Cat's paw theory
The Cat's Paw theory is a legal doctrine in employment discrimination cases that derives its name from the fable "The Monkey and the Cat," attributed to Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable, a cunning monkey persuades a naive cat to retrieve chestnuts from a fire, with the cat ultimately burning its paws while the monkey enjoys the chestnuts.[1] In the context of employment law, the theory addresses situations where a biased employee or supervisor manipulates a neutral decision-maker into taking an adverse employment action against another employee, based on discriminatory motives.
This legal doctrine has been applied in United States employment discrimination cases since the early 1990s.[2] The United States Supreme Court formally recognized and clarified the application of the Cat's Paw theory in the 2011 case Staub v. Proctor Hospital.[3] In Staub, the Court held that an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) if a biased supervisor's actions are a proximate cause of an adverse employment action, even if the ultimate decision-maker was not personally biased.[4]
The Cat's Paw theory has since been applied in cases involving other anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),[5] and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The doctrine provides a basis for holding employers accountable when they inadvertently rely on the discriminatory animus of an employee in making employment decisions, even when the decision-maker is otherwise unbiased.
References
[edit]- ^ Pipal, Bill; Robbennolt, Jennifer K. (2011). "Court rules on 'cat's paw' theory of discrimination". Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved 2023-03-25.
- ^ Sullivan, Charles A. (2012-02-24). "Tortifying Employment Discrimination" (PDF). Boston University Law Review. 92 (1431) (published 2012).
- ^ Kane, Anne E. (24 March 2011). "United States: How to Avoid "Cat's Paw" Discrimination Claims - How Subordinate Bias Can Taint An Otherwise Non-Discriminatory Employment Decision". www.mondaq.com. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
- ^ Markowitz, Eric (4 November 2010). "Employee Discrimination Case Reaches Supreme Court". Inc. Retrieved 4 November 2010.
- ^ Reburn, Elizabeth (2018-08-08). "Staub v. Proctor Hospital and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act". University of Cincinnati Law Review. 84 (3): 899. ISSN 0009-6881.