I did some research on this question and I found that what my IT department is said is essentially correct, Linux is way more vulnerable than Windows to a power outage. The reason why is how the inode table works in Linux/unix. Since it is an unordered list and is constantly being modified, there is no separation between important, static files like kernel binaries, and worthless files like temporary files. What this means is that the inode entries to critical system files are constantly being re-written, a very bad design obviously. In fact, critical system files are actually more likely to be having their inode entries be written at any given time than non-essential files. When power goes out it tends to blow away whatever part of the inode table was being written, which likely as not contains pointers to system files. The system files themselves are fine and intact, but the directory to find them is damaged. The situation is made worse by disk caching which has the effect of increasing the size of the damaged areas of the inode table.
In Windows, even the old FAT file system is way more robust than this. FAT has a table too, but it is an ordered table, so it does not have system files mixed up with temporary files. Usually the system files are in one area of the directory all together and this area is unlikely to be written very often. Also, FAT has a backup directory, so even if the directory is corrupted, it just reverts to the backup. This means that with FAT the user is unlikely to lose any file links in the event of a power failure, even temporary files. With Linux, however, since the inode table is constantly being written, the user is virtually guaranteed to lose access to files in a power failure.
The only thing that can be done to mitigate this is to turn off disk caching.
As evidence that linux systems often die on power outages, you can simply do web searches and bring up hundreds of hits like these:
etc. These are all recent posts, so I am sure none of them are using old technology like ext2.