Following The Paw Prints Of Staub V. Proctor Hospital

Law360, New York (January 19, 2012, 1:44 PM EST) -- The risk of employer liability for being tricked into taking an adverse employment action against an employee by a supervisor with discriminatory motives, i.e. cat’s paw liability, is real.

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2011 decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, a number of lower courts have taken up the issue and found a basis for cat’s paw liability pursuant to various statutes.

Additionally, since many states’ courts simply follow federal law when interpreting state civil rights laws, the cat’s paw legal...
To view the full article, register now.

UK Financial Services

UK Financial Services

Read Our Latest UK Financial Services Coverage

Financial Services Law360 UK provides breaking news and analysis on the financial sector. Coverage includes UK and European Union policy, enforcement, and litigation involving banks, asset management firms, and other financial services organizations.