Chowdhury v. Reading Hospital and Medical Center
Decision Date | 18 March 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 81-2503,81-2503 |
Citation | 677 F.2d 317 |
Parties | 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,697 A. Rab CHOWDHURY, M.D., Appellant, v. The READING HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER. . Submitted under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Malcolm H. Waldron, Jr., Waldron, Lipkin & Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
David H. Roland, Mogel, Speidel & Roland, Reading, Pa., for appellee.
Before ALDISERT, VAN DUSEN and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a final order of the district court dismissing the plaintiff's discrimination claim, brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (1976) (Title VI), for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Chowdhury v. Reading Hospital and Medical Center, 520 F.Supp. 134 (E.D.Pa.1981). The crucial operative language in the district court's opinion is:
Id. at 135 (citations omitted). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1976).
Because we believe this conclusion to be inconsistent with expressions found in previous opinions of this court and the Supreme Court, we will reverse.
These facts are alleged in the complaint: 1 The plaintiff is a physician licensed to practice medicine and surgery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology. He is not of the Caucasian race.
The defendant is a non-profit corporation operating a hospital in West Reading, Pennsylvania. It has received various sorts of federal financial assistance within the meaning of section 601 of Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1976) (section 601). See 45 C.F.R. § 80.13 & app. A (1980).
The plaintiff sought and was denied courtesy staff privileges at the defendant hospital. He alleges that this denial was based upon his race and thus violated section 601. As a result of this denial, and without contacting the hospital's federal funding agency or otherwise seeking an administrative remedy, the plaintiff brought this action. As set forth above, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 520 F.Supp. at 135.
This appeal followed.
Section 601 states a broad and sweeping rule of non-discrimination in any program receiving federal financial assistance:
Id. at 1254-55 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Thus, the argument in favor of an exhaustion requirement-potential interference with the administrative enforcement scheme of sections 602 and 603-is precisely the argument rejected by this court in Wilmington Medical Center. Indeed, the court explicitly stated that "we hold that there exists a private cause of action under section 601 of Title VI which may be asserted without preliminary recourse to agency remedial procedures...." 599 F.2d at 1250 n.10. See also id. at 1249 n.6. While it might be possible to narrowly distinguish this case on the ground that the exhaustion issue was not before the Wilmington Medical Center court, we are satisfied that the exhaustion principle announced there is a sound one. Further, the Supreme Court in Cannon treated Title IX as identical in both structure and policy to Title VI 11 and went on to discuss at length, although arguably in dictum, that administrative exhaustion is not required under Title IX. The Court observed:
441 U.S. at 706-08 n.41, 99 S.Ct. at 1962-63 n.41 (citations omitted). This fairly clear indication from the Supreme Court serves to reinforce our conclusion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Del. Pub. Sch. Litig.
...People v. Wilm. Med. Ctr., Inc. , 426 F. Supp. 919, 927 (D. Del. 1977), abrogated on other grounds by Chowdhury v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr. , 677 F.2d 317, 321 (3d Cir. 1982). By parity of reasoning, the Home Rule Act conferred on the City the ability to sue in parens patriae.New Castle Co......
-
Burns v. Colvin
...dictum. It therefore does not possess a binding effect on us pursuant to the 'law of the case' doctrine."); Chowdury v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 677 F.2d 317, 324 (3d Cir.1982) ("[D]ictum, unlike holding, does not have the strength of a decision 'forged from actual experience by the hamme......
-
Higgins v. Colvin, CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00594-YK-GBC
...dictum. It therefore does not possess a binding effect on us pursuant to the 'law of the case' doctrine."); Chowdhury v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 677 F.2d 317, 324 (3d Cir.1982) ("[D]ictum, unlike holding, does not have the strength of a decision 'forged from actual experience by the hamm......
-
Sharif By Salahuddin v. New York State Educ. Dept.
...S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (interpretation of Title IX dependent upon interpretation of Title VI); Chowdhury v. Reading Hospital & Medical Center, 677 F.2d 317 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229 103 S.Ct. 3569, 77 L.Ed.2d 1411 (1983) ..., I hold that plaintiffs need not prov......
-
The Growth of Environmental Justice and Environmental Protection in International Law: In the Context of Regulation of the Arctic's Offshore Oil Industry
...at 3239-40 (Marshall, J., dissenting)). 67 Id . at 930-31. 68 Id . at 932. 69 Id . (discussing Chowdhury v. Reading Hosp. and Med. Ctr ., 677 F.2d 317 (3d Cir. 1982)). 70 Id . at 933 (explaining three prong test looks at: “(1) whether the agency rule is properly within the scope of the enab......