Employer Wins "Cat's Paw" Case

23 August 2010 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

On August 11, 2010, a federal court rejected a terminated employee’s “cat’s paw” argument. Lindsey v. Walgreen Co., No. 10-1036 (7th Cir. August 11, 2010).

Katie Lindsey was 53 years old when she sued her employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A few years after she began her employment, Ms. Lindsey was promoted from staff pharmacist to pharmacy manager by the district pharmacy supervisor. Before long, the company received complaints from Ms. Lindsey’s co-workers, and the same district pharmacy supervisor determined that Ms. Lindsey was not fit to continue in a managerial position. The district pharmacy supervisor then demoted Ms. Lindsey to staff pharmacist, transferred her to another store, and warned her that she would be fired the next time she failed to follow pharmacy procedures. The district pharmacy supervisor later determined that Ms. Lindsey again violated company policy and terminated her employment.

Ms. Lindsey presented several theories of discrimination, including the cat’s paw theory, a term that refers to an unbiased decision-maker who is being used as a tool by a biased employee. Ms. Lindsey argued that the district pharmacy supervisor was a cat’s paw for a co-worker, who she claimed disliked Ms. Lindsey because of her age. Ms. Lindsey insisted that the district pharmacy manager decided to fire her after “blindly relying” on biased information from the co-worker. At her deposition, Ms. Lindsey testified her new co-workers called her “lazy” and “slow” and questioned why the employer repeatedly exiled “old,” “demoted” pharmacists to their store. She also testified the alleged biased co-worker made disparaging remarks about her age and abilities.

The court rejected Ms. Lindsey’s argument because the employer proved that its employment decision was based on an independent evaluation and was not tainted by any alleged bias. This case underscores the importance of appointing a neutral decision-maker to review the basis of termination decisions and thoroughly document the factors that formed the basis of the employment decision (also discussed in the March 1, 2010 Labor and Employment Law Update. Otherwise, the cat’s paw may be the link between the employment action and the biased decision.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.