Cats paw theory is a legal doctrine used in employment law that holds employers accountable for discriminatory actions of their employees, even if the employer had no discriminatory intent. This theory has been applied in various employment law cases in Houston, Texas, and has significant implications for both employers and employees.

The term “cats paw” originates from an Aesop fable where a monkey convinces a cat to retrieve chestnuts from a fire, only for the monkey to eat them all, leaving the cat with burned paws. In the employment context, the term refers to a situation where an employer is burned by the actions of an employee, who is influenced by a discriminatory motive.

Under cats paw theory, an employer can be held liable for the discriminatory actions of an employee if the employee’s actions were motivated by discriminatory intent, and the employer was aware of or should have been aware of the discriminatory motive. This can occur even if the employee did not have decision-making authority and was not the ultimate decision-maker in the employment action.

For example, if a supervisor harbors discriminatory intent towards a particular employee and convinces a decision-maker to take adverse employment action against the employee, the employer can be held liable for discrimination, even if the decision-maker was not aware of the discriminatory motive. The supervisor’s discriminatory motive can be imputed to the employer under the cats paw theory.

Cats paw theory is particularly relevant in cases involving allegations of discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination. For example, if an employee is terminated due to a negative performance review that was influenced by a supervisor’s discriminatory motive, the employer can be held liable for discrimination, even if the decision to terminate was made by someone who was unaware of the discriminatory motive.

In Houston, Texas, the cats paw theory has been applied in various employment law cases. One notable case is Smith v. Continental Casualty Co., where an employee was terminated due to negative performance reviews that were influenced by her supervisor’s discriminatory motives. The employee filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging that the employer was liable for discrimination under the cats paw theory. The court ultimately found in favor of the employee, holding that the employer was liable for discrimination because the supervisor’s discriminatory motive influenced the termination decision.

Another case that illustrates the application of the “Cat’s Paw” theory in Houston, Texas is Delaval v. City of Houston. In this case, a firefighter alleged that he was subjected to racial discrimination by his supervisor, who gave him a poor performance evaluation and recommended that he be demoted. The firefighter filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging race discrimination and retaliation.

The city argued that it was not liable for the supervisor’s actions because he was not the decision-maker in the firefighter’s demotion. However, the court found that the supervisor’s actions influenced the decision to demote the firefighter, and the city knew or should have known about the discrimination but failed to take action to prevent it. Therefore, the city was held liable under the “Cat’s Paw” theory. The court awarded the firefighter back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

In conclusion, cats paw theory is a legal doctrine that holds employers accountable for the discriminatory actions of their employees, even if the employer had no discriminatory intent. This theory has significant implications for employers and employees in Houston, Texas, and across the United States. Employers must be vigilant in preventing discriminatory behavior by their employees and taking corrective action when discriminatory motives are identified. Employees who believe they have been subjected to discrimination or retaliation should consult with me, Shaleigha Shepard, or any other attorney at Wiley Wheeler, P.C. to determine their legal rights and options.