Diamond Post

Does a nursing home resident's racial preference trump the rights of the facility's employees to a non-discriminatory workplace?  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently answered "no" in  Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, 612 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2010). 

Factual Background

Brenda Chaney ("Chaney") was employed as a certified nursing assistant ("CNA") at a skilled nursing facility, Plainfield Healthcare Center ("Plainfield"), in Indiana.  Her job duties included "monitoring patients, responding to their requests for service, and generally assisting with their daily living needs."  Marjorie Latshaw ("Latshaw"), a resident at Plainfield, did not want any assistance by African American CNAs, including Chaney.  Plainfield had a "policy of honoring the racial preferences of its residents in assigning health-care providers" and allowed a note to be made in Latshaw's resident chart that stated "Prefers No Black CNAs."  Accordingly, Chaney was instructed not to provide any care or treatment to Latshaw.

Plainfield "maintained it expected its employees to respect these racial preferences because it otherwise risked violating state and federal laws that grant residents the right to choose providers, to privacy, and to bodily autonomy."  While Chaney did not support this policy, she complied out of fear of termination.  In addition to the existence of this policy, Chaney's co-worker constantly reminded her that she could not assist certain residents and often made "racially-tinged comments and epithets."  Chaney worked at Plainfield for three months until she was fired on the ground that she used profanity in the presence of a resident.  This was the sole ground for her termination. 

After she was terminated, Chaney brought suit in the Southern District Court of Indiana against Plainfield for (1) race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; and (3) retaliation in violation of Title VII.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Plainfield on Chaney's claims for hostile workplace and discriminatory discharge finding, in part, that Plainfield's policy was reasonable given their good faith belief that ignoring the resident's preferences would violate state law.  Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, No. 1:08-CV-00071, 2009 WL 3242102 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2009).  Chaney appealed this decision.

Holdings by the Court of Appeals

Because the lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the facility, the Seventh Circuit on appeal from Chaney could either uphold summary judgment or reverse summary judgment, finding there were genuine issues of material fact for a jury.  On appeal, Chaney argued first that "Plainfield's policy of acceding to the racial biases of its residents is an unlawful employment practice that, along with racial animosity from her co-workers, created an unremediated, racially hostile workplace."  Second, Chaney argued that sufficient evidence to create a question for the jury on her claim of discriminatory discharge existed.

First, the Court addressed Chaney's claim of a racially hostile workplace.  Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual "with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileged of employment, because of such individual's race . . ."  42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1).  At the outset, the Seventh Circuit stated that it had "no trouble finding that a reasonable person would find Plainfield's work environment hostile or abusive."  The Court pointed to the fact that Chaney was reminded daily that certain residents preferred no black CNAs and she was restricted in the rooms she could enter and the care she could provide.  Further, the Court stated that while Title VII allows an employer to respect a preference for same-sex health providers, it is "widely accepted that a company's desire to cater to the perceived racial preferences of its customers is not a defense under Title VII for treating employees differently based on race."  Therefore, the Court found sufficient evidence existed to allow a jury to conclude that Plainfield created a hostile work environment.

Second, the Court addressed Chaney's claim of discriminatory discharge.  The Court found that the following facts were sufficient evidence to let the jury decide whether her termination was discriminatory: (1) Chaney was fired within 24 hours after she was cited for using profanity around a resident, not likely enough time for a full investigation into the incident and (2) there was disparity in treatment between her and a comparable white CNA in that a comparable white CNA was also cited for using profanity around a resident but was not terminated for such conduct.

Guidance Provided by this Decision to Facilities

In reversing summary judgment for the facility, the Seventh Circuit instructs facilities that a resident's racial preference does not trump an employee's right to a non-discriminatory work environment.  Facilities should review their current policies and ensure that they do not run afoul of the directives provided by the Seventh Circuit.  Further, as stated by the Seventh Circuit, it is widely accepted that a company cannot defend a racial discrimination claim based on residents' racial preferences.  Therefore, it is likely that South Carolina courts, the Fourth Circuit, and the courts within the Fourth Circuit would not depart from this "widely accepted" rule.