Abrams v. Baylor College of Medicine
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
581 F. Supp. 1570 (1984)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Lawrence Abrams and Stuart Linde (the Jewish doctors) (plaintiffs) were assistant professors in the Department of Anesthesiology at the Baylor College of Medicine (Baylor) (defendant). In 1977 Baylor entered into an agreement to begin a rotation program with the King Faisal Hospital (King Faisal) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Under the program, Baylor would send cardiovascular-surgery teams, which consisted of surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other operating-room personnel, to King Faisal on a rotating basis. The program required participants to spend three months in Saudi Arabia. Baylor offered high salaries to anesthesiologists as an incentive to participate. An agreement entered into between Baylor and King Faisal contained no criteria or requirements for eligibility. Despite this, several people involved with the program, including Dean Morrow, chairman of the Anesthesiology Department, expressed their belief that it would not be a good idea for Jewish people to participate. This was based on the belief that Saudi Arabia did not want Jewish people in the country and that they might not be safe there. However, Baylor was never told by King Faisal or the Saudi government that Jewish people could not participate or enter the country. No Jewish personnel participated in the King Faisal rotation program. The Jewish doctors, who were interested in and qualified to participate in the program, filed suit against Baylor, alleging discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The case was tried without a jury.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (DeAnda, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.