Lexplug logoLexplug

Backus v. Baptist Medical Center

District Court, E.D. Arkansas
510 F. Supp. 1191 (1981)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A hospital's policy of hiring only female nurses for its labor and delivery unit constitutes a valid Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) under Title VII, as it is reasonably necessary to protect the fundamental privacy rights of female patients undergoing intimate medical procedures.


Facts:

  • Gregory Backus, a male, became a certified registered nurse (R.N.) in Arkansas in May 1978.
  • While a student, Backus had trained in the obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) department at Baptist Medical Center.
  • On April 19, 1978, Backus requested a full-time R.N. position in the labor and delivery section of the hospital's OB-GYN department.
  • Baptist Medical Center refused his request and again refused after an internal appeal.
  • On January 3, 1979, Backus renewed his request and was again refused on the stated grounds that patient privacy and dignity made it impossible for a male to effectively perform the job's duties.
  • The duties for nurses in the labor and delivery unit involved intimate procedures such as checking cervical dilation, shaving the perineal area, and assisting with enemas, which involved constant exposure of the patient's genitalia.
  • Backus was offered and accepted a position in the intensive care nursery, another part of the OB-GYN department, but continued to be denied transfer to labor and delivery.
  • Backus left his employment at the hospital in September 1979.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gregory Backus filed a timely charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on June 15, 1979.
  • The EEOC investigated and subsequently issued a right-to-sue letter to Backus.
  • Backus filed a complaint against Baptist Medical Center in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, alleging unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a hospital's policy of refusing to hire male nurses in its labor and delivery department, based on concerns for female patient privacy, constitute a valid Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) exempt from Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination?


Opinions:

Majority - Roy, District Judge

Yes, the hospital's policy is a valid BFOQ. The court held that the hospital's refusal to hire male nurses in its labor and delivery department is a legitimate Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) under Title VII. The court reasoned that the policy was not based on a mere 'customer preference' but on the fundamental, constitutionally-recognized right to privacy of the hospital's female patients. Citing precedent like Fesel v. Masonic Home of Delaware, Inc., the court found that the hospital had a factual basis for believing the majority of female patients would object to intimate care from a male nurse. Furthermore, the hospital demonstrated that it could not reasonably accommodate a male nurse's schedule because nearly all duties in labor and delivery are intimate, and doing so would disrupt continuity of care and create a business necessity for duplicative staffing (i.e., requiring a female chaperone), thus increasing costs and reducing efficiency.



Analysis:

This decision establishes that a patient's constitutional right to privacy can serve as the foundation for a BFOQ defense against a Title VII sex discrimination claim in a healthcare context. The court carefully distinguished protectable privacy interests from impermissible customer preferences, setting a precedent that allows sex-specific hiring where job duties involve highly intimate bodily contact. This ruling provides a framework for employers in similar fields, such as corrections or residential care, to justify sex-based hiring policies. However, it also narrows the scope of Title VII protections for employees in these roles by prioritizing the privacy rights of the clients or patients being served.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Backus v. Baptist Medical Center (1981)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"