Nurse Shuffle worked as a registered nurse in a state-run organization for fifteen years. In 1970, the state made a decision to close and transition all state-run hospitals to the private sector. The state required a number of nurses to remain employed with the new facility for a period of eight years. Nurse Shuffle was one of the state employees to continue employment under the new ownership. The facility Nurse Shuffle worked at was transitioned to a long-term acute care facility (LTAC). Nurse Shuffle remained as a staff nurse in the LTAC, which was a small facility with thirty-five inpatient beds.
In the years that followed, Nurse Shuffle became depressed over matters in her personal life. Given the mounting life pressures, she contrived ways to obtain controlled prescription medication from the medication drawers of patients. This practice became more urgent for Nurse Shuffle, who contrived more blatant, desperate measures to obtain controlled prescription medication. Eventually, she was caught, and she also confessed to having an addiction problem. Since Nurse Shuffle was a state employee, the administration decided to not terminate her but offered her an option of treatment at an addiction center. The facility would satisfy the due process protection afforded to government employees.
In the next ninety days, the LTAC facility closed down. Nurse Shuffle was released from rehabilitation treatment services but was without employment. She decided a change was needed and sought employment with a healthcare professional agency that provided nurses with healthcare facilities throughout the country. Nurse Shuffle accepted a one-year temporary position at a large teaching hospital as a nurse working the night shift in a surgical stepdown unit. Unfortunately, the strain of acclimating to a new setting and the night shift was too much to cope with, and she found opportunities to remove controlled prescription medication from the facility for personal use. Again, the behavior was discovered, Nurse Shuffle was prosecuted, and, as a consequence, her license was revoked.
An investigation revealed that there was no information on the file for the previous controlled prescription medication offense at the LTAC. Since the LTAC facility was in its waning days, some top human resource personnel left for other opportunities and the department was understaffed. The remaining personnel were lower-level clerks, who were unaware of the policy or procedure, and hence, no information was reported to the state for licensure purposes. The LTAC believed that Nurse Shuffle was entitled to due process since she was a government employee, and hence it her offered addiction treatment to resolve the matter. The employment agency conducted the standard state nursing license verification, and Nurse Shuffle failed to offer any information regarding the substance theft matter. The teaching facility where Nurse Shuffle accepted the assignment relied on the agency's verification process because Nurse Shuffle was not considered the facility's employee.
Interpret and explain the basis of due process protection and why it might or might not apply to Nurse Shuffle's situation. Express your opinion regarding whether Nurse Shuffle should have been terminated or afforded the option of an addiction treatment program.
Explain the applicability of the FMLA to Nurse Shuffle's situation.
Discuss the responsibility of the teaching hospital's requirement to verify the licensure and professional credentials of Nurse Shuffle. Compare the verification burden for an agency employee versus a regular employee.
Full Answer Section
A property interest in employment is a right to continued employment that is protected by law. Public employees generally have a property interest in their employment if they have a legitimate expectation of continued employment. This expectation may be created by statute, contract, or policy.
In Nurse Shuffle's case, it is unclear whether she had a property interest in her employment at the LTAC facility. The state's decision to close and transition all state-run hospitals to the private sector may have created a legitimate expectation of continued employment for Nurse Shuffle, but it is also possible that the state's policy allowed for termination without cause.
Even if Nurse Shuffle did have a property interest in her employment at the LTAC facility, it is not clear that she was denied due process. The LTAC offered her the option of treatment for her addiction, which could be seen as a form of due process.
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal law that requires employers to provide eligible employees with unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons. The FMLA also prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for using FMLA leave.
To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must have worked for their employer for at least 12 months and must have worked at least 1,250 hours in the previous 12 months. The FMLA also requires that employees work at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius.
The FMLA provides for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for eligible employees for the following reasons:
- The birth of a child
- The placement of a child with the employee for adoption or foster care
- The serious illness of the employee's child, spouse, or parent
- The employee's own serious illness
The FMLA also provides for up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave per year for eligible employees who are caring for a spouse, child, or parent who is a covered service member.
Nurse Shuffle may have been eligible for FMLA leave if she had a serious illness as a result of her addiction. However, it is important to note that the FMLA does not require employers to provide paid leave.
Teaching Hospital's Responsibility to Verify Licensure and Professional Credentials
The teaching hospital had a responsibility to verify Nurse Shuffle's licensure and professional credentials. This responsibility is even more important for agency employees, because the teaching hospital does not have direct control over their hiring and training.
The teaching hospital could have verified Nurse Shuffle's licensure and professional credentials by contacting the state nursing board. The state nursing board would have been able to provide the teaching hospital with information about Nurse Shuffle's disciplinary history, if any.
Opinion on Whether Nurse Shuffle Should Have Been Terminated or Afforded Treatment
I believe that the teaching hospital should have terminated Nurse Shuffle. Nurse Shuffle had a history of stealing controlled prescription medication, and she failed to disclose this information to the teaching hospital. Nurse Shuffle's behavior posed a serious risk to patients and to the hospital itself.
The fact that Nurse Shuffle was an agency employee does not excuse her behavior. The teaching hospital still had a responsibility to ensure that its employees were qualified and trustworthy.
Conclusion
Nurse Shuffle's case is a complex one that raises a number of important legal and ethical issues. It is important to note that there is no easy answer to the question of whether Nurse Shuffle should have been terminated or afforded treatment.
Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to terminate Nurse Shuffle is a judgment call that must be made on a case-by-case basis. In this case, I believe that the teaching hospital should have terminated Nurse Shuffle.
Sample Answer
Due process protection is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It protects individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Due process protection applies to government employees, but it is not absolute. The Supreme Court has held that government employers may terminate employees for cause without providing a hearing, unless the employee has a property interest in their employment.