CASE ASSESSMENT

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER v. NASSAR

Complaints

The plaintiff, Dr. Naiel Nassar from the Middle East, started working at Amelia Court Clinic

after being hired by the University of Texas South-western Medical Center (UTSW) in 1995.

In 2001, he returned from a training and returned to work under Dr. Philip Keiser in UTSW.

Beth Levine, the supervisor of Philip Keiser, started performing productivity and billing

performance evaluations of the plaintiff 1. Dr. Levine also made the comment about a Middle

Easter candidate that “Middle Easters are Lazy.” The plaintiff was informed regarding these

comments by the supervisor Dr. Keiser. It was also brought to the attention of the plaintiff

that Dr. Levine had conducted more productivity evaluations on him than on any other

doctor. The promotion request made by plaintiff in 2006 was also rejected by the UTSW

faculty after which, the plaintiff left the university citing “unhealthy working environment”

and Levine’s discrimination/harassment as the reason for his resignation. 1 Upon applying to

the Amelia Court Clinic after his resignation, the plaintiff faced severe opposition from

UTSW faculty under their agreement with the clinic regarding the hiring of faculty doctors

from the University.

In light of these events, the plaintiff sued UTSW under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 for retaliating and discharging against him. He complained that Dr. Levine

discriminated against him due to his national background. 1 The plaintiff also filed against the

harassment and hostile work environment, as evident from his resignation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The complaints made by the plaintiff demonstrate that his employer treated him unfairly

based on his ethnicity. Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any kind of

discrimination against race, color, gender, religion, and national origin at workplace is illegal.
2
Since the plaintiff was deprived of his rightful promotion request based on the above-
mentioned factors, the Title VII holds the defendant responsible for unlawful employment

practice. 2 Dr. Levine not only segregated the plaintiff and other candidates for their national
2
origin, but also deprived the plaintiff of employment opportunities and privileges

(promotion).

Final Court Decision

Against the claim made by the plaintiff, UTSW argued by stressing on the meaning of
3
“because” in the Title VII. The defendant contended that the use of the word “because”

demonstrates exclusivity, which means that the plaintiff need to prove that the only
3
motivation for negative action from the employer was retaliation. The defendant also

claimed that the plaintiff must prove that a causation relationship “but for” exists between the
3
discriminatory motive of the supervisor and the alleged harm done to the plaintiff.

Moreover, the defendant also argued that the Title VII does not incorporate any allegations of

retaliation against the employers and only pertains to discrimination.

To counter the claims of the defendants, the plaintiff argued that both discrimination and

retaliation are closely related and are brought up by many plaintiffs in discrimination-based

lawsuits. Dr. Nassar also cited the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC’s)

compliance manual amendments. He claimed that the EEOC amendments could be applied to

both the discriminatory and retaliation allegations 3 against the defendant.

The court held that a causal relationship between the alleged transgression and the sustained

harm should be presented. This causation standard demonstrates that action can only result in
3
an event if it the event would not have occurred in the absence of that action. Since

Congress does not include any provision in the retaliation clause that negates the above

assertion, it can be concluded that the Congress supports the causation standard. The court

decided that the plaintiff should corroborate the “but-for” causation in order to prove the
retaliation claims under Title VII. 3 The Court of Appeals established that the plaintiff did not

provide enough evidence to support the constructive discharge allegations. The District Court

had initially decreased the compensatory damages to $300,000; however, the Court of

Appeals reversed this decision based on the above assertion. 3 The Fifth Circuit established

that under the provisions of Section 2000e-2(m) 3, the definition of motivating factors, which

result in unlawful employment conduct based on sex, color, race, nationality, or religion, does

not incorporate the retaliation claims. The court established that the plaintiff should prove

that the decision of the employer was not influenced by any other motive except for the

claimed allegation. 3 The reason for the decision can be understood by the fact that relaxing

the causation standard in Title VII could lead to several dismissive claims that could

deteriorate the potential of the workers, as well as that of the courts, to work efficiently. 3

Relationship between Title VII and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an illegal employment action to distinguish

employees based on their race, ethnic, nationality, religion, or sex. EEOC on the other hand is

responsible for enforcing several acts and laws that prohibit harassment and discrimination in

the workplace 4. Title VII is one of the several acts that are enforced by EEOC. 4 These acts

include the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title I of the

Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA), Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and Title II of The

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) 4.

Under the Title VII law imposed by EEOC, employers are not permitted to discriminate

against the employees regarding any of the aforementioned cases. Moreover, EEOC also

prohibits employers to retaliate against their employee based on the discrimination, if the

person has complained or filed a lawsuit against the discriminatory behavior. The law also
makes it compulsory for the employer to make reasonable accommodations for the religious

beliefs of both the applicants and employees. In the above case, a striking correlation between

the circumstance of the plaintiff and that of the EEOC can be seen. 4 The reason why plaintiff

brought the EEOC forward was due to his claim regarding discrimination-based retaliation.

References

1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Oyez.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-484. Published 2013. Accessed October 10,

2020.

2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. Eeoc.gov. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964.

Published 2020. Accessed October 10, 2020.

3. UNIVERSITY OF TEX. SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER v. NASSAR.

LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-

484. Published 2020. Accessed October 10, 2020.

4. What Laws Does EEOC Enforce? | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. Eeoc.gov. https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/what-laws-does-eeoc-enforce.

Published 2020. Accessed October 10, 2020.