Black Nurse Sues Hospital for Not Letting Her Take Care of White Baby

[The Straight Story]

Black Nurse Tanya Battle Sues Hospital for Not Letting Her Take Care of White Baby

Michigan nurse Tonya Battle is suing the hospital she works at after she was allegedly prevented from caring for a child because she is black. Battle says that she was taking care of a baby in the neonatal intensive care unit of Hurley Medical Center when the baby's father asked to speak with one of her supervisors.

According to The Daily Mail, Battle’s lawsuit states that “The father told the (nurse in charge) that he did not want any African Americans taking care of his baby.”

At some point during the conversation, the man is said to have pulled up the sleeve of his shirt and revealed a tattoo of a swastika. After the exchange, the baby was immediately reassigned to another nurse. It is not known what prompted the man’s actions and his identity has not been revealed at this time.

Battle was “shocked, offended and in disbelief that she was so egregiously discriminated against based on her race and re-assigned,” according to the court documents. In her lawsuit, Battle says that a staff meeting was held to inform the hospital's nurses of the father's demands.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/hate-crimes/african-american-nurse-tanya-battle-sues-hospital-after-being-prevented

[Marrah_G]

1. I just can't wrap my brain around this type of ignorance.

[The Straight Story]

2. I know, why sue? She should be happy she had less work to do....

I would bet that on some rw boards that is exactly what they are saying and they probably believe it.

[Marrah_G]

4. You almost had me there for a moment

I thought maybe you had been invaded by pod people!

[goclark]

3. What a Nut!

Slaves were taking care of White Babies and it was OK then but now this fool is making " new rules" in 2013.

[elleng]

6. Yes and/but

he's got a swastika, quite different from our bad 'old' days in the south.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

27. How true.

We are not talking about the run of the mill racist. That swastika could be a sign of something VERY BAD!

[elleng]

29. Absolutely,

and WORSE, he's now got a baby!

[llmart]

151. To quote my favorite line from the old TV series "ER".....

"stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed."

[lunasun]

103. SO the Hospital Abides??!!

The head nurse tells him >OH OK you are a racist Nazi
Let me do your biding and discriminate and be racist for you here in our workplace - no problem sir, we got it for ya

[elleng]

5. The hospital will lose this one, as well it should.

Should NOT have said 'OK' to the father.

[FarPoint]

11. As sick and vile the request by the parent was...

I don't see why the hospital would deny their request if there were other nurses available.

Help me out here.

[obamanut2012]

14. Because it is illegal to discrimate re: race

Employees are protected from this not just from coworkers and supervisors, but also from clients, patients, vendors, etc.

The hospital broke the law.

[FarPoint]

19. Such similar requests happen every day in a medical-clinical setting.

Would not the hospital be also liable if they did not respect the patients wishes wherein other options are available? Apparently the attending nurse goes against their belief system... valid or not.

Secondly, there needs to be a trust relationship with a nurse-patient for effective care to be given....the patient obviously does not trust the nurse even if it is based upon gross misconceptions.

I'm not defending...but asking because I don't know.

[elleng]

31. Assuming the hospital benefits from Federal funds,

its plain illegal, AND other options not available in the circumstances, their 'belief system' notwithstanding.

There SHOULD be a trust relationship, but I doubt this clown can develop such with ANYONE!

[Lady Freedom Returns]

33. "trust relationship"

That could be used in an argument for the hospital. The father due to his beliefs, did not trust the nurse.
And we add to it that the hospital is entrusted with the safety of the nurse.
It is going to end up in a nice little fight any way it goes.

[Honeycombe8]

38. The hospital should've requested the man transfer his infant to another hospital.

It's a tough call, because on the one hand, people have the right to say who they want to take care of their children. But OTOH, when you go to a hospital, you know you will be treated by whoever works there. And the hospital can't, by law, assign nurses according to race or religion or gender or age. Or can they? She wasn't fired. She was just reassigned.

The hospital handled this wrong.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

45. Ah but if they do that...

The hospital would be facing the same lawsuit. The Nazi Party and movement would also be protesting the hospital. Then we add the nurses safety into all this. That is why they reassigned her. THey more than likely would have put her back in after the child and mother was released. The hospital, when they found out the situation was placed in a bad place all the way around. I am sure that either way, they saw the ACLU coming at them.

As I said in another post, make no mistake, the precedent of this case will start some changes, no mater which way the decision goes.

[Honeycombe8]

48. But the Nazi has no basis in law to sue. Protest, yes. Nothing can be done about that.

But then what other hospital would want the baby, if he comes with all that trouble?

They didn't reassign her for safety or any other reason that as complying with a request based on race. That is illegal. Period. Unless there is some other factor in there....maybe the man had just been mugged by a black person, or his last baby died in the care of a black nurse...some mental reason for it.

I'm guessing, and it's just a guess, that the hospital has a policy of complying with the race requests. I'm sure they run across that with elderly patients. It's a dilemma.

But bottom line...the man wasn't paying for this, and it wasn't his hospital. When you go to a public place for treatment, and when you aren't paying the bill, can you really make special requests for attendants based on race? I think the answer to that is no.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

57. Many said that the KKK didn't have a case either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union

In 1977, a small group of American Nazis, led by Frank Collin, applied to the town of Skokie, Illinois for permission to hold a demonstration in the town park. Skokie at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens, some of whom were survivors of Nazi concentration camps. Skokie refused to grant permission, and an Illinois judge supported Skokie and prohibited the demonstration.[48] Skokie immediately passed three ordinances aimed at preventing the group from meeting in Skokie. The ACLU assisted Collins and appealed to federal court.[48] The appeal dragged on for a year, and the ACLU eventually prevailed in Smith v. Collin, 447 F.Supp. 676.[262]

One never knows what can be not only a case, but a winnable case. In a way, it is good that she is suing instead of him. The precedents that is going to happen is going to be big as it is. But the one that his case could have made could have been a severely negative for many discrimination suits that comes up in the future.

[Honeycombe8]

65. That's a freedom of expression case. There is a basis in law for it. There is none for requesting...

a nurse of a particular race. There's no legal protection for that request.

[uponit7771]

87. that's not the KKK...the KKK is a designated terrorist group in the US. Those are Nazis...I know,..

...different name same group of ignorants

[Honeycombe8]

101. I think you responded to the wrong post. I didn't mention the KKK. nt

[TheMadMonk]

162. Shot themselves in the foot when they named names.

When they singled out the group by name the CITY became the discriminator.

Could have gone on indefinitely knocking back applications one by one on a straight up merit test every time.

[Arcanetrance]

80. I would have to believe safety was part of the reason

Thinking about how unstable neonazis are I can imagine the thought entering someone's mind if she stays he will do something much worse. Maybe I just have an odd view of the world but I see neonazis and I automatically assume they have violence on their mind.

[Honeycombe8]

102. That's not a legal defense. If someone is concerned about safety, they are supposed to call the law.

It's not legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race "for her own good." Or for the safety of others. If that were the case, we'd still have slavery, because, you know, there sure were a lot of threats and killings over freeing slaves and then integration. That's what civil rights is all about.

You don't discriminate because a bigot implies that unless you do, he's gonna hurt someone. You can go ahead and discriminate, but you'll pay for it.

[Arcanetrance]

104. I agree it wasn't the proper choice

[elleng]

43. Doubt it.

Difficult as it may appear from here, hospital should have known better.
POOR baby!

[Lady Freedom Returns]

60. They knew they were between a rock and a hard place.

Whatever they did, they knew they were going to court.

The White supremest movement has been waiting for something to get up in arms about. And with the Voting Rights Act argument coming up to The Supreme Court on February 27, this could have just made their day!

[LukeFL]

92. Putting emotions aside And how

Sick The request Of The father was, i want to tell you that you think like An attorney. Are you one?

[Honeycombe8]

36. The difference is that there is a federal law prohibiting discrimination on race. He could've asked

for no one with brown eyes or blue eyes or too short or too tall to care for his baby, and if the hospital complied, they would not be breaking the law. That's because there is no federal law prohibiting discrimination based on height or color of eyes.

But no employer can discriminate based on race, gender, religion, age.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

44. However, it is the patient/ parent of the child, not the hospital that had a problem.

That takes it to a new ballgame. And the hospital will use that in the lawsuit. They will also use the, and in this case I truly do believe it was, the reason for her safety.

Make no mistake, this suit will make a new type of case precedent that will start to change something either way it goes.

[Honeycombe8]

46. It's a dilemma. Seems they didn't give that reason (safety), and they didn't transfer the baby

to another hospital, so that her reassignment was only temporary.

Is it discrimination, when the hospital makes assignments based on race, at patients' requests?

Doesn't seem clear cut. The bill was being mainly paid for by teh ins. company, I would guess. And the hospital is bound by federal employment laws. He COULD have hired his own private nurse, at his expense. But he wanted to use someone else's nurse, at someone else's expense. I don't think a patient has the right, in law, to request race because of prejudice. Maybe if there's a background to the racial thing....a Jewish person not wanting a gentile....based on religion. There's no clear cut answer.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

50. I can say that the hospital will find precedent for doing what they did..

and show it was for her safety. They just have to look across the country. They could just look to SW Missouri for it, two or more even.

Mysterious cases of people getting things done to them. The only thing that could be found was that they had a run in with a white supremest while doing there jobs.

[Honeycombe8]

66. Hospitals don't find precedent. Courts do. This has been litigated before.

The hospital could make a defense that she wasn't reassigned because of race, per se, but because of acquiescence to a patient request, so that isn't discrimination in the workplace. That sounds pretty weak.

But this has been sued over before, so it's not like there aren't other cases to look to for guidance.

I suspect there's some bad blood between teh nurse and the hospital, though. That's why she has sued. Maybe other incidents happened.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

63. This case will set no precedent.

Case/employment law is well settled in this matter - an employer can't assign duties based on race (and other forbidden criteria).

The hospital, as an employer, has the duty to the employee to follow employment law.

Their answer should have been "no, we don't break the law on request"

This is no different than an employer saying "our customers prefer to deal with white people at the front desk therefore we prefer to have black associates work in the back room"... That bullshit is older than the civil rights and employment law in play here.

And before you say it, there is no "separate but equal in employment law"... You just can't do it no matter how much your customers squawk.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

68. Yes it will.

The reasons why will make the precedent. The arguments that will be stated in the case itself will do it. It will effect many different things if they do use such as "What is the patients rights?" to "The responsibility of safety outside the work place". The Court will have to answer it or them if they use more than one argument.

This is the type of case many have been waiting for. Many an if that has been discussed by many as theoretical can and more than likely be seen in real life. How the lawyers argue this and the appeal if the hospital losses, will set precedent.

This is a case many better watch along with the Voting Rights Act arugment comming up to The Supreme Court on February 27.

[magical thyme]

98. um, the father is not the patient

The baby is the patient and I'm sure was plenty trusting of the nurse. It will take a while for the father to teach that poor baby to hate.

And I don't believe hospitals honor "similar requests" every day and certainly not in the ham-handed way this hospital handled the situation.

Once the hospital's law dept. found out they made management 1. remove the note from the baby's chart and 2. tell the father they would not be able to follow his wish.

[FarPoint]

100. The parents speak for the child.

They can and have identified who may not touch their child. They are obvious racist parents yet I believe they have the final say in this matter. That's the unpleasant reality.

[magical thyme]

106. Then you may want to contact that hospital's law dept. because they disagree with you

When the hospital's law dept. (may not be in this OP's article; there are 2 threads on the topic with different linked articles) learned of the situation, they made management remove the notice and made management advise the father that he could not ban African Americans.

I am aware that the parent speaks for the child. However, the poster I replied to stated that "the patient needs to trust." In that context, it is the baby that needs trust, not the father.

Finally, while the parent has the final say over who cares for their baby, their option is to remove their baby from that hospital. They do not have final say in assigning hospital staff.

If there was a personality conflict with one particular staff member, naturally the hospital would seek to resolve it by reassignment in order to protect everybody involved. But they cannot ban an entire class of people, either legally or as a practical matter.

[FarPoint]

107. This will be an intresting Court case.

I'm not sure how it will end....It is a great topic for a medical ethics course.

[magical thyme]

110. Agreed.

Although in the end the hospital did the right thing, their management should have consulted with their law dept. before they took action.

It's also a classic example of managers up the hierarchy who, legal issues aside, have no hands-on experience and no concept of the practical nightmare that would create for scheduling.

The fact that it even got kicked up the ladder versus an immediate "sorry, we can't do that," leaves me wondering if fear of neo-Nazi influenced the decision-making.

As a practical matter, smaller hospitals in particular would have been totally unable to even consider honoring his request. Where I work as a lab tech, overnight and for several daytime hours on weekends, there is only one person on duty to do timed, emergency and OB blood draws on in-patients.

And occasionally our ED looks like a tv show with patients stacked in the aisles and staff running flat out for hours on end.

In those situations, you get who's on duty, like them or not.

[Jamastiene]

113. The patient is a baby that does not know those "beliefs" yet.

It is still against the law. Why defend that crap?

[FarPoint]

115. On the contrary...

I'm not defending the parent...just identifying parental consent, for the patient as to who touches ones child rules.

[still_one]

156. It is a hospital serving the public, and has to abide by the laws of the land.

[still_one]

155. If the request was made without inferring the reason was due to race or ethnicity, it would not be

A problem.

[SkyDaddy7]

157. NO NO NO...A truly good hospital would have...

Refused the fathers request...And if he had issues with this then have him escorted off the property. I saw a hospital do exactly this when I suffered a spinal cord injury. A man did not want his son, who was 17, in a hospital room with any AA patient or hospital staff...When the hospital refused he became very angry & even called the charge nurse a "N-Word loving whore" & she had the police up there who removed him from the property & only his mother was allowed to come see their son.

So, good hospitals do what is correct not act as if racist views have merit.

[sabbat hunter]

51. while the hospital

may not have made the best decision in switching nurses, I think their intentions were not to discriminate. But instead they probably were intimidated by the father, what he might do (IE threats, lawsuits, etc)

Perhaps what the hospital should have done is called child services and informed them of the hateful and hurtful environment the child was going to.

[FrodosPet]

90. Let him flip out

What's the worst he could have done? Beat up a few people? Maybe shot someone? Then the hospital and his assault victims (or their next of kin) could have had him arrested, maybe sued him for every penny he had.

And in the process, maybe somehow the baby could be taken away and put into foster care with non-Nazis.

True, someone may have had to get injured or died, but it is results that count.

(Boy howdy I am glad I don't have to make these lose-lose decisions)

[Scootaloo]

77. That's not how it works, unfortunately

The wishes of the patient must be respected; if they do not want themselves or those under their authority to be treated by people of a particular race or religion or whatever, then that is their right.

That is the law - the patient is the one in charge of their care, and in the case of those unable to manage their care plan, the power falls to whoever has custody.

This nurse is going to lose her suit.

[Blue_Tires]

128. Please cite the law that states patients have the absolute right to choose the ethnicity/religion

of caregivers...Because that's sure as shit a new one for me....

[Scootaloo]

130. Hmmm, may just be nursing homes.

1987's Nursing Home Reform Law allows the patient to choose their own care providers based on whatever criteria the patient wishes, basically. And some have decided that race is such a factor.

However it looks like that aspect has been successfully challenged in courts before, so... it looks like i might be wrong. However this is the training I received when becoming an employee at a Washington nursing home; If a resident has their hangup, you don't tell them "well, tough!" you find someone who they will allow to perform care for them.

[Blue_Tires]

131. My father was a doctor for 35 years

and I never heard him recall a story where a patient wanted him to step aside so a white surgeon could operate, and the hospital complied...

[elleng]

15. obamanut said it:

Its ILLEGAL!

[malaise]

16. Because the hospital hired the nurse based on training and skill

The hospital should have told the man that he had the option to move his wife and baby.
The hospital went along with overt racism - they will pay

[Honeycombe8]

39. It's tough. They had to reassign temporarily, and ask the man to move his infant to another hosp.

But in the interim, they would've had to reassign her, in order to avoid trouble. There's no telling what someone like that man would've done, if they hadn't complied.

Tough situation.

[Skittles]

147. you need far more help than can be provided here

[FarPoint]

149. Excuse me???????????

Why are you in a bad mood?

[Skittles]

150. oh, LOLOL!

not even worth my time

[still_one]

154. Because it was based on race, and that violates the civil rights act

[Lady Freedom Returns]

21. Un... I think for the safety of the nurse, the hospital did right.

If some of his "friend" found out and if he told them he asked for her not to, they could have decided to handle the situation.

I grew up in an area where these guys are everywhere. They can and would have hurt her for doing her job. Why? The color of her skin. They are that kind of bad.

[Jamastiene]

114. By that same logic, an unarmed Nazi can walk into a bank

and demand all the money in the safe. Are you saying the teller should just give them the money instead of calling the police? One of the main reasons we have police is to protect us from thugs like that. Bending to their whims and doing whatever the Nazis want is no way to ensure civil rights and freedom in years to come. They need to fund and start their own Nazi hospitals if they want that kind of bigoted policies...or go to a different hospital that is "white enough" for them.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

116. That is not the same and you know it.

And they will hurt hurt people of other races due to feeling what they consider being "Slighted" by them. They have groups that they go to. Sites a lot like DU that they talk about this stuff. It was/is not just the father that they have to worry about. These guys are bad. The FBI still have unsolved cases that the White Supremacist are involved in. Yet do to some really good lawyers they have on retainer and not having enough to point to one culprit, they will stay unsolved.

I, for one, rather have an angry, suing, LIVE nurse than a dead one with no real leads.

[CreekDog]

118. Not the same? You just compared this to a Nazi group's right to have a parade

and now you're arguing that a bad analogy was posted?

i hate when people don't remember what they've said and posted in the very same thread.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

122. I am on the money.

It would have been used by the Nazi Party to push their side into the limelight. This is more than just run of the mill bigotry, this is a movement that has been just waiting for something to come up to get then back on the front page and to preach there agenda. If the father, and the movement would make sue he had some of the best lawyers out there, took it to court, they would have what they want. The parade thing as well as the fight for the Adopt-a highway thing just wet there whistle.

Now let’s take using a bank robbery thing. This is not just one thug that is robbing a bank. We are talking about a nationwide group that has been connected, in different ways that has made where they as a group can still operate in this nation, to many beatings and deaths.

I rather have an angry, suing, LIVE nurse than the possible alternative.

[robinlynne]

53. should have told the father to take his business elsewhere.

[elleng]

55. The father should have thought of this BEFORE,

as moving newborns around not exactly optimal.

[newfie11]

7. I hope she sues the father also

This is beyond disgusting and all should be involved in lawsuit.

[Honeycombe8]

40. He didn't break the law. nt

[xilify]

8. They should have told him to get out and take his nazi baby with him.

[malaise]

17. That simple n/t

[wickerwoman]

18. Yep, except keep the Nazi baby

and let a non-white couple adopt it.

[Confusious]

34. And then the NAZI family wins a big payout for negligence

Seems to me the hospital was inbetween a rock and hard place.

Get sued for not listening to the families wishes (You can probably request any nurse be removed, and if the hospital doesn't, well, lawsuit.)

Or

Get sued by the nurse.

They probably went with the least likely of the two suits to win.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. The hospital had no duty to perform an illegal request.

Courts don't enforce duties that are at odds with public policy/law.

The court would tell him to go scratch.

[pediatricmedic]

73. It was not an illegal request and the hospital has a legal duty to treat

[Hassin Bin Sober]

74. The request itself wasn't illegal.

It was a request the hospital perform an illegal act. Just to be clear.

There is NO wiggle room. Non whatsoever when it comes to employment assignments based on race.

Racist pigs' requests don't trump we'll established employment law and public policy.

The hospital has a duty to treat AND comply with the law. The father had the option of accepting that or refuse treatment against medical advice.

[PaddyIrishman]

93. There's no such thing as a Nazi baby!

There's just babies.

You really can't blame the newborn baby because the father is a racist piece of shit.

[postulater]

9. Poor baby.

The nurse was probably the most loving thing it will ever have in its' life.

[leftynyc]

59. Amen

Just imagine the atmosphere this child is going to be raised in....the people that will be his/her role models. Child abuse.

[aptal]

99. Amen +1

This is nothing short of child abuse and should be prosecuted that way.

[southern_belle]

127. +1000 Da*n Right!

[smirkymonkey]

81. +1000

I feel sorry for the poor child for having such racist asshole parents.

[Nay]

83. Truth. That poor baby's last link to loving kindness will be the nurse 'dad' hated. nt

[FarPoint]

10. The request of the parent is indeed

repugnant. This is not a new phenomena in the medical field. It typically happens with an elderly white patient not wanting a black nurse attending. It also has happened where a Jewish patient does not want a gentile caring for them or touching them...(I think it is based on religious reasons)....

Often, a female patient refuses care from a male nurse....There are many reasons, valid or not where patients and/or family refuse a medical caregiver the opportunity to serve them clinically.

I believe the family or patients wishes are usually respected in the long run.

This case reeks of racism...but I think the patent's/families wishes typically take precedence.

I'm interested in hearing other viewpoints and experiences.

[wickerwoman]

20. Hell,

I've seen people get away with posting on DU that they wanted English as the official language because they didn't want to be taken care of by ESL speakers in their old age.

It wouldn't surprise me if this happens all the time or that 99.9% of the time hospitals take the path of least resistance and comply with the request. They just got caught in this instance.

[FarPoint]

22. I imagine nurses and such medical professionals

who render on-hand services in a clinical setting do just comply with the request and move on...big business finds them..replaceable. They use the philosophy the customer first...or customer is always right.

I hope we hear from fellow medical DU'ers who can share lightly their experiences in this type of scenario .

[Honeycombe8]

41. Well, she was reassigned. She wasn't terminated. Unless she chose to move on.

Which would be understandable.

[Skeletor]

97. As a male in the medical field...

I have been reassigned many times due to women not wanting a male caregiver. As much as I smile and nod at their request, it does sting at times. I'm professional at my job and have been for many years.

I hope this poor baby somehow escapes his father's brainwashing.

[obamanut2012]

12. If true, the nurse will win this hands down

Discrimination covers from clients, patients, vendors, etc.

[FarPoint]

25. I'm not sure this is a slam-dunk case....

I support and respect the case but see a fight ahead for the nurse. I base this upon the right of the patient to refuse the care in total or inpart based upon "their" belief system... it has weight.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

30. Add to it...

the hospital can argue that they did it for her safety. And considering what the possibility of what kind of raciest he is, that could be to close to the truth.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. There better have been some demonstrable overt threats - such threats ...

.... would rise to the level of calling security and/or the police.

That won't fly anyway. Maybe if they informed they informed the employee they felt their was a threat to her safety and gave her a choice. That would be the proper way to handle it. On second thought, even such a request would violate the law. Again, threats should merit security/police. Not reassignment.

You don't protect your employees by breaking the law.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

69. I take it you never been around this type of people.

Sadly I have. And he didn't need to make threats. Remember that the FBI has many a case file that they still have yet to close due to knowing what group did but not the exact who did many a beatings and killings.

Many in Michigan know this. Many that has had the dark luck to live, or in my case grow up, in and around these people would say that the hospital did right.

Many would say "Better to side with the angels and have an angry, suing, nurse than another unsolved case".This type is that bad, even in this day and age.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Maybe hospitals in Michigan and Idaho should....

.... have their black employees only work in the back rooms. For their own good, of course.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's where your logic goes.

Yeah, I've been around these people.

[uponit7771]

84. Unnn, nah...they can't use that for racist reasons...get the racist out not the employee

[pediatricmedic]

32. You are correct, patient rights has a LOT of weight

The right of the patient does take precedent in this case. The hospital would be liable if they said she couldn't work on the unit because she is black.

Patient safety was not even compromised in this case.

[FarPoint]

42. Yeap....this is an ethical/public opinion win for the nurse

but not so much legally.

[robinlynne]

54. but I dont think that particular belief system counts as a belief system. It breaks the law.

[uponit7771]

85. right, and the law is well established on discrimination

[Journeyman]

13. If the hospital felt the Father posed a threat to the Nurse's safety, she should have been informed…

and allowed to make her own choice in the matter. For them to simply accede to his demand is to agree with his rationale, or at the least, to give implied agreement. For that reason, the hospital will find itself liable in the woman's suit. I don't know what, if anything, can be done about the father -- we're all allowed our opinions, no matter how vile -- but the hospital should never have agreed to his demands.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

23. If she decided to keep taking care of the child...

and was hurt or killed by someone that "knew the family" ,the family of the nurse could sue the hospital for not stepping in and moving her duties elsewhere.

The hospital more than likely rather have an angry nurse than a severely hurt or dead one.

[uponit7771]

86. +1

[Solly Mack]

24. That poor child. Born to such a family.

That father (coughchokespew) will teach that child to hate.

[riverbendviewgal]

26. The father may be a white supremist

where there are quite a few in Michigan...in militias.

It is astounding all the racist shit that is coming out in America .

I just finished this racist abuse on this thread Where a white guy slaps a black baby for crying on his flight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2381969

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. I'm torn here....

My first thought is to that nurse's safety, as well as everyone in that hospital. As repugnant as the request was, the last thing anyone needed is some Nazi thug shooting up the place.

[Confusious]

35. Seems to me the hospital was inbetween a rock and hard place.

Get sued for not listening to the families wishes (You can probably request any nurse be removed, and if the hospital doesn't, well, lawsuit.)

Or

Get sued by the nurse.

They probably went with the least likely of the two suits to win.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

37. "The hospital more than likely rather have an angry nurse than a severely hurt or dead one."

They knew what that tattoo meant. And I can't see them wanting her hurt over something like this.

[Blue_Tires]

132. That's bullshit...The hospital brass were cowards in this and you know it

You coddle and kowtow to racists this time, where does it end?

You treat a sizeable portion of your nursing staff as third-class pariahs, where does it end?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

139. I rather have a live nurce. n/t

[Earth_First]

61. Thats how I feel...

The optimist in me wants to believe that the charge nurse made this decision out of the immediate safety concern for her staff member.

These Nazi folk can be violent and irrational.

[mrmpa]

47. What the fuck year is this?.......................

2013 or 1913? Give me a break. The father should have been escorted from the building & told that all nurses are more than qualified to care for his child.

I pity how that child is going to be reared.

[Skittles]

49. I........what?? WTF

his request should have been denied

[smirkymonkey]

82. He should have been given an immediate vasectomey.

Morons like that should not be allowed to breed.

[robinlynne]

52. holy shit. she should sue.

[dkf]

56. What happens if its the opposite...the nurse is forced to care for the nazi parents child

After the parent requests otherwise?

Can the hospital deny the request and force the black nurse to attend to the child because to remove her would be accomodating a racist request?

[Skip Intro]

62. What if the nurse, offended by the tattoo, refused to care for the child? nt

[pediatricmedic]

72. Lot's of bad things can happen to the nurse

Suspended, fired, possible loss of license, possible criminal/civil liabilities.

She cannot refuse to care for a patient, she can ask to be reassigned or swap with another nurse.

[CreekDog]

119. is that the only thing you can think of commenting here?

not the actual racism of refusing to let the nurse do her job and care for the baby (and she wanted to care for it).

but the hypothetical (and falsely so) idea that the nurse would refuse to care for a Nazi's baby?

how can you be so obvious? you literally refuse to post or comment to acknowledge actual racism towards anybody but white people.

do you not believe racism against black people happens?

[Skip Intro]

120. What if everybody refused to play your little game?

[CreekDog]

125. Presented with racism against a black person

You ask what if the black person discriminated against the Nazi.

[Jamastiene]

134. What if frogs had wings?

They wouldn't bump their asses when they hop. This isn't "what if." This is what really happened. You are trying to change the subject.

[Skip Intro]

135. Read. I was replying to a what-if post with another what-if.

Here's another:

What if those quick to judge practiced reading comprehension rather than accusing others of "trying" to do something?

[CreekDog]

140. because in practice, you take issue with and try to change the subject when racism against blacks...

is posted here.

i don't know why.

[Skip Intro]

141. your empty and unfounded accusatory bs just makes me

[CreekDog]

142. the other poster noticed it too

and when they post about "White people mourning Mitt Romney's loss" was up, you wanted to talk about it extensively.

but here? nope. the only thing you could think of is what if the black person had been the racist aggressor in this story, what if?

not making it up at all.

[Skip Intro]

143. Oh CD, what would DU do without you going around accusing other DUers

of bullshit you just make up?

Would it suck less? Yeah, it would.

In this thread I posted a "what if" to dkf's what if post, that was a slight bent on her post.

The fact that it bothers you pleases me to no end.

Oh, but now, you brought up a thread from the past that is supposed to prove something.

It doesn't in reality, but in your mind, well, who can say.

You've already had your ass handed to you in meta repeatedly over these little tactics of yours - twisting things around to attack the character of other DUers, keeping tabs on what others are doing (CREEPY!), even setting traps for others disguised as polls.

Yet you continue.

Here's the deal, though.

I don't really give a fuck what you think (and I doubt if anyone else does either).

If you're waiting for me to jump through your little hoops, I hope you're comfortable, because it ain't gonna be happening.

Next...

[CreekDog]

144. No, it was you that got mocked and criticized in Meta

Because you alerted your own thread.

Nothing even close has happened to me in Meta or even DU.

[Skip Intro]

145. .

I wouldn't exactly call these love fests:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240207918

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=203300

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=200525


Oh, and then there are the threads where you're busted for starting polls in order to dig up dirt on the DUers who vote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240188953#op

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240188953#post11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2165643


Creepy!


This was kind of a funny post by you, considering your badgering and never-ending witch hunts of, well, everybody here who doesn't post to your liking:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=211309


Most are turned off by your insinuating, attacking, hall-monitor schtick, CD.

And nobody's fooled by it.


Later. Much, I hope.

[CreekDog]

146. I don't see anything earth shattering in those

kind of pales in comparison to the thread you started to accuse me of stalking you which you then alerted on, using alert language designed to make it look as though a friend of mine alerted on it.

you were criticized, mocked and taken to task more than anything i've experienced.

[LanternWaste]

148. That's called doing one's job...

"the nurse is forced to care for the nazi parents child..."

That's called doing one's job... regardless of whatever other motive or agendas may parallel that action.

[dkf]

160. Is it a requirement that one must provided services to those who

Present a threat?

I would think a smart manager would try to prevent that.

[Nine]

58. The baby was at the hospital for weeks.

If this were a healthy baby who was going to be leaving in a day or two, I could more easily see the hospital going along with the father's demands. But this was a baby in intensive care and the hospital had a good, long time to come up with a real solution. They failed. If they felt the father was a threat, they should have handled it as a security measure. I don't think patients have any inherent right to handpick which hospital staff they want even if it were something as innocuous as not wanting any nurse born on a Wednesday because of some kind of superstition. How they handled it was discriminatory, period.

[Nine]

71. more info here

http://www.abc12.com/story/21201444/abc12-investigates-hurley-nurse-sues-alleging-race-discrimination

[Demo_Chris]

75. Amazing the hospital is this ignorant. n/t

[otohara]

94. Maybe They Were Afraid He'd Come Back w/a Gun

cuz he sounds like the kinda guy who just might do that.

People with swastika tattoos ? Yikes.

[defacto7]

78. If that's Hurly Medical Center in Flint Michigan,

That's the hospital I was born in over half a century ago. Yikes. Brings the racism home to my mind and I don't like it.

[HiPointDem]

79. reported second-hand via the british murdoch rag "daily mail". i have my doubts.

i wish people would quit posting 'news' from the daily mail.

and giving the criminal murdoch page views.

[Nine]

88. I agree regarding the Daily Mail. However, this is confirmed by local accounts and CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/16/us/michigan-hospital-discrimination/index.html

It is a bit different from originally reported.

I hope the OP is edited to have links to local news (http://www.abc12.com/story/21201444/abc12-investigates-hurley-nurse-sues-alleging-race-discrimination) and CNN.

[msanthrope]

126. Well, it's not like the OP cited the WSWS, after all. nt

[OceanEcosystem]

89. To be fair to the hospital.........

To be fair to the hospital, even worse things could have happened if they had not complied with this man's racist request.

The incident could have then resulted in violence which could have left someone injured. Possible lawsuit then.

And what if the hospital had given the baby to the father and said, "Take the child to a different hospital instead?" Then, what if, say, the baby had developed some complication while the family was in their car en route to a different hospital, and died? Again, possible lawsuit.

[Nine]

91. The hospital knows it was wrong.

The hospital lawyer told the hospital it couldn't do that. The policy stopped officially but continued unofficially for another month according to the nurse.

I'm getting a little tired of all this hand wringing over what the baby's father might have done. Is this what we have become? Some lowlife flashes a hate group tattoo and we all start quaking in our boots and agree to compromise our principles and violate the law? If he's a threat, call the police. After the hospital lawyer made the hospital tell the man they wouldn't accede to his demands anymore, what happened? Nothing. But by all means let's cower in fear and give these domestic terrorists anything they ask for.

[Jamastiene]

117. It obnoxious to think there are people on DU defending

that horrendous racist action by that hospital. Not only that, there are some making up "what if" scenarios to defend it. To make it even worse, there are some who are saying they should have done it out of fear instead of letting security handle any implied threats. The knots some people will twist and tie themselves into to try to defend such racism is obnoxious.

[Blue_Tires]

129. That's how I know I've stayed at DU a little too long...

because the "old" DU *never* would have tried to justify this bullshit...Which is sadly a trend I've been seeing increasing in regularity over the past few years...

That's also one of the reasons why there's next to no regular black posters on this forum anymore...I'm not holding my breath waiting for the posters upthread and mods to "get it," though...At least my ignore list will be maxed out before I go...

(I do want to thank the self-styled "liberals" in this thread who support coddling a racist just because there's a one-in-a-million chance he'll pull a McVeigh or something...If that didn't just sum up everything I despise about modern Democratic Party leadership in a nutshell)

[DonCoquixote]

158. amen

&quot I do want to thank the self-styled "liberals" in this thread who support coddling a racist just because there's a one-in-a-million chance he'll pull a McVeigh or something...If that didn't just sum up everything I despise about modern Democratic Party leadership in a nutshell)

And these are the same people wanting Hillary in 2016, who still yell your ears off when the way Bill blew every dog whistle short of wearing white sheets in 2008.

[Nine]

159. Huh? (nt)

[Bay Boy]

95. The request by the father is repugnant...

...and I would have liked it if he been asked to go elsewhere.

I mentioned in a thread I started on this subject: Why would he choose to go to Hurley Hospital in Flint MI when he
could expect a large percentage of AA nurses working there?


Back to the nurses lawsuit; what loss did the RN have?

[Nine]

96. What loss did the RN have, you ask?

This is the note that was prominently posted on the staff assignment clipboard: "Please, No African American Nurses to care for Baby per Dad's request. Thank you."

Doesn't make for the most pleasant work environment, does it?

Besides that, there is the notion of punitive damages - employers need to pay a price when they do wrong or they will continue to do it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

123. Ummm...her dignity? Respect?

Self-worth?

Hospitals don't get to deny their employees that.

[Blue_Tires]

133. How about her right to do her job in a workplace free of discrimination and intimidation??

[Motown_Johnny]

137. This is almost beyond words.

First of all, any hospital in or near Flint is going to have African American nurses and doctors and orderlies and a whole host of other employees. Unless he was going to go to Montana to have his child then he had very little choice concerning exposing his child to persons of color.

More importantly, you can't discriminate against people based on their race (among other things). If this bigot was allowed to decide against a person of color being able to do his/her job then other bigots could do the same. This would make it more likely that white people get hired for jobs where you would run into these racists asking that only white people come in contact with themselves or their family members.


What he asked for was illegal. The nurse was the victim of that crime.

[gollygee]

163. She was discriminated against and humiliated

Which is not OK. You do understand that it is not OK, right?

[obamanut2012]

166. Her loss: she was legally discriminated against

As per state and Federal laws.

[Doremus]

108. Poor baby born to a father like that. Let's hope s/he breaks the cycle. nt

[cherish44]

109. Wish there was a way they could take that baby away from those racist pieces of shit

nt

[roxy1234]

111. How is this any different

from thousand of male nurses being reassigned because women are uncomfortable with them as a caretaker? And unlike in ths case where the customer is the one discriminating, most male nurses know better not to even apply at OB GYN clinics because they know they have a very low chance of getting hired.

[Jamastiene]

112. I hope she can get a hefty amount and a job at a better place.

That is horrendous that they would do that to her. She deserves to be be treated equally, not pushed aside when some asshole makes unnecessary, bigoted demands.

[rainbow4321]

121. Hospitals are known for throwing nurses under the bus

Management will take the path of least resistance...if it comes down to a (wrongfully) agitated/loud patient or family member and a nurse who is trying to just do her job, they will always side with the patient.

Case in point...our hospital policy is that NO one can sleep IN the bed with a patient. At all. I cannot tell you how many times we walk into a room and the patient's significant other is curled up in bed with the patient. And these couples don't care if they are in a multipatient bed room (3 to a room)..talk about the other patients/families looking uncomfortable)
Some nurses choose to ignore it, then when a nurse comes on and tries to explain it to the patient and his s.o, that nurse is the BAD nurse, how dare you, we are going to report you!

So one day I walk in on such a couple (older couple in this case) and the wife is in the hospital bed with the patient. I explain that for safety purposes the hospital doesn't allow people to get into bed with the patients. Keeping in mind that in the past when I had turned a blind eye to such behavior from other patients/s.o's and my manager had seen the couples, he would come to me and be irate that I had "allowed it".

Ok....so I decided to do the "right" thing this time.

What happens? The patient's wife goes to complain to my unit's assistant manager that I was not allowing her to sleep in her husband's hospital bed, turns out the wife was an employee of the hospital who the asst. manager knew, and he then profusely apologizes to the wife, gives me a bunch of lame excuses on why it is suddenly OK to allow the wife to be in the hospital bed, and then the wife is standing there looking at me all smug like *I* am the horrible, terrible, awful person that she has gotten revenge on.


Sometimes you just cannot win as a nurse when it comes to hospital management.

We've had patients and family members get verbally abusive with us (as nurses) and when I have tried to tell management that I have rights, too, as an employee to not be harrassed/verbally abused and want to be re-assigned, they look at me amused and go welllll, you know...we'll see. Not a single management team member will go in and tell the patient "you will treat our staff with respect and these outbursts will not be tolerated". I've even got to a point where I have told management that I will call the hospital police up to the room each time I am yelled at/screamed at/cursed at...and these are not rent a cop police...I work at a federal facility and they are a "real" police force.

Good grief, if you are allowed feel safe and harrassment free while working at a federal facility, where CAN you feel safe at?

[Butterbean]

124. My hospital actually has a policy specifically regarding a scenario like this.

Although the patient is an elderly white patient who states she herself doesn't want a black nurse. Anyhoo, as long as I can remember, as long as I've worked for our hospital, the policy has ALWAYS been that the patient is not allowed to pick and choose nurses based on skin color or religious background. Gender, yes (for example female Muslim patients who only want to be attended by females).

I don't know if it's federal policy or what, but fact is, at my hospital, the law of the land is that this father had no case. Now, given that the charge nurse was probably scared shitless of him (I know I would have been), what she SHOULD HAVE done is immediately called patient relations and the nursing supervisor. I dunno, it sounds like the charge nurse either is a new one or hasn't been in many hairy situations before.

At any rate, yeah, it's gonna go to court and get ugly, but in the end I do believe the nurse is the one with the valid case here, if my hospital's policy is any sort of precedent.

[skypilot]

136. How is the third sentence below in the same article with the other two?

“The father told the (nurse in charge) that he did not want any African Americans taking care of his baby.”

...the man is said to have pulled up the sleeve of his shirt and revealed a tattoo of a swastika.

It is not known what prompted the man’s actions...

[KamaAina]

138. They not only should have told Young Adolf to shove it,

they should have called Child Protective Services on him.

[obamanut2012]

167. There were no grounds to call CPS

[KamaAina]

170. Making such an outrageous demand about his child's care

is clearly not in the child's best interest and could have posed a danger to the child, due to the delay involved in figuring out how to handle it.

That, not the swastika tattoo, is the grounds.

[Lint Head]

152. Another bad thing about this is that racists have babies and raise new racists.

[still_one]

153. Actually the issue was the hospital following the racist's request. However, should the hospital be

Sued? What if a patient requests to change a nurse or doctor, obviously that would not present a problem, but by specifying that the change was due to race that violates the civil rights act, and should be ruled in the nurses favor

[Ken Burch]

161. The dad is a neo-Nazi and they DIDN'T call Children's Services?

They're ok with having him raise another Hitler Youth?

[obamanut2012]

165. It isn't illegal to be a Neo Nazi

There was nothing to legally call CPS for.

[sir pball]

164. The hospital was wrong, but it was a tricky situation

The kid was in the NICU, which makes it pretty obvious it wasn't exactly a model of health and well-being. Not acceding to the racist pig father's demands could have ended up with him pulling the child out of the hospital with a potentially tragic outcome and likely another lawsuit, not necessarily a successful one but a major issue nonetheless.

That being said, their unquestioning capitulation is mindbogglingly screwed up - if I ran that zoo, I would have immediately paid the white-hooded fuckwit lip service while calling the nurses together behind the scenes to let them know what was happening, while I contacted the hospital's legal team to discuss going to court to force the good Aryan Brother to submit to "best medical practice" or however the legal order to let the most competent nurses care for the child, regardless of race creed sexual orientation blah blah, would be worded.

For that matter, if you could get the peabrained prick to admit to the Court he would rather pull his child from the hospital rather than have "one of THEM touch him/her" (which would probably be sadly easy - these dickfaces are proud of that shit), you might be able to establish abuse and have the kid taken

[Nine]

169. Care to expand on that thought?

As it is, it doesn't really add much to the discussion.