Takeaway: The "cat's paw" theory of liability did not apply when independent decision-makers conducted their own investigations without relying on possibly biased subordinates.
Even if an employee's use of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) sparked retaliation from her supervisor, the employer was not liable under a "cat's paw" theory because it directed other managers to independently investigate and decide whether to adopt the supervisor's recommendation, a federal appeals court ruled. The employer's procedures broke the causal chain between the supervisor's possibly retaliatory motive and the firing of the employee, the court said.
The employee worked for an airline booking flight reservations. She took FMLA leave because she had a vision disorder and her father had cancer. About five months after approving the leave, the employee's supervisor suspected that she was avoiding new calls by telling customers that she would get additional information, putting the customers on hold and chatting with co-workers about personal matters while the customers waited. The supervisor characterized the employee's conduct as "call avoidance."
This suspicion led to a meeting between the supervisor, the employee and a union representative. At the meeting, the supervisor played recordings of three calls between the employee and customers. During each of the three calls, the employee had placed the customer on hold for a long time or hung up on the customer.
Following...
Healthcare A New England nursing home group, its owner, and an executive agreed to pay $1 million to settle allegations first brought by a whistleblower that they billed Medicare and Medicaid for...