Cat’s Paw Theory and Your Organization

Posted on June 30, 2011 by jill

What does a cat’s paw have to do with managing human resources at your organization? Well, it begins with a fable about a monkey who persuades a cat to remove roasting chestnuts from smoldering embers. The cat burns his paw in the process and, you guessed it, the cat never gets his share of the chestnuts; the monkey runs off with them all.

So what does this 17th century French fable have to do with HR? The American Heritage Dictionary defines the term “cat’s paw” as a person used by another as a dupe or tool. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling based on cat’s paw theory. The case involved an army reservist, Vincent Staub, who worked at a hospital. After review of his personnel file, which included a prior disciplinary action, and after speaking with his supervisors, the HR Manager made the decision to terminate him.

Staub sued for wrongful discharge, contending that he had been fired in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) based on time off for military service. The Supreme Court agreed with Staub that the prior disciplinary action in his personnel file was based on biased reporting by his supervisors who maintained an anti-military mindset. They further determined that these biased supervisors had influenced the final decision-maker, the HR Manager, when they caused the prior discipline to be entered into Staub’s records. So, while the HR manager herself showed no anti-military bias, she relied on information that was discriminatory in making the decision to terminate. Under cat’s paw theory, she served as the dupe used by the supervisors.

So what does this mean for your organization? Well, clearly, one should tread carefully with all adverse employment actions. This means thorough fact-finding investigations. You shouldn’t necessarily take a supervisor’s word alone without further digging. Review all anti-harassment policies and all grievance and investigative procedures. Train supervisors in all your policies but particularly in nondiscrimination and anti-harassment. Supervisory performance reviews should reflect how well supervisors coach and develop staff. There are never full guarantees against lawsuits, but implementing sound policies, procedures and training will keep your risk to a minimum to keep you from getting burned!

President Obama Signs Lilly Ledbetter Act into Law

Posted on January 30, 2009 by admin

: Image by Getty Images via Daylife

On January 29th, 2009 the Lilly Ledbetter Act was signed into law. The act states that the 180 day statutory limit for pay discrimination starts with each discriminated paycheck received. The act was named after Lilly Ledbetter who sued Goodyear after claiming sexual harrassment and pay discrimination.

Here is some history as presented in Time:

• During her career at Goodyear, Ledbetter suffered sexual harassment and day-to-day discrimination. She testified before Congress in 2007 that a supervisor once asked for sexual favors in return for good job performance evaluations. After Ledbetter complained about the supervisor to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), he was reassigned, but Ledbetter said she felt isolated at work and experienced a long-term pattern of discrimination.

• Got periodic pay raises, but all compensation information was kept confidential at her company. She received a Top Performance Award in 1996.

• Shortly before she was due to retire in 1998, an anonymous co-worker slipped a note into her mailbox at work comparing her pay against that of three other male counterparts. Ledbetter was making $3,727 per month, while men doing the same job were paid $4,286 to $5,236 per month. Ledbetter filed a complaint with the EEOC and was then assigned to lift heavy tires, which she felt was retribution.

• Sued Goodyear, which claimed it paid Ledbetter less than other male workers because she was not a good worker. A jury awarded Ledbetter about $3.3 million, but the amount was later reduced to around $300,000. Subsequently, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that Ledbetter was not entitled to compensation because she filed her claim more than 180 days after receiving her first discriminatory paycheck.

After testifying before congress in 2007, the Democratic majority tried to get the bill passed several times along with the Paycheck Fairness Act, but they were always blocked by President Bush. Throughout this time, SHRM has continually taken issue with the measures outlined stating:

“SHRM adamantly opposes discrimination based on gender and believes any intentional misconduct against an employee should be promptly addressed and resolved. We also recognize that some court decisions have narrowed the scope of pay discrimination protections. As a result, we believe that it is appropriate and necessary for Congress to re-examine pay discrimination laws to determine if changes may be needed to restore protection under the law. However, SHRM opposes any efforts to eliminate the statute of limitations for filing claims or to limit legitimate employer pay practices. As a result, SHRM is opposed to both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.”

Burden of Proof Shifts to Employer for Age Discrimination

Posted on August 12, 2008 by admin

In a recent case the Supreme Court put more pressure on employers in age discrimination lawsuits by placing the burden of proof on them. In the past employees have had to prove that age discrimination took place, which led to the dismissal of Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. With this new ruling the courts have flipped the burden of proof onto employers, who now must prove that the age discrimination did not take place. What this essentially means is that managers must keep detailed documentation behind every firing to show the “disparate impact” was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” Previously, courts in similar cases ruled it was up to employees to prove there was bias.

With the workforce aging as baby-boomers near retirement, the issue of age discrimination is becoming increasingly prevalent. With this type of discrimination on the rise, employers need to address the situation before it becomes a problem. According to Aging Workforce News, “A Hewitt Associates survey of more than 140 mid-size and large employers has found that 55% have already evaluated the impact that potential retirements could have on their organization and 61% have developed or will develop special programs to retain targeted, near-retirement employees. Even though only 21% believe that phased retirement is critical to their company’s human resources strategy today, 61% believe so when looking ahead 5 years.”

To learn more about age discrimination, the impact on businesses, and what you can do about it visit the Department of Labor, AARP, or one of many events such as the Aging Workforce Summit.