Supreme Court's "Cat's Paw" Ruling Again Increases Employer Liability
The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with an employee who was fired - at least in significant part -- because of his obligation to perform military service. The case involved the "cat's paw" principle that allows liability to spread to parties who don't appear to have discriminatory intent but are influenced by others who do (see right-hand box).
Facts of the case: Vincent Staub was an angiography technician employed at Proctor Hospital in Peoria, Illinois, and was also a member of the U.S. Army Reserve. This required him to attend drill one weekend a month and to train full time for two to three weeks a year. Staub's immediate supervisor (Janice Mulally) and her supervisor (Michael Korenchuk) were "hostile" about
|
The "Cat's Paw" Doctrine: What it Means for Employers "Cat's paw" is a term derived from a 1679 French fable (La Fontaine's "The Monkey The lesson of the story in employment claims: One unscrupulous person uses a second person to unwittingly do what the first person wants. In other words, a supervisor with a biased intent can trick (or unduly influence) an unbiased decision-maker to take an illegal action against an employee. In the Supreme Court case described in this article, it was noted that the hospital employee brought a cat's paw case, "meaning that he sought to hold his employer liable for the animus of a supervisor who was not charged with making the ultimate employment decision." |
|
Employer Obligations Under USERRA |
|
The Supreme Court, in the Staub v. Proctor Hospital decision, cites two relevant parts of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act as follows:
|
and the Cat."). In the story, a monkey induces a cat to extract roasting chestnuts from a fire. The cat does so, burning its paws in the process. The monkey takes off with the chestnuts and leaves the cat with nothing. Staub's military obligations, according to the Supreme Court.
Staub's immediate supervisor, Mulally, scheduled him for additional shifts without notice so that he would, "pa[y] back the department for everyone else having to bend over backwards to cover [his] schedule for the Reserves," the High Court states.
Supervisor Korenchuk referred to Staub's military obligations as a bunch of smoking and joking and a waste of taxpayers' money.
According to the court's recapping of the record, immediate supervisor Mulally issued Staub a "Corrective Action" disciplinary warning because he purportedly violated a company rule requiring him to stay in his work area when he was not working with a patient. Staub disputed the existence of such a rule and argued that even if it did exist, he did not violate it.
Two months later, Proctor Hospital's chief operating officer directed supervisor Korenchuk and Linda Buck (the hospital's vice president of human resources) to create a plan that would solve Staub's "availability problems." Korenchuk informed Buck that Staub had violated the Corrective Action by leaving his desk without informing a supervisor. Buck relied on this accusation, reviewed Staub's personnel file, and decided to fire him.
Staub claimed Mulally fabricated the allegation of violating the Corrective Action out of hostility toward his military obligations. Staub sued Proctor Hospital under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). He didn't contend that Buck had any hostility toward him. He contended that supervisors Mulally and Korenchuk were hostile toward him "and that their actions influenced Buck's ultimate employment decision."
The court noted that a "jury found that Staub's 'military status was a motivating factor in [Proctor's] decision to discharge him." Even though the person who ultimately fired him wasn't discriminating against him, she was influenced in a "cat's paw" way.
Decision favors employee. The court concluded in favor of Staub's assertions, stating:
"There was also evidence that their [the supervisors'] actions were motivated by hostility toward Staub's military obligations, and that those actions were causal factors underlying Buck's decision. Finally, there was evidence that both Mulally and Korenchuk had the specific intent to cause Staub's termination." Thus, "The employer [in this case, Proctor Hospital] is at fault because one of its agents committed an action based on discriminatory animus [intent to do wrong] that was intended to cause, and did in fact, cause, an adverse employment decision."
Four Ways to Help "De-Claw" the "Cat's Paw" Threat
Here are some steps your business can take to help protect it from liability:
1. Be aware that the "Cat's Paw" doctrine can apply in other types of illegal employment discrimination actions. The court pointed out that the USERRA employee protections are "very similar" to other laws.In addition to rights under USERRA, federal (and possibly state and local) laws protect employees and job applicants against:
- Discrimination or harassment because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information.
- Denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation that an employee needs because of religious beliefs or disability.
- Retaliation because the employee complained about job discrimination, or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
Therefore, expect courts in the future to apply the "Cat's Paw" decision to similar cases growing out of such laws as Title VII (the civil rights law) and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
2. Do thorough investigations and reviews of all pertinent circumstances and issues before making a disciplinary and/or a firing decision. This will ensure that the decision is not influenced by or motivated by illegal intent or illegal actions by persons who represent the employer. The court's decision stated that "if the employer's investigation results in an adverse action for reasons unrelated to the supervisor's original biased action... then the employer will not be liable."
3. Regularly - at least annually - train managers and supervisors about their obligations under various civil rights and equal employment laws, and the proper way to document their employment-related decisions.
4. Consult with your employment law attorney for guidance in manager-supervisor training and in investigations.
What NOT to Do
What happened to the employee in the Supreme Court Staub v. Proctor Hospital decision is a clear example for employers of how NOT to deal with staff members. From this case and the court's decision, here's what you can learn about handling personnel decisions:
- Don't set up an employee for failure to create a pretext for disciplining or terminating the employee.
- Don't enforce a "rule" that is arbitrary and that has not previously been communicated to all employees.
- Don't hound, discipline, or fire an employee in ways that violate the employee's legal rights. In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the employee's violated rights were protected under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. But as described above, employees have legal protections under other laws.
To protect your company, make sure that supervisors' recommendations and decisions are well supported and documented. Consult with your attorney if you need guidance in your situation.
[NOTE: Information and guidance in this article is intended to provide interesting and helpful information on the subjects covered. It is not intended to provide a legal service for readers' individual needs. For legal guidance in your specific situations, always consult with an attorney who is familiar with employment law and labor issues.]
Tags: 
