Cat’s Paw, Part II: “Termination Review” by Independent Decision Makers Can Break the Causal Chain

6 October 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Last week, we wrote about the “Cat’s Paw” theory of liability —where a person is used unwittingly to accomplish another person’s discriminatory purpose in the workplace. A common example would be when a racist employee unfairly “frames” a black employee and a supervisor then disciplines the black employee based on information provided by the racist employee, thereby discriminating on account of race without knowing that the discipline ultimately arises from an unlawful racial animus. Under a cat’s-paw theory of recovery (also known as “subordinate bias” or “rubber stamp” theory), an employer who acts without discriminatory intent can be liable for a subordinate’s discriminatory animus if the employer uncritically relies on the biased subordinate’s reports and recommendations in deciding to take adverse employment action.

Last week, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, plus the portions of Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Idaho) found that a careful “Termination Review” process by independent decision makers can weaken or break the causal connection between the alleged racial animus and the ultimate adverse action.

In that case, the minority employee alleged retaliation. He had complained about his group leader, and he then claimed that his group leader retaliated against him for complaining. Indeed, the group leader imposed various disciplinary actions upon the employee and provided negative information to higher management about the employee’s performance. There were other disciplinary actions too, however, by several different supervisors. Eventually, the group leader issued (another) written warning to the employee, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The employer ultimately fired the employee based upon feedback and discipline provided by his group leader.

In this case, the company took another step that the court found significant: after the termination, the company implemented a “Termination Review Process” in which the company permitted the employee to “appeal” the termination decision to a group of two independent managers – a “Review Panel.” The court stated, “It is well-established in this Circuit that an employer can ’break the causal chain’ between the biased subordinate’s unlawful actions and the adverse employment action by independently investigating the allegations against the employee.” The independent panel undertook the appeal within two days after the termination decision. In addition to reviewing the entire disciplinary history, the panel interviewed the employee and gave him a chance to tell his side of the story. The court held that the independent review process “broke the causal chain” between the group leader’s purported retaliatory animus and the employee’s termination.

This case offers several lessons for reducing exposure: a court is likely to assess (i) whether decision makers took a truly careful and thoughtful review of the evidence; (ii) whether independent decision makers were introduced to take a fresh look at the evidence; (iii) whether the problem employee was asked for his or her side of the story before finalizing the termination; (iv) whether a cat’s paw angle was meaningfully analyzed and ruled out; and (v) whether there are other independent facts (in this case, disciplines by several other supervisors) that further support the termination 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.

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.