While UAB was found to have discriminated, the overall outcome of the Seema Gupta trial raises serious questions about the fundamental fairness of the U.S. federal court system.
And it also raises serious questions about the ethics of UAB's current administration--and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. The board is the legal entity responsible for all three campuses of the University of Alabama System--and as such, is the primary defendant in most lawsuits involving UA. The Gupta case involved the Birmingham campus, so we will be referring to UAB as the opposing party in her lawsuit. But technically, the primary defendant was the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.
New documents in the court file indicate that UAB, apparently with the support of the trustees, is contesting an award of attorney fees to Seema Gupta. According to our understanding of the law, Gupta is entitled to an award of attorney fees, based on having prevailed on at least one claim of discrimination.
We will be taking a detailed look at the Seema Gupta case in a series of upcoming posts. What will we learn? The central message is this: Based on Seema Gupta's experience, UAB is prone to mistreat international workers from start to finish--in the workplace, in the courtroom, even after the trial is over.
And UAB's hypocrisy is overwhelming. While it treats skilled workers from India in an unlawful and shabby fashion, the university clearly is mindful of certain booming economies around the world--places where money can be made.
In fact, at roughly the exact time Seema Gupta was on the receiving end of a grossly unjust verdict in an Alabama courtroom, articles appeared in the local press about UAB trying to form business relationships with a certain large, South Asian country, one that rivals China for economic growth.
What South Asian country was that? Take a wild guess.
(To be continued)
And it also raises serious questions about the ethics of UAB's current administration--and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. The board is the legal entity responsible for all three campuses of the University of Alabama System--and as such, is the primary defendant in most lawsuits involving UA. The Gupta case involved the Birmingham campus, so we will be referring to UAB as the opposing party in her lawsuit. But technically, the primary defendant was the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.
New documents in the court file indicate that UAB, apparently with the support of the trustees, is contesting an award of attorney fees to Seema Gupta. According to our understanding of the law, Gupta is entitled to an award of attorney fees, based on having prevailed on at least one claim of discrimination.
We will be taking a detailed look at the Seema Gupta case in a series of upcoming posts. What will we learn? The central message is this: Based on Seema Gupta's experience, UAB is prone to mistreat international workers from start to finish--in the workplace, in the courtroom, even after the trial is over.
And UAB's hypocrisy is overwhelming. While it treats skilled workers from India in an unlawful and shabby fashion, the university clearly is mindful of certain booming economies around the world--places where money can be made.
In fact, at roughly the exact time Seema Gupta was on the receiving end of a grossly unjust verdict in an Alabama courtroom, articles appeared in the local press about UAB trying to form business relationships with a certain large, South Asian country, one that rivals China for economic growth.
What South Asian country was that? Take a wild guess.
(To be continued)
1 | 2
