Cat's Paw Theory

The cats paw theory of liability an employment law doctrine sometimes referred to as subordinate bias establishes that in certain circumstances an employer may be held liable for the discriminatory and retaliatory actions of its employees. The cats paw theory is named after one of Aesops fables in which a clever monkey flatters or in some versions of the story forces a naïve cat into snatching chestnuts out of a fire.

Pin By Fellipe Mandu On Champagne Tastes On A Beer Budget Cat Paws Fred Friends Cat Door

The cats paw theory states that an employer is liable for illegal discrimination when a supervisor with improper bias influences an unbiased decision maker into making a negative employment decision.

. For New York employers the Cats Paw theory of liability is more than just a childrens fable. The cats paw theory gets its name from the fable of a 17th Century French poet about a monkey who persuaded a cat to pull chestnuts out of the fire so the cat gets burned and the monkey makes off with the chestnutsÂ In its simplest form in the workplace context the employer gets the legal blame even if the actual executive or supervisor who fires or demotes a. When the cat does so he burns his paws and is unable to eat the chestnuts while the monkey enjoys them without any injury.

The cats paw theory borrows from an old fable in which a conniving monkey convinces a cat to reach into a fire to get roasting chestnuts. The cats paw theory holds that an employer can be liable for unlawful retaliation or discrimination even when the decisionmaker did not act with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive if heshe was influenced by another employee who did have a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. The monkey orchestrates an action by an authority to unknowingly institute a discriminatory employment action ie.

In interpreting the so-called cats paw theory of liability the high court declined to adopt the hard-and-fast rule suggested by the employer that a decisionmakers independent investigation and rejection of an employees allegations of discriminatory animus should negate the effect of any prior discrimination. Therefore employers must take action now to brace for claims involving the cats paw theory. In Staub vProctor Hospital the United States Supreme Court accepted the cats paw theory of establishing liability in an employment caseIn doing so the Court endorsed a view which had long prevailed among the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Courts have applied the cats paw theory to hold employers liable for discrimination where the decision maker was not biased or based the. It typically arises in an employment law context where a biased subordinate employee taints a neutral employers employment decision making it a discriminatory action. The Cats Paw Theory in discrimination cases is based upon a fable in which a clever monkey tricks an unwitting cat to pull chestnuts from a fire so that the monkey can make off with the chestnuts without burning himself.

The Cats Paw Theory Burns Another Employer Contributed by Amanda Biondolino April 4 2017 The Cats Paw Theory in discrimination cases is based upon a fable in which a clever monkey tricks an unwitting cat to pull chestnuts from a fire so that the monkey can make off with the chestnuts without burning himself. The monkey quickly eats them leaving the cat with a burnt paw and no chestnuts. On August 29 2016 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Vasquez v Empress Ambulance Service Inc.

The cats paw theory of liability is named after an ancient fable in which a monkey convinces a cat to pull chestnuts out of a fire and then gobbles them up. Second Circuit Expands Cats Paw Theory of Liability September 13 2016. The cats paw theory seems strikingly expansive because the proximate cause element of the theory could expose employers to liability in extremely attenuated circumstances.

The cat with the scorched paw. The cats paw theory holds that an employer should be liable for adverse employment actions it takes at the behest of or instigation of a non-decision maker when the action is motivated by the non-decision-makers unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The Cats Paw Theory originates from a fable in which a monkey tricks a cat into retrieving some chestnuts from fire for both of them to eat.

No 15-3239-cv expanded the theory of employment discrimination liability generally referred to as the cats paw theory. See eg Arendale vCity of Memphis 519 F3d 587 604 n13 6th Cir. In recent years the cats paw theory of discrimination has been raised in the context of employment law as a means of holding employers liable for the discriminatory animus of a supervisor who was not directly responsible for making an adverse employment decision.

First employers should ensure that their discrimination and harassment. 1 The cats paw 2 doctrine has been applied to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 3. 411 the cats paw theory states discriminatory animus may be imputed to a neutral decision-maker if a supervisor recommends an adverse employment action due to a discriminatory animus and that recommendation is a motivating factor of the decision-makers ultimate adverse employment action In other words even if you as the owner had no.

Proctor Hospital 562 US. Proctor Hospital 562 US___ 2011 LW 691244 Case No. The cats paw theory in employment law application describes a situation in which a person without decision-making authority typically with an unfair outcome in mind ie.

In the employment discrimination context the Cats Paw theory refers to a supervisor with no discriminatory animus the cat being manipulated by another who harbors such animus the monkey into taking adverse action against an employee. No matter which theory an employee tries to use to argue illegal discrimination it must be backed by ample evidence to succeed. 09-400 March 1 2011 the United States Supreme Court affirmed employer liability under the Cats Paw theory1 which attributes an intermediate supervisors animus toward the employee to the disciplining supervisor despite the disciplining supervisors lack of knowledge of the intermediate supervisors animus toward.

In other words the discriminatory motive of a non-decision maker can be imputed to. 2008 When an adverse employment decision is. The cats paw theory of liability as explained infra is a method of imputing causation onto an employer by an employees actions.

The cats paw theory highlights the importance of employers conducting diligent and independent investigations prior to terminating employees as merely undertaking a paper review of an informers recommendation without performing an independent investigation will not be sufficient to shield an employer from liability if the recommendation is racially motivated.

Dog Cat Paw Print 3002 Diy Stencil Plastic Acrylic Mylar Etsy Stencil Diy Cat Paw Print Plastic Stencil