Bryan v. Koch

627 F.2d 612 (2nd Cir. 1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, mayor of NYC, appointed a Health Policy Task Force to examine ways of reducing costly excess hospital capacity while maintaining access to high quality health services. The report proposed that that two hospitals, Sydenham and Metropolitan, both located in Harlem, be closed. D agreed and three cases were filed on behalf of a class of low-income Black and Hispanic residents of NYC who use the municipal hospital system. Ds are the City and State of New York, the HHC, the State Health Department, and various city and state officials, including Mayor Koch. The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was joined as a defendant, though not charged with any violation of the law. On January 25, 1980, D gave notice to the State Health Commissioner of intention to close Sydenham in 90 days. Ps moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the closing pending the lawsuit or at least until there was adequate assurance of alternate in-patient and emergency care for the minority population served by Sydenham. Counsel for the Government advised the Court by letter that it favored the granting of a preliminary injunction because it agreed with the Title VI allegations and that the closing of Sydenham should be deferred at least until completion of HHS's Title VI investigation. The judge concluded that Title VI, like the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, condemns only conduct motivated by 'a racially discriminatory purpose.' He found that the evidence wholly failed to show that the decision to close Sydenham was racially motivated. He found that even if a Title VI violation could be established by the 'effects' test evidence of a disproportionate racial impact or effect unjustified by any legitimate governmental purpose, the evidence adequately established the City's justification for closing The judge concluded that the availability of adequate alternative treatment for 'most, if not all' of the persons served by Sydenham eliminated the prospect of irreparable harm required for issuance of a preliminary injunction. The court denied the injunction and Ps appealed. Ps argue that the proper standard for assessing a claim of discrimination under Title VI is the effects test of Lau v. Nichols and not the intent or purpose test of Washington v. Davis. Under the effects test, they contend that the burden of closing Sydenham falls disproportionately on Blacks and Hispanics and that the closing will cause significant adverse effects because alternative health care arrangements are not assured.