Cat's Paw approved by SCOTUS

The Supreme Court has decided that the "cat's paw" theory is applicable in at least some employment cases. The theory relates to the situation where a decision maker without discriminatory animus is affected by the advice of others who have discriminatory animus. The case involved allegations of discrimination against an army reservist who claimed his immediate supervisor fabricated a disciplinary warning due to hostility to his military obligations. The employer's vice president of human resources received a report on the disciplinary warning, reviewed the employee's personnel file and terminated the employee's employment. More after the jump

Tenth Circuit ADEA pro-employee opinion

Jones v. Oklahoma City Public Schools, a Tenth Circuit opinion, is an important read for practitioners handling ADEA claims. The plaintiff had been employed since 1969 and had risen in the system to an executive position. In 20007 a new superintendent eliminated the position plaintiff held, but renamed it and filled it with a younger worker. More after the jump

Mixed Motive retaliation lives

A divided Fifth Circuit panel has ruled that a mixed motive instruction in a Title VII retaliation case is appropriate, does not require direct evidence to support it, and is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 23 43 (2009). The majority opinion (Reavely and Wiener) is a must read for practitioners in the Fifth Circuit. It presents the past and present law of the Circuit in a straightforward, understandable opinion. The dissent (Jolly) notes the decision conflicts with the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 591 F.3d 957, 961 (7th Cir. 2010).

Gross out

The SCOTUS opinion in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441, U.S. Supreme Court (June 18, 2009) is the subject of a new bill filed by Senators Harkin (D-IA), Leahy (D-Vt), and Congressman George Miller (D-CA). Their bill is patterned after the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Act makes clear that when a victim shows age discrimination was a “motivating factor” behind a decision, the burden is on the employer to show it complied with the law.