Muslim nurse in New York fired after calling Israel's war in Gaza 'genocide'

News@lemmy.world – 357 points – 1 months ago

WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - A New York City hospital fired a Palestinian American Muslim nurse after she called Israel's war in Gaza a "genocide" during an acceptance speech for an award for her work with bereaved mothers who lost their children during pregnancy and childbirth.

A spokesperson of the hospital, NYU Langone Health, said on Thursday that labor and delivery nurse Hesen Jabr had previously been warned not to bring her views "on this divisive and charged issue into the workplace."

Jabr posted on Instagram that she was awarded on May 7, when she made her remarks, adding that she was handed a termination letter later in the month.

Fired after stating her empathy for the victims of genocide in Gaza, while accepting an award for her professional excellence. I think she might have fairly good grounds to sue.

Not just a Muslim nurse, a Palestinian nurse.

In a portion of her acceptance speech, she spoke about mothers who had lost babies during the war in Gaza, saying the award was "deeply personal" to her.

"It pains me to see the women from my country going through unimaginable losses themselves during the current genocide in Gaza," Jabr said in the video of her speech that she posted online.

The hospital's spokesperson in an email said Jabr had been warned in December, "following a previous incident, not to bring her views on this divisive and charged issue into the workplace.

She commented about the active genocide of her own people, and she was fired for it. Who is the coworker getting mad at someone discussing the genocide of their own people? Some zionist just couldn't take it, had to run off to upper mgmt? And who's the moron in charge who decided to fire their award winning nurse because she's sympathetic to the plight of her own people??

The truth is divisive

"Free speech" rotfl

Yup. From the government. Not your employer.

Free speech as a concept isn't just limited to the government, that's a limitation of the First Amendment.

Free Speech ≠ First Amendment

The employer is within their rights to terminate so long as it's not on the basis of a protected class (gender, religion, age etc.).

I don't agree that stating an opinion should be grounds but I do not believe they violated anything.

Even worse, she's recognized for excellent work performance so you'd think that matters more….but nope.

I didn't realize New York was an "At-Will Employment" state. As a Canadian, it's so weird that NY is one of the most progressive states, yet feels so far behind us (and we, in turn, are so far behind many European countries).

It seems wild how one can be fired. Unless I completely breach my contract and/or steal, I don't think the business can get rid of me, period. Without some form of redundancy and then I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

A lot of people miss that NY is a liberal state, but in the sort of "commercial liberal" way. It's basically the embodiment of old school moderate liberalism. I'm obviously simplifying, but NY is Democratic, but not necessarily progressive.

Right? Sounds like a great place to work. They'll be attracting the best and brightest with PR like this.

Legal =/= Moral

Sure, but it also doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want without consequences?

Neither does Free Speech as defined in the First Amendment. No right is absolute, the question is where's the line?

Broadly there are obviously different lines for various reasons.

I don’t support the decision made in the article, however, if she was told not to talk about it at work by her employer and she chose to do so, she crossed the line of insubordination regardless of the content of her message.

I don't know specifics of New York labour laws, but I know they're much more employee friendly than other states (though that's a pretty low bar to clear). I know some speech is protected, so the content does matter.

Laws selectively enforced. We have Trump supporters threatening violence without repercussions. It’s ludicrous.

That's were the rotfl is, IMHO

We're not talking about concepts here, but about laws. Free speech does not apply in this case.

Despite being named NYU, it is in fact a private university so yeah, no 1A protection there.

That is not what free speech means.

Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.

I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn't an infringement of the first amendment.

You're talking like the First Amendment is the definition of Free Speech, and it's not. I don't know New York law, and I'm not an American, so I can't say if this firing breaks any free speech laws, but it definitely contravenes the concept of free speech.

It's not illegal but being barred from speaking up against Genocide is certainly not a great look.

When Russia invaded Ukraine every workplace was "standing up for justice". Now justice has to sit down and shut up.

Well, that's because supporting Ukraine isn't political, but supporting Gaza is, and we can't have any politics in the workplace! (/s + people use "political" when they actually mean "divisive")

You're right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.

I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don't agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.

If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.

Right, but even the First Amendment has limits, like hate speech and threats of violence. I guess the question is where's the line for private employers. And I don't think calling what's happening in Gaza a genocide (arguably true) is the same as saying anti-vax things (which are almost exclusively lies). They might both be considered "over the line", but one is much closer to that line.