Tracey Lust v. Sealy, Inc.
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18830, 383 F.3d 580, 65 Fed. R. Serv. 298 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is liable for a subordinate employee's discriminatory motive if that motive was a cause of the adverse employment action, even if the formal decision-maker was not merely the subordinate's 'cat's paw.' The causal link is established if the adverse action would not have occurred but for the subordinate's discriminatory input.
Facts:
- Tracey Lust was a sales representative for Sealy in Madison, Wisconsin, since 1992 and had repeatedly expressed her desire for a promotion to her supervisor, Scott Penters.
- Penters had a history of making sexist remarks to Lust, such as 'just like a woman to say something like that' and asking why her husband wasn't going to 'take care of' her after she got married.
- In 2000, a Key Account Manager position opened in Chicago, representing a significant promotion opportunity.
- Penters admitted he did not consider recommending Lust for the Chicago position because he assumed, without asking her, that she would not want to relocate her family and children.
- Penters instead recommended a male competitor for the position.
- Penters' superior, Al Boulden, was the final decision-maker and, acting on Penters' recommendation, awarded the promotion to the male candidate.
- Two months after being passed over, and after she initiated a discrimination claim, Sealy offered Lust a Key Account Manager position in Madison, which she accepted.
Procedural Posture:
- Tracey Lust sued her employer, Sealy, in the U.S. District Court for sex discrimination under Title VII.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Lust, awarding her $100,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.
- Pursuant to the statutory cap in 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D), the district court judge reduced the total damages award to $300,000, in addition to $1,500 in back pay.
- Sealy, the defendant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a subordinate supervisor's discriminatory motive render an employer liable under Title VII when that subordinate influences the final decision-maker, even if the decision-maker is not a mere 'cat's paw' of the subordinate?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner
Yes, a subordinate supervisor's discriminatory motive renders an employer liable under Title VII if it is a cause of the adverse action. An employer can be held liable for the discriminatory animus of a subordinate who influences, but does not make, the ultimate employment decision. The court rejected the stricter 'cat's paw' test from the Fourth Circuit, which requires the decision-maker to be a mere puppet of the subordinate. Instead, the court focused on causation, holding that if the final decision-maker, Boulden, would not have denied Lust the promotion but for the discriminatory recommendation from her supervisor, Penters, then Penters' sexism was a cause of Lust's injury. The court found ample evidence for the jury to conclude Penters' recommendation was motivated by sexist stereotypes about mothers not wanting to relocate, and that Boulden gave this recommendation great weight. The court also affirmed that memos written for the purpose of creating exculpatory evidence for anticipated litigation are inadmissible hearsay and do not qualify for the business records exception.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Seventh Circuit's causation-based approach to 'cat's paw' liability, rejecting a stricter standard that would require the formal decision-maker to be a mere conduit for the biased subordinate. It broadens the scope of employer liability by focusing on whether the subordinate's discriminatory animus was a cause of the adverse action, regardless of the decision-maker's independence. This puts a greater burden on employers to scrutinize the underlying motives for personnel recommendations from subordinate managers. The ruling also serves as a strong reminder about the limits of admitting self-serving documents created in anticipation of litigation under the business records exception to hearsay.
