United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING
CASE RE: DKT. NO. 9
J. DAVILA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Liquiang Wei (“Wei”) filed a Complaint alleging
that, by failing to hire him, the Department of Physics at
Stanford University engaged in (1) age discrimination in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),
29 U.S.C. § 621; (2) national origin and race
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; and (3) race
discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Dkt.
Judge Nathaniel Cousins, to whom this case was previously
assigned, undertook a review of Plaintiff's Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and concluded that the
Complaint failed to state a claim for relief because (1) Wei
had not exhausted his administrative remedies for his ADEA
and Title VII claims; and (2) Wei had not plausibly alleged a
claim for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Dkt. No. 9. This case was reassigned to the undersigned on
February 6, 2018. Dkt. No. 10. Wei filed objections to Judge
Cousins's recommendation on February 20, 2018. Dkt. No.
reviewed Judge Cousins's recommendation in conjunction
with Wei's filings, the Court agrees that the Complaint
is inadequate under the § 1915(e) standard. First, the
Court agrees that Wei has not named a proper defendant for
his Title VII claim. Wei, however, appears willing to correct
this deficiency, as he “agree[s] to amend” his
Complaint to name the chair of Stanford's Physics
Department. Objections 3.
the Court agrees that Wei's ADEA and Title VII claims
must be dismissed because Wei has not exhausted his
administrative remedies. As Judge Cousins correctly
concluded, claims under the ADEA and Title VII require the
complainant to file a charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing a civil action.
See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(e)-(f). Wei acknowledges that he has not done so, but
nevertheless argues that this should not bar his claims
because (1) he is “opposed” to the law requiring
administrative exhaustion for Title VII claims and believes
it is incorrect; and (2) he does not believe the law requires
administrative exhaustion for ADEA claims. Objections 4-5.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Administrative exhaustion
before the EEOC applies to both Wei's ADEA and Title VII
claims, and this Court must adhere to these statutory
requirements. See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1); 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)-(f). Accordingly, if Wei wishes to
pursue his claims under ADEA and Title VII, he must first
file a charge with the EEOC and exhaust his remedies there.
and finally, the Court agrees that Wei has failed to state a
claim for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As
Judge Cousins correctly concluded, Wei's Complaint fails
to allege any facts that Stanford took any action against
him. See Dkt. 1. Thus, even under the liberal
standard set forth in Maduka v. Sunrise Hosp., 375
F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2004), Wei's Complaint fails to
plausibly allege any intentional discrimination. In his
letter, Wei does not appear to disagree that his current
Complaint does not allege that Stanford took action against
him, but mentions various alleged facts which he believes
supports his § 1981 claim. Objections 3-4. Because this
claim will be dismissed with leave to amend, Wei is free to
file an amended complaint with these additional facts and/or
other modifications addressing its current deficiencies.
based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation issued by Judge Cousins on February 6, 2018
(Dkt. No. 9), such that Wei's ADEA and Title VII claims
will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE without leave to amend
and Wei's claim for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 will be DISMISSED with leave to amend.
amended complaint must be filed on or before March 7, 2018,
1. Name the appropriate “head of the department,
agency, or unit” at Stanford as the defendant. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).
2. Contain sufficient factual allegations, including factual
allegations regarding actions taken against Wei by Stanford,
to support a claim for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C.
addition, Wei remains free to re-file his ADEA and Title VII
claims in this Court after he finishes ...