In employment litigation, plaintiffs often rely on the “cat’s paw” doctrine to hold their employers liable for discriminatory or retaliatory animus of a supervisory employee who influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision. On August 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., greatly extended the reach of the “cat’s paw,” holding that the doctrine could be applied to hold an employer liable for an adverse employment decision that was influenced by the discriminatory or ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Utah Law Aims to Regulate AI Mental Health Chatbots
- National Science Foundation (NSF) Imposes 15% Indirect Cost Rate Cap: What to Know
- New DOJ White Collar Priorities Focus on Health Care Fraud
- Federal Regulators Announce Non-Enforcement of the 2024 Rule for Mental Health Parity
- Will Colorado’s Historic AI Law Go Live in 2026? Its Fate Hangs in the Balance in 2025