Takeaway: This case highlights the risks inherent in making a termination decision based on a technical infraction that lacks apparent importance. It also shows that a lack of strong oversight by an organization's HR department can create significant vulnerabilities.
Strictly interpreting a rule, policy or other directive governing employee conduct can lead to decisions that may appear pretextual. The appeals court's analysis of how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) interpreted and applied the rehabilitation plan illustrates that, where an offense is objectively minor and termination may be disproportionately severe, the employer should carefully consider lesser alternatives, especially where the employee has made a complaint of discrimination or otherwise engaged in protected activity.
Additionally, superficial or overly deferential HR oversight and review can open the door to claims of wrongful conduct. Independent assessment of a termination recommendation from a supervisor can provide a critical check on any appearance that the supervisor was the cause of the termination decision despite lacking sole authority to the decision. An employer with a robust process for such decisions thereby limits the risk of cat's paw liability based on the supervisor's conduct.
Approval of a termination decision should not be a rubber-stamp affair. Thoughtful consideration and review can avoid many pitfalls.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a former employee of...
On September 14, 2026, the Department of Justice announced that Accenture Federal Services, Accenture plc, and Accenture LLP agreed to pay $25 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that ...