Bissada v. Arkansas Children's Hospital, 639 F.3d 825

Dr. Bissada, a pediatric urologist, had his ACH medical staff privileges revoked in January 2007 after an ad hoc committee’s review.
Settlement negotiations followed, with emails indicating agreement to language for NPDB reporting and to not reapply for privileges, and ACH reporting the settlement language to NPDB.
Dr. Bissada disputed that a final binding settlement existed; ACH proceeded to notify NPDB and cancel an August 2007 hearing.
Dr. Bissada filed federal and state claims alleging discrimination (Title VII/VI, §1981) and related state-law claims; district court granted summary judgment on federal claims.
The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims; this court affirmed, holding there was an agreement to settle.
Circuit noted concurrence by one judge except for footnote 7; opinion addresses whether actions were consent-based settlement effects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether alleged NPDB reporting and hearing cancellation were settlement actions.	Bissada argues no binding agreement existed until signing.	ACH argues email constituted an offer and verbal acceptance formed contract.	Settlement formed; actions were contractual and consent-based.
Title VII discrimination under settlement terms and NPDB reporting.	Discriminatory acts occurred despite settlement due to national origin.	Actions taken were part of a settled agreement and not discriminatory post-settlement.	No Title VII violation; actions were consented to via settlement.
Whether §1981 claim based on race/origin survives given alleged pretext evidence.	ACH’s reasons were pretextual and tied to origin.	Reasons were legitimate and not shown to be pretextual.	Affirmed district court; no pretext shown; claim dismissed.
Title VI applicability and reliance on Medicaid funding for liability.	Title VI applies if hospital receives Federal funds; per se discrimination due to origin.	Even if applicable, no evidence of pretext; cannot establish discrimination.	Title VI claim failed on lack of evidence of discrimination; affirmed dismissal.
Whether district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.	State claims remain important and should proceed.	Court prefers dismissal or declining supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims.	No error; court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Norman v. Union Pac. R.R., 606 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of a Title VII prima facie case incl. adverse action)
Anderson v. Durham D & M, LLC, 606 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2010) (courts abstain from second-guessing business decisions absent discrimination)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (pretext framework for discrimination claims)
St. Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1987) (discrimination based on national origin recognized under §1981)
Luper, 795 S.W.2d 362 (Ark. 1990) (contract formation principle for offers and acceptances)
APS Capital Corp. v. Mesa Air Grp., Inc., 580 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2009) (intent to be bound; email communications may form a contract when intent is clear)
Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 2004) (context of nationality discrimination in the Middle East)