Texas plaintiffs counsel welcomed a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling upholding employees’ use of a “cat’s paw” theory of liability when they allege that their employers retaliated against them for complaining about discrimination.
“Plaintiffs use a cat’s paw theory of liability when they cannot show that the decision maker—the person who took the adverse employment action—harbored any retaliatory animus. Under this theory, a plaintiff must establish that the person with a retaliatory motive somehow influenced the decision maker to take the retaliatory action. Put another way, a plaintiff must show that the person with retaliatory animus used the decision maker to bring about the intended retaliatory action,” according to the Fifth Circuit opinion, issued in Zamora v. Houston.
This content has been archived.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]
