In March 2011, the United States Supreme Court resolved a split in the lower courts over the scope of what has come to be known as the “cat’s-paw” theory of liability. In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011), the Court held that an employer can be held liable based on the discriminatory or retaliatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not make, the employment decision at issue.
Though the Staub decision involved the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), it has been applied to Title VII claims and is expected to apply with equal force to other federal and state antidiscrimination and antiretaliation statutes. Recent cases have begun to define Staub’s reach.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
