On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court validated the long-debated “cat’s paw” theory in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 11 C.D.O.S. 2692. The term refers to one of Aesop’s fables in which a monkey induces a cat to pick roasting chestnuts from a fire. The monkey enjoys the rewards of the cat’s efforts and leaves the cat with nothing but burnt paws. In the employment law context, the “monkey” is a direct supervisor, who wants to fire or otherwise punish an employee based on a protected characteristic (e.g., race, gender, national origin, etc.). But, to avoid liability, the “monkey” convinces an innocent and unknowing decision maker — the “cat” — to punish the employee for some other reason, perhaps by making up a story about that employee’s poor performance. Staub holds that the employer — the cat — cannot escape liability under these circumstances.
In upholding this theory, Staub presents a dilemma: How can an employer sever liability if it thinks a supervisor may be biased? In other words, how can the employer remove the “monkey” from the equation? A closer look at the court’s decision provides insight into the strategies employers can use to avoid burning their “paws” when making job decisions.
