Words: 434
Levine made several lewd and derogatory comments concerning Mansard’s Middle Eastern descent. Kisser in turn relayed hose remarks to Dry. Nassau and highlighted the fact that Dry. Levine deemed his quality of work in an unjust manner. Dry. Levine later approached Nassau personally to inform him that there were individuals within the division that sought to prevent his promotion. Upon further investigation Nassau discovered that these claims were indeed false. Despite these actions Nassau was later promoted and immediately requested to be put under new supervision.
In his efforts, Nassau discussed these concerns with Dry. Fit, chief of the Internal Medicine department and Olivine’s supervisor, at which point the two examined further options. Dry. Fit later offered Nassau a direct position with Parkland Hospital contingent upon his separation as it was against university policy to accept such employment. Nassau resigned as a faculty member citing grounds of discrimination, harassment, and unjust practices by the university. Right before Mansard’s scheduled date of hire Dry. Fit rescinded his offer indefinitely.
Nassau sued The University of Texas stating that this denial was in actuality a retaliation of his discrimination claims. Ruling and Analysis The U. S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 four in favor of The University of Southwestern Medical Center, overturning a previous verdict that had awarded Nassau compensatory damages. Although initial evidence presented facts of retaliation, deemed illegal of businesses and employers under Title XVII, the court cited a “but-for causation” which states that an individual’s injury must not be the result of the defendants negligence (law. Ornery. Du, 2013). Furthermore, the court found that defendant’s lack of employment would not have occurred if he had not resigned from the university before securing another position. The ruling proved to be one derived of great dissent as the justices of the court mound themselves in great disagreement. The decision was quickly scrutinized in relation to the application of the law of causation. One side believed that there must be an unquestionable link between the injury incurred and the fallacious act alleged.
The other half believed that such a ruling places stricter levels of proof on retaliation cases that are not present on discrimination cases under the same clause. In the end it was the inability to prove that the injury sustained by the defendant would not have occurred without the allegation in question (law. Cornell. Du, 2013). Although there is great controversy surrounding this case, I must say that I disagree with the ruling primarily due to the malicious intent that was clearly conveyed by the organization.