The case is:
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar:
Naiel NASSAR, MD, Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant–Appellant/Cross–Appellee.
v.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant–Appellant/Cross–Appellee.
Retaliation
[5] 
The required proof for a Title VII retaliation claim is less demanding
than constructive discharge. “It goes without saying that, when a
race-discrimination claim has been fully tried, as has this one, this
court need not parse the evidence into discrete segments corresponding
to a prima facie case, an articulation of a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the employer's decision, and a showing of
pretext.”
DeCorte v. Jordan.FN14
Our review is instead “to determine only whether the record contains
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have made its ultimate
finding that [the employer's] stated reason for [taking adverse
employment action against the employee] was pretext or that, while true,
was only one reason for their being fired, and race was another
motivating factor.”FN15
The required proof for a Title VII retaliation claim is less demanding
than constructive discharge. “It goes without saying that, when a
race-discrimination claim has been fully tried, as has this one, this
court need not parse the evidence into discrete segments corresponding
to a prima facie case, an articulation of a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the employer's decision, and a showing of
pretext.”
DeCorte v. Jordan.FN14
Our review is instead “to determine only whether the record contains
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have made its ultimate
finding that [the employer's] stated reason for [taking adverse
employment action against the employee] was pretext or that, while true,
was only one reason for their being fired, and race was another
motivating factor.”FN15FN14. 497 F.3d 433, 437–38 (5th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
FN15. Id. at 438.
[6]
Nassar's claim is that Fitz blocked his move to become a Parkland staff
physician because he complained about harassment by Levine. UTSW has
argued here and at trial that Fitz thwarted Nassar's prospective
employment at Parkland as a routine application of UTSW's rights under
the UTSW–Parkland affiliation agreement. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the jury's verdict, Nassar offered sufficient
proof that Fitz invoked UTSW's putative rights under the agreement in
order to punish Nassar for his complaints about Levine. Keiser
testified that Fitz told him that Nassar's complaints in the resignation
letter were his reason for blocking the Parkland position. UTSW put
on testimony indicating that Fitz made his decision before the letter
and that he regarded the matter as a routine application of the
agreement. The jury considered both parties' evidence and resolved the
conflict against UTSW. Since “[c]redibility determinations, the
weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from
the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge,” we find no basis to
upset the jury's verdict that UTSW retaliated against Nassar because of
his complaints of racial discrimination.
Nassar's claim is that Fitz blocked his move to become a Parkland staff
physician because he complained about harassment by Levine. UTSW has
argued here and at trial that Fitz thwarted Nassar's prospective
employment at Parkland as a routine application of UTSW's rights under
the UTSW–Parkland affiliation agreement. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the jury's verdict, Nassar offered sufficient
proof that Fitz invoked UTSW's putative rights under the agreement in
order to punish Nassar for his complaints about Levine. Keiser
testified that Fitz told him that Nassar's complaints in the resignation
letter were his reason for blocking the Parkland position. UTSW put
on testimony indicating that Fitz made his decision before the letter
and that he regarded the matter as a routine application of the
agreement. The jury considered both parties' evidence and resolved the
conflict against UTSW. Since “[c]redibility determinations, the
weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from
the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge,” we find no basis to
upset the jury's verdict that UTSW retaliated against Nassar because of
his complaints of racial discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment