My old job has banned me from the building but I wasn't fired?

[cbg]

But the resident is NOT the one who hired the OP. An agency hired the OP, and sent him to the resident. The resident did not make the determination or choose the OP.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

every single day, I supply individuals with a patient bill of rights mandated by state and federal. The constitution also gives everyone the right to associate with whom they choose. Simply being a resident in a long term care facility, unless of course it is prison, does not remove these rights. In the past, I have worked with the US DOJ OCR to develop ways for residents to assert these rights. Others on the committee I participated with actually employed testers to insure this right was not being violated.
Sarcasm makes you look like an idiot when you have to idea what you are taking about.

The constitution does not give someone the right to free association on private property. It does give them the right to move to another facility if they want service from a doctor or provider not admitted to practice there. Just as doctors are affiliated with specific hospitals. If you want that doctor to see you, you go to a hospital he is welcome to practice at.

 

[Zigner]

Is someone actually trying to say that one can trespass on another's property (after being told they do not have permission) just because they happen to work for someone that is allowed on the property?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Is someone actually trying to say that one can trespass on another's property (after being told they do not have permission) just because they happen to work for someone that is allowed on the property?

Is someone actually saying a person living in their home can't have personal care attendants if the owner of the building prohibits it?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

The constitution does not give someone the right to free association on private property. It does give them the right to move to another facility if they want service from a doctor or provider not admitted to practice there. Just as doctors are affiliated with specific hospitals. If you want that doctor to see you, you go to a hospital he is welcome to practice at.

In this case, the person lives there and does have the right to hire a personal care attendant. Section 504 of the rehabilitation act. So it is private property, but OP is employed by a resident.

 

[cbg]

No. The OP is not employed by a resident. The OP is employed by an agency. He was quite clear about that.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

No. The OP is not employed by a resident. The OP is employed by an agency. He was quite clear about that.

And how does that make a difference?

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

No. The OP is not employed by a resident. The OP is employed by an agency. He was quite clear about that.

And how does that make a difference?
From findlaw: nursing home residents have the right to see family members, omduspersonas or other resident advocates, physicians, service providers, and representatives of the state and federal government.

If you disagree, cite a law that superseeds the resident's right or sit down and back away from the keyboard.

 

[cbg]

You're the one who's insisting that he can't be banned from the building because it would infringe on the rights of the resident. But he is not employed by the resident. The agency can send someone else to the resident, who will no be harmed by the OP's absence and who did not choose the OP. The resident is not harmed by the OP's being banned from the building, and his rights are not infringed on since he hired the agency, not the OP.

 

[Zigner]

I have a free speech right.
The law restricts me from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
Has my free speech right been violated?

 

[You Are Guilty]

every single day, I supply individuals with a patient bill of rights mandated by state and federal. The constitution also gives everyone the right to associate with whom they choose. Simply being a resident in a long term care facility, unless of course it is prison, does not remove these rights. In the past, I have worked with the US DOJ OCR to develop ways for residents to assert these rights. Others on the committee I participated with actually employed testers to insure this right was not being violated.
Sarcasm makes you look like an idiot when you have to idea what you are taking about.

Contrary to popular belief, I take no glee in pointing out people's mistakes. Unlike some (many?) people here, I just care about getting the answers correct.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the purported statutory support for your contention that a privately owned facility cannot ban someone from their property merely because it happens to provides health care services.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/sec504.htm

Section 794. Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs; promulgation of rules and regulations

(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Development Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulations shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date of which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.

So, let's assume (without any proof), that the facility receives Federal funds and is subject to this statute. Let's further assume that the resident has a qualifying "disability". Please point out where this section gives a nursing home resident the "right to employ" their aides over the objection of the property owner.

Sarcasm or not, you are still wrong.

 

[CdwJava]

The simple answer would seem to be: Yes, the employer can ban the OP from the building. He has been told not to return. If he returns, he can be subject to arrest for trespassing.

The "client" can choose to sue the facility over their refusal to permit the OP into the building to service them. Whether they would win or not is an issue that I'll let a court decide ... should it ever get into a court. If such a right exists that says a patient has a right to choose a provider overrides the desires of the property management, then it is not the OP's to enforce - it would be the client's.

On a note, we have a retirement facility where they have even banned family. Why? In some cases family, friends, visitors, etc. have been SUSPECTED of everything from dealing in drugs to disrupting care and banned by the facility management. They were not fired or charged with a crime yet they have been banned against the patient's desires. The facility has an obligation to ALL its patients. Frankly, if the patient wants to see those family members and friends, they can go to another facility. The facility does not have an obligation to put others at risk just so one patient might have the visitor (or, in this scenario, a caregiver) of their choosing. I suspect the facility has the right to say "no" to the OP. If the OP's client dislikes it, he or she can deal with management on the issue.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Contrary to popular belief, I take no glee in pointing out people's mistakes. Unlike some (many?) people here, I just care about getting the answers correct.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the purported statutory support for your contention that a privately owned facility cannot ban someone from their property merely because it happens to provides health care services.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/sec504.htm

So, let's assume (without any proof), that the facility receives Federal funds and is subject to this statute. Let's further assume that the resident has a qualifying "disability". Please point out where this section gives a nursing home resident the "right to employ" their aides over the objection of the property owner.

Sarcasm or not, you are still wrong.

What proof do you have that I am wrong? I asked for a cite backing your position. You didn't provide one.

I have sat in meetings with the assistant deputy US AG when this question was brought up by lawyers for an advocacy organization in Witchita. You are wrong.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

Contrary to popular belief, I take no glee in pointing out people's mistakes. Unlike some (many?) people here, I just care about getting the answers correct.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the purported statutory support for your contention that a privately owned facility cannot ban someone from their property merely because it happens to provides health care services.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/sec504.htm

So, let's assume (without any proof), that the facility receives Federal funds and is subject to this statute. Let's further assume that the resident has a qualifying "disability". Please point out where this section gives a nursing home resident the "right to employ" their aides over the objection of the property owner.

Sarcasm or not, you are still wrong.

When you assumed, you made an a__ of yourself. No sarcasm intended.

See also state laws and regulations. http://dhi.health.state.nm.us/eLibrary/hflcregs/07.009.0002.pdf

 

[You Are Guilty]

Having a meeting with someone is great, but doesn't mean a thing. ADAs, AUSAs, and AGs are wrong all the time. Discrimination has nothing to do with this issue and why you keep going back to that, I do not know. As long as the facility treats all residents the same, there is no discrimination claim.

As for your other link, the while I don't have time to read all 50 pages, the closest thing I could find was that a resident can use whatever registered health care provider they want (7.9.2.22(N)), or "reasonable" access by various other people (7.9.2.22(B)). Neither says they override the landowner's common law right to control access to their property.

If you still need "proof" that that right actually exists, try a Property Hornbook (available online or at any law school bookstore), or, given my limited access to the internet from my ipad, see Kaiser Aetna v. US which is admittedly not on point but does contain "proof" (from the SCOTUS) that common law property rights exist, which for some odd reason, seems to be a disputed issue here.

... one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property—the right to exclude others.

In this case, we hold that the "right to exclude," so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right,falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation.

So, you know, bricks, glass houses, all that.