When the Cat’s Paw Scratches: How a University Got Schooled on Employment Law

Recently, a federal magistrate judge found sufficient evidence to support the ‘cat’s paw’ theory, a concept that should be on every HR professional’s radar.

What is the Cat’s Paw Theory?

The ‘cat’s paw’ theory holds an employer liable for the discriminatory actions of a non-decision-making employee if those actions influence the decision-maker.

Now, Let’s See It in Action.

The magistrate noted that the plaintiff, a black man, endured significant discrimination during his tenure at a university. His Latino supervisor frequently berated and criticized Black employees, using racial slurs. The supervisor also falsely accused the plaintiff and other Black employees of stealing time and equipment, denied them overtime opportunities, and showed favoritism toward non-Black employees. Despite the employee’s repeated complaints to higher management and HR, the company took no substantial action to address these issues.

The plaintiff, who was eventually terminated, argued that his termination was influenced by his supervisor’s racial animus under the “cat’s paw” theory. Specifically, he argued that his supervisor, who was not the ultimate decision-maker, allegedly manipulated the situation by falsifying time records and reporting the plaintiff for time theft.

The Magistrate concluded that there was enough evidence for a jury to mull over the evidence. Among other things, the decision-makers appeared to have conducted a cursory investigation, and rubber-stamped the termination based on the supervisor’s report, giving effect to his racial animus.

Three Key Takeaways

Vet Termination Decisions One of the main reasons the court found sufficient evidence to support the ‘cat’s paw’ theory was the lack of a thorough investigation. The decision-makers terminated the employee within approximately half an hour of receiving the supervisor’s report. This rapid decision-making process raised red flags. HR professionals should ensure that termination decisions are supported, documented, and investigated carefully if they come from a potentially biased source.
Beware of the Rubber StampThe court emphasized that decision-makers should not act as mere conduits for biased recommendations. In this case, the decision-makers failed to independently verify the supervisor’s claims. HR professionals should be wary of simply “rubber-stamping” recommendations without conducting their own due diligence. This can help prevent biased actions from influencing critical employment decisions.
Document EverythingProper documentation can make or break a case. In this instance, the employee had documented his absence from work with text messages and a doctor’s note, which contradicted the supervisor’s false time entry. Review all pertinent documentation before taking adverse employment action.

Final Thoughts

This case is a reminder that employers can be held liable for the discriminatory actions of their employees, even if those employees are not the ultimate decision-makers. When it comes to employment decisions, it’s always better to be the wise owl than the unwitting cat’s paw.