Terri L. Smyth-Riding v. Sciences and Engineering Services, LLC, et al.

In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), this Court recognized the cat’s paw theory of liability in employment cases, holding “if a supervisor performs an act motivated by [unlawful] animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable.” Id. at

1. Yet, Staub “express[ed] no view” whether retaliatory acts by mere co-workers, rather than supervisors, can result in liability. Id. at 422 & n.4. Here, the Fourth Circuit held the cat’s paw theory inapplicable because the high-level managerial employees who influenced the decision did not have “supervisory authority” over petitioner and merely were co-workers. The decision below conflicts with Staub and other circuits by interpreting the word “supervisor” to mean a supervisor of the claimant, rather than an agent of the employer. In conflict with other circuits, the Fourth Circuit also applied the “same actor” inference to affirm the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law on petitioner’s sex discrimination claim.

2. Does the cat’s paw theory of liability require that a supervisor of the claimant act with unlawful intent to cause or influence the employment decision or is an employer liable if other managerial agents of the employer act with unlawful intent to cause or influence an employment decision?