Male Nurse Fired For Treating Female Muslims

[spectrumc01]

"Benitez said he followed this instruction until Nov. 17, 2010, when a health department doctor saw Benitez abstain from treating a Muslim woman and questioned why he wasn’t treating her.

Benitez had transitioned a patient who was receiving a flu shot to the nursing supervisor rather than issue the shot himself.

Benitez explained the directive from the nursing supervisor and the doctor told him the process was “improper” and to treat Muslim women the same as he would patients of any other religion, race, color or ethnicity.

Benitez said he followed the new instructions and within two weeks he was out of a job.

The lawsuit says Benitez was “directly told” that the termination was not performance related, rather that “the clinic’s conservative male Muslim clientele did not want a male treating female patients.” The suit doesn’t make clear who made the statement to Benitez."

Lawsuit claims male nurse fired by city for treating Muslim women - News - Press and Guide


Treating all patients equally is certainly what you should expect in a public health department. If Muslim men didn't want " their women" ( don't you just love that ownership) treated by a man, then they should have gone to a private clinic for Muslims.

In Michigan the Republicans passed a law several years back that says an employer can fire you without cause anytime they want. Legally he has no leg to stand on.

 

[Vel]

Ok, after looking at the story I have some problems with what happened. The first is the nurse not following the instruction of his immediate supervisor. The clients in question did receive care, just not from him, so there were no clients neglected. That's good.

What will be the defense of the supervisor will be the "Pharmcist morality defense". As Muslim tradition states men should not take care of muslim women is their custom and is stated in their religious beliefs, this now becomes a moral issue.

If Christian Pharmacists can refuse a direct medical request to issue Day after pills on moral grounds, why can't Muslims claim the same moral rights? The christian morality ploy actually refuses medical treatment the Muslim morality just changes the care giver in this particular incident.

The nurse should have been fired for disregarding the instuction of his supervisor. If he had a problem with it and thought the clients were being neglected he should have went over his supervisor to her supervisor, he did not. The firing in my opinion was justified.

The incident took place at a PUBLIC ( i.e. government ) health department, so based on separation of church and state, your argument can't work in this situation.

Government makes no difference. In the Christian zeal to save the unborn they have petitioned the government in court to allow Pharmacists to morally refuse to provide the morning after pill. So the government has already sanctioned "religious morality" to be a factor in the administration of medical issues. This is such a case.

In those situations you were dealing with privately owned pharmacies. A pharmacist in a public hospital would not be able to do that.

 

[spectrumc01]

The incident took place at a PUBLIC ( i.e. government ) health department, so based on separation of church and state, your argument can't work in this situation.

Government makes no difference. In the Christian zeal to save the unborn they have petitioned the government in court to allow Pharmacists to morally refuse to provide the morning after pill. So the government has already sanctioned "religious morality" to be a factor in the administration of medical issues. This is such a case.

In those situations you were dealing with privately owned pharmacies. A pharmacist in a public hospital would not be able to do that.

Well this is why it is going to court. I think the court will side with the government on this for several reasons. The first being it is the right thing to do. The second being that the government can't afford financially to pay the lawsuit. The third is that they would have conflicting rulings for public and private opperations.

 

[Vel]

"Benitez said he followed this instruction until Nov. 17, 2010, when a health department doctor saw Benitez abstain from treating a Muslim woman and questioned why he wasn’t treating her.

Benitez had transitioned a patient who was receiving a flu shot to the nursing supervisor rather than issue the shot himself.

Benitez explained the directive from the nursing supervisor and the doctor told him the process was “improper” and to treat Muslim women the same as he would patients of any other religion, race, color or ethnicity.

Benitez said he followed the new instructions and within two weeks he was out of a job.

The lawsuit says Benitez was “directly told” that the termination was not performance related, rather that “the clinic’s conservative male Muslim clientele did not want a male treating female patients.” The suit doesn’t make clear who made the statement to Benitez."

Lawsuit claims male nurse fired by city for treating Muslim women - News - Press and Guide


Treating all patients equally is certainly what you should expect in a public health department. If Muslim men didn't want " their women" ( don't you just love that ownership) treated by a man, then they should have gone to a private clinic for Muslims.

In Michigan the Republicans passed a law several years back that says an employer can fire you without cause anytime they want. Legally he has no leg to stand on.

Actually, you're wrong. I just looked up the law that you're referring to and it says that an at will employee can be terminated for any reason as long as it's not illegal. Under your law it would be illegal to fire the guy either because he was a male or because he wasn't muslim. If the facts are as he claims, then he should win.
***************************************************8
Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:
Age
Race
Sex
Religion
National origin
Disability
Pregnancy

 

[Vel]

Government makes no difference. In the Christian zeal to save the unborn they have petitioned the government in court to allow Pharmacists to morally refuse to provide the morning after pill. So the government has already sanctioned "religious morality" to be a factor in the administration of medical issues. This is such a case.

In those situations you were dealing with privately owned pharmacies. A pharmacist in a public hospital would not be able to do that.

Well this is why it is going to court. I think the court will side with the government on this for several reasons. The first being it is the right thing to do. The second being that the government can't afford financially to pay the lawsuit. The third is that they would have conflicting rulings for public and private opperations.

Why do you think firing this guy for following the doctor's orders would be the right thing to do?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Since many Muslim societies don't believe in education for women, what are the women in those societies expected to do for healthcare if they can't be treated by a man?
********************************************************

Says He Was Fired Over Treating Muslim Women
Published November 24, 2011
| Associated Press

DEARBORN, Mich. – A male registered nurse and Vietnam war Army medic has sued the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, saying he was fired for disobeying a Muslim supervisor's order not to treat women wearing conservative Islamic dress.
John Benitez Jr. filed a sex discrimination suit Wednesday in Detroit U.S. District Court after getting the go-ahead from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a "right to sue" letter Oct. 19.


Read more: Nurse Says He Was Fired Over Treating Muslim Women | Fox News

Fox News causes mental retardation.

 

[Jackson]

The man had No business attending to muslim women in the hospital.

Then she had no business going to a public hospital. Did he treat her appropriately medically? I hope he wins, too.

 

[spectrumc01]

"Benitez said he followed this instruction until Nov. 17, 2010, when a health department doctor saw Benitez abstain from treating a Muslim woman and questioned why he wasn’t treating her.

Benitez had transitioned a patient who was receiving a flu shot to the nursing supervisor rather than issue the shot himself.

Benitez explained the directive from the nursing supervisor and the doctor told him the process was “improper” and to treat Muslim women the same as he would patients of any other religion, race, color or ethnicity.

Benitez said he followed the new instructions and within two weeks he was out of a job.

The lawsuit says Benitez was “directly told” that the termination was not performance related, rather that “the clinic’s conservative male Muslim clientele did not want a male treating female patients.” The suit doesn’t make clear who made the statement to Benitez."

Lawsuit claims male nurse fired by city for treating Muslim women - News - Press and Guide


Treating all patients equally is certainly what you should expect in a public health department. If Muslim men didn't want " their women" ( don't you just love that ownership) treated by a man, then they should have gone to a private clinic for Muslims.

In Michigan the Republicans passed a law several years back that says an employer can fire you without cause anytime they want. Legally he has no leg to stand on.

Actually, you're wrong. I just looked up the law that you're referring to and it says that an at will employee can be terminated for any reason as long as it's not illegal. Under your law it would be illegal to fire the guy either because he was a male or because he wasn't muslim. If the facts are as he claims, then he should win.
***************************************************8
Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:
Age
Race
Sex
Religion
National origin
Disability
Pregnancy

That is how the law is written, now let me tell you how it is applied in Michigan. First attourney's will not take cases where that is the case, no money in it. So finding a lawyer to take the case should be difficult but it won't in this case because of the potential payout. As a large volume of cases in Michigan are settled out of court I fully expect this to be settled out of court. If it gets settled out of court the nurse will receive a monetary settlement (small), the supervisor in question will get a reprimand. The doctor gets an even bigger head and becomes unbearable to work with. The public will never know the outcome unless they file an FOI request. In the end nothing changes, except for the rules which will be slightly modified to become immune to lawsuits. Which is the only thing the government cares about. The Nurse in question will not go back to work in that department or for the government in that capacity again. Nowhere in all of this do any of the parties care about the health and care of the patients except for the supervisor, who was trying to respect the religious customs of her patients. Being that most people hate muslims just for being muslims I can see the supervisor loosing in court, and this is probably how this all started in the first place, over the hatred of muslims.

 

[Jackson]

Since many Muslim societies don't believe in education for women, what are the women in those societies expected to do for healthcare if they can't be treated by a man?
********************************************************

Says He Was Fired Over Treating Muslim Women
Published November 24, 2011
| Associated Press

DEARBORN, Mich. – A male registered nurse and Vietnam war Army medic has sued the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, saying he was fired for disobeying a Muslim supervisor's order not to treat women wearing conservative Islamic dress.
John Benitez Jr. filed a sex discrimination suit Wednesday in Detroit U.S. District Court after getting the go-ahead from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a "right to sue" letter Oct. 19.


Read more: Nurse Says He Was Fired Over Treating Muslim Women | Fox News

Fox News causes mental retardation.

Link?

 

[spectrumc01]

In those situations you were dealing with privately owned pharmacies. A pharmacist in a public hospital would not be able to do that.

Well this is why it is going to court. I think the court will side with the government on this for several reasons. The first being it is the right thing to do. The second being that the government can't afford financially to pay the lawsuit. The third is that they would have conflicting rulings for public and private opperations.

Why do you think firing this guy for following the doctor's orders would be the right thing to do?

If the Doctor is not his supervisor or in his chain of command than he should disregard all instructions from the doctor. The Doctor is the one who truly is wrong because he should have gone to the nurses supervisor and discussed it with her. Instead he compromised the chain of command.

 

[Vel]

In Michigan the Republicans passed a law several years back that says an employer can fire you without cause anytime they want. Legally he has no leg to stand on.

Actually, you're wrong. I just looked up the law that you're referring to and it says that an at will employee can be terminated for any reason as long as it's not illegal. Under your law it would be illegal to fire the guy either because he was a male or because he wasn't muslim. If the facts are as he claims, then he should win.
***************************************************8
Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:
Age
Race
Sex
Religion
National origin
Disability
Pregnancy

That is how the law is written, now let me tell you how it is applied in Michigan. First attourney's will not take cases where that is the case, no money in it. So finding a lawyer to take the case should be difficult but it won't in this case because of the potential payout. As a large volume of cases in Michigan are settled out of court I fully expect this to be settled out of court. If it gets settled out of court the nurse will receive a monetary settlement (small), the supervisor in question will get a reprimand. The doctor gets an even bigger head and becomes unbearable to work with. The public will never know the outcome unless they file an FOI request. In the end nothing changes, except for the rules which will be slightly modified to become immune to lawsuits. Which is the only thing the government cares about. The Nurse in question will not go back to work in that department or for the government in that capacity again. Nowhere in all of this do any of the parties care about the health and care of the patients except for the supervisor, who was trying to respect the religious customs of her patients. Being that most people hate muslims just for being muslims I can see the supervisor loosing in court, and this is probably how this all started in the first place, over the hatred of muslims.

If muslim patients want to be treated differently than people of other faiths, they should seek a clinic, run by and paid for by other muslims. If separation of church and state are the law of the land, then that axiom holds true for ALL faiths, not just christianity. Muslims need to realize that if they want clinics with segregation, schools with segregation and halal food, businesses with prayer facilities, and other entities that spend their time catering to their religious customs, then they need to provide them for themselves.

 

[spectrumc01]

Actually, you're wrong. I just looked up the law that you're referring to and it says that an at will employee can be terminated for any reason as long as it's not illegal. Under your law it would be illegal to fire the guy either because he was a male or because he wasn't muslim. If the facts are as he claims, then he should win.
***************************************************8
Employers are not allowed to terminate or discriminate against employees for the following reasons:
Age
Race
Sex
Religion
National origin
Disability
Pregnancy

That is how the law is written, now let me tell you how it is applied in Michigan. First attourney's will not take cases where that is the case, no money in it. So finding a lawyer to take the case should be difficult but it won't in this case because of the potential payout. As a large volume of cases in Michigan are settled out of court I fully expect this to be settled out of court. If it gets settled out of court the nurse will receive a monetary settlement (small), the supervisor in question will get a reprimand. The doctor gets an even bigger head and becomes unbearable to work with. The public will never know the outcome unless they file an FOI request. In the end nothing changes, except for the rules which will be slightly modified to become immune to lawsuits. Which is the only thing the government cares about. The Nurse in question will not go back to work in that department or for the government in that capacity again. Nowhere in all of this do any of the parties care about the health and care of the patients except for the supervisor, who was trying to respect the religious customs of her patients. Being that most people hate muslims just for being muslims I can see the supervisor loosing in court, and this is probably how this all started in the first place, over the hatred of muslims.

If muslim patients want to be treated differently than people of other faiths, they should seek a clinic, run by and paid for by other muslims. If separation of church and state are the law of the land, then that axiom holds true for ALL faiths, not just christianity. Muslims need to realize that if they want clinics with segregation, schools with segregation and halal food, businesses with prayer facilities, and other entities that spend their time catering to their religious customs, then they need to provide them for themselves.

I agree with you on your stance on the muslim faith, and ALL faiths for that matter. The problem comes in when the Christians have reversed this practice expecting to be catered to because they are christians i.e. Pharmacists. The Amish also want to be traeted differently i.e. farming practices. It is because of these two religions going to court and reverseing these laws on religious freedom that we now have this case. Now we find out how biased the courts actually are. If this was a christian supervisor doing the firing over a christian moral there would be no problem.

 

[Vel]

That is how the law is written, now let me tell you how it is applied in Michigan. First attourney's will not take cases where that is the case, no money in it. So finding a lawyer to take the case should be difficult but it won't in this case because of the potential payout. As a large volume of cases in Michigan are settled out of court I fully expect this to be settled out of court. If it gets settled out of court the nurse will receive a monetary settlement (small), the supervisor in question will get a reprimand. The doctor gets an even bigger head and becomes unbearable to work with. The public will never know the outcome unless they file an FOI request. In the end nothing changes, except for the rules which will be slightly modified to become immune to lawsuits. Which is the only thing the government cares about. The Nurse in question will not go back to work in that department or for the government in that capacity again. Nowhere in all of this do any of the parties care about the health and care of the patients except for the supervisor, who was trying to respect the religious customs of her patients. Being that most people hate muslims just for being muslims I can see the supervisor loosing in court, and this is probably how this all started in the first place, over the hatred of muslims.

If muslim patients want to be treated differently than people of other faiths, they should seek a clinic, run by and paid for by other muslims. If separation of church and state are the law of the land, then that axiom holds true for ALL faiths, not just christianity. Muslims need to realize that if they want clinics with segregation, schools with segregation and halal food, businesses with prayer facilities, and other entities that spend their time catering to their religious customs, then they need to provide them for themselves.

I agree with you on your stance on the muslim faith, and ALL faiths for that matter. The problem comes in when the Christians have reversed this practice expecting to be catered to because they are christians i.e. Pharmacists. The Amish also want to be traeted differently i.e. farming practices. It is because of these two religions going to court and reverseing these laws on religious freedom that we now have this case. Now we find out how biased the courts actually are. If this was a christian supervisor doing the firing over a christian moral there would be no problem.

Of course it would still be a problem. You would find the ACLU there so fast that heads would be spinning.

 

[spectrumc01]

It wouldn't suprise me if the ACLU is already there.

 

[9thIDdoc]

This case couldn't be any more clear cut. He legally had no choice in the matter. Had he refused to treat anyone because of their religion or gender he would have been in direct violation of the law and subject to both civil suit and loss of license. It is the state board of nursing that set the standards; not his supervisor.

I am amazed at those here who are so strongly in favor of discrimination.

 

[Sunni Man]

Even in a Public Hospital you can still have a choice between male and female doctors.

And asking that only female nurses attend to a muslim woman should not present a problem.

Because there are far more female nurses than male nurses in every hospital I have ever seen.

 

[lizzie]

The man had No business attending to muslim women in the hospital.

In a hospital, you get the nurse that is assigned. Assignments aren't made with regard to religion.

 

[Vel]

Even in a Public Hospital you can still have a choice between male and female doctors.

And asking that only female nurses attend to a muslim woman should not present a problem.

Because there are far more female nurses than male nurses in every hospital I have ever seen.

An individual patient making a specific request is quite different from setting a segregated policy. The male nurse should only have referred a patient to the female supervisor at that particular patient's request.

 

[Sunni Man]

The man had No business attending to muslim women in the hospital.

In a hospital, you get the nurse that is assigned. Assignments aren't made with regard to religion.

Specifically asking for only female Doctors and Nurses to attend to female Muslim family members has never been a problem in my experience.

 

[lizzie]

The man had No business attending to muslim women in the hospital.

In a hospital, you get the nurse that is assigned. Assignments aren't made with regard to religion.

Specifically asking for only female Doctors and Nurses to attend to female Muslim family members has never been a problem in my experience.

That may be the case, but it's not a standard requirement or practice in hospitals. I know many nurses, and probably 1/4 of them are men. Truth be told, male nurses are usually excellent in their field, and if I had to choose, I'd rather have a male nurse because I trust their skills more as a general rule. If you make a special request for a nurse based on religous reasons, and you are accomodated, then you are getting special treatment.

Trust me when I say that nurses couldn't care less if you're male or female. They aren't interested in their patients sexuality. It's business, and we've seen enough bodies of all types to take away any allure they may have ever had. A body is a sick body that we deal with as a profession. It's not an object of desire or fascination.