Citing 'cat's paw' ruling, court upholds award to fired police officer
Reprints
PHILADELPHIA—Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's “cat's paw” decision in Vincent E. Staub vs. Proctor Hospital, a federal appeals court has upheld a jury award given to a dismissed Philadelphia police officer.
Under the cat's paw theory, an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination even if the decisionmaker is not motivated by bias. The ruling earlier this year in Staub involved a hospital angiography technician who allegedly was dismissed because of supervisors' hostility to his military obligations.
Wednesday's decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Michael McKenna et al. vs. City of Philadelphia et al. focused on Ray Carnation, a Caucasian police officer in the Philadelphia Police Department who was terminated in 1999. Mr. Carnation alleged that after he had complained about racial tensions in his squad, he was assigned to unassisted duty in dangerous neighborhoods in unpleasant weather conditions.
Court refuses to dismiss
Mr. Carnation subsequently was dismissed after a supervisor accused him of insubordination and neglect of duty, and a police board of inquiry found him guilty.
He sued the city, accusing it of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury subsequently returned a $2 million verdict in his favor, which later was reduced to $555,000.
In the unanimous ruling Wednesday by a three-judge panel, the 3rd Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that refused to dismiss the verdict.
“In the words of Staub, a reasonable jury could conclude that (the supervisor's) animus bore a direct and substantial relation to (Mr.) Carnation's termination and that the PBI's recommendation was not independent and was foreseeable,” the appeals court ruled.
Read Next
-
Employer liable for discriminatory adviser in firing: Supreme Court
WASHINGTON—Employers can be held liable for discriminatory conduct even if the person making the decision was not discriminatory but relied in part on those who were, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
