Home » Blog » Archives for Cat’s Paw

Cat’s Paw

In Campbell v. Nat’l Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., No. 1:13-CV-00438 EAW, 2017 WL 1957829 (W.D.N.Y. May 11, 2017), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s Title VII gender discrimination claim. While plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, her case fell apart at the third step of the analysis. […]

In McFadden v. Cty. of Monroe, No. 14-2167, 2016 WL 7107468 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2016) (Summary Order), the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s race discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Municipal Liability As to municipal liability, the court explained that […]

In Boston v. Taconic Eastchester Mgmt. LLC, No. 12 CIV. 4077 (ER), 2016 WL 5719751 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016), the court dismissed plaintiff’s discriminatory termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims under Title VII. The law, as summarized by the court: Plaintiff’s Title VII claims for race and color discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation are […]

Today, in Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, 15-3239-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2016), the Second Circuit – in an opinion authored by Judge Calabresi – vacated a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s retaliation claim under Title VII, and explicitly held “that an employer may be held liable for an employee’s animus under a ‘cat’s paw’ […]

In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., No. 14 CIV. 8387 NRB, 2015 WL 5037055 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2015), the court addressed the following question: [W]hether an employer is liable for unlawfully retaliating against a plaintiff employee when (1) the plaintiff reports that a coworker [here, Gray] has sexually harassed her, (2) the employer promptly […]

In Greene v. Middletown, filed April 29, 2014, the Southern District of New York granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In reaching its decision, Judge Cote cited and applied the “stray remarks” doctrine, which is used to evaluate whether allegedly discriminatory comments are […]

In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S.Ct. 1186 (2011), (slip opinion here), the Supreme Court clarified the circumstances – under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4311 – under which an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not […]