Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 16

Morales-Cruz v. University of Puerto Rico
FACTS In 2003, Myrta Morales-Cruz began a tenure-track teaching position at the University of Puerto Rico School of Law. During her probationary period, one of her colleagues in a law school clinic had an affair with a student that resulted in a pregnancy. In 2008, Morales-Cruz asked the university's administrative committee to approve a one-year extension for her tenure review. The law school's dean criticized Morales- Cruz for failing to report her colleague's affair. He later recommended granting the extension but called Morales-Cruz "insecure," "immature," and "fragile." Similarly, a law school committee recommended granting the extension, but a dissenting professor commented that Morales-Cruz had shown poor judgment, had "personality flaws," and had trouble with "complex and sensitive" situations.
Morales-Cruz soon learned about the negative comments and complained in writing to the university's chancellor. The dean then recommended denying the one-year extension, and the administrative committee ultimately did so. When her employment was terminated, Morales-Cruz sued the university under Title VII. Among other things, she asserted that the dean had retaliated against her for complaining to the chancellor. A federal district court found that Morales-Cruz had not stated a proper retaliation claim under Title VII, and she appealed.
ISSUE Can Morales-Cruz bring a retaliation claim under Title VII based on her assertion that the law school's dean had retaliated against her for complaining to the university's chancellor?
DECISION No. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment for the University of Puerto Rico.
REASON Under Title VII, an employer may not retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed a practice prohibited by Title VII. In this case, Morales-Cruz argued that the dean recommended against the one-year extension because she had complained about "discriminatory" comments. The court found that Morales-Cruz did not allege any facts that could be construed as gender-based discrimination. While the comments were hardly flattering, they were entirely genderneutral. After all, the dean and dissenting professor said only that Morales-Cruz had shown poor judgment, had personality flaws, and was fragile, insecure, and immature. Thus, even if the dean retaliated against Morales-Cruz, it was not for engaging in conduct protected by Title VII.
CRITICAL THINKING-Ethical Consideration Could the dean have had legitimate reasons for changing his mind about the one-year extension? If so, what might they have been?