Durade Zebari v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al.

In retaliations and discrimination claims, some employers aim to break the chain of causation by alleging that the manager engaged in adverse employment action had no direct knowledge of the protected activity. While Cat Paw Theory of Liability adapted by this Court in Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) addressed one strategy to impute the required knowledge to the decision maker, there is still a circuit split and lack of guidance regarding other types of indirect evidence necessary to impute that knowledge. Question presented is: Whether the Sixth Circuit erred when rejected all types of circumstantial evidence to impute the required knowledge to the decision maker when considered the decision maker's self serving and conclusory testimony, that he was not aware of the protected activity, sufficient enough to break the chain of causation.