Under the cat's paw theory of liability, a biased supervisor dupes an unbiased decision-maker into taking an adverse action against an employee by providing the decision-maker with inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information. Several lower courts have recognized this theory. In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the High Court unanimously supported it.
Case background: An employee's reservist obligations required him to attend training sessions one weekend a month and two to three full weeks during the year, and to report to active duty when called. Upon being scheduled to work weekends, the employee discussed with his supervisor and the department head the potential conflicts such a schedule created with his military obligations. Both were unsympathetic and referred to the obligations as "bull****."
Shortly after receiving an order to report for active duty processing, his supervisor issued him a written warn...(register to read more)