Labor & Employment Law

SCOTUS will review "cat's paw" case

This morning the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in Staub v. Proctor Hospital. [Details, briefs]

The issue in this case:

In what circumstances may an employer be held liable based on the unlawful intent of officials who caused or influenced but did not make the ultimate employment decision?

The facts:

Staub sued the employer, alleging that he was discharged in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Staub prevailed after a jury trial. The 7th Circuit reversed. Staub proceeded under the "cat's paw" theory. Under that theory, the discriminatory animus of a non-decisionmaker is imputed to the decision maker where the former has singular influence over the latter and uses that influence to cause an adverse employment action.

The 7th Circuit held that, prior to admitting evidence of nondecisionmaker animus, a trial court "should determine whether a reasonable jury could find singular influence on the evidence to be presented." The court reasoned, "[a]llowing the jury to entertain the cat's paw theory and decide whether there was singular influence, but only upon a prior determination that there is sufficient evidence for such a finding, is consistent with Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b)." The court concluded that the trial court erred in neglecting to make this primary determination, and found that there existed insufficient evidence of singular influence to allow evidence of nondecisionmaker animus to be presented to the jury.

Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on April 19, 2010 (boomark / email).