In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the “cat’s paw” theory of liability may be used to establish a violation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, even where the “cat’s paw” is the plaintiff’s coworker rather than a supervisor.
In cases where the “cat’s paw” theory is applied, a plaintiff can make out a valid case of discrimination if he or she can show that an otherwise unbiased decision-maker took an adverse employment action based on information provided by a supervisor with discriminatory motives.
In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., No. 15-3239-cv (2d Cir. August 29, 2016), the Second Circuit essentially extended potential “cat’s paw” liability by ruling that “an employer may be held liable for an employee’s animus under a ‘cat’s paw’ theory, regardless of the employee’s role within the organization, if the employer’s own negligence gives effect to the employee’s animus and causes the victim to suffer an adverse employment action.”
In so ruling, the Second Circuit joined the First Circuit, which ruled in a 2014 case that Title VII liability can attach under a “cat’s paw” theory whenever a biased coworker “makes statements maligning the plaintiff” with the intent of causing an adverse employment action, and the employer “acts negligently by allowing the coworker’s acts to achieve their desired effect though it knows (or reasonably should know) of the discriminatory motivation.”
Members of the Equal Employment Advisory Council (EEAC) can read more here.