Nurse Fired for Refusing to Assist in Medical Procedures for Religious Reasons
 
May 14, 2001
 
Mark G. Alexander- Jacksonville

In Shelton v. University of Medicine & Dentistry (Third Circuit, 2000), the court wrestled with whether a hospital reasonably accommodated the religious beliefs and practices of a nurse who refused to participate in what she believed to be abortions. The nurse refused to participate in treating a patient admitted to the Labor and Delivery Section of the hospital for emergency treatment, which the nurse believed would necessarily lead to the loss of life of the unborn child. The nurse refused to participate in these medical procedures stating:

"Before the foundations of the earth, God called me to be Holy. For this cause I must be obedient to the word of God. From his own mouth he said ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Therefore, regardless of the situation, I will not participate directly or indirectly in ending a life …."

The hospital informed the nurse that, as a result of her refusal to participate in certain medical procedures, she could no longer work in the Labor and Delivery Section. The hospital gave her the choice of transferring to the Newborn Intensive Care Unit, or alternatively, she could contact the Human Resources Department to identify other available nursing positions. The hospital gave the nurse 30 days to make a choice, but she failed to do so, responding instead:

"…the ultimatum given me however, doesn’t align with the response I am unctioned to submit. The decision is not ours to make but the Lords’. The Living God is in control of that which concerns my life and job. ‘Many are the plans in a mans’ heart but it’s Gods plan/purpose that will prevail."

The hospital terminated the nurse after she refused to accept the transfer or contact the Human Resource Department about other nursing opportunities. The nurse then sued claiming religious discrimination and other claims.

The court held that the employer is obligated to offer a reasonable accommodation of employee’s religious beliefs unless accommodation would result in undue hardship to employer. The court stated that a "reasonable accommodation" does not need to be the employee’s preferred accommodation or the "most" reasonable from the employee’s point of view. The employer satisfies its obligation when it offers any reasonable accommodation. In other words, the employer is not necessarily required to accommodate the employee in the way demanded by the employee.

The court went on to hold that the hospital reasonably accommodated the nurse by offering her a lateral transfer to another nursing position, and by offering her the opportunity to contact the Human Resources Department. The court found it significant that the nurse never contacted the Human Resources Department to explore other nursing jobs at the hospital. The court stated that the nurse "…had a duty to cooperate in determining whether the proposal was a reasonable one. … By refusing to meet with Human Resources to investigate available positions, [the nurse] failed to satisfy her duty."

An important aspect of this case is the duty of both employer and employee to adopt a cooperative approach to religious accommodation issues. Refusal of the employee to cooperate in reasonable attempts to find an acceptable religious accommodation undermined this cooperative approach.

An important theme running through this case is the view that finding accommodation for religious beliefs requires conversation and dialogue between employer and employee. One party or the other attempting to force its view on the other without compromise is contrary to the intent of the law, and at least this court, will not support a claim on that basis.

For more information, please contact Mark G. Alexander at 1-888-688-8500 or at malexand@hklaw.com.