Employment Law This Week®: Retaliation Guidance, Class Action Waivers, “Persuader Rule” Injunction, “Cat’s Paw” Doctrine
On April 17, 2024, the Oregon Court of Appeals recognized a government employee’s whistleblower claim under state law against a city that employed him under an intergovernmental agreement with another city. ...more
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (“SJC”) decision in Mark A. Adams v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., SJC-13352 (2023) concerned the age discrimination claim of a plaintiff who was 54 years old when he was laid off by...more
Q: Can an employer be found liable for terminating an employee for misconduct after an investigation initiated by a biased supervisor?...more
The Oregon Supreme Court just revived a whistleblower retaliation claim filed against sportswear giant Nike by adopting for the first time a novel legal concept known as the “cat’s paw” theory. The July 18 opinion opens new...more
In the 17th century fable The Monkey and the Cat by Jean de La Fontaine, a monkey convinces a cat to push roasting chestnuts from a fire, singing his paws in order to provide the monkey with a meal. Ever since, “cat’s paw”...more
In order to prove disparate treatment discrimination under federal employment laws, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the decision-maker in an adverse action was at least partially motivated by discriminatory intent. Federal...more
The recent tragic events in Charlottesville, Virginia and other news regarding the activities of white supremacists and similar groups, have served as a rude awakening for many that our national reality has shifted. These...more
Properly identifying the decisionmaker in an employment discrimination case is important because it is the intent of the decisionmaker that determines whether an adverse employment action was motivated by a discriminatory or...more
Employers sometimes defend retaliation claims by responding that the person or persons making the adverse employment decision was not aware of the plaintiff’s prior complaint. In the employment discrimination context, the...more
The “Cat’s Paw Theory” in discrimination cases is based upon a fable in which a clever monkey tricks an unwitting cat to pull chestnuts from a fire, so that the monkey can make off with the chestnuts without burning himself....more
The Second Circuit recently adopted the “Cat’s Paw” theory of liability in Title VII cases. This was hardly a surprise as other Circuit Courts had done the same after the United States Supreme Court endorsed Cat’s Paw in a...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Recently, the Second Circuit held that the “cat’s paw” theory of liability may be used to support recovery for claims of retaliation where an employer negligently relies on information provided by a...more
In the world of employment law, there is something called the “Cat’s Paw” theory of liability. The name comes from a fable dating back to the 17th century in which a clever monkey persuades a naïve cat to pull roasting...more
Most sexual harassment policies include a procedure to investigate complaints, often specifying that the investigation will be timely and thorough, and may include interviews with the employees involved, witnesses, and anyone...more
In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., No. 15-3239-cv (August 29, 2016), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals set new precedent when it held that an employer may be held liable for the retaliatory intent of a...more
Rarely has the maxim “hard cases make bad law” found greater application than in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision to expand the “cat’s paw” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in...more
On August 29, 2016, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived a retaliation lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the “cat’s paw” theory of liability. In...more
Employers should beware of being too quick to believe an employee who accuses a co-worker of wrongdoing. If the accuser has an illegal motive (such as discrimination or retaliation), and if the employer is “negligent” in...more
The Second Circuit recently invoked a 17th century fable in reviving an employee’s retaliation claim against her employer even where the employer had no retaliatory intent. In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, SDNY,...more
The federal appeals court in New York just adopted a broad standard for employer liability as a consequence of discriminatory acts by their employees. This standard opens the door to a significant increase in claims being...more
Question: We just went through a five-person layoff, and one of the individuals laid off (an African American) has hired a lawyer and is threatening to sue for racial discrimination. I have enormous confidence in the fairness...more
For those interested in the origin, the term “cat’s paw” derives from a fable of a monkey who employs flattery to convince a cat to pull chestnuts out of a fire. Today the term commonly refers to a person used unwittingly or...more
On August 12, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion in Jones v. SEPTA, a discrimination and retaliation claim brought by a former employee of the Philadelphia-area transit agency. The Third...more
The Fable - “The Monkey and the Cat” is a fable (dating back to the 17th century or perhaps earlier) about a monkey who persuades a cat to pull chestnuts from the embers of a fire, only to take the reward for himself...more