d be minimal clash between the privacy of the customers and the non-discrimination principle of Title VII (Hawke, p.59). Based on affidavits of female guests objecting to care by male nurses, the court established that the employer had successfully established a BFOQ defense based on the privacy interests of its clientele. The court distinguished the privacy rights of patients from mere customer preference (Hawke, p.59). Not all cases involving patient care turn out the same. In 1991, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Little Forest Medical Center v. Ohio Civil Right Commission (Hawke, p.60). The medical center denied a male applicant a nursing assistant position because of his sex. The center served 256 elderly patients, the majority of who were female. The Ohio court determined that the employer didnt establish BFOQ because they couldnt prove that the policy protected its patients privacy rights, nor did the center demonstrate why it couldnt assign male nurse assistants to male patients and non-objecting females. Health care employers contemplating sex-based hiring should take proactive measures to support a BFOQ in the event of litigation. There are three tests that the courts apply in BFOQ defenses.1. Can the employer provide statistical evidence derived from patient surveys/questionnaires or affidavits from patients attesting that they object to having an opposite sex employee care for their intimate needs? (Hawke, p. 5)2. Do the opinions of health care experts, also recognized by the courts as providing a factual basis, agree with the defendants claim? (Hawke, p.5)3. Could the health care employer have made any adjustments to accommodate the hiring or assignment of a male nurse or nursing assistant, while still protecting the interest of the female patient? (Hawke, p.5)CONCLUSION Title VII was designed to protect employees from sex discrimination in employment actions. Employers may prefer a certain gender for a...
