Venkataraman Sambasivan v. Kadlec Medical Center
31858-3
Wash. Ct. App.Nov 18, 2014Background
- Dr. Venkataraman Sambasivan, an Indian-born board-certified interventional cardiologist, held privileges at Kadlec Medical Center; his interventional privileges were up for renewal in 2008.
- Kadlec's board adopted a new volume-based proficiency standard (150 interventional procedures per 2 years) at its August 14, 2008 meeting and applied it retroactively; Sambasivan alone failed to meet it and became ineligible to renew interventional privileges but retained general cardiology privileges.
- Sambasivan had filed a June 2008 discrimination suit alleging national-origin discrimination; the board discussed that lawsuit at the August meeting before adopting the standard.
- Sambasivan alleged retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60.210(1)), claiming the board’s action was motivated by racial animus and impaired his contractual opportunities (call-coverage contracts and patient contracts at Kadlec).
- The trial court granted Kadlec summary judgment on remand, finding Sambasivan failed to identify an impaired contractual relationship and that WLAD retaliation required an employment or similar relationship; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1981 claim requires impairment of a contractual relationship tied to hospital bylaws | Sambasivan: § 1981 protects impairment of opportunities to contract (call contracts, patient contracts), not limited to bylaws | Kadlec: No actionable impaired contract; bylaws are non-contractual and no interference with contractual rights | Held: § 1981 protects impairment of contractual opportunities (including would‑be contracts like call coverage and patient relationships); genuine issue for jury exists |
| Whether loss of call‑coverage opportunity is too collateral/speculative for § 1981 | Sambasivan: Hospital practice and his expired call agreement established a non‑speculative opportunity to contract for call coverage | Kadlec: Loss of call contracts is collateral consequence of losing privileges and insufficient under Jimenez | Held: Evidence supports a jury question that call‑coverage opportunity was impaired; Jimenez’s reasoning rejected as overbroad |
| Whether loss of patient‑contract opportunities at Kadlec is actionable under § 1981 | Sambasivan: Retroactive denial of privileges impaired his ability to contract with patients who would come to him at Kadlec | Kadlec: He retained general privileges and could practice elsewhere; loss is collateral | Held: Denial at a particular hospital can still deny "same right" to contract; genuine issue exists |
| Scope of WLAD § 49.60.210(1) retaliation protection—requires employer/employee? | Sambasivan: WLAD’s retaliation provision applies beyond formal employment to persons functionally similar or in labor‑related contexts | Kadlec: Retaliation remedy limited to employer/employee or independent‑contractor performing personal services | Held: WLAD read broadly (Galbraith, Malo): applies to non‑employers when conduct is labor‑related or functionally similar; Sambasivan’s claim may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) (§ 1982/§ 1981 forbids private racial restrictions that deny the same contractual rights enjoyed by whites)
- Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) (Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibits private racial discrimination; § 1981 protects contract rights)
- Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006) (§ 1981 protects both existing and prospective contractual relationships)
- CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008) (§ 1981 encompasses retaliation claims)
- Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989) (pre‑1991 Court interpretation narrowed § 1981; prompted statutory expansion clarifying coverage of making, performing, modifying, and terminating contracts)
- Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229 (1969) (bylaws‑based corporate action refusing assignment and expelling member was actionable under Reconstruction‑era civil‑rights statutes)
- Jimenez v. WellStar Health Sys., 596 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2010) (held medical‑privilege suspension could not support § 1981 claim for collateral loss of patient contracts — relied on by Kadlec and critiqued by the court)
- Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hosp., 765 F. Supp. 461 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (denial/limitation of privileges and removal from call schedule may fall within § 1981)
- Morrison v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 582 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (denial of professional credentialing alleged to interfere with ability to contract upheld past pleading stage)