Lawsuit: Race-based request sidelined Michigan nurse

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


It was the fathers RIGHT to request this no matter how much people may disagree, it's HIS child.
i don't believe anyone is arguing it wasn't his right to 'request' such service, however, it is the practice of this country (especially in public establishments) to say NO to his request and offer an alternative.

he can be as racist as he wants, no one is saying he can't.
however, the hospital is obligated (by law) to refuse and not grant such a ridiculous request.

as much as i hate this litigious society also, it is good to see a battle fought and won for the right reasons.
good for Ms Battle.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


Here's what happened in short form for those having trouble following:
hahahahaha, didn't read the 'complaint', did ya ?
typical.

1. Man goes to hospital with child, requests it be attended by non-black staff
woman goes to hospital and gives birth to child requiring neo-natal care.

Ms Battle is seen caring for said child and asked (by father) to speak with supervisor.

Charge nurse honors fathers' request and re-assigns Ms Battle


2. Hospital (being bound to uphold the request) agrees
in error, the Nurse Supervisor places note on child's chart. (next day)
hospital is NOT bound to uphold such a request.


3. female staff member sees note stating Fathers request
4. female staff member's rationalization hamster goes into overdrive and she decides to sue
Ms Battle attempted to address the issue internally for some time before seeking lawful remedy

5. Hospital gives in to the political pressure - awards "damages"
hospital mgt/legal realizes the error and implements additional training to address any future discriminatory requests, also agree to provide unspecified remedy to Ms Battle.

6. ATS thread posted, members start raging about Rosa Park.
guess i missed that one.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Honor93 because: format



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The Hospital has no choice in this matter, and the nurse will lose any lawsuit she filed against them...

As a patient, you have the right to say who can, and cannot work on you, and the reasons do not have to follow with the EEOC's rules of employee discrimination. If the hospital didn't make the “racists” request, then its not the hospitals fault that she was not allowed to work on this mans child.

So what you have here is a matter of two competing laws, Racial Discrimination vs Patients Rights to Care. There is no fault on the part of the hospital, no damages, nothing that she can prove as her “employer” having discriminated against her...

Another frivolous lawsuit that most lawyers would not have touched with a ten foot pole... that is... unless they are an “ambulance chaser” that is hoping for a quiet settlement from a big corporate hospital that does not want any bad press.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

where does any "Patient Rights" statement include demanding racially/ethnically specific medical providers ??
this i'd like to see ... link please.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


You have a right to deny any medical person the ability to work on you or a family member (if you have legal power of attorney to do so), for ANY REASON WHAT-SO-EVER...

No one has the right to touch you, or medically treat you without your express consent. The only exception to this is when someone has the legal right to force you to do it (power of attorney, court order, baker act, etc...)


Patient Rightsw
Consent, particularly informed consent, is the cornerstone of patients' rights. Consent is based on the inviolability of one's person. It means that doctors do not have the right to touch or treat a patient without that patient's approval because the patient is the one who must live with the consequences and deal with any dis-comfort caused by treatment. A doctor can be held liable for committing a Battery if the doctor touches the patient without first obtaining the patient's consent.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

Oh, and BTW.... This happens ALL THE TIME.
Do you have any idea how often in a hospital or medical clinic a patient will refuse to be treated by a worker because of their sex? Well that is just as much of an EEOC violation (sexual discrimination) as racial discrimination is. Heck, being a male in the medical field, its happened to me A LOT.

Patients rights trump your ability to claim discrimination, because the patient has a right to chose who will be allowed to touch them. As the EMPLOYER was not the one who discriminated, and the patient is allowed to choose, there is no one to file a suit against.

...Again, the only reason a lawyer even elected to accept this case is because they think they can use the press to bully the hospital into a “hush” settlement.

edit on 2/25/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

hmm, drawing a bit much from that aren't ya ?

we aren't discussing dr/pt relationship but nurse/parent.
and in the case of the NICU services, consent is inferred and had been since delivery.

perhaps you should read your link further ...

Consent is also inferred when an adult or child is found unconscious, or when an emergency otherwise necessitates immediate treatment to prevent serious harm or death.
generally care provided in the NICU falls under the 'preventing serious harm or death' category. besides, i never said he didn't have the right to ask ... however, the hospital is not obligated to engage his particular request.
hence, they settled and initiated a new training program.

we/they were not discussing a treatment protocol that may be questionable ... this was blatant racism of which the hospital was not obligated to participate.

also 'informed consent' is very specific and 'racial preferences' aren't included.
or perhaps i should ask how ethnicity is a 'material risk' to any patient ?

the father should consider himself lucky he wasn't escorted out of the building and placed under a restraining order for 'threatening' the staff.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


there is no one to file a suit against
apparently there was or it wouldn't have been 'settled'


also, i'm quite familiar with how often it happens, that still doesn't make it right.

and truth be told, the mother could have over-ridden the father's decision and had him forcibly removed.

actually, i believe the written note on the pt file compounded with re-assignment does make the hospital responsible for 'discriminating' and that's why they settled.

whatever reason the lawyer took the case is irrelevant.
clearly it had merit or it would have been dismissed.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
hmm, drawing a bit much from that aren't ya ?

we aren't discussing dr/pt relationship but nurse/parent.

Not at all, it makes no difference what the position of the medical person is that needs consent, a patient has the fundimental right to deny ANYONE, for ANY REASON...
You work in the medical field ever? Take it from me, this happens a LOT.


Originally posted by Honor93
and in the case of the NICU services, consent is inferred and had been since delivery.

No its not...
The parents have power of attorney to decide who touches their children, and can charge anyone that does so without their consent with battery.


Originally posted by Honor93
perhaps you should read your link further ...

Consent is also inferred when an adult or child is found unconscious, or when an emergency otherwise necessitates immediate treatment to prevent serious harm or death.
generally care provided in the NICU falls under the 'preventing serious harm or death' category.

This confers no such rights. You are comparing apples and oranges here....
If there is a person with the power of attorney, like a family member present, then you still cannot work on an unconscious person without THEIR consent.


Originally posted by Honor93
however, the hospital is not obligated to engage his particular request.

Yes they do, its in the patients “bill of rights” that all hospitals follow, post, and distribute to the patients on admittance.


Originally posted by Honor93
this was blatant racism of which the hospital was not obligated to participate.

Not true, and again, this would mean that if a female patient specifically asks that no male staff work on her that would also constitute sexual discrimination, which is not the case.


Originally posted by Honor93
also 'informed consent' is very specific and 'racial preferences' aren't included.
or perhaps i should ask how ethnicity is a 'material risk' to any patient ?

Is sex?
Yet this occurs all the time.


Originally posted by Honor93
the father should consider himself lucky he wasn't escorted out of the building and placed under a restraining order for 'threatening' the staff.

Yeah right, go work in a hospital and see what the staff has to put up with for awhile.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
The request by the father wasn't posted for all to see. It was in with the file work and the nurse went snooping around, probably to find out why the man asked to talk to a supervisor, and that is when she had found the request.

Personally, I can see how she my be hurt by this but IMO ultimately this is about her being opportunistic and greedy.
edit on 25-2-2013 by kimish because: grammar



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Just putting 2 and 2 to together here...
You file for discrimination with the EEOC, you cannot sue without first contacting them. The EEOC will look at the case, and if they feel it has merit and the company has enough employees (which a hospital does), they will go to arbitration between the hospital and the employee. If the EEOC feels that the case will not hold water, they will issue you a writ that allows you to get a private lawyer and attempt to sue them on your own. The fact that this is in the news, and wasn't handled via arbitration tells me that the EEOC has already looked at this case and found that it doesn't hold water. The client and her lawyer are obviously going to the press to push the “race card” here in an attempt to embarrass/pressure the hospital into settling with them.

My $.02 based on what I know about how this system works...


EEOC Filing a Charge
If you believe that you have been discriminated against at work because of your race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, you can file a Charge of Discrimination. All of the laws enforced by EEOC, except for the Equal Pay Act, require you to file a Charge of Discrimination with us before you can file a job discrimination lawsuit against your employer. In addition, an individual, organization, or agency may file a charge on behalf of another person in order to protect the aggrieved person's identity. There are time limits for filing a charge.

Note: Federal employees and job applicants have similar protections, but a different complaint process.

If you file a charge, you may be asked to try to settle the dispute through mediation. Mediation is an informal and confidential way to resolve disputes with the help of a neutral mediator. If the case is not sent to mediation, or if mediation doesn't resolve the problem, the charge will be given to an investigator.

If an investigation finds no violation of the law, you will be given a Notice of Right to Sue. This notice gives you permission to file suit in a court of law. If a violation is found, we will attempt to reach a voluntary settlement with the employer. If we cannot reach a settlement, your case will be referred to our legal staff (or the Department of Justice in certain cases), who will decide whether or not the agency should file a lawsuit. If we decide not to file a lawsuit, we will give you a Notice of Right to Sue.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
It may indeed had been an EEOC ruling, but in the end, the choice is still up to the discriminated nurse to fight it all the way.

It is comprehensible that when a patient who has full faculty of his mind do have the right to choice his own doctor, or if they are no other doctors in the immediate vicinity, it is HIS choice to bleed to death, stupid as it is.

But how often is a patient in the right frame of mind to decide? To a doctor, his patient's life is first priority and everything else takes a back seat. Very often, compassionate doctors, majority of them, follow this guideline than to turn away or close the other eye to save his own skin in court. And most patients whom recovered, as well as judges who study the cases, in the end thank and have more respect for the doctor who chosed to save and face court later.

However, in the case of this thread, there was no life threatening issue that would need a doctor's oversight and decision. It was purely NEO-NATAL care, which ALL nurses - white, black, brown or yellow are trained for.

For the father to threatened the administration and the administration bow down and grovel before such threats, only throws society's rule of law throught the _ This WILL NOT be just one case. More will only follow such, as that is how bullies of society operates - they dictate the rules, and in the end, the nation becomes a banana republic, for no one will trust the EQUAL application of laws upon which the nation is built upon, and chaos, destruction of the republic results.

No. Every case of discrimination WILL BE DEALT with ON THE SPOT, according to the law of the land, or the demise of a hard fought free society paid in blood by forefathers will be in the cards soon.

Some will claim and try to cast aspersions upon the nurse as being greedy. I would partially agree, but in her defense, the rule of law against discrimination was clear and evident.

The hospital administration made the error to grovel before neo nazis, and is only right they be brought to justice, to wake up and pay for their mistakes, with cost - they only way they will know pain for the harm they had done to society as a whole, not just one supposed isolated case. The minority Neo nazis and racists must be made aware that their nonsense will have to end so that society and mankind will progress and evolve..



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Okay, but that law is based on actions by the employer to discriminate against employees, it does not cover a client discriminating against a businesses employee. See the subtle difference there. There is nothing that legally states that a business has to act a certain way because a client/customer/patient acts badly, and in most businesses “the customer is always right”. Heck, I've known nurses who've been beaten by patients to the point that I felt that a call to law enforcement was in order, yet the facility took no action against the patient for their behavior.

Also, there is nothing in the law that says that an individual or even an individual company cannot discriminate, as long as a business doesn't do it against an employee of a protected class. There are still businesses that will refuse to serve people of various protected classes, and because this is a free country, they have that right.

See, I think that the problem here is this:

Your moral expectation of the law what the law actually states.

Don't feel bad though, most people don't understand how screwed up, backwards, and selective that the law really is.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

yes, a patient can, a parent in an emergent situation, not so much.
and i'm not getting into particulars cause you know as well as i that a parent can be removed from the decision making process for merely refusing vaccines


yep, for a few decades, before and after Hippa.
you already admitted that you don't so what gives ?

yes, NICU services are 'consent inferred' and have been for some time. (parents are seldom notified until after emergent measures are taken and response is noted)

or perhaps you mean in cases like this one ?
www.ama-assn.org...

drs and medical staff have been granted great leeway in over-riding parental decisions in emergent cases. {and intensive care of any kind is 'emergent' care}

this is an awfully general statement which is applicable in some instances but not all ...

The parents have power of attorney to decide who touches their children, and can charge anyone that does so without their consent with battery.
not so surprisingly, a quick search doesn't produce any cases substantiating your claim in regard to medical staff.
can you provide any ??

nope, that's a load of BS and you should know so.
as an adult, my parent cannot withhold treatment simply because i am unconscious ... that is absurd.

the rest is nonsense.
gender preference is not discriminatory, racial preference is.

been on both sides and have had a 'father' forcibly removed for less ... it happens.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Question, if the baby became distressed and required medical attention to save its life, and the only staff members qualified to do so and were available were black how long do you think it would have taken this Nazi fool to disregard his racial prejudices and allow treatment???



edit on 26-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join