|
LEGAL EAGLE EYE NEWSLETTER For the Nursing Profession Request a complimentary copy of our current newsletter What is our mission? What publication formats are available? How do I start a subscription? Can I cancel and get a refund? Does my subscription renew automatically? |
| WHAT IS OUR MISSION? |
| Our mission is to reduce nurses' fear of the law and to minimize nurses' exposure to litigation. Nurse managers need to spot potential legal problems and prevent them before they happen. Managers and clinical nurses need to be familiar with how the law is applied by the courts to specific patient-care situations, so that they can act with confidence. |
|
We work
toward our goals every month by highlighting the very latest
important Federal and state court decisions and new Federal
regulations directly affecting nurses in hospitals, long term care
facilities and home health agencies. We focus on nursing negligence
and nurses' employment and licensing issues.
|
|
WHAT PUBLICATION FORMATS ARE AVAILABLE? |
|
The Email
Edition is our most popular format.
You receive the newsletter as a PDF file attachment in an email
sent to you every month. On
any computer or mobile device you simply click the file attachment to
open, read, download, and/or print the newsletter. |
|
The Email
Edition is ideally suited to individuals.
It can also be used by large institutions.
Within an institution, like a hospital or university nursing
department, an individual subscriber can forward pertinent articles to
colleagues within the institution.
The content cannot be forwarded outside the institution or posted
online. An example
might be a nursing director or director of nursing education who shares
articles with nurse managers in individual clinical departments |
|
The Online Edition is a format suited to educational and healthcare
facility libraries with multiple users.
We send a link via email for the current monthly newsletter.
To open the link to the newsletter for that month the subscriber
or other user must be using a computer or device whose IP address or
range of IP addresses we have authenticated and given permission for
online access. |
|
Print, Email and Online
formats contain exactly the same content, eight pages with no
advertising. |
|
The links below go to secure online sites maintained for
us by Square, Inc. for credit and debit card purchases.
At checkout you will provide your name, payment information and email address. |
Email Subscription $120/year |
|
Print / Print + Email Subscription $155/year |
|
If you prefer, you can download and print an order form to mail
or to scan and email to us.
Checks, credit and debit cards, purchase orders accepted, or we will
bill you. |
|
CAN I CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION AND GET A REFUND? |
|
Yes. Just ask and the
unused portion of your subscription will be refunded. |
|
DOES MY SUBSCRIPTION RENEW AUTOMATICALLY? |
| No. Before your annual subscription runs out you will receive a renewal notice by email and regular mail. |
Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter
For the Nursing Profession
PO Box 1342 Sedona AZ 86339
(206) 718-0861
Employment Law: Nurse - Hospital - National Origin Discrimination
Quick Summary: Without a legitimate and compelling reason for rejecting a qualified minority candidate for a nursing position, the employer will be found guilty of discrimination.
It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status or sex.
When a claim of employment discrimination has been filed, a court must sort out the situation after the fact to find out if the law has been violated.
A court will find illegal discrimination if the victim belongs to a protected class of persons like a racial or national minority group, if the victim applied for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants, and the victim was rejected despite being qualified for the job.
The employer can try to explain why a qualified minority applicant was rejected. The court must carefully scrutinize the employer’s alleged reasons for rejecting a qualified minority applicant, and disregard what the employer says if it is merely a pretext for discrimination. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, 1997.
In a recent case, the Court of Appeal of California had to take a close look at all the facts surrounding a Hispanic nurse’s claims of employment discrimination filed against a hospital in California. The court’s analysis provides valuable insights into how courts will sort out discrimination claims after the fact. These insights can give some guidance before-the-fact to managers making hiring decisions, and help to reduce employment discrimination claims.
The nurse in question, according to the court, grew up in Mexico and attended a Catholic school which required fluency in American English which was taught by American teachers. The nurse’s nursing education and prior job experience were obtained in Texas. The court pointed out that by outward appearances this nurse did not appear to be of Hispanic origin. The point the court was making is that our laws protect minority groups from discrimination. It makes no difference to what degree someone is perceived or not perceived to be a minority group member.
The nurse first came to work at the hospital as an agency nurse. An agency nurse is an employee of the agency and is not an employee of the hospital where she works. An agency nurse is considered an independent contractor vis a vis the hospital where she works. In California the employment discrimination laws do apply to independent contractors. In other states, and under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, independent contractors are not covered by anti-discrimination laws. For what it is worth, in many places in the U.S. it is not against the law to discriminate against an independent contractor.
However, there is a flip-side. The agency nurse in this case applied for a staff job that was posted in the same unit where she had been working with good reviews as an agency nurse. At this point she came under the protection of the employment discrimination laws as a job applicant. And having worked in the same unit and having done the same job, it was virtually impossible for the hospital to claim there was no discrimination involved in refusing to hire her as a staff nurse.
The law says that if a minority applicant is rejected for a job for which he or she is qualified, the employer has the burden of explaining why. A court will listen to a legitimate and compelling explanation for turning down a minority applicant. But the courts are under a strict legal mandate to disregard any explanation that is just a pretext for discrimination.
In this case, however, it was not necessary to look around for circumstantial proof of discrimination. The nursing unit manager, without knowing the nurse in question was Hispanic, had said disparaging things to her about Hispanics as patients. This made it relatively easy to show that in rejecting the nurse’s application for a staff position the nursing manager was directly motivated by discriminatory intent.
The court seemed to imply that supervisors with authority over hiring and other personnel decisions who have prejudiced attitudes are discrimination lawsuits just waiting to happen. Their racist remarks are red flags that must be heeded.
When the nurse was interviewed for the staff position, the unit manager asked where she was from, and learned for the first time she was from Mexico. But seemingly innocent questions delving into a person’s race or national origin, religion, etc., which do not bear upon educational qualifications and professional experience, are strictly off-limits in a job interview.
In this case, when the nurse related that she was from Mexico, the nurse manager asked her why she did not just go back to Mexico to work, and abruptly ended the interview. For the court this was just more proof that prejudice was an obvious motivating factor in the nurse not being offered the job. Sada vs. Medical Center, 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 112 (Cal. App., 1997).