Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,746 chars

right to lay off Ms. Patterson, while simultaneously being required to consider her for a

promotion. But there is nothing illogical about it. Jimenez fails to recognize that

individuals like Dr. Jimenez and Ms. Patterson can have contracts with parties who then

intentionally inflict direct or indirect harm on them, based on racial animus-and the

discrimination victim's contract provides no protection whatsoever from that

discriminatory act or the resulting harm. Accordingly, an act that might be contractually

permissible for a defendant is still actionable under § 1981 if discriminatory intent and

the required harm can be proved.

These cases illustrate the proper application of § 1981 and other civil rights

protections addressed by the 1866 act. Better-reasoned decisions recognize that a

physician may assert a § 1981 claim where a denial of privileges or credentialing, based

on race or national origin, impairs his or her contract rights or opportunities. In Vakharia

v. Swedish Covenant Hospital, 765 F. Supp. 461, 471-72 (N.D. Ill. 1991), the court held

that an anesthesiologist's claims that a hospital limited her to a limited number of

procedures and removed her from call schedule "seem to fall easily within the rubric of

proscribed conduct" under § 1981. In Morrison v. American Board ofPsychiatry &

Neurology, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 582, 588-89 (N.D. Ill. 1996) the court refused to dismiss a

§ 1981 claim based on a denial of board certification in psychiatry that was alleged to

interfere with the plaintiff s ability to contract.

No. 31858-3-111
Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. etr.

B. Opportunity to contract with future patients