Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services

Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to expand the boundaries of our knowledge by exploring some relevant information relating to the case study analysis of Bruff v. North Mississippi Health Services, Inc. In this paper, the author will explain how ethical practice may be guided by the results of this case. Author's personal opinion will also be added to clarify the issue discussed in the case; however, ethics will be kept at the forefront of the discourse.

Case Analysis

This case is related to the phenomenon of Undue Hardship. Undue hardship determines the limit beyond which employers and service providers are not required to take any action. There is usually hardship where an employer or service provider cannot absorb the costs of adaptation measures. There is no formula for deciding what costs constitute an undue hardship and there is no legal definition of precise "undue hardship." However, it must be remembered that the "undue hardship" implies that some constraints may be linked to the obligation to make an accommodation. Employers and service providers are required to exhaust all reasonable possibilities of adaptation before claiming undue hardship (Goldsmith, 2012).

It is not enough to rely on subjective assumptions or conclusions to determine what is or what is not possible and you cannot just say, "It's too expensive to take a position "or" the measure of adaptation raises issues". To prove undue hardship, the concerned people must provide supporting evidence (Castro, 1999).

However, the court has taken the right decision to constitute the matter as Undue hardship provided if Bruff declines to counsel on particular subjects. The medical center has provided enough evidence to prove that the arguments made by Bruff have no objectivity. The Medical Center argued that it could not accommodate Bruff in her ...