Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Lawsuit: Race-based request sidelined Michigan nurse


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
145 replies to this topic

#85 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,340
  • Reputation: 5,886
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:32 AM

My nurse friend mentioned a discussion that had gone on at her particular hospital on the topic of sexism.

She stated that for female victims of domestic violence, it's common for the hospital to make sure that only female personnel are assigned to treatment. In my mind, I'd say that's a reasonable thing to do.

However, in cases where the victim of domestic violence is male (and yes, such cases exist) no actual provisions are made to shield the victim from people matching the sex of the abuser, whether male or female. It's just whomever's available at the time.

There's been some grumbling about that, but per her, no action being taken about it.


Domestic violence cases are definitely different. The victim should be allowed to request any gender, race, experience nurse/doctor they want. With the trauma they have been through, their mental health and needs should be paramount.

Again, everyone on here thinks the guy is a POS. most would have like to see the hospital tell the guy to flake off. The hospital was trying to diffuse a hostile situation.

She has a right to be pusses. But her anger should be at the man. The lawsuit is nothing more than someone trying to get a payday for something where they suffered zero damages.



#86 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 20,088
  • Reputation: 14,961
MFCEO

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:07 AM

Please explain why you think she deserves a big payday from this?


To discourage it from ever happening again. Other hospitals will see this happening and refuse to abide by idiotic racial demands made by patients. or in this case, parents of patients.

#87 Zod

Zod

    YOUR RULER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 20,088
  • Reputation: 14,961
MFCEO

Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:15 AM

The lawsuit is nothing more than someone trying to get a payday for something where they suffered zero damages.



Rosa Parks suffered zero damages. She should have just got up and moved to the back and diffused the situation. Don't blame the bus company, blame the man who wanted her to move so he could sit down.


See how silly this sounds?

#88 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,828
  • Reputation: 3,111
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:13 AM

Could the nurse not have been offended and just said she was?
Only she knows. Like I said earlier, this caveman who asked for this may have done her a huge favor. Get great compensation and more than likely transfer to a new hospital. I think she is going to feel much better soon.

#89 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:16 AM

Rosa Parks suffered zero damages. She should have just got up and moved to the back and diffused the situation. Don't blame the bus company, blame the man who wanted her to move so he could sit down.


See how silly this sounds?


Rosa Parks was segregated which is specifically prohibited under discrimination laws. The hospital lady was not part of a segregation.

#90 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • Joined: 27-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,732
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:38 AM

Merriam-Webster defines it as

segregate -

transitive verb

1 : to separate or set apart from others or from the general mass : isolate


2: to cause or force the separation of (as from the rest of society)

intransitive verb


1: separate, withdraw


2: to practice or enforce a policy of segregation


3: to undergo genetic segregation

#91 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,187
  • Reputation: 15,689
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:50 AM

To discourage it from ever happening again. Other hospitals will see this happening and refuse to abide by idiotic racial demands made by patients. or in this case, parents of patients.


What kind of compensation do you think happens when a hospital refuses someone like this guy and in response he injures or kills someone?

Will it be worth it to say to the family of that person "Well at least we didn't give in to an unreasonable demand. We sure showed him, huh?"

There are some people to whom you can just say 'no' and be done with it. The hospital judged this was not one of those guys. And based on the description, I don't really blame them.

#92 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • Joined: 27-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,732
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:58 AM

What kind of compensation do you think happens when a hospital refuses someone like this guy and in response he injures or kills someone?

Will it be worth it to say to the family of that person "Well at least we didn't give in to an unreasonable demand. We sure showed him, huh?"

There are some people to whom you can just say 'no' and be done with it. The hospital judged this was not one of those guys. And based on the description, I don't really blame them.



You can't defeat violence by submitting to the mere threat of it.

#93 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 48,187
  • Reputation: 15,689
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:06 AM

You can't defeat violence by submitting to the mere threat of it.


In a corporate sense, no.

In an individual setting, say a guy has a gun on you, your wife and kids and tells you "gimme your wallet", are you going to let him have it to avoid anyone in your family getting hurt, or are you going to tell him that you refuse on "moral and ethical grounds"?

Already addressed previously that it wasn't practical for the hospital to believe they could protect this nurse all the time for a month to come, and the police won't respond to a "perceived threat", only an actual one.

#94 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • Joined: 27-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,732
  • Reputation: 462
HUDDLER

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:46 AM

In a corporate sense, no.

In an individual setting, say a guy has a gun on you, your wife and kids and tells you "gimme your wallet", are you going to let him have it to avoid anyone in your family getting hurt, or are you going to tell him that you refuse on "moral and ethical grounds"?

Already addressed previously that it wasn't practical for the hospital to believe they could protect this nurse all the time for a month to come, and the police won't respond to a "perceived threat", only an actual one.


I have reread the CNN article and I have yet to find anything that the man did or said that was threatening. Basically what I am saying is that because of people standing up to them, few people fear neo-nazi's, skinheads, kkk's, or swastika wearing choir boys. I dont know which one he is or wishes he was but I dont believe it is relevant. If the hospital was truly concerned with her well-being they would have acted differently until he forced their hand. They...chose...poorly. Because of that they will pay. Had they behaved differently maybe we would have had a different outcome but its a moot point now. The way you describe it, you are identifying reasons for them to act in their own self interest, not the nurses.

#95 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,828
  • Reputation: 3,111
HUDDLER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 08:50 AM

What I find odd is a report that supposedly says not to be cared for by an african american. Instead of reassigning her and telling her after the fact someone was dumb enough to write down the request and think nothing would come of it? Now maybe this caveman wanted to see it written down who nows.

If we have learned anything lately about race cases is that the bark seems to be worse than the bite. That might so here might not.
I'm still banking she gets a lot of money for saying she was offended and what his request did to her.

#96 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

Posted 21 February 2013 - 12:28 PM

I have reread the CNN article and I have yet to find anything that the man did or said that was threatening. Basically what I am saying is that because of people standing up to them, few people fear neo-nazi's, skinheads, kkk's, or swastika wearing choir boys. I dont know which one he is or wishes he was but I dont believe it is relevant. If the hospital was truly concerned with her well-being they would have acted differently until he forced their hand. They...chose...poorly. Because of that they will pay. Had they behaved differently maybe we would have had a different outcome but its a moot point now. The way you describe it, you are identifying reasons for them to act in their own self interest, not the nurses.


If you review the law, review EEOC cases and consider the easy defense that the hospital has, it is doubtful they will pay and if they do it will be nominal likely to avoid legal fees.

Here is an egregious case that ended with a settlement of around $10k for victim. Compare the facts in the two cases:

In June 2011, Herzog Roofing, Inc., a Detroit Lakes, Minn., roofing company, agreed in a pre-suit settlement to pay $71,500 to seven Black, Hispanic, and American Indian employees to settle racial harassment and retaliation charges, alleging that the targeted employees were frequently subjected to racial epithets, racial jokes and hostile treatment by managers and coworkers and that complaints were ignored. The EEOC also had found that the company retaliated against the employee who brought the initial complaint by firing him after he reported the unlawful treatment. In addition to monetary relief, the company has agreed to provide anti-discrimination training to all of its employees and additional training on harassment and retaliation to all supervisors, managers and owners. It also will redistribute its anti-harassment policies and procedures and monitor its supervisors’ compliance with equal employment opportunity laws.


I still have yet to see a successful EEOC or other discrimination case where there was not direct racial intent, significant measurable damages as well as absolutely damning evidence.

Expect a settlement of $0k to $5k if the case even goes anywhere. I believe if there is any evidence of non-discriminatory motives (which is an acceptable and common defense in federal cases) the case will be thrown out.