Pro-Lifer Sues Health Clinic For Not Hiring Her

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, Jul 19, 2014.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    talk about thinking you should be hired even when you are not qualified does she have a bit of a persecution complex?

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/19 ... plied-for/
    A stridently pro-life woman is suing a family planning clinic for not hiring her because she wouldn’t work with birth control – despite that being a major part of the job.

    Sara Hellwege was turned down for a nursing job at the clinic after she admitted to her prospective employer that she was morally opposed to doing any part of the job which required her to administer or assign birth control to women who came in. This posed a pretty serious problem with regards to her capacity to do the job given the fact that this was a clinic which primarily served as a resource for men and women looking for contraceptives and birth control.

    In a series of emails (published here), Hellwege converses with Chad Lindsey, the human resources director of Tampa Family Health Centers. After asking about her qualifications and other administrative issues, Lindsey notices that on her resume, Hellwege listed her membership in the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He asked if her pro-life beliefs would affect her ability to work at the clinic, citing its Title X status explicitly making it a facility which provides contraceptive services.

    Hellwege’s response is enough to immediately make it clear that she is a terrible fit for the job:

    Hi Mr. Lindsey,

    Thanks for such a timely response. Yes, I am a member of AAPLOG. Due to religious guidelines, I am able to counsel women regarding all forms of contraception, however, cannot [prescribe] it unless pathology exists – however have no issue with barrier methods & sterilization.

    She then asks if there are any positions available in other areas which wouldn’t require her to work around her religious issues with birth control.

    Lindsey politely sends her a final email which explains that given the clinic’s focus, there didn’t seem to be a way to feasibly hire her considering her moral objections. He also notes that some of the other jobs she was after were already filled and so employment wasn’t a possibility.

    Rather than move on to other applications, Hellwege decided to wage war against the unfair treatment she thinks she received from the clinic. According to her reasoning, anything less than hiring her and working around her moral objections to the job was tantamount to religious persecution. Hellwege lawyered up and filed a lawsuit against the clinic for religious discrimination.
     
  2. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #2

    Sounds like she did not actually want to work there, just wanted to harrass (attack) them with a pointless lawsuit (instead of a bomb).
     
  3. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #3
    This is where that bona fide job requirement part comes in. If you refuse to do part of any job because you are morally opposed to it-- ?

    Let's say I apply for a bartender job. But, say my brother-in-law died of alcoholism and I decided I am morally opposed to drinking and refuse to serve drinks to people. I am willing counsel them about not drinking however ...
     
  4. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #4
    I doubt that employee protection laws are going to cover anything other than the standard discrimination areas (gender, race, etc). Last I checked, religion wasn’t a protected group unless it was one that specifically labeled as a minority. Of course she has to prove that her lack of hiring was illegal and it was specifically for one of these things.

    Short end of the stick, is that she is going to have a lot to prove her case. The employer in this case just has to show that they did not hire her because of her lack of desire to perform specific job requirements and there was no way to do that. Of course the big problem this woman has is that nobody is obligated to hire someone that is unable to perform the stated job.
     
  5. localoid, Jul 20, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2014

    localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #5
    Actually, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does protect employees from discrimination based on religion, sex, national origin and color, but... as the addictinginfo.org article points out:

    "The protections state that employers aren’t allowed to fire or not hire someone based solely on their religious beliefs (good), but it doesn’t mean that they are legally bound to hire a person regardless of whether they can or will do the job they applied for (bad). If that were the case, it would mean any religious objection to literally any job would be fair game. Baseball players could object to holding the bat, and sue when they were cut from the team. A painter could announce that God told him to only color in primary colors and his employer couldn’t make him use any other ones. It goes on and on. Any variation of religious beliefs conflicting with job expectations could be imagined and all would have a valid claim to justice."

    "In other words, the case is nonsense."​
     
  6. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6
    Wait, so you can now sue an employer if they won't interview or hire you for a job because you aren't qualified?

    Only in America.
     
  7. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #7
    Some of the "news" stories these threads are based upon are petty and nonsensical.

    Like some rent-a-cop at some airport not knowing the District of Columbia.

    This isnt "news" its petty incidents.

    At least the wannabe representative claiming his oponent was replaced by a cyborg was funny.

    This is just lame!
     
  8. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #8
    That would be completely unconstitutional. Of course religion is protected under federal employment discrimination laws. I'm surprised you thought otherwise. This, however, is not a case of employment discrimination. Far from it.

    ----------

    Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder. But congratulations on wasting your time commenting on what you label nonsense. How....sensible.
     
  9. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #9
    Touché ;)
     
  10. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #10
    Well, now that companies can have religious opinions, why can't clinics have moral opinions?
     
  11. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #11
    it could have been she thought this was one of the fake family planning clinics that are only there to give free pregnancy tests and give free diapers to get woman to keep the kid.
    but she shows the biggest problem with the pro life movement they want no abortions but also no birth control. Of course having both is impossible and history has proven such but hey lets not let logic be involved.
     
  12. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #12
    They can, as long as they're "closely held". :p
     
  13. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #13
    I really badly posted my comment - I blame posting really late at nite. I was trying to state that your religion in of itself is a protected thing, but the beliefs in of themselves are really not, especially if it means that you cannot perform a certain job.

    Bottom line, Am employer doesn’t have to hire you even if you possess certain religious beliefs if they would interfere with your job. I think the employer also has to show that accommodation would be a unreasonable burden.

    In this case, there literally was no job available that she could do that wouldn’t interfere with her beliefs.
     
  14. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #14
    Just another hardcore Christian trying to push her viewpoint, and get a payday.
     
  15. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #15

    I am sure she was doing gods work.
     
  16. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #16
    Well, if logic was involved, these people wouldn't dictate every move of their life based on an invisible man in the sky from a book of fairy tales. Logical people would say that's insanity.
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    If a Muslim waitress is fired for refusing to serve alcohol at a restaurant I wonder if the response would be the same.

    I personally think you should be required to do any duties your job requires, but I don't agree with giving certain religions a pass.
     
  18. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #18
    Who mentioned giving any religion a pass... beside you?

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    Ptjudd already leaned that way earlier in the thread by specifying a minority group for protections against discriminatory hiring practices.
     
  20. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #20
    Oh...yeah. You gotta watch out for that leaning stuff...especially where there is no mention of Islam.

    But that leaning thing...a dead giveaway!



    :rolleyes:
     
  21. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #21
    I was wondering where I put that.

    Let's all pretend he didn't write the second paragraph.
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
  23. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #23
    Hey, at least use my username right! :D

    I retract my first comment since it didn’t covey my intention properly - I got several things wrong that I knew better at the time but my tiredness didn’t catch. Religious group can be a protected class, but not necessarily individual beliefs.

    In this case, its obvious that being pro-life isn’t a protected class so long as that belief doesn’t hinder your job perforce and it doesn’t impact your qualifications. Here, her beliefs directly conflict the requirements and also cannot be easily accommodated (there are no accommodating jobs available). She isn’t being disqualified for being pro life, it’s that her beliefs make doing her job impossible in this case and it impacts her qualifications.
     
  24. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #24
    It sea to me she isn't being refused a job for her beliefs per-se. She's being refused a job because of her unwillingness to do part of what the job entails.

    At the end of the day, I'd bet any amount of money that this was designed to cause an outrage/get attention. It seems to be working (here at least).
     
  25. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #25
    This is equivalent to a Buddhist applying for an extermination job.
     

Share This Page