Cypress v. Newport News General & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass'n
9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1065, 375 F.2d 648, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7148 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hospital receiving public funds violates the Equal Protection Clause by denying staff privileges to physicians on the basis of race and by segregating patients by race. When a qualified minority applicant is rejected by an all-white staff without a stated non-racial reason, a prima facie case of discrimination is established, shifting the burden of proof to the hospital to justify its decision.
Facts:
- Riverside Hospital, a state-regulated institution in Newport News, Virginia, received approximately $2,250,000 in federal construction funds under the Hill-Burton Act.
- The hospital's medical staff was composed entirely of white physicians; nearly 70% of the community's white physicians were on staff, while none of the 18 local Black physicians had been granted staff membership.
- Dr. George C. Cypress, a highly qualified, board-certified Black pediatrician, applied for staff privileges at Riverside Hospital in 1961 and again in 1962, and was rejected on both occasions without explanation.
- Dr. C. Waldo Scott, a highly qualified, board-certified Black surgeon, also applied for staff privileges and was rejected, while 17 of the 18 white surgeons in the community were on the staff.
- The hospital's bylaws required applicants to receive a three-fourths majority vote from the 117-member, all-white General Staff, who voted by secret ballot.
- Two of Dr. Cypress's patients, Darnell Jackson and Sandra Rose Clark, suffered from a chronic disease requiring frequent hospitalization and expressed a desire to be treated by him at Riverside Hospital.
- The hospital administrator admitted that the hospital had a policy of assigning patients to rooms based on race and did not place Black and white patients in the same room.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Cypress and two of his patients filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Riverside Hospital, seeking an injunction.
- The District Court found the plaintiffs had not proven discrimination and dismissed the action after they declined the court's suggestion to reapply to the hospital under a new procedure.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the hospital (appellee) defending the lower court's ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state-regulated hospital that has received federal funds under the Hill-Burton Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by denying staff privileges to qualified Black physicians and by segregating patients based on race?
Opinions:
Majority - Sobeloff, Circuit Judge
Yes. A state-regulated, federally-funded hospital violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause through such discriminatory practices. When a qualified Black physician applies for staff privileges at a hospital with an all-white medical staff and is rejected without a stated reason, a prima facie inference of racial discrimination arises, shifting the burden to the hospital to provide a reasonable, non-racial explanation. Here, the statistical evidence of total exclusion, the rejection of two physicians with superior qualifications, the use of a secret ballot by an all-white staff, and the hospital's failure to offer any non-racial justification compelled the inference of discrimination. Furthermore, the hospital's admitted policy of segregating patients by race is a per se violation of the Constitution in a publicly-supported institution. The court rejected the argument that the case was mooted by Dr. Cypress's eventual admission, as the class action represented other physicians and patients, and the last-minute change of heart did not guarantee an end to the discriminatory practices.
Dissenting - Bryan, Circuit Judge
Yes, but the remedy against patient segregation is overly rigid. While agreeing with the finding of unconstitutional discrimination, the dissent argues that the court should permit an exception to the absolute ban on considering race in room assignments. If an attending physician judges that it would be detrimental to a patient's physical or mental recovery to be placed in a room with a person of another race due to the patient's own prejudice, the hospital should be allowed to accommodate that medical judgment without violating the Constitution. The dissent contends that the Constitution is not blind to the realities of illness and that a physician's professional judgment aimed at alleviating a patient's suffering should be respected.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthened the enforcement of civil rights in healthcare by applying the state-action doctrine from Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. to specific hospital practices. It established a crucial burden-shifting framework for proving discrimination in the absence of direct evidence, allowing plaintiffs to build a prima facie case on statistical disparities and suspect procedures. By holding that racial segregation of patients is a per se constitutional violation and refusing to defer to administrative agencies, the decision affirmed the judiciary's primary role in vindicating constitutional rights and set a precedent against token or last-minute compliance efforts designed to evade judicial scrutiny.
Unlock the full brief for Cypress v. Newport News General & Nonsectarian Hospital Ass'n