- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Society
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.
If what Battle is claiming is true, it seems as though the hospital made some very questionable decisions here. One of those decisions was someone writing this note: “No African American nurse to take care of baby.”
The lawsuit says that after the note was posted, “African American nurses [like Battle] were not assigned to the baby for approximately the next month because of their race.”
Source: (The Daily Mail)
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
I have a lot of sympathy for
I have a lot of sympathy for the hospital in this situation. They have a backward cud chewing Nazi who does not want the best care for his child. He could have got violent and nasty, and this was one way to diffuse the situation.
What they should have done is get few black security guards to throw his butt off of the hospital, and tell him never to return, but that would probably have resulted in a law suit as well.
Its not about intolerance.
Its not about intolerance. Its about rights. A patient has a right to who treats them. I work at a hospital im a male. Alot of religions dont want male caregivers. So if someones view on the fact that the patient has views on race its the same thing. If you dont want a certain thing you have the right to ask and recieve that. Its just a lawsuit to have a lawsuit look at it threw the patients eyes. It was there choice and the hospital did the right thing by respecting that.
The US Supreme Court ruled
The US Supreme Court ruled that public hospitals could not segregate or discriminate back in 1967. There is NO EXCUSE for the ignorance of this hospital or it's administrators. This nurse has been on staff there for 25 years. If I were on the jury she'd be awarded the maximum I could grant in damages (though she will probably get a hefty, undisclosed settlement since the hospital doesn't have a leg to stand on). I hope this case gets the publicity it deserves so every public facility will know how to handle this in the future. Bigots can scream, be annoying & threaten to sue if not given their way, but any law suit will be immediately dismissed if the plaintive attempted to coerce a business into breaking the law (ie., the 14th Amendment) .
The ignorance of this hospital's administrators seem almost unbelievable. Every hospital is well aware that a patient who leaves (or a guardian who removes a patient) AMA, against medical advice, relieves the facility of all legal responsibilities for that patient. With hospital security & social services there to witness this situation, this man may have thought twice before risking the life of his child. The responsibility of the hospital here was to obey the law, not the whims of some ignorant racist. Laws cannot & do not change morality.( Sociopaths see no immorality in killing someone who interferes with them achieving their objectives). The law clarifies what is & is not legal in this country, and the consequences to those who violate the law. There is no law against a Racist asking for only White staff to attend his child, but it is against the law for any public institution to grant that request. So the hospital committed the crime here, that could even get it closed down if other instances of discrimination are found.
@Gem, What amazes me is that
@Gem,
What amazes me is that either the hospital attorney was ill informed (unlikely) or the hospital didn't consult with him/her before making this move.
No government can legislate
No government can legislate morality! And though this might seem appropriate in this and many instances, human caring and concern come from a personal code of ethics/conduct.
Unfortunately, our present government and those promoting it seem to believe that more restrictive laws will have the desired impact. The father's (in this story) country of allegiance had the SAME belief and we all know where that lead!
God Bless!
Uhhh huh... that's why people
Uhhh huh... that's why people like you push so hard to make abortion and gay marriage illegal... because it stomps all over your personal ethics, so you need to make restrictive laws to legislate their morals? Yeeeahhh... I don't think you thought that out.
@Carolandv Are you certain
@Carolandv
Are you certain you believe no government can legislate morality? Does this include the issues of abortion and gay marriage?
May Lucifer be with you and grant you a deliciously decadent day!
theponytoes & Savannah,
theponytoes & Savannah,
Please read BOCare and Roe v. Wade. Republicans' ONLY issue is PAYING for the abortions of others considering it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
So, pay for your own abortion and take up the issue with God...in no way are Republicans standing between any person and God NOR interrupting a woman's right to control her own body! We just don't want to pay for your mistakes besides our own!
God Bless!
That is a blatant lie & you
That is a blatant lie & you know it (certainly beneath your claims of Christianity). The agenda of the Tea Party & the Religious Right is to make every abortion illegal, not just abortions subsidized by taxpayer funds. There are no additional fees required for same-sex couples to marry. The State already produces marriage certificates, employs judges, & maintains files for all marriages. If the issue were cost, then Republicans would have to eliminate all government involvement in marriages(not a bad idea, in my opinion).
This article is not about legislating morality. There is absolutely no law that requires a person to give birth in a hospital or be admitted for any reason without their consent(or legal designated authority). If I had been the administrator I would have called my legal department, had this incident documented before lawyers & local police & had this man sign off on his rights to unplugged his child at his own risks( advising him of the legal consequences if he killed this child). Until he removed this infant I would have her cared for exactly as hospital policy dictates by whatever nurses were already on duty.
Carol, ?????????? I can't
Carol,
??????????
I can't even think of a response to something that is such blatant bull....
Savannah & Gem, This is a
Savannah & Gem,
This is a learning moment for both of YOU:
1-Christians (and therefore most Republicans) CANNOT abide by NOR PAY for the sins that go against God's laws (homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.) 2-We will NOT be complicit with those who do this 3-Therefore we will allow YOU to do this AS LONG AS we are NOT a part of it (pay for it, approve of it by legalizing it because this is complicity).
YOUR SIN is between YOU and God as MY SIN is between ME and God! I hope this clears up the widely held but ERRONEOUS beliefs about Christians. We wish you well, we just ask you NOT to include us in these particular moral decisions you make!
God Bless!
Go home hypocrite, you're
Go home hypocrite, you're drunk.
Carol, I can always tell when
Carol,
I can always tell when someone is getting to you because you use loads of CAPS and exclamation marks :)
"approve of it by legalizing it because this is complicity"
By attempting to outlaw something that you believe is morally wrong, you are - wait for it - legislating morality.
May Lucifer grant you a deliciously decadent day!
P.S. Mighty nice of you Christian folk to "allow" everyone else to do with our lives as we see fit.
theponytoes & Savannah, You
theponytoes & Savannah,
You both lost the opportunity to learn something...I am sad. Yet again, you (theponytoes) name-call 'cause you are losing the debate or make erroneous assumptions about my thoughts (Savannah).
And, Savannah, when is refusing to endorse or legislate morality (Christians will not be complicit regarding immoral issues)mean Christians are actually "legislating morality". We are (look at it, know that if I could italicize it I would do this instead, but this is not an option!)...REFUSING to LEGISLATE, COMPLY WITH, BE A PART OF, OR OTHERWISE BE IN THE SAME CAMP as those (generally liberals) who seek to promote more governmental laws in the area of morals!
May God imbue you both with the ability to see, understand, and be open to His light!
PS Please do whatever YOU would want with you life as I will with mine.
Carol, As examples: With
Carol,
As examples:
With regard to abortion: If you think it is wrong, don't have one. If you try to pass legislation to stop others from having one, you are imposing your morals on them. You don't have to be a part of it as I seriously doubt you are a nurse or a physician.
With regard to homosexuality: if you think it is a sin, don't have sex with someone of the same gender. If you think gay marriage is a sin, don't marry a gay person.
You are not any more complicit in these things if you do not support legislation against them than your god is. If the bible is true he gave people free will to live their lives as they choose. If he does not force people to live a certain way how do you justify doing it?
"PS Please do whatever YOU would want with you life as I will with mine."
Exactly. We seem to agree after all.
May Lucifer grant you a deliciously decadent day! :)
Savannah, "With regard to
Savannah,
"With regard to abortion: If you think it is wrong, don't have one. If you try to pass legislation to stop others from having one, you are imposing your morals on them. You don't have to be a part of it as I seriously doubt you are a nurse or a physician." Did even ONE conservative approve of, enact, promote, or pass Obamacare??? THIS IS LEGISLATING MORALITY BY REQUIRING CHRISTIANS TO PAY FOR THE ABORTIONS OF OTHERS!
"With regard to homosexuality: if you think it is a sin, don't have sex with someone of the same gender. If you think gay marriage is a sin, don't marry a gay person." Did even ONE conservative approve of, enact, promote, or pass the "Same Sex Marriage Act" (it has been shot down 3 times in California)??? THIS IS LEGISLATING MORALITY BY REQUIRING CHRISTIANS TO APPROVE, PERMIT, AND SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION!
Again, Conservatives are NOT the ones trying to legislate morality...I USED AND SHOT DOWN YOUR EXAMPLES OF LIBERALS DOING THE LEGISLATING...so as theponytoes stated, who is the "brick wall"???
The facts above are without question...why do you persist in arguing otherwise? I fail to understand when using facts to debunk YOUR EXAMPLES there will be any response other than, "Sorry, you are right."
I'm not expecting this, but the others on this site will duly note the merit of these facts and the deficiency of your argument! God bless!
Carol, I have no problem
Carol,
I have no problem saying someone is right if they are.
Federal funds do not pay for abortions. States may prohibit policies sold on their exchanges from covering abortions, with the exception of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother.
Christians have been attempting to circumvent Roe v Wade via legislation since the Supreme Court made that decision. You were the one who said, "Republicans' ONLY issue is PAYING for the abortions of others considering it conflicts with their religious beliefs." That's such a bold faced lie I cannot even imagine how you justify saying that. All you have to do is google and you can see that is completely untrue.
The Same Sex Marriage Act is not legislating YOUR morality. It has zero to do with you unless you are gay. When you say it is requiring, "CHRISTIANS TO APPROVE, PERMIT, AND SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION!" well, sorry. It's not up to you to permit consenting adults to do anything. You're not the keeper of other people and it's none of your business what they do as long as they are not hurting others. You don't have to approve of it, because again, it's none of your business.
If you remember, *you* were the one that said "no government can legislate morality". I didn't say that Democrats didn't attempt to pass legislation that allowed people to pursue the way they choose to live their life. In that sense, yes, Democrats have supported legislating morality - the only difference is your morality stops people from living THEIR lives.
As for refusing to back down when someone uses facts to debunk your assertions, wow, project much?
I'll leave you the last word because it is clear we are not going to agree.
May Lucifer grant you a deliciously decadent day! :)
Yeah, that's not name
Yeah, that's not name calling, that's a fact. That's like calling me a redhead, or a woman. Just facts. I highly doubt you have much to teach me, let alone on the subject of religion and politics. I've been way to sick to take part in this conversation, not to mention, talking to you is similar to a brick wall, except a brick wall isn't a gay/women/religious/personal rights basher.
I'm TRYING to live my life the way I want, but your beliefs keep getting in my way. How are you still not understanding this? Oh right, brick wall. So I'm just going to sit this one out, thanks.
This case of discrimination
This case of discrimination that will lead down the "slippery slope". So if this is not stopped in the courts, where do it go next? He goes to a restaurant and demands to be waited on by only white people. He goes to a pharmacy and asks the manager to put a white person behind the counter to ring him up. We are "service-oriented" nation. Companies get into trouble when they engage in practices that "preclude any worker from doing that job in a reasonable manner." I agree with James Young above in his assessment and would add, that the hospital, by it's own actions....perpetuated the racism and discrimination of this nurse because what if he has another baby, or another guy with a swastika comes in and his wife has a baby? We go down the slippery slope and it must end with changing the hospital rules. Plus, the father can possibly be sued for discriminating against her and violating her civil rights to do her job. We don't live in a country where you get to pick your nurse. We hire people for their qualifications and we fire people for any number of reasons to disqualify them. But should this go unpunished, hospitals around the country would be forced to deal with assholes like this from racists. And I don't see that happening. It has to be shutdown with a loud message, that this type of behavior is unacceptable.
If the healthcare is free
If the healthcare is free then no say so, if it's being paid for, then however bigoted they have the right to determine caregivers.
Those that can't or won't defend themselves can only be slaves.
"...They have the right to
"...They have the right to determine caregivers" No. A bigot has the right to go to a private provider or a private hospital that only employs staff he knowingly approves. But The Supreme Court settled the matter of public businesses back in the 60's. No business, institution or facility available to the public can discriminate. Any patron can be refused special privileges. All patrons MUST be refused any request that violates the law.
You can ask someone to break the law, but if they do it (as this hospital did) they will face the consequences of the crime, and possibly a hefty civil suit. This situation should have remained the responsibility of this Racist parent: to either refuse care, remove his child & risk her life or shut up and let the hospital fulfill its obligation to it's patient. Instead, the hospital broke A federal law, opened itself to federal investigations of other incidents which could lead to fines or its closure, and once this case is settled every Black employee can file a civil suit backed by this federal conviction of discrimination(which this hospital has no defense for committing).
@ Reality bites.....there's
@ Reality bites.....there's an awful lot of "ifs" in your comment. Meaning you don't shit about what happened. You just want to act just like the father.
Now, defend that!
If he has the right to
If he has the right to determine caregivers it is independent of who is paying for the care.
I should have every right to
I should have every right to make choices as to whom I deal with, in business and personal life, without regard to some "govern"ment that wants to micromanage every facet of our lives. Whether it's because I object to how someone smells, or looks, or their race, or religion, I should have that choice.
You have the choice to pay
You have the choice to pay for all your medical services yourself at a private clinic or medical facility. IF YOU CHOOSE to be admitted into a public hospital you sign a form that states that you UNDERSTAND this is a federally subsidized medical facility & agreed to abide by ALL of the rules & regulations of that facility. IF YOU want your medical insurance to pay for any part of your medical care, you must abide by the rules & regulations set out in your policy by that insurance company. Since almost all US Insurance carriers are publicly owned corporations they are subject to all federal civil rights legislation, federal & state laws effecting business practices in this country. So you had better read what you have signed both as a policy holder & patient. You can ask to segregated, ask to pick & choose your medical staff, etc... but few hospitals are as STUPID as this one in Michigan. Most public hospitals would give you a print out of their anti-discrimination policy & a form to sign that proves you have been advised of their rules. Then you would be free to leave( or take a minor patient) the hospital AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE, which will be reported to your medical insurance provider(most insurance companies have a clause in their policies that makes them free to deny your coverage if you leave an accredited medical facility AMA).
FREEDOM of choice isn't free. You are completely free to make all the choices you are willing to pay for. I suggest you start looking for private hospitals & clinics in your area and read up on the insurance policy you have to see if they will pay anything to private medical facilities (unless you are wealthy enough to pay for all your own healthcare).
How are going you to choose
How are going you to choose if you're physiologically incommunicado ?? That in-bred B.O.S. should have thought about that before his kid got sick, and since the hospital was/is going to get sued ANYWAY they'll do a hell of a lot better in a lawsuit against the sperm donor (since being a father requires being human to start) then this nurse who has a slam-dunk case. Any REAL parent would be more concerned about the babies' care and not the skin color of the provider.
It sounds like the baby was
It sounds like the baby was born there, since it was in the neonatal ICU, and didn't "become sick".
The nurse may not have a "slam-dunk" case as you think. The hospital did not discriminate, the parent did. If the hospital refused to hire her, fired her or cut her pay because she is Black, then she would have a "slam-dunk" case. The Civil Rights laws do not prohibit individuals from discriminating unless they are a landlord or run a business.
No, the action that
No, the action that discriminated against every Black nurse & attendant at that facility was performed by this hospital's authorized administrators. This hospital is facing federal charges for violation of the Cival Rights Act of 1964 and State proscecution for violating Michigan’s Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976. After this hospital is convicted in these criminal cases they have at least one civil suit pending (though I expect every Black employee will be advised of their right to file a civil suit, if they wish). There are no financial caps in Michigan on punitive damages awarded for discrimination, so depending on how disgusted the juries in these civil cases are, this Flint, Michigan hospital could end up bankrupt if they do not settle the civil cases out of court.
But she may have a case
But she may have a case because this created a hostile work environment towards Blacks. You are only looking at this from one angle. Look at this from another angle.
USMCvet - Feb 16 2013 -
USMCvet - Feb 16 2013 - 2:54pm "But she may have a case because this created a hostile work environment towards Blacks. You are only looking at this from one angle. Look at this from another angle."
Prohibiting her from treating the child did not create a hostile work environment because she wouldn't fear for her well being. Allowing the racist into the hospital would create a hostile environment. Should the hospital have refused treatment to the racist's child, or prohibited him from entering? Now that would have been a slam-dunk lawsuit.
This case is fairly easy to
This case is fairly easy to understand. The hospital communicated to the nurse that she was no longer able to perform a function of her job because she is black. That is called racial discrimination and against the law!
calilife4me - Feb 16 2013 -
calilife4me - Feb 16 2013 - 6:52am "This case is fairly easy to understand. The hospital communicated to the nurse that she was no longer able to perform a function of her job because she is black. That is called racial discrimination and against the law!"
Her job function was not changed, she was not prohibited from performing her job function on any other children, her pay was not cut, she was not released. The hospital did not discriminate, the racist did.
It was the idiot father who
It was the idiot father who discriminated against the nurse. The hospital was caught in the crossfire. While personally I would tell the father that the nursing staff was not his to command, the hospital was trying to avoid the lawsuit. Of course since they have the money, they are the target either way.
The hospital is the woman's
The hospital is the woman's employer, not the racist man. The racist man has no authority in the hospital. The racist man made a request based on racial discrimination. The hospital, the woman's employer, granted the request and documented "Please, no African-American nurses to care for baby per dad's request." The hospital's lawyers' found out and said, WTF? You can't do that. The staff then told the father that they could no long honor his request.
Again. The hospital has no right to communicate to any employees, that they can't perform certain functions of their job because they are black. The racist father, simply, communicated his beliefs to the hospital and the hospital carried out the discrimination. The father is protected by "freedom of expression." The racist father can say whatever he wants. The hospital can't carry out discrimination at his request. Do you see the problem here?