Shelton v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey

223 F.3d 220 (2000)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Shelton v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
223 F.3d 220 (2000)

Facts

Yvonne Shelton (plaintiff) was a nurse in the labor and delivery unit at the hospital at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (defendant). The labor and delivery unit did not perform elective abortions, but it did perform emergency procedures that could require terminating a pregnancy. Shelton notified the hospital that she could not participate in any procedure that terminates a pregnancy due to her religious beliefs. The hospital allowed Shelton to trade assignments with other nurses to avoid assisting with procedures that might result in the termination of a pregnancy. On more than one occasion, Shelton refused to assist in emergency cases, causing a delay in care to the patient. The hospital notified Shelton that due to staffing cuts, she would no longer be allowed to trade assignments. The hospital offered Shelton a lateral transfer to a nursing position in the hospital’s newborn intensive care unit. The hospital also asked Shelton to meet with the hospital’s human-resources department to inquire about open nursing positions in other units. Shelton declined the transfer to the newborn intensive care unit because she believed, based on her own research, that infants who were not expected to survive were withheld medical care and allowed to die. The hospital adamantly denied that any infants were withheld medical care. Shelton also failed to apply for other nursing positions because she believed, without speaking to anyone in the human resources-department, that no other positions were available. The hospital terminated Shelton. Shelton filed a lawsuit against the hospital, alleging she was discriminated against based on her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, and Shelton appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scirica, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership