California Labor Law Reviews Discrimination Claims under Cat’s Paw Theory
The cat’s paw theory for proving employment discrimination was solidified in a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Under this theory a plaintiff will be allowed to demonstrate discrimination even though there is no evidence that the acting offender had any discriminatory intentions. The theory hinges on whether there is proof that another employee’s (other than the acting offender) discriminatory intentions influenced the “innocent” “acting offender)” thereby causing the unfavorable employment action to occur.
In Staub v. Proctor, the plaintiff was a medical technician for Proctor while in the Army Reserves. He was required to be present at weekend drill meeting once a month as well as trainings two or three weeks a year. Proctor fired the plaintiff in accordance with a decision by Human Resources. The plaintiff filed a discrimination suit under the USERRA, which forbids discrimination based on military service. Although the plaintiff did not have any proof that Human Resources had a motive to discriminate, the evidence showed that the decision to terminate was not made based on discriminatory reasons. However, Plaintiff disputes that his immediate supervisors were motivated by discriminatory intentions which eventually resulted in Staub’s termination. The basis for the court’s finding was based on the fact that the company had given Staub a false written warning that carried weight in the decision to terminate his employment. The lower courts had originally granted the defendant’s summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that Proctor was granted summary judgment based on the evidence presented, that the final termination conclusion was made by someone with no discriminatory animus who autonomously examined the facts and that the choice wasn’t entirely dependent on the write up issued by Plaintiff’s supervisor.
The decision was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, stating the evidence was adequate to uphold a finding that the choice for termination was proximately caused by the write up, and that there was some substantiation that the written warning was discriminatorily motivated. In addition, the Court held that an employer cannot protect itself from liability simply by suggesting that the ultimate decision maker or acting offender did not discriminate. If there is evidence that the definitive decision maker or acting offender was predisposed by other supervisors who had a discriminatory motive, a plaintiff can demonstrate discrimination based on such a theory.
The Staub judgment is a USERRA case and its interpretation will relate similarly to discrimination suits brought on under cat’s paw theory, Title VII, and alike federal and state statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. Summary judgment in discrimination cases will be much more difficult for employers to obtain since the Staub judgment.
If you believe you may have been discriminated against, inadvertently or otherwise, it’s advisable to consult with a California labor law attorney for review of your situation.
Contact our San Diego office at: (619) 342-1242
Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Andrey_Popov