Bissada v. Arkansas Children's Hospital, et al, No. 09-2138 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant, a pediatric urologist, sued appellees alleging that appellees engaged in a "sham peer review" when they suspended his hospital privileges and reported the suspension to the national practitioner data bank ("NPDB") without a required hearing. At issue was whether the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and dismissed appellant's remaining causes of actions without prejudice, where it found that only appellant's state claims remained. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court correctly dismissed appellant's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, claim where the parties had previously agreed to settlement; the district court properly dismissed appellant's 42 U.S.C. 1981 claim where section 1981 did not apply to his claims based on his Egyptian national origins and where there was no evidence that appellees' legitimate race-neutral reasons for the suspension of his privileges were pretextual; the district court correctly dismissed appellant's Title VI claim, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, where appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find any of appellees' acts were a pretext for national origin discrimination; and the district court committed no error in dismissing appellant's state claims where he agreed to a settlement.
Court Description: Civil Case - employment discrimination. District court properly granted summary judgment on Title VII claim because actions taken by appellees were taken pursuant to parties' settlement agreement and by consent of Dr. Bissada. District court properly dismissed the section 1981 claim, as section 1981 does not apply to claims of national origin discrimination and even if Egyptian Copt is a race, Dr. Bissada provided insufficient evidence that defendant's legitimate race-neutral reasons for suspension of his privileges were pretextual. Moreover, Title VI claim fails because of lack of evidence of pretext. District court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Judge Beam concurs.
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.