|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
Current rating: 0 |
by K A Kranich
Email: kakranich (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!) |
26 Jan 2004
|
|
Twenty activists today demonstrated in support of fired Carle Foundation Hospital pediatric nurse, Lynn Sprout, outside the hospital one day before her lesbian discrimination hearing was to take place before the Urbana Human Relations Commission. |
|
The Commission granted a delay in the hearing at the request of hospital lawyers who said they weren’t prepared.
“This stinks,” said Sprout supporter, Traci Daniels. “Carle has hired expensive lawyers from Chicago from a 400-employee law firm and they aren’t ready? Come on! Let the hearing begin. We want justice for Lynn and all lesbian and gay employees at the hospital.”
Last November, Ms. Sprout rejected a $35,000 settlement offer from the hospital.The settlement would have prevented Ms. Sprout from talking publicly about her claims of discrimination. Ms. Sprout is seeking her job back and hospital-wide policy changes that would guarantee family and medical leave to all hospital employees, not just married heterosexual employees.
Ms. Sprout was fired from her job as a pediatric nurse at Carle Foundation Hospital after 15 years of service. She was fired after revealing her sexual orientation when her same-sex partner of 18 years was dying. Instead of being allowed to take family and medical leave, Ms. Sprout says she was repeatedly told that partner was not her responsibility because she was "not family."
Supporters carried signs that read, “Equality at Carle,” “Family and Medical Leave for All Employees,” “Policy Change, Not Small Change” and “Carle Can’t Buy This Lesbian’s Silence.” Fifty flyers with information about the case were distributed to drivers as they were stopped at the intersection of University and Coler Avenues in Urbana.
In Urbana, it is illegal to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation. On January 19, 2004, the Urbana City Council passed an ordinance granting paid sick, bereavement and family medical leave for city employees with same-sex domestic partners.
The hospital denies any wrongdoing and stands by its nondiscrimination policy. A hospital spokesperson has said Ms. Sprout was fired for “poor” job performance.
The hearing to try Ms. Sprout’s case has been reset for early May. |
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by Jim M
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
26 Jan 2004
|
|
If the law was passed by Urbana after the nurse was fired should she still be covered by it? If every time someone is fired for poor job performance are businesses going to have to worry about lawsuits claiming discrimination? If you are told numerous times that your life partner does not qualify as family and you should work... but you take off anyways don't you deserve to be fired? I think the hospital should pull their settlement off of the table, go thru with the court proceedings and tell the lesbian nurse to kiss their ass! |
|
Re: The Law in Urbana |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
26 Jan 2004
|
Jim,
You need to read the news a little more carefully. Urbana's ordinance banning discrimination like Ms. Spout suffered has been on the books for years.
You may have mistaken Urbana's recent passing of limited domestice partner benefits for its own employees for the pre-existing anti-discrimination ordinance in your clumsy stab a making a claim of ex post facto law. These are two separate issues, although the decision to grant Urbana's employees these benefits was made as an affirmation of respect for its employees, by city government, that it will not only obey the same law it expects Carle to, but they also want to make it clear that the application of benefits is as evenhanded as it can be right up front, so there is no question about a person qualifying for them.
Carle is on the hook under Urbana's ordinance, which is probably both why they offered what amounts to hush money to Ms. Sprout, as well as delayed the hearing to make one last stab at regrouping from a very untenable legal position.
I'll also note that your reaction seems to be one based on ready-made assumptions that you bring here. Try reading a little more closely and you'll find the world is a more complicated place than your biases lead you to believe. |
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by Jim M
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
27 Jan 2004
|
I was not playing the 'discrimination' card. I was pointing out the fact that when this suit initiated same sex partners were not covered by the FMLA. Now all of a sudden the FMLA applies to this situation and she wants to be rehired? To me it doesn't sound fair.
Lets assume for an instant that she was in fact fired for poor job performance. If the hospital gives in to her demands that would excuse her poor job performance. Heterosexuals do not get this 'second chance'.
The whole case boils down to a 'he said/she said' deal. The hospital says she was fired for poor job performance, she says it was discrimination. Who do we believe? If she got her job back do you really believe she would be treated the same? I'm not saying she shouldn't be treated fairly, I am saying that we live in the real world and do you think there aren't anti-homosexual people working in our businesses who will harrass her?
So, is she fighting for 'the cause' or is she fighting for 'her job'? |
|
This Is Urbana' s Law |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
27 Jan 2004
|
Jim,
You still are missing the point. This is not about federal law. This is about Carle's violation of Urbana''s local ordinance, which has been in place for years before Carle chose to violate it.
And Ms. Sprout's motivations in her decision to demand her rights are irrelevant as an excusal for Carle's decision to break the law. If your rights were violated, I don't think your motivations for objecting would have anything to do with whether you sought to pursue justice. Even if they did, they would be irrelevant to the culpability of whoever violated them. |
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by Jim M
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
27 Jan 2004
|
I am still failing to see how Carle violated the law. They fired an employee who was not doing her job up to the performance that is required of nurses. How is that violating the law?
I guess it would be against the law to fire someone for not doing their job. What then are grounds for dismissal? |
|
Discrimination Is the Issue, Whether You Wish to Acknowledge It or Not |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
27 Jan 2004
|
|
If Ms. Sprout's job performance was the real issue, why would their lawyers send a letter to hers saying her clinical skills were not in question? They are simply dressing up their discrimination in the legalese. These sorts of obfucations are quite typical in such cases. One shouldn't take assertions of innocence on the part of employers at face value. |
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by Jim M
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
27 Jan 2004
|
|
Also I think that just because she happens to have a different sexual orientation I wouldn't take her word for anything more than I would the hospital. Why has the policy violation come out in full force? I see that any post that is not extreme left is being censored whereas Muckrucker posts messages calling Jack Ryan a gay porn star are left on the site? Has the policy changed or is it just really selective? |
|
Policy the Same as Always |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 14
27 Jan 2004
|
The editorial policy is the same as it always was. It gives posters a great latitude to engage in relevant discussion of the news. It also allows us to determine that posters who consistently abuse our policies to eventually reach the point when they have demonstrated that their presence here is solely intended to "be other than informing, educating or adding to a public discourse...[or] discourage other visitors from using the site" and to have their posts hidden, as need be.
Everyone occasionally goes over this line. However, Jack and his "companions"/alter egos have crossed that line consistently. We've put up with Jack for at least a year and a day, ever since his debut, lasciviously slavvering over our brave naked snow women's protest against the war in Iraq. This is at least a year longer than any of us would be tolerated on the typical neo-con websites that Jack and his cohort (True American, bfd, and a few others) normally spend their time on.
This is our server. We make the rules. We decide when to invoke the rules. At this point, Jack and the rest of those who came here trolling with him need to confine their posts to discussing their ideas, instead of the endless loop of masturbatory ruminations on the nature of their personal hatred, prejudices, and strawman incitements. There has been nothing new from Jack, etc, in months. We've heard it before, it's simply boring, and it's time to move on.
It's game over at this point. Stay on the straight and narrow or you will find yourself entirely off the path when you come here. If any of you have a personal problem with this, you can raise it at a Steering group meeting, first Thursday of every month at 8pm at the IMC. Further discussion of this will be on your own time, on your own email lists, and on your own websites, unless it's on our IMC-web email list or in an IMC meeting. Now talk among yourselves, but don't bother bringing up the subject here, because it's just as off-topic as the rest of Jack's drivel.
As for those others who you feel are violating the rules, they will enjoy the same amount of slack that Jack received. We're a bunch of mostly reasonable people, so I would expect that as Jack stays on subject, or better yet just leaves, then I would expect that such discourse among the comments will also fade away. If it doesn't, then we will decide how to deal with that in our good time. Your opinion of when there may need to be similar actions taken against others is basically irrelevant unless you're willing to participate in the decisionmaking process at the IMC. |
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by Muck Raker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Jan 2004
|
Jim, why is it that for all your bluster, all you "conservatives" on this site do is bellyache about censorship? With all the money Jack Ryan, possible gay porn star and Illinois Republican Candidate for Senate, one would think you guys could cobble together enough money to buy your own website to make all the pathetic homophobic and sexist jokes you can muster.
Can you even define censorship? Please regale me with your eminent wisdom.
As to why I should be able to post my findings about Jack Ryan's apparently successful career in gay male pornography, I have to ask, why not? Unlike you and Jack, I've found plenty of evidence for my findings -- do the websearch yourself:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22jack+ryan%22+gay+porn+star&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/15360/index.php
Since Mr. Ryan who posts here refuses to provide any way for us to know who he is exactly -- not even an e-mail address -- it's up to us to figure it out for ourselves with whatever means are available to us.
You see, I find nothing wrong with being a gay porn star. Gee, I'd probably be one if I had the kind of cut body I see in Jack Ryan's picture on gaypornstars.com. He looks pretty hot, if you ask me. Unfortunately I don't have the looks. So, I don't think it's any kind of epithet or insult to make the connection.
Because Mr. Jack Ryan has made so many homophobic remarks here, I think it's thoroughly relevant to investigate what seems to be a double-life mired in paradoxes. Jack Ryan apparently sees no harm in discriminating against people and insulting him for their sexuality.
So I guess if Jack Ryan would prefer not to have his hypocrisy exposed, well then he can shut up, or prove that he's not Jack Ryan the Gay Porn Star or the Illinois Republican Candidate for Senate. |
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Jan 2004
|
Back to the topic of the Lesbian nurse & Carle Hospital:
It seems to me that there are two issues here: 1) Firing someone from a job because of their sexual orientation versus poor job performance, and 2) Denying family and medical leave to homosexual employees with homosexual partners who are sick and dying.
If it is true that Carle Hospital failed to grant family and medical leave to the lesbian nurse who wished to take time off work to visit or look after a long-time partner who was dying, while granting such leave to heterosexual employees in a similar situation, then this would comprise a double standard in the conditions of employment. Because the Human Rights Ordinance of the City of Urbana bars discrimination in conditions of employment on the basis of an employee's sexual orientation, it follows that the lesbian nurse could file a complaint with the Urbana Human Rights Commission on this basis alone, even if she had not been fired from her job.
It should be relatively easy for the Urbana Human Rights Commission to determine if Carle Hospital applies its family and medical leave in a manner that discriminates against homosexual employees as this is generally matter of official policy that would appear in an Employee Handboock or an administrative memorandum. If such a double standard exists, it seems to me that the Urbana Human Rights Commission should rule in favor of the lesbian nurse and against Carle Hospital as this clearly violates the Human Rights Ordinance. Why shouldn't this lesbian nurse be allowed to take time off from work to attend to a dying partner of 18 years who is dearly loved when the heterosexual employees of this organization are allowed to do this? Most heterosexual marriages in the U.S. don't last 18 years!
The second issue involves being fired from a job after revealing one's sexual orientation (what the lesbian nurse claims) versus being fired from a job because of poor job performance (what Carle Hospital claims). It is much harder to prove such discrimination complaints as the evaluation of job performance often involves complex issues that are often subjective in nature. Such cases often involve the word of a supervisor versus an employee's. It's also possible that the lesbian nurse was fired because of unauthorized absence from her job to attend to her dying partner. She should have filed a complaint with the Urbana Human Rights Commission as soon as her request for medical and family leave was denied, rather than waiting until she was fired because of unauthorized absence from work, as this would weaken the ability of the hospital to find any excuse to fire her. In view of the apparent difficulty that she encountered in obtaining family and medical leave, this makes her job dismissal highly suspicious when one considers the timing of events. |
|
muck raker |
by jw
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
29 Jan 2004
|
Well Gee Muck Raker!!
Thats Great!! |
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by ^
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
01 Feb 2004
|
"WARNING: IT IS NOW STANDARD POLICY TO HIDE ALL OF JACK'S POSTS. "
What a devastating loss! I'm gettin' all misty-eyed here... (hahahahahah....).
Who ya warnin' loser, yer mom? NewsFlash! - Nobody cares except you, dittohead. Oh, you'll be so missed... About like the flu.
LMAO! Ahhh-hahahahaha.... |
|
Re: Supporters of Fired Lesbian Nurse Protest Carle Foundation Hospital’s Delay in Hearing |
by kphilo
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -2
01 Feb 2004
|
|
I don't know exactly what the policy is- but I'm sure Jack can start posting under a different name, what with his insistence on anonymity and all. Of course, now he'll have to refrain from juvenile insults and thinly veiled threats. But since he always thought of himself as primarily "offering an alternative perspective", this shouldn't be a problem for him. He now has the opportunity to calmly, rationally, and politely offer arguments and evidence for his views. That sort of thing never has been, and certainly never will be, hidden. Jack should think of this as a genuine opportunity to expand our perspectives. I, for one, truly hope he does so. |
|
