Employers can protect themselves against liability for unlawful discrimination by their representatives if they have procedures in place, and use them, to provide employees with procedural protections. This case involves a supervisor's discriminatory act that led to a subordinate's termination, carried out by the human resources department.
The issue on appeal was whether the employer is automatically liable for discrimination if the supervisor exerted some influence over the formal decision to take a discriminatory employment action, or whether the supervisor must be shown to have been the one principally responsible for the adverse action. The Tenth Circuit here took a middle ground approach, finding liability if the supervisor was part of the causal link to the termination, but allowing the company to absolve itself of liability if it conducted an independent investigation of the allegations against the terminated employee and came to the same conclusion.
This case involves what is being called "cat's paw" liability, where one person (the supervisor) uses another (a human resources manager) to achieve an end. The decision would have helped flesh out the procedures that employers should implement to avoid unintended discriminatory acts, but the Court dismissed the case on 4/12/07 without a decision.