"We don't hire male RNs" and other things you should never say to me

[labordude]

TL;DR - Recruiter told me they don't hire dudes. Firestorm ensues. I get a PRN job.

Recently I did an online "Talk with a Nurse Recruiter" session as I have moved to a new city and I'm looking for some PRN work. This was a fun conversation (organization name and recruiter name protected) as you can see below where I'm told that the hospital doesn't hire male RNs into women's services or NICU/SCN/Nursery.

Once I was done with this nice, but uninformed recruiter I sent off an e-mail AND snail mail copies to the SVP of the entire system as well as the president, CNO, and VP HR of the local facility. Oh boy did that set off some fun. Less than 24 hours later I had a call from a system level HR director telling me that she doesn't know what that lady was thinking and that certainly wasn't correct information. I played up how caught off guard I was by how blatantly she told me they won't hire male RNs (even if she thinks it, don't say it! especially in a recorded chat room, that's just not very smart). Also, it apparently only applies to RNs because they will consider male STs.

Long story short, ended up interviewing, shadowing, and getting a job offer because as it turns out I'm pretty awesome and the staff wanted me to join them. I may have also bribed them by offering to bake cookies, but that is totally beside the point!

[Animal House R.N., ADN, CNA, LVN]

It's a shame that these things happen. Unfortunately this happen to my husband twenty years ago and they got away with it.

[kaylee.]

7 hours ago, MunoRN said:

When those factors can be considered due to a business related reason it's a called a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, or BFOQ.

If a hospital has legitimate reason to believe that enough laboring moms would refuse a male nurse to make this a staffing and coverage issue, then the gender of the L&D nurses it hires is a legal BFOQ and therefore not discrimination by legal definitions.

I get that you don't want to address the potential preferences of laboring moms but, like it or not, that's what defines if this is discrimination or not.

If the number of moms who would refuse a male nurse is so small that it doesn't really affect the operation of the unit then you'd be correct, a hiring preference for males would be discrimination.

I'm a clinical liason with a couple of local nursing programs, and we track the percentage of laboring moms that refuse males and it's not just a majority but a large majority.

Your claim flat out wrong. A hospital’s statement that most clients prefer female IS NOT a bona fide qualification for hiring.

And if u took a second to actually read the legal statute u would see how this is not going to fly in court.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.2#a_2

Thats great that You are tracking past patients gender preferences but you dont seem to grasp that past preferences do not substantiate proof for the whole of the laboring population.

Here is a supreme court case of THE EXACT situation:
http://www.nursinglaw.com/gender-discrimination-patient-privacy.pdfgender-discrimination-patient-privacy.pdf

The hospital refused to hire a male RN on the OB unit on the grounds that “most women prefer a female RN.” This was rejected on legal grounds of discrimination.

A hospital legally must accommodate If a person prefers same gender if intimate care is involved. And While a hospital can preferentially hire females, they CANNOT cannot reject males based on gender.

[SilverNova]

17 hours ago, klone said:

I would like to see the data as well. It sounds like the statement "Male L&D nurses decrease client satisfaction and lead to unhappy birth experiences" was pulled out of someone's butt, to be honest. In fact, I would be VERY surprised if there is even a study examining this topic, as there are so few male L&D nurses.

I should not have said that. There is no data or facts to back up that statement. What I meant was, that is my theory on why hospitals are resistant to hire male L&D nurses. I have read that women's satisfaction with their birth experience had decreased nation wide in the last decade. There are several factors as to why.

[MunoRN, RN]

14 hours ago, kaylee. said:

Your claim flat out wrong. A hospital’s statement that most clients prefer female IS NOT a bona fide qualification for hiring.

From the court case you reference below which started by reviewing existing case law, and upheld the established precedent that gender can be a preference in hiring nurses for labor and delivery:

"Accordingly, the Court finds that the legal authorities agree that sex based hiring of obstetrical ward nurses may be a BFOQ."

14 hours ago, kaylee. said:

Your claim flat out wrong. A hospital’s statement that most clients prefer female IS NOT a bona fide qualification for hiring.

And if u took a second to actually read the legal statute u would see how this is not going to fly in court.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.2#a_2

Thats great that You are tracking past patients gender preferences but you dont seem to grasp that past preferences do not substantiate proof for the whole of the laboring population.

Here is a supreme court case of THE EXACT situation:
http://www.nursinglaw.com/gender-discrimination-patient-privacy.pdfgender-discrimination-patient-privacy.pdf

The hospital refused to hire a male RN on the OB unit on the grounds that “most women prefer a female RN.” This was rejected on legal grounds of discrimination.

A hospital legally must accommodate If a person prefers same gender if intimate care is involved. And While a hospital can preferentially hire females, they CANNOT cannot reject males based on gender.

What the appeals court determined was that while a hospital could preferentially hire female nurses into labor and delivery positions if they could show reasonable business necessity, it could not apply this as a blanket policy for the entire obstetric department, which included the nursery, where the plaintiff had worked in a nearby hospital without issue.

They also upheld that the hospital must have more than just a 'sense' that patients would have a preference for female nurses in L&D which is all the supporting evidence that Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital offered. The court reviewed the established standards to support that claim which actually can be as little as a few staff members confirming this would a frequent issue, hard numbers aren't even needed, which I would agree is a soft basis for establishing that part of the BFOQ requirement. I'm not sure what you mean by "past preferences do not substantiate proof for the whole laboring population". Data could certainly be argued to be too out-of-date, documented views of patients from 30 years ago probably wouldn't be considered representative of today's patients, but a current representative sample would be well within the established precedent for level of evidence required to claim a BFOQ.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1017040.html

[kaylee.]

On 2/11/2020 at 1:06 AM, MunoRN said:

From the court case you reference below which started by reviewing existing case law, and upheld the established precedent that gender can be a preference in hiring nurses for labor and delivery:

"Accordingly, the Court finds that the legal authorities agree that sex based hiring of obstetrical ward nurses may be a BFOQ."

What the appeals court determined was that while a hospital could preferentially hire female nurses into labor and delivery positions if they could show reasonable business necessity, it could not apply this as a blanket policy for the entire obstetric department, which included the nursery, where the plaintiff had worked in a nearby hospital without issue.

They also upheld that the hospital must have more than just a 'sense' that patients would have a preference for female nurses in L&D which is all the supporting evidence that Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital offered. The court reviewed the established standards to support that claim which actually can be as little as a few staff members confirming this would a frequent issue, hard numbers aren't even needed, which I would agree is a soft basis for establishing that part of the BFOQ requirement. I'm not sure what you mean by "past preferences do not substantiate proof for the whole laboring population". Data could certainly be argued to be too out-of-date, documented views of patients from 30 years ago probably wouldn't be considered representative of today's patients, but a current representative sample would be well within the established precedent for level of evidence required to claim a BFOQ.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1017040.html

Hi, I apologize for being a ***** earlier. I was all fired up. I read the full version of the case that u provided and it makes more sense now. My arguments dont stand up too well to me anymore.

Its clear that this is one of the few scenarios where BFOQ could potentially have merit but the hospital needed to have provided evidence from patients with documented issues to prove the 80% would refuse male RN.

Thanks for explaining. I think this really gets at the OP’s question: which was what are the actual legal aspects of his situation. So if others choose to continue arguing they need to read some of the case linked above.

[labordude, BSN, RN]

22 hours ago, kaylee. said:

Hi, I apologize for being a ***** earlier. I was all fired up. I read the full version of the case that u provided and it makes more sense now. My arguments dont stand up too well to me anymore.

Its clear that this is one of the few scenarios where BFOQ could potentially have merit but the hospital needed to have provided evidence from patients with documented issues to prove the 80% would refuse male RN.

Thanks for explaining. I think this really gets at the OP’s question: which was what are the actual legal aspects of his situation. So if others choose to continue arguing they need to read some of the case linked above.

Oh I'm well aware of the legal aspects and also aware that no hospital in their right mind would take me on in court, I'd win. I was mostly annoyed they were so flagrant about it. I mean, at least discriminate discretely like the rest of us.

[TriciaJ, RN]

On 11/26/2019 at 1:26 PM, labordude said:

Oh wait, I'm also a lactation counselor and help with breastfeeding too.

This cracks me up because I just watched a rerun of The Office where Jim and Pam had their baby. Pam required a lactation consultant who was a young, attractive male. Jim, who tries to be a modern enlightened man, was squirming in his chair trying not to be jealous. It was hilarious.

I'm glad you've been able to assert yourself and work where you thrive and provide exemplary care. I've previously worked in urology and no one ever requested a male nurse. Good thing. They would have been SOL.

[SilverNova]

On 2/14/2020 at 10:27 AM, TriciaJ said:

This cracks me up because I just watched a rerun of The Office where Jim and Pam had their baby. Pam required a lactation consultant who was a young, attractive male. Jim, who tries to be a modern enlightened man, was squirming in his chair trying not to be jealous. It was hilarious.

I'm glad you've been able to assert yourself and work where you thrive and provide exemplary care. I've previously worked in urology and no one ever requested a male nurse.  Good thing. They would have been SOL.

interesting

[RNMikeMiller]

On 2/9/2020 at 9:00 PM, SilverNova said:

"You are one person and can NOT speak for anyone else nor "most" women. The topic isn't about whom YOU would want as a nurse so why are you so bothered?"

While you are correct that not ALL women have a preference. I believe that it's widely accepted knowledge, that MOST women feel uncomfortable with being nude for extended amounts of time in front of men. This is exactly why women and men have different changing rooms. Whether it's cultural, social conditioning, or biological, modesty is important to women, and being complete naked in front of men can be at the very least embarrassing. Being supported by people that have the same parts as you is comforting for many women.

"discrimination in hiring practices based on sex is illegal, full stop."

I agree, but there is a CLEAR preference for female nurses in this particular population of patients. This population is almost 100% female, with the exception of trans-men. I believe that only in very select areas, such as: a women's homeless shelter, female domestic violence center, or L&D units, employers should be able to accommodate and consider the needs of that specific patient population. What IRKS me about Male Nurses demanding employment in L&D units, while threatening lawsuits, is that these Male Nurses are insisting that female modesty is IRRELEVANT. They believe that discriminating against males, trumps female patient's preferences and comfort.

"There is no male/female only aspect of providing nursing, or any healthcare for that matter, to any patient."

I think many would disagree. Whenever I visit a Gynecologist, I am asked if I would prefer a female. I believe that this is strong evidence that there is a clear preference within the female patient population for a female provider, when it comes to intimate medical examinations. I am pretty positive that the VAST majority of woman that walk into a L&D unit do not want a male nurse. Many women may feel uncomfortable voicing their preference, for the fear of being call a bigot.

"There is no justification for discriminatory hiring practices."

I believe there should be some exceptions, when it comes to female intimate care, to consider the needs of population being cared for. There are reasons that hospitals are resistant to hire more male L&D nurses, and why these male nurses are resorting to lawsuits, or bullying with the BON, in order to get what they want. Those reasons are patient preference. Most hospitals have to compete with other hospitals for clients. They want to provide the best birthing experience possible so clients come back and recommend to others. Male L&D nurses decrease client satisfaction, and lead to unhappy birth experiences. Hospitals don't want this, so it's clear there is a mild resistance to hire more men. Again Male Nurses don't seem to care about this, and demand to be in a area where frankly they are unneeded and unwanted. There are dozens of other areas of nursing where male nurses are desperately needed and wanted.

The fact some of y'all are going super hard to validate discrimination makes me wonder how y'all treat patients or their family. There is no justification for discriminatory hiring practices.

I treat my patients and their families with compassion, kindness, and dignity at all times. I believe my comforting and emphatic nature, is my strongest quality as a nurse. I may have a few controversial opinions, but I keep them private, and conduct myself in a profession manner. Even though my comments on this site are very impersonal, in real life I'm a very happy go lucky and friendly person.

I am pretty positive that the VAST majority of woman that walk into a L&D unit do not want a male nurse.

Well MALE Patients do not want to be ambushed when he has surgery with all female nurses too. Lets practice gender equity for all patients and not just females.

[RNMikeMiller]

On 2/10/2020 at 12:05 AM, NurseBlaq said:

It is completely illegal to NOT hire someone based solely on their gender. That is a form of discrimination. Secondly, your whole premise of explaining female/male nurses in OB to me is a moot point because you're speaking of what's happening in your area, not nationwide. There are many of us nurses and mothers who don't care on both sides of the aisle and know many who feel the same way so that's neither here nor there. I've already addressed this. No one, literally NO ONE, is arguing preference, we're discussing not hiring men in OB simply because they're men. I swear some of y'all are fake disputing that fact just to throw out y'all own preference. If that's your preference, fine, but it is not legal to discriminate based on race, sex, age, religion, etc. There are several laws (local, state, federal) to support this. Why is that up for debate?

I can promise you that there are hospitals and colleges that will not even let the male nursing student go to clinicals in L&D.  That is a FACT! It is 100% Gender discrimination!