Thanks to Appellate Ruling, Nursing Home Faces Tough Legal Battle Over Patient's Preference for "White-Only" Health Care Providers
In the words of the Court, "this case pits a health care worker's right to a non-discriminatory workplace against a patient's demand for white-only health care providers."
On July 20, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an Indiana based nursing home violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it instructed a black nursing assistant (a CNA) to refrain from treating a white patient, honoring the patient's request. The Court also held that race may have been a motivating factor in her ultimate termination from employment. (Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr., 7th Cir., Case No. 09-3661).
Plainfield Health Care Center is a nursing home that housed a resident who did not want assistance from black health care providers. Plainfield complied with this racial preference by written instruction to Brenda Chaney, a black nursing assistant, that "no black" assistants should enter this resident's room or provide her with care. Chaney claimed that Plainfield's practice of succumbing to the racial biases of its residents is illegal and created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Chaney also asserted that Plainfield subjected her to racial epithets in the workplace thus causing an unlawfully hostile work environment and later fired her because she was black. The Seventh Circuit ultimately held that because the racial preference policy violates Title VII and because issues of fact remained over whether race motivated the discharge, it reversed the district court's order granting Plainfield summary judgment.
As a CNA, Chaney was responsible for monitoring patients, responding to their requests for service, and generally assisting with their daily living needs. Plainfield detailed Chaney's daily shift duties on an assignment sheet that she and other employees received each work day. The assignment sheet listed the residents in Chaney's unit and their corresponding care needs. It also featured a column with miscellaneous notes about each resident's condition. In the case of Marjorie Latshaw, a resident in Chaney's unit, the sheet instructed nurse aides that Latshaw "Prefers No Black CNAs."
During her employment of just three months, Chaney alleged that she was subjected to racially charged epithets and comments from co-workers. Also, according to a co-worker, Chaney came to assist a resident struggling and allegedly used profanity while lifting the resident onto her bedside commode. This led to Chaney's termination from employment.
In its defense, Plainfield relied on a line of Title VII cases permitting sex discrimination in the health care setting holding that gender may be a legitimate bona fide occupational qualification for accommodating patients' privacy interests. The Court, however, held that a patient's privacy interests does not excuse disparate treatment based on race. The Court also rejected Plainfield's contention that it simply was trying to comply with state and federal regulations on the need to honor patients' wishes regarding their choice for health care providers. The Court found that no law requires an employer to institute a race-based work practice, and to the extent state law could be construed to impose such a requirement, it would be preempted by Title VII. Plainfield's final argument that it was trying to keep employees out of a racially hostile work environment was also rebuked as the Court believed there were more reasonable options available to protect workers from racially abusive patients.
So, what does this case mean for employers? Plenty! Whether a patient (or the patient's family) demands services from a person of a particular race, the employer simply cannot accede to such bias. The employer should publish detailed anti-discrimination policies and make it known to current and prospective patients that harassment and discrimination based on race will not be tolerated. Further, employers are expected to manage racially charged settings in a manner that invites input and communication from the affected employee. This much is clear, the courts will not allow employers to "hide" behind the bias of its clients, customers, or patients.
For comments, questions, or direction in light of this opinion, please contact Jeffrey Risch, Chair of SmithAmundsen's Labor & Employment Practice Group. Jeffrey has successfully assisted employers in all industries (including health care) with cutting-edge labor and employment advice and counsel. Jeffrey may be contacted at jrisch@salawus.com or 312.894.3302.
This alert was written by Jeffrey A. Risch.