Davis v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n , No. 10-3858 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Dr. Lee Davis, an African-American cardiologist, obtained medical-staff privileges at Jefferson Regional Medical Center (JRMC). Later, JRMC's Board of Directors voted to revoke Davis's medical-staff privileges for poor quality of patient care, improper medical documentation, and unprofessional behavior. Davis filed the instant suit in federal district court, alleging, inter alia, race discrimination and retaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA), and conspiracy to interfere with his civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, JRMC, its CEO, and several physicians (Defendants), and dismissed all of Davis's claims. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Davis failed to provide any evidence giving rise to an inference that Defendants racially discriminated against him, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Davis's race discrimination claims; (2) Davis failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under section 1981 and ACRA; and (3) the district court did not err in dismissing Davis's civil rights conspiracy claim pursuant to section 1985(3), as Davis failed to show any racial animus on the part of Defendants.
Court Description: Civil case - civil rights. In action alleging defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race in revoking his medical-staff privileges, plaintiff failed to provide any evidence giving rise to an inference that the defendants discriminated against him because of his race; even if plaintiff engaged in protected activity, he failed to show that there was a casual connection between that activity and the revocation, and the district court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claims; plaintiff failed to show any racial animus on the part of defendants and his Section 1985(3) claims failed as a matter of law; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's request for continuance with respect to a motions hearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.