December 10 Labor & Employment Law Update

Written by: Crystal M. O'Brien, Esq.

Federal Update: No Private Right Of Action For Nurse Objecting To Abortion 

In Cenzon-DeCarlo v. Mt. Sinai Hospital, (11/23/2010), the 2nd Circuit of the federal courts of appeal reviewed whether a private right of action exists for employees being pressured to perform or participate in abortion procedures over their written objections to the same.  The Court concluded no private right exists in which a medical employer would owe money damages to such employees.

In Cenzon-DeCarlo, the plaintiff, an operating room nurse, filed her objections as part of her new employee/onboarding paperwork.  Specifically, her employer Mount Sinai Hospital required employees to indicate whether they had a moral objection to being a part of the abortion procedures and if so would those objections extend to a refusal to be a part of medical treatment involving the same.  The plaintiff indicated an objection and refusal.  However, she claims that over time her employer pressured her to rescind those objections and to participate in medical treatment in response to the hospital’s needs for medical staff support.  Plaintiff not only took offense to the pressure but brought a legal action seeking damages in response to feeling as though she had to succumb to such pressures.

At the trial court level, the hospital brought a summary judgment motion aimed at having the court dismiss the plaintiff’s lawsuit.  The motion was based on the argument that the law did not provide the employee with a legal remedy to sustain her lawsuit.  The hospital prevailed.  On appeal, the 2nd Circuit considered Congressional intent supporting the nurse’s objections under the Church Amendment to the US Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(c).  No intent to provide citizens with a right to sue their employers for imposing on religious objections as a condition of employment was interpreted.  So with that said, the 2nd Circuit upheld the trial court’s summary judgment.

This case is likely one to follow.  As always, we will keep you posted.  To read more, please click here.

California Update: Civil Court Can’t Approve Settlement of Workers’ Comp & Discrimination Claims 

In Steller v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., (10/14/2010), Division Six of the California Court of Appeal held that despite the parties’ knowing intentions to dismiss pending workers’ compensation and civil claims, counsel for the parties’ could not release all claims by seeking court approval of a global (civil court) settlement agreement.  In other words, the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claims could not be dismissed without first the parties seeking approval of the workers’ compensation appeals board.

In California, Labor Code section 5001 protects an employee’s right to bring workers’ compensation claims regardless of an employee’s release of claims that may be associated with severance agreements and civil claims.  Thus in this matter, plaintiff Wendy Steller initiated a claim for disability discrimination while treating for a workers’ compensation  claim.  Generally, these claims allege that the employer is not treating the employee fairly and preserving rights pursuant to labor laws.  Thus the employer in this matter Sears reached a decision with plaintiff’s lawyer to settle all claims with a cash settlement with the assistance of the workers’ compensation insurance carrier.  Counsel drafted the documents, submitted to the civil court the settlement.  Thereafter, confusion as to whether the global settlement indeed included a settlement of the workers’ compensation claims ensued. 

The appellate court concluded in review of the underlying proceedings that the lump sum settlement included all claims --- civil and those covered under the workers’ compensation system.  While the workers’ compensation appeals board (a separate judiciary system) had to approve the settlement that the civil court found lawful, the plaintiff’s claims would be fully released and no further rights to pursue claims covered by the global settlement could be pursued.

This decision is helpful in that it helps to clarify the limits of informal settlement of workplace disputes.  Simply, employers must work within the confines of the workers’ compensation system to resolve pending workers’ compensation claims.  This caveat extends to even exotic or more creative efforts to resolve all claims that are governed by administrative courts and/or civil courts.  To read more, please click here.

MMC HR E-Newsletter Archive

MMC Human Resources Tips