Yves Wantou v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C.

Immediately after beginning his employment with Respondent as a pharmacist in March 2015, Petitioner became the direct object of his Caucasian coworkers’ and supervisor’s constant ridicule, insults, rumors, and innuendoes concerning his race and national origin, false allegations about his work product and reputa­ tion; all of which Respondent allowed to continue una­ bated, which led to exacerbation of the hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment using erroneous standards. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, a divided panel acknowledged the dis­ trict court’s erroneous standards but refused to reverse and remand the case to the district court. Furthermore, following this Court’s decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, a majority of Courts of Ap­ peals have held that a Title VII/§ 1981 plaintiff is enti­ tled to use Cat’s Paw Theory of liability if the facts of the case show that a jury could find the employer liable under Cat’s Paw Theory. In this case, the Fifth Circuit’s Panel, while admitting that issuing Cat’s Paw Theory instructions to the jury as to Petitioner’s Title VII re­ taliation claims would have been proper, refused to re­ verse judgment on the retaliation claims at issue, ratifying post hoc and non-substantive justifications cited by the District Court. The questions presented are: 1. Whether an appellate court is required to re­ mand the case to the district court when the appellate