Cat’s Paw Evidence of Supervisor’s Racial Bias Admissible To Failure To Promote Claim

The “cat’s paw” evidence doctrine in employment discrimination cases refers to a situation in which a biased subordinate, who lacks decisionmaking power, influences the unbiased decisionmaker to make an adverse hiring decision, thereby obscuring the subordinate’s discriminatory intent. The doctrine was applied by the Sixth Circuit in Cobbins v. Tennessee Dept. of Transportation, No 07-6491 (April 2, 2009), where the court reversed a jury trial verdict based on the exclusion of such evidence at trial.

Gregory Cobbins, an African-American male, was a ten year employee of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and sought promotion to a supervisor position. He was unsuccessful and one of the explanations for the decision was that the successful candidate had no record of disciplinary action, while Cobbins “had several oral and written warnings in his work file.”  The warnings were all received between 1998 and 2002 by a former supervisor, Yocum. Cobbins claimed in a prior lawsuit that these warnings were the product of race discrimination by Yocum. The prior lawsuit was dismissed without a judgment on the merits of Cobbins’ claim. In this case, he claimed that these earlier discriminatory acts by Yocum deprived him of the opportunity to compete fairly for the promotion to the supervisor position.

The “cat’s paw” theory in employment discrimination litigation arises in a situation where an adverse hiring decision is made by a supervisor who lacks impermissible bias, but that supervisor was influenced by another individual who was motivated by such bias.  Here, Cobbins sought to show that Yocum’s past discriminatory acts, which resulted in warnings in his file, influenced the decisionmaking process that resulted in Cobbins’ being passed over for promotion unfairly:

Plaintiff seeks only to demonstrate that certain conduct and actions of his supervisor at that time impacted his work record and promotion chances; and such evidence is, therefore, relevant in this case.

This case represents an often-encountered scenario: the discriminatory bias of a supervisor inflicts permanent damage to an employee’s career by packing his or her file with unfounded or unfair warnings.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Two Employees Awarded $350,000 Each In Race Discrimination Case

    After enduring several years of having their co-workers refer to them as “boy,” “hey boy,” or “damn it boy” and being subjected to other forms of racial harassment, two black men, Bobby Bailey and Robert Smith, filed suit and were each awarded after a judge trial compensatory damages for emotional distress and mental anguish of $350,000.   The verdicts were upheld by the Sixth Circuit in Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc. (No. 07-5304, decided May 16, 2008).

    The workplace at this company was permeated with racism.  Racist and derogatory comments were directed at the plaintiffs, racist graffiti was sprayed in the employee locker rooms and restrooms and a noose appeared in the workplace.  The employer’s response was at best half-hearted.  One employee advised that he would continue to spout racist epithets and did, despite human resources training.  A lawyer was hired who wrote a white-wash report downplaying the racist atmosphere.  One employee who was fired supposedly for his racist misconduct was reinstated.  The company did not install security cameras and stop the racist graffiti until nearly a year after the suit had been filed.  The trial court judge awarded the maximum amount of compensatory damages under federal law ($300,000) and an additional $50,000 under state law. 

Robert L. Abell
www.robertabelllaw.com