Dive Brief:
- A manager’s use of a single ethnic slur was not enough to show that a Michigan car dealership unlawfully discriminated against an Arab American employee when it fired him, a federal district court held Aug. 28.
- The plaintiff in Hackney v. LaFontaine Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram of Clinton, Inc. alleged in his 2022 lawsuit that he was fired shortly after complaining about the manager’s conduct. He claimed that the manager used a slur that disparaged another Arab American employee in conversation with the plaintiff. He alleged retaliation in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as Michigan state law.
- Judge Linda Parker granted summary judgment to the dealership, holding that the plaintiff did not have sufficient proof to advance his claims under the cat’s paw theory of liability. He filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment, arguing in part that the cat’s paw theory did not apply to his claims, but Parker affirmed her prior ruling and denied the motion.
Dive Insight:
Cat’s paw theory has been invoked by federal courts in numerous employment discrimination challenges. According to Parker’s first ruling in Hackney, this doctrine holds employers liable when a “biased subordinate, who lacks decisionmaking power, uses the formal decisionmaker as a dupe in a deliberate scheme to trigger a discriminatory employment action,” citing precedent of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The car dealership claimed that the manager who allegedly used the ethnic slur was not the ultimate decision-maker on whether to fire the plaintiff. The plaintiff, moreover, failed to show that the manager’s allegedly retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of his firing, Parker found. The court cited evidence uncovered during discovery that showed the plaintiff’s performance was “a legitimate factor for termination” and contributed to the decision made by the dealership’s general manager to terminate.
In his motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff claimed that the court erred in applying the cat’s paw theory because he contended that the manager was the decision-maker who initiated his firing. Parker conceded that the court “did not give proper consideration to this point” in its initial order.
However, the judge nonetheless held the plaintiff’s evidence — namely, the presence of the manager’s name on his termination letter — did not support any inference that the manager made the decision to terminate. Parker then reaffirmed her prior findings on the applicability of cat’s paw theory to the case.
Parker also held that the plaintiff’s “isolated complaint” about the manager’s single racist remark did not constitute protected activity.
“[The plaintiff’s] complaint concerning a single ethnic slur did not convey his belief that he was subjected to a hostile work environment,” the judge wrote. “Notwithstanding the utter disrespect that this dehumanizing language conveys, case law precedent holds that it is not ‘conduct made unlawful’ under Title VII or ELCRA.”
The 6th Circuit ruled in one 2024 case against a former paralegal who claimed her firing was discriminatory under the cat’s paw framework. The plaintiff in that case alleged that she was terminated years after a lawyer with whom she worked threw her an office party for her 50th birthday which featured items such as adult diapers. She claimed that the decision-maker was influenced by age bias on the part of the party-throwing lawyer, but the 6th Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to show that the lawyer intended to cause her to suffer an adverse action.
In a more recent case, a split 6th Circuit determined that a former insurance claims specialist had sufficient evidence under the cat’s paw theory to show that a co-worker’s manager retaliated against her for assisting the co-worker in filing an internal complaint.
