Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lawsuit: Race-based request sidelined Michigan nurse


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#11 jtnc

jtnc

    Resident Asshole

  • Joined: 28-November 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 13,637
  • Reputation: 3,571
HUDDLER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:21 PM

Definitely has a case imo, this wouldn't fly in a restaurant, so why would it in a hospital? Disgraceful, that the hospital would accept this man's request, he has no say in which ethnicity cares for his baby. As long as it is taken care for. She didn't work for 25 long, loyal, years to be disrespected like this.

#12 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,798
  • Reputation: 13,347
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:30 PM

Legally speaking, other than having to accommodate the demands of a lousy person, what actual harm did she suffer?

Pretty sure any hospital worker would tell you that having to deal with crappy people is an evetyday part of the job description. Also fairly certain hospitals need better grounds to refuse care than just the patient or a member of the patient's family being a numbnuts.

Like I said, it sucks, but I don't know that it's good basis for a successful lawsuit. Realistically, if employers could be sued for making employees deal with unpleasant people, a boatload of companies would go out of business.

#13 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,135
  • Reputation: 2,954
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:45 PM

so this guy has allegedly a nazi tatto and lives in Flint? is that right?

#14 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • posts: 13,399
  • Reputation: 1,145
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 05:25 PM

She could have suffered emotional trauma from this. But to me that isnt the point. The point is it was discrimination and the hospital allowed it to happen. They granted the guys request, they where in the wrong and she has all the right to sue them .

#15 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,798
  • Reputation: 13,347
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 06:45 PM

She could have suffered emotional trauma from this. But to me that isnt the point. The point is it was discrimination and the hospital allowed it to happen. They granted the guys request, they where in the wrong and she has all the right to sue them .


She has the right to sue them. I just don't see her winning.

Like I said, if "emotional trauma" from having to deal with jackass customers was grounds for a lawsuit, pretty much every business that offered services to the general public could be sued into oblivion.

And how do you make a case that being assigned to other patients is discrimination? Heck, the hospital can argue that assigning her to this guy's wife would have subjected her to abusive treatment from him. Thus, they can actually say they spared her from emotional trauma.

In the court of public opinion, yes she has a case. In a court of law, it's not enough.

#16 SmootsDaddy89

SmootsDaddy89

    Just Say No To Boo

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 10,410
  • Reputation: 971
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 06:55 PM

She has the right to sue them. I just don't see her winning.

Like I said, if "emotional trauma" from having to deal with jackass customers was grounds for a lawsuit, pretty much every business that offered services to the general public could be sued into oblivion.


That's not even remotely an accurate description of what happened but okay.

And how do you make a case that being assigned to other patients is discrimination?



Probably because the hospital management actually said she was being reassigned due to her skin color, but idk I'm just spitballing here.

Heck, the hospital can argue that assigning her to this guy's wife would have subjected her to abusive treatment from him. Thus, they can actually say they spared her from emotional trauma.

If they presented her with the OPTION of being reassigned, sure. But in this case she was told "Hey you're black so go take care of someone else's kid." Again, I can't stress enough that she WAS TOLD SHE WAS BEING REASSIGNED SOLEY DUE TO HER ETHNICITY. Whether the patient's husband requested it or not doesn't matter. By cooperating the hospital is just as guilty of discrimination. Any lawyer could tell you that, why do you think the hopstial's lawyer flipped poo when he realized what was going on?

In the court of public opinion, yes she has a case. In a court of law, it's not enough.


I'll bump this when you're proven completely and utterly wrong.

#17 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,798
  • Reputation: 13,347
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:05 PM

That's not even remotely an accurate description of what happened but okay.

Probably because the hospital management actually said she was being reassigned due to her skin color, but idk I'm just spitballing here.

If they presented her with the OPTION of being reassigned, sure. But in this case she was told "Hey you're black so go take care of someone else's kid." Again, I can't stress enough that she WAS TOLD SHE WAS BEING REASSIGNED SOLEY DUE TO HER ETHNICITY. Whether the patient's husband requested it or not doesn't matter. By cooperating the hospital is just as guilty of discrimination. Any lawyer could tell you that, why do you think the hopstial's lawyer flipped poo when he realized what was going on?

I'll bump this when you're proven completely and utterly wrong.


Feel free. Just make sure you bump it if I'm right too.

The hospital will say that what happened to her wasn't a matter of policy. It was accommodation of a customer request. A jackass customer, yes, but still a customer and relative to a patient.

The action they took was not because they agreed with him, but in order to avoid the kind of trouble you could rightly expect from a yahoo like this if his wishes weren't met.

This being a hospital, it's not a simple case of telling the guy who's being an ass to a waitress to shove off. It's denial of care to a patient, specifically a mother and baby. No hospital's gonna do that, regardless of how big a prick the dad is being.

It's a sad story, but if she gets anything more than a small out-of-court settlement, I'll be surprised. And I'd say there's no guarantee she'll even get that.

#18 SmootsDaddy89

SmootsDaddy89

    Just Say No To Boo

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 10,410
  • Reputation: 971
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:14 PM

What happened to her wasn't a matter of policy. It was accommodation of a customer request. A jackass customer, yes, but still a customer and relative to a patient.

That's wonderful of the hospital, but they still acquiesced to the customer's request that they essentially discriminate against their own employees. If he asked for a big tittied nurse so he could squeeze her tits while she helped care for his wife's baby and management found a busty nurse and told her to let the guy feel her up, are they any less liable? Because sexual harassment and discrimination at the workplace will get you sued equally as fast.

The action they took was not because they agreed with him, but in order to avoid the kind of trouble you could rightly expect from a yahoo like this if his wishes weren't met.

This being a hospital, it's not a simple case of telling the guy who's being an ass to a waitress to shove off. It's denial of care to a patient, specifically a mother and baby. No hospital's gonna do that, regardless of how big a prick the dad is being.

It's a sad story, but if she gets anything more than a small out-of-court settlement, I'll be surprised. And I'd say there's no guarantee she'll even get that.


It's not denial of care to tell a retard "this is the nurse we've assigned to you, deal with it." He didn't complain because she smelled like liquor, he complained because of her skin color, which is something she can't do anything about and in no way affects her ability to properly do her job. Hospitals aren't required to reassign a nurse because you're a bigot.

#19 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 44,798
  • Reputation: 13,347
  • LocationSC
SUPPORTER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:25 PM

That's wonderful of the hospital, but they still acquiesced to the customer's request that they essentially discriminate against their own employees. If he asked for a big tittied nurse so he could squeeze her tits while she helped care for his wife's baby and management found a busty nurse and told her to let the guy feel her up, are they any less liable? Because sexual harassment and discrimination at the workplace will get you sued equally as fast.

It's not denial of care to tell a retard "this is the nurse we've assigned to you, deal with it." He didn't complain because she smelled like liquor, he complained because of her skin color, which is something she can't do anything about and in no way affects her ability to properly do her job. Hospitals aren't required to reassign a nurse because you're a bigot.


And then the guy causes a load of trouble in an infant care unit and who knows what happens next?

They made a decision to avoid trouble from a guy of questionable character. They didn't agree with it, but they've had to give in to goofy patient and family requests before and will again. The prejudice and discrimination are on the part of the man, not the hospital. That'll be their defense, and it's a good one.

To win, she'll have to show that not being able to work with this specific child only caused her some form of actual harm. Since there's no indication of wages or time lost, she can only claim emotional hurt. How many people can you name that have ever successfully sued an employer based on hurt feelings alone?

It sucks that it happened, but it's not enough to prove malice or intent from the hospital.

Better course of action wouldve been to tell the story to a news organization and let them run with it.

#20 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 388
HUDDLER

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:35 PM

This is the end result of having choices taken from us. The hospital is not really given a choice in dealing with this moron under current regulations. Were we to actually have freedom to invoke our freedoms as laid out by the Constitution, the hospital would have been able to refuse service as they see fit and this guy would have to deal with the consequences of his choices. Not by law, but by community.

In my opinion, this is how the delineation should be. Government should not be the arbiter of morality, but of rights. This guy has a right to be an asshole, and said freedom comes with the responsibility of the choices he makes. Conversely, if the hospital opts to refuse service based on bigotry, they will lose clientele and incur the responsibility of their choice in the form of funds lost.

In short, it is a pretty elegant case of how we've opted out of the freedom option over generations and handed that over to a collective tyranny of regulated morality bludgeons.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users