Sample HR Management Essay Paper on Employee Discrimination

Employee Discrimination

            Despite the fight for equal treatment of all workers employee discrimination still exists in the workplace environment. This paper analyzes employee discrimination with reference to the case of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Dr. Naiel Nassar the plaintiff in the case was an Egyptian born Muslim who worked as a doctor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Dr. Nassar was harassed and discriminated by his supervisor Dr. Beth Levine which made his working environment hostile (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, n.d). Later in 2006, Dr. Nassar left work alleging that Dr. Levine discriminated him on basis of race giving him a hard time to carry out his daily activities (Maslanka, 2013). The Parkland Hospital had offered Dr. Nassar a job but after his resignation, the University of Texas instructed the Parkland Hospital to withdraw their offer towards Dr. Nassar. Thereafter, Dr. Nassar filed a case of retaliation against the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.  

            Dr. Nassar’s case was dealt with in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids work prejudice in terms of religion, color, race, gender, as well as nationality of an individual in the workplace. Title VII employment law is applicable employers with 15 employees and above; national, state, and local administrations are also under this act. Both public and private sectors such as hospitals, colleges, employment agencies, and labor institutions are also under this law (Blake, 2014). This employment law was amended due to increased discrimination in the workplace; Title VII law was meant to bridge the inequality gap and facilitate equality by ensuring that no one was discriminated in the workplace environment. The law also made it illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for reporting an act of discrimination, for filling a case against discrimination, or for participating in employment discrimination proceedings or investigation.

            Dr. Nassar was given back his disburse and compensated his damage by a jury who found out that the University of Texas had requited against him. The University of Texas had to compensate Dr. Nassar for the damages caused which led him to resign from work and also for interfering with his employment offer at the Parkland Hospital. The case caused a negative attitude towards the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center as people started viewing the organization as a racist one. Due to discrimination of one of its employees, the University Hospital got a bad name and this made people avoid the hospital. The non-Americans felt discriminated and avoided the hospital; discriminating Dr. Nassar to them meant discriminating all non-Americans. The hospital got negative reviews due to the case and was on spotlight leading to loss of clients especially from of diverse race.

            To prevent the discrimination claim the organization should have questioned Dr. Nassar why he was resigning because no one wakes up and decides to quit their job; there must be serious reasons for quitting. First, the organization management should have held a brief meeting with Dr. Nassar and listen to why he made the decision of quitting the job despite being a competent doctor. Then they take his claims serious about being discriminated by his Supervisor Dr. Levine whereby Dr. Levine will also be questioned as to why he was creating a hostile environment for Dr. Nassar despite him being a capable doctor. Thereafter disciplinary actions should be taken by the organization towards Dr. Levine who should also apologize to Dr. Nassar. The management should also urge Dr. Nassar to continue with his at work; if he still insists on resigning and joining Parkland Hospital who had offered him a job then the organization should let him go and take the job offer without meddling with the Parklands Hospital decisions. If the University of Texas did this then Dr. Nassar could not have filled a case against them which tarnished their name.


Blake, D. (2014). Tortifying Retaliation: Protected Activity at the Intersection of Fault, Duty,


Maslanka, M. (2013). But-for and mixed-motive causation squaring off in U.S. Supreme Court case Nassar v. UT Southwestern Medical Center.

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. (n.d.). Oyez. Accessed May 18, 2019.