Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk
Ad hominem, retardo speculation, and armchair quarterbacking from clowns that never worked in a hospital.
Yes, that's what I thought.
So you actually think that if there is a demented patient, for example, who lobs racial invectives at people of other races, the staff will ignore it and put just anyone in there?
That's just another example of where they don't.
You can say that you work in a hospital all you want. It may even be true, for all anyone knows. It does not change the fact that, as applicable to that profession, gender is considered an acceptable qualification.
Title VII says:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
However, as we know, BFOQ is a defense available under Section 703 of Title VII:
Privacy defenses have been upheld in instances where employers require custodians to be the same sex as those in the facility being cleaned, nurses and care providers in hospitals and nursing homes to be of the same sex as patients being assisted, and labor and delivery nurses to be female.63 Courts are often lenient in permitting BFOQs in health care situations.64 In Fesel v. Masonic Home of Delaware, Inc., for example, a court considered sex-based hiring permissible, finding that being a woman was a legitimate BFOQ for an orderly since the patients would not consent to male workers bathing them or providing any other intimate-contact services.
So what happened is they passed the Civil Rights Act, and then proceeded to make exceptions in certain cases where a person's ability to perform their job may be hindered by certain characteristics (e.g. mandatory retirement ages for bus drivers and pilots due to safety concerns). Gender is one of those qualifications in the case of hospitals. Race is not.