Reference no: EM131030164

Roger Jacobsen worked for Nightingale International and was paid over $250,000 per year. Nightingale fired Jacobsen for alleged sexual harassment of several workers, including his secretary, Pamela Tang. Jacobsen sued in United States District Court, alleging that Nightingale’s real motive in firing him was his high salary. Nightingale moved for summary judgment, offering deposition transcripts of various employees. Tang’s deposition detailed instances of harassment, including comments about her body, instances of unwelcome touching, and discussion of extramarital affairs. Another deposition, from a Nightingale employee who investigated the allegations, included complaints by other employees as to Jacobsen’s harassment. In his own deposition, which he offered to oppose summary judgment, Jacobsen testified that he could not recall the incidents alleged by Tang and others. He denied generally that he had sexually harassed anyone. He presented no evidence that he was fired due to his salary. The district court granted summary judgment for Nightingale. What is the standard that a court uses to determine whether summary judgment is warranted? Was the court’s ruling in this case correct?