Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Home Health Care Company “Takes a Bath” – Gender Based Hiring

By Fox Rothschild LLP on November 16, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Back in July, I posted about the perils of gender based hiring.  I pointed out that a company can “discriminate” based on protected characteristics (except race), when that characteristic is what is called a “Bona Fide Occupational Qualification” (“BFOQ”). To be a BFOQ, being a member of that group is essential to the job.

Recently, yet another employer, a home care services provider in Washington State, found themselves in trouble with the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs when a review of hiring practices found that 77 male applicants had been denied full consideration for employment as home health care aids.

ducks

ResCare, the company at issue, claimed that the majority of their clients, who were female, had requested female caregivers.  However, and importantly, the company lacked any evidence to establish that its female clients did indeed prefer female caregivers.  Most of the client care plans lacked any indication of gender preference and a survey sample of these clients further indicated that most clients did not have a gender preference.

gendersymbol

This company likely would have been able to demonstrate a BFOQ for its hiring practices if the client care plans had actually included documentation showing that clients preferred or requested a female care giver.  Obviously due to the intimate nature of home health care, gender preference, had it been documented, likely rises to the level of BFOQ.  While customer preference, alone, is generally not sufficient to satisfy gender discrimination in hiring. Where the customer preference is coupled with legitimate privacy issues of the customer, i.e. related to health or hygiene care, such discrimination is generally acceptable. See E.E.O.C. v. Mercy Health Center, 1982 WL 3108 (W.D. Okl., Feb. 02, 1982); Fesel v. Masonic Home Inc., 447 F. Supp. 1346 (D. Del. 1978).

————————-
Dori K. Stibolt is a senior associate with the law firm of Fox Rothschild LLP. Dori defends and counsels management in labor and employment litigation matters pertaining to wage and overtime claims, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, leave/restraint, and whistle-blower claims. You can contact Dori at 561-804-4417 or dstibolt@foxrothschild.com.

  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    South Florida Trial Practice
  • Organization:
    Fox Rothschild LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo