View Single Post
Old 02-20-2013, 10:10 PM   #38
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,384
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
No, I'm pointing out that Federal Law can be just as retarded as your average proggy.

The nurse wasn't sent home. Didn't miss any pay. The employer apologized for any possible offense taken (even though the only real offense anyone could take was from the client.) But apparently your view of Federal Law is that someone should get rich every time an administrative mistake occurs if it happens to somehow brush up against the sacred race cow.

Would you feel the same way if a patient asked for no Male nurses? (hint: it happens all the time)
Did you even read the BFOQ? Here, I'll edit the big legalese paragraph so you can read it more easily.

[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice (That means "it's okay") for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise…

Legally, it is reasonable for a person of a certain gender to request a caregiver of a certain gender. The Playboy mansion doesn't need to hire guys dressed in bunny suits, nor does Hooters need to hire men in tight orange shorts.

Customer preference can "'be taken into account only when it is based on the company's inability to perform the primary function or service it offers,' that is, where sex or sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided."

Also explicitly: While religion, sex, or national origin may be considered a bona fide occupational qualification in narrow contexts, race can never be a BFOQ.



Now, as far as the nurse is concerned, a case can and will be made...IF (big if) it even goes to trial that, particularly if there is any disciplinary action involved with her superiors, that it will create a hostile work environment for the nurse that was affected. As I stated, you've probably never been the reason one of your bosses got disciplined. That case is made all the time in these types of situations, and it's a legitimate concern. Even if her supervisor gets fired, the argument will be made that there may be animosity from fellow employees who liked the boss, hospital executives who want to get even for costing them money...happens all the time, even with the whistleblower laws.

Additionally, if she were to leave the hospital, any potential employer would ask her why, after 15 years of being employed by this hospital, she's all the sudden no longer employed, not to mention we're talking about Flint, MI here...not many places else to go.

And finally, do you really chalk this up to an "administrative mistake"? An administrative mistake is not signing a form correctly. Not training your employees on federal law and its ramifications on your job is negligence, pure and simple.

But whatever, I'm still laughing at your absurd statement that the worst thing to come out of a situation where an employee was discriminated against is that she will get compensated for it.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote