U.S. Supreme Court Holding Addresses "cat's paw" Theory of Liability


The United States Supreme Court laid a heavy burden on employers yesterday by holding that they can be liable for adverse employment decisions even in instances where the individual making the decision did not act with a discriminatory motive, but instead merely relied in part on the input of others who did have such motives.

In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, plaintiff Vincent Staub sued the Hospital under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), alleging he was fired under a “cat’s paw” theory of liability, whereby a decision-maker is influenced by a reporting supervisor’s bias when he or she makes a determination that adversely affects an employee.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Miller & Martin PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Miller & Martin PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.