« Rehearing in Murphy tax case | Main | Supreme Court takes on FLSA case »
Supreme Court takes up "cat's paw" case
January 06, 2007 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
It's called "cat's paw." A human resources manager decides to fire an employee she doesn't know, based mainly on information from a supervisor. The supervisor has a history of racism. So the question is whether the employer is insulated from liability because the manager didn't know the employee was black.
The case: BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co v. EEOC, certiorari granted January 5, 2007. [Details, case below, etc.]
EEOC claimed that BCI discharged Stephen Peters in violation of Title VII. The trial court granted summary judgment for BCI; the 10th Circuit reversed. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the 10th Circuit decision.
BCI discharged Peters, who is black, for insubordination. EEOC claimed that BCI discriminated on the basis of race because similarly situated white and Hispanic employees were treated less harshly. The discharge decision was made by a human resources manager based on information provided by Peters' immediate supervisor plus a review of Peters' personnel record. The HR manager did not know Peters was black. The supervisor not only knew Peters’ race but allegedly had a history of treating black employees unfavorably and making disparaging racial remarks in the workplace.
The formal Question Presented in the Supreme Court is:
"Under what circumstances is an employer liable under federal anti-discrimination laws based on a subordinate’s discriminatory animus, where the person(s) who actually made the adverse employment decision admittedly harbored no discriminatory motive toward the impacted employee."
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101
