The Cat's Paw theory is a legal doctrine in employment discrimination cases that derives its name from the fable "The Monkey and the Cat," attributed to Jean de La Fontaine. In the fable, a cunning monkey persuades a naive cat to retrieve chestnuts from a fire, with the cat ultimately burning its paws while the monkey enjoys the chestnuts.^[1] In the context of employment law, the theory addresses situations where a biased employee or supervisor manipulates a neutral decision-maker into taking an adverse employment action against another employee, based on discriminatory motives.

This legal doctrine has been applied in United States employment discrimination cases since the early 1990s.^[2] The United States Supreme Court formally recognized and clarified the application of the Cat's Paw theory in the 2011 case Staub v. Proctor Hospital.^[3] In Staub, the Court held that an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) if a biased supervisor's actions are a proximate cause of an adverse employment action, even if the ultimate decision-maker was not personally biased.^[4]

The Cat's Paw theory has since been applied in cases involving other anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA),^[5] and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The doctrine provides a basis for holding employers accountable when they inadvertently rely on the discriminatory animus of an employee in making employment decisions, even when the decision-maker is otherwise unbiased.

References