No Black Nurses

[Salty]

You seem to be under that impression that your 'well-maybe-he-was-just-nauseous' Nazi was being sued.

He wasn't:

First, you assume I fully agree with this man - I DO NOT.
I am looking at the principal of the overall issue - which is does a person have the right to determine who provides services to him. Not only from a racial view - but for any service provided.

Second, if the man had wanted to go to court to insist on (what he believed to be) his rights. It is possible he could not financially be able to do so. AGAIN, I am not talking about only this issue involving race - but for any reasonable issue.

Here is the situation - what one person thinks is reasonable may not be reasonable to someone else. The job of the govt - especially the courts is to ensure the rights of all - even if those rights seem unreasonable to you and me.


May I add one final statement - Everyone has made his opinion - I was trusting someone would make one recommendation - which so far has not happened.

WOULD YOU PRAY FOR THIS MAN -Would you ask the Lord for an opportunity to come in contact with him (or others like him) and share the Love of the Lord?

 

[Zaac]

The question is "why was it settled". Could it be the hospital was afraid of a trial? The nurse probably has the backing of the public - would probably get free representation of some high profile lawyer. The man, on the other hand is seen as a racist, may not be able to afford a lawyer. (since it is not a criminal offense - there would be no free court appointed lawyer. And the hospital would not want any bad publicity.

It was settled because it was clearly discriminatory one for the patient to request it and two for the hospital to grant it. Her case was against the hospital as it should have been. The hospital knows better and that's why the CEO came back and said at no time was the man told that they could honor his request.

Mind you, I am not saying we should support this man, but we are a nation of laws - and had this case went to court, it should be decided on the merits of the law. And who knows, maybe the hospital was afraid the man would win - which would put a bad light on the hospital.

The hospital wasn't afraid he would win. This is a case of someone not knowing the law and knowing that she can't tell her employees that you can only work on Black patients, White patients, etc.

A patient can make a request, but a hospital, a public hospital cannot discriminate based upon one of those protected classes no matter what the patient demands.

If they don't like the services provided at the PUBLIC hospital, they may choose a private hospital.

 

[Jerome]

I am looking at the principal of the overall issue - which is does a person have the right to determine who provides services to him. Not only from a racial view - but for any service provided.

If he's not getting what he wants there, go elsewhere. He doesn't have a right to force others to participate in his bigotry.

 

[Salty]

The hospital wasn't afraid he would win. This is a case of someone not knowing the law and knowing that she can't tell her employees that you can only work on Black patients, White patients, etc.

A patient can make a request, but a hospital, a public hospital cannot discriminate based upon one of those protected classes no matter what the patient demands.

So what you are saying is that if a female patient does not want a male nurse, the hospital cannot honor her request, as the hospital cannot discriminate based upon a protected class - ie gender.

BTW, what law says a patient cannot discriminate on which staff provides services based on a "protected" class?

 

[Jerome]

Chaney v. Plainfield

a line of Title VII cases. . . .hold that gender may be a legitimate criterion-a bona fide occupational qualification (“BFOQ”)-for accommodating patients' privacy interests. . . .Title VII forbids employers from using race as a BFOQ. . . .Just as the law tolerates same-sex restrooms or same-sex dressing rooms, but not white-only rooms, to accommodate privacy needs, Title VII allows an employer to respect a preference for same-sex heath providers, but not same-race providers.

If a racially-biased resident wishes to employ at her own expense a white aide, Indiana law may require Plainfield to allow the resident reasonable access to that aide. But the regulations do not say that a patient's preference for white aides that Plainfield employs trumps Plainfield's duty to its employees to abstain from race-based work assignments.

 

[Zaac]

So what you are saying is that if a female patient does not want a male nurse, the hospital cannot honor her request, as the hospital cannot discriminate based upon a protected class - ie gender.

Gender has been found to be the only thing that the courts are allowing patients to haggle about as patient modesty is a big ethical and privacy concern when practicing medicine.

Most places will just tell you whether or not they are going to be able to accommodate your request, and if they cannot, give you the option to go elsewhere.

BTW, what law says a patient cannot discriminate on which staff provides services based on a "protected" class?

It's not the patient. It's the HOSPITAL. She sued the hospital. And as stated, Title VII, prohibits use of race as an occupational qualification, and that/s what it prima facie(on the surface) becomes when you tell white nurses you can only work on white patients or tell black nurses you can only work on black patients. You would end up not hiring qualified black nurses just because there are more white patients, or you would reject an equally qualified white nurse from being hired just because the patients were black.