Opinion ID: 528815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Greco.

Text: 19 In Greco, a physician who performed abortions sought the district court's declaration that the hospital's new policy of refusing to allow elective abortions to be performed in its facilities was unconstitutional. Our court upheld the district court's denial of relief, concluding that no state action was present. Dr. Greco relied primarily upon Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961), in which the Supreme Court held that the Eagle Coffee Shoppe's refusal to serve blacks constituted state action in part because the coffee shop was located within, and paid rent to, the City's parking garage facility. 20 The Greco panel found Burton distinguishable on two grounds, the first and most obvious being that the hospital was not accused of racial discrimination. Hence, the Greco court recognized the maxim that state action is much more likely to be found when racial discrimination is involved. The court explained that: 21 The potentially explosive impact of the application of state action concepts designed to ferret out racially discriminatory policies in areas unaffected by racial considerations has led courts to define more precisely the applicability of the state action doctrine. 22 513 F.2d at 879. The second reason for distinguishing Burton was that the relationship between the county and the hospital did not have the requisite symbiotic character. See Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163, 92 S.Ct. 1965, 32 L.Ed.2d 627 (1972). As Greco explains, such a relationship is not created merely by a lessor/lessee arrangement but must also involve other benefits mutually conferred. Specifically, there must be some indication that the benefits flowing to the county were directly attributable to the objectionable activities of a joint venturer. Greco found that the county received no direct benefit from the hospital's refusal to allow the doctor to perform elective abortions. The court observed that in Burton, by contrast, 23 the financial success of the State's project depended at least in part upon the popularity and the income of the Eagle Restaurant. The restaurant owners believed that a policy of racial discrimination was necessary in order to ensure the maximum volume of business and the Authority, in its own interest, acquiesced in this policy. 24 Id. at 880. 25 Greco considered six specific aspects of the hospital-county relationship in determining whether that relationship was sufficiently close to create state-action: 26 1. Financial support was given to the hospital by the county in the form of a nominal rent charge; 27 2. The plaintiff was not complaining of racial discrimination; 28 3. The county was in no way responsible for the daily operating expenses of the hospital; 29 4. No benefits accruing to the county were directly attributable to the hospital's objectionable activities; 30 5. No county officials directly or indirectly participated in the formulation of the disputed hospital policy; and 31 6. The county had no other input into the day-to-day activities of the hospital. 32 513 F.2d at 879-81. The court concluded that these factors in the county-hospital relationship taken together dictated a finding of no state action. 33