Jump to content

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

Ob/Gyn   (5,093 Views | 90 Replies)

labordude has 14 years experience as a BSN, RN and specializes in L&D, OBED, NICU, Lactation.

12,109 Profile Views; 467 Posts

You are reading page 8 of "We don't hire male RNs" and other things you should never say to me. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Animal House R.N. has 23 years experience as a ADN, CNA, LVN and specializes in Geriatircs/Rural Hospitals.

52 Posts; 1,121 Profile Views

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kaylee. has 7 years experience and specializes in Stepdown . Telemetry.

292 Posts; 3,391 Profile Views

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 Posts; 487 Profile Views

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MunoRN has 10 years experience as a RN and specializes in Critical Care.

1 Follower; 6,491 Posts; 66,936 Profile Views

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kaylee. has 7 years experience and specializes in Stepdown . Telemetry.

292 Posts; 3,391 Profile Views

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

labordude has 14 years experience as a BSN, RN and specializes in L&D, OBED, NICU, Lactation.

467 Posts; 12,109 Profile Views

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TriciaJ has 39 years experience as a RN and specializes in Psych, Corrections, Med-Surg, Ambulatory.

12 Followers; 3,504 Posts; 36,101 Profile Views

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.