On March 1, 2011, the United States Supreme Court held in
Staub v. Proctor Hospital, No. 09-400, 2011 U.S. LEXIS
1900 (Mar. 1, 2011), that an employer can be held liable for
discrimination where an adverse employment decision is influenced
by a supervisor's discriminatory intent, even where the
ultimate decision maker had no discriminatory animus. In Staub, the
plaintiff sued his former employer under the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
("USERRA"), claiming that the human resources executive
who fired him was merely the "cat's paw" of his
direct supervisors, who had openly expressed anti-military
sentiment. The Court found that if an action by a biased supervisor
is the proximate cause of an employee's termination, then the
employer can be held liable for discrimination, even if the
ultimate decision maker had no discriminatory intent and was
unaware of the supervisor's bias.
Although the Court allowed for the possibility that an employer
could escape liability by conducting an independent investigation,
it provided little guidance to employers regarding the
circumstances under which such an investigation could insulate
them. In this regard, the Court stated that "if the
employer's investigation results in an adverse action for
reasons unrelated to the supervisor's original biased action
... then the employer will not be liable. But the supervisor's
biased report may remain a causal factor if the independent
investigation takes it into account without determining that the
adverse action was, apart from the supervisor's recommendation,
entirely justified." Thus, the Court seemed to suggest that a
jury can consider the actions and statements of an allegedly biased
supervisor unless the employer can demonstrate that such supervisor
played no role and had no input regarding the adverse employment
action.
The rationale underlying the Supreme Court's decision
presumably applies equally to discrimination claims brought under
Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal
statutes prohibiting employment discrimination. The decision
highlights the importance of training all supervisors with respect
to their equal employment opportunity/non-discrimination
obligations. It illustrates that biased or discriminatory input
from even one supervisor can taint a disciplinary/termination
process involving multiple supervisors and layers of review.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
