Hospital Slaps Back In High Court Cat's Paw Case

Law360, New York (September 2, 2010, 2:39 PM EDT) -- In a U.S. Supreme Court fight over the cat's paw theory of employment law, Proctor Hospital claims it is not liable for bias against an Army reservist because the alleged anti-military sentiment of his direct supervisors didn't influence the human resources executive who fired him.

Army reservist Vincent Staub's claim under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act fails because he hasn't shown that the supervisors' discriminatory animus influenced the decision to fire him, the hospital argued in a 73-page response brief filed Tuesday....
To view the full article, register now.