenko, 52, electrical engineer, seeks re-training and sues CSU system for age discrimination and retaliation.
- Plaintiff applied to the CLS Training Program (denied Jan 25, 2013) and to the SCILL Master’s program (applied Feb 28, 2013).
- Plaintiff alleges younger, less-qualified applicants were admitted and that program heads (Gayrard and Abramson) retaliated after he complained to USDOE.
- Plaintiff cites a supposed waiting list and pretextual explanations for SCILL admission denial; asserts prior complaints prompted adverse actions.
- May 2014 order dismissed several claims; Plaintiff filed FAC; court later granted partial dismissal and allowed limited amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity and waiver | Board waived immunity by accepting federal funds under §2000d-7. | Eleventh Amendment bars claims against Board; no valid waiver for ADA claims. | Board’s ADA claim survives; waiver found via §2000d-7 governing funding conditions. |
| Section 1983 claims against Board | Board violated First/Fourteenth Amendments; Ex parte Young may apply. | No individual capacity or waiver; Ex parte Young not applicable to Board. | Claims against Board under §1983 dismissed with prejudice. |
| Section 1985(3) conspiracy against Board | Board participated in age-based conspiracies to deny admission. | Conspiracy allegations are insufficient and barred by statutory remedies for age discrimination. | §1985(3) claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Age Discrimination Act claim against individual Defendants | Individual defendants violated the ADA by denying admissions due to age. | Individuals cannot be sued under the ADA in this context. | ADA claim against individual defendants dismissed with prejudice. |
| Due process/equal protection/IIED claims against individuals | Plaintiff had a property interest in admission and sought due process; IIED alleged outrageous conduct. | No protected property interest; IIED unsupported; pretext claims belong to discrimination law, not IIED. | Due process claim against individuals dismissed without prejudice; Fourteenth Amendment claims and IIED dismissed with prejudice; other dismissals remained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1985) (sovereign immunity waiver via Spending Clause)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (U.S. 1996) (unambiguous waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Litman v. George Mason Univ., 186 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 1999) (Title IX/ §2000d-7 waiver via federal funding)
- Douglas v. Cal. Dept. of Youth Authority, 271 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2001) ( §2000d-7 scope and sovereign immunity context)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2011) (limits of statutory remedial schemes and immunity interpretation)
- Janken v. GM Hughes Elecs., 46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (routine administrative decisions not IIED)
- Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965 (Cal. 1993) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Johnson v. Rancho Santiago Community College Dist., 623 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (property interests require legitimate entitlement)
- Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2005) (conspiracy pleading standards under 1985(3))