Client Alert - Employment Law Update
United States Supreme Court Embraces Expanded Theory of Liability in Employment Discrimination Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that employers can be liable for discrimination based on a "Cat's Paw" theory of liability. The decision gives employees additional grounds for asserting discrimination, and presents new challenges for employers.
The case of Staub v. Proctor Hospital, No. 09-400 (March 1, 2011) began when Proctor Hospital received complaints about Vincent Staub from his supervisors. After reviewing Staub's personnel file, which included five additional complaints from other individuals about his job performance and attitude, the hospital terminated him. Staub filed suit under a law prohibiting employment discrimination against individuals based on military status. He claimed that his immediate supervisors had provided false information against him because they wanted him fired due to his military service. He did not allege that his former HR manager, who ultimately decided to terminate him, was motivated by an anti-military prejudice.
The "Cat's Paw" and the Supreme Court's Decision
Under the "Cat's Paw" theory, an employer can be liable for discrimination where a supervisor that is motivated by unlawful discriminatory reasons influences, but does not actually make, an employment decision.
After a jury found in Staub's favor, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the verdict, finding that the "Cat's Paw" only applied if a non-decision making supervisor exercised "singular influence" over the decision maker. However, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the appeal. It concluded that the "Cat's Paw" theory applies where: (1) any supervisor performs an act motivated by anti-military animus; (2) the supervisor intended to cause an adverse employment action; and (3) the act is the proximate cause of the employment action.
Importantly, the Supreme Court specifically noted that relevant portions of the law at issue were "very similar" to Title VII. Because Title VII governs discrimination based upon race, sex, national origin, age, and other protected characteristics, claimants are certain to raise this theory in practically all types of discrimination cases.
What to do
Employers should always conduct thorough investigations when disciplinary or termination decisions are being made. However, this case places new emphasis on independently establishing a supervisor's version of the facts when possible. In addition, any claim by employees of bias by their supervisors must also be investigated. Lastly, employers should consider updating complaint procedures to address claims by employees of bias by their supervisors, which may help limit liability in these types of cases.
If you would like more information about this decision, or have questions about your employment policies and practices in general, please contact Mr. Gonzalez at 312-558-9779 or at egonzalez@elvisgonzalezltd.com.
|
|