Narrowing the Cat’s Paw: an Argument for a Uniform Subordinate Bias Liability Standard

Jane was an employee at a paper manufacturing plant for seven years. For the first six and a half years of her employment, Jane had always received satisfactory reviews from her plant supervisor John, although these reviews documented her occasional tardiness and one disciplinary action for a safety violation. However, Jane’s performance was always rated satisfactory overall, and John did not consider the infractions grounds for termination. Dave replaced John as plant supervisor in a management overhaul at the plant six months ago. Other company employees had overheard Dave making comments that working in a manufacturing plant is a “man’s job” and a plant is “no place for women” because they are not “strong enough or tough enough to get the job done right.” Other plant workers described Dave as generally curt and abrupt with his female employees, while being easygoing and friendly when interacting with his male employees. Jane has likened Dave’s management style to an “old boy’s club.” During Jane’s annual evaluation one month ago, Dave evaluated Jane’s work performance as unsatisfactory in a majority of the evaluation criteria in which she had always received positive marks. Jane took issue with this evaluation and expressed her objections to Dave during their review meeting. Dave responded that he thought her petite size and strength made performing laborious tasks at the plant difficult, and suggested that she find work more appropriate for “workers like her.” The plant was recently faced with financial difficulties and had to downsize; as a result, it fired Jane. A human resources manager located at the employer’s corporate headquarters in a different city made termination