On August 29, 2016, the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 3-0 decision in Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service. The Court adopted the “cat’s paw” liability theory and in doing so ruled that an employer can be held liable by the victim when its disciplinary action is influenced by a co-worker’s retaliatory actions or intent.
In employment law, the “cat’s paw” theory “refers to a situation in which an employee is fired or subjected to some other adverse employment action by a supervisor who himself has no discriminatory motive, but who has been manipulated by a subordinate” with a discriminatory motive who intended to cause the adverse action.
The petitioner, Andrea Vasquez, worked for the defendant, Empress Ambulance Service. Vasquez was sexually harassed by a co-worker and reported it to a supervisor. However, when the co-worker discovered this, he fabricated evidence to make it seem like Vasquez had been sexually harassing him. The next day, Empress fired Vasquez for sexually harassing the co-worker in question, despite her denying the allegations.
Vasquez subsequently sued Empress under Title VII for wrongful termination in retaliation for reporting the sexual harassment. The lower court dismissed the claim, holding that the co-worker’s retaliatory intent couldn’t be attributed to the employer. Vasquez then appealed to the Second Circuit.
The Court stated that Empress should have known that the co-worker’s accusations were retaliatory and therefore should have properly investigated them. The Court held that an employer may be held liable under the “cat’s paw” theory, regardless of the retaliatory employee’s role within the organization, if the employer’s own negligence gives effect to the employee’s retaliatory intent and causes an adverse employment action against the victim.
On its face, this extension of the “cat’s paw” liability theory seems like a very negative ruling for employers. However, as long as employers follow a few basic steps they will be covered. When faced with a similar situation, an employer should be sure to thoroughly investigate the charges and claims of both sides before making a disciplinary decision. Employers can rest easy as long as they are thorough in their investigations and make well-reasoned disciplinary decisions.
For information on a previous Sixth Circuit holding involving “cat’s paw” liability, please see our article on Voltz v. Erie County in the July 2015 newsletter, which can be found on our website.