Question

BUSINESS LAW CASE ANALYSIS.

Morales-Cruz v. University of Puerto Rico

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 676 F.3d 220 (2012).

Background and Facts

In 2003, Myrta Morales-Cruz began a tenure-track teaching position at the University of Puerto Rico School of Law. During Morales-Cruz’s probationary period, one of her co-teachers in a law school clinic had an affair with one of their students, and it resulted in a pregnancy. In 2008, Morales-Cruz wanted the university’s administrative committee to approve a one-year extension for her tenure review. The law school’s dean asked Morales-Cruz about her co-teacher's affair and criticized her for failing to report it. 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, in regard to the co-teacher's affair, had personality flaws, and had trouble with complex and sensitive situations.

Morales-Cruz learned about these comments and complained in writing to the university’s chancellor. As a result, the dean then recommended denying the one-year extension, and the administrative committee ultimately did just that. 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. The district court found that Morales-Cruz had not stated a proper retaliation claim under Title VII.

In the Words of the Court …

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

* * * *

The amended complaint alleges that various officials described the plaintiff as “fragile,” “immature,” “unable to handle complex and sensitive issues,” * * * and exhibiting “lack of judgment.” These descriptors are admittedly unflattering—but they are without exception gender-neutral. All of them apply equally to persons of either gender * * * .

* * * *

* * * Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to take materially adverse action against an employee “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.” To state a cause of action under this portion of the statute, the pleading must contain plausible allegations indicating that the plaintiff opposed a practice prohibited by Title VII and suffered an adverse employment action as a result of that opposition. [Emphasis added.]

The plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against for writing to the Chancellor to complain about the “discriminatory” comments made in the course of her request for an extension. In support of this allegation, she points out that after she sent her letter the Dean reversed his position on her extension. This construct suffers from a fatal flaw: her factual allegations do not support a reasonable inference that she was engaging in protected conduct when she opposed the remarks made.

* * * The facts alleged * * * provide no reasonable basis for inferring that the comments cited reflected gender-based discrimination. Those comments were unarguably gender-neutral and do not afford an objectively reasonable foundation for a retaliation action.

Decision and Remedy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Morales-Cruz could not bring a retaliation claim under Title VII. It therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment for the University of Puerto Rico.

The Ethical Dimension

Could Morales-Cruz’s dean have had legitimate reasons for changing his mind about the one-year extension? If so, what might they have been?

The Legal Environment Dimension

What steps should employers take to reduce the likelihood that supervisors will retaliate against employees who make or support discrimination claims?

Harassment by Co-Workers and Nonemployees

When the harassment of co-workers, rather than supervisors, creates a hostile working environment, an employee may still have a cause of action against the employer. Normally, though, the employer will be held liable only if the employer knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to take immediate remedial action.

Occasionally, a court may also hold an employer liable for harassment by nonemployees if the employer knew about the harassment and failed to take corrective action.

1. What is the legal issue of the case?

2. How did the court decide on the issues?

3. What reasoning did the court use to substantiate their findings?

4. Do you agree or disagree with how the finding by the court in this matter? and why?

Answer 1

1. The legal issues of the case is that the Myrta Morales-Cruz was on the probation period in the University and wants the extension for one more year. But as she didn’t oppose her co-teacher's affair she was phased comments like insecure, immature, and fragile. She feels that she has been commented because of gender. Then she complains about this to the Vice chancellor of the university in written about the issue. She found that her employability recommendation was denied. She sues the university under title VII.

2. The court decided the there is no discrimination from the words which has been used for the comment by the employer as insecure, immature, and fragile. These words can be used for either of the gender.

3. The court uses the following reasoning as the words used of the comments by the employer whether gender biased. This was found out that they are neutral.

4. I am agreed with the court findings in this matter because the employee Myrta Morales-Cruz was commented on the basis of her behaviors towards the unfair activities going beside her. As the employee of the university is also responsible for the good conduct in the university. Hence, the employer had made the comments that she is “fragile,” “immature,” “unable to handle complex and sensitive issues,” and exhibiting “lack of judgment.” This is true she didn’t handled the situation properly.