Don't Be A Cat's-Paw

sexual harassment complaint formMost sexual harassment policies include a procedure to investigate complaints, often specifying that the investigation will be timely and thorough, and may include interviews with the employees involved, witnesses, and anyone else with relevant knowledge. A recent decision from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whose decisions govern the Connecticut federal courts, illustrates the possible consequences of failing to conduct a thorough investigation of a sexual harassment complaint.

In the case of Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., the Court of Appeals applied what is known as the “cat’s paw” doctrine,  by which an employer can be held liable for discrimination in the form of retaliation against an employee by a co-worker, even when intentional discrimination would otherwise not be imputed to the employer. This occurs when an employee is fired by a supervisor who himself has no discriminatory motive, but who has been manipulated by a subordinate who does have such a motive.  The plaintiff in the Vasquez case complained to her supervisors of harassment by a co-worker, but the co-worker learned of the complaint and manipulated his smartphone to make it appear that the plaintiff had engaged in “sexting” with him and had sent him explicit photographs.  He then accused the plaintiff of harassing him.  The company accepted his accusations and the concocted “proof,” refused to consider contrary evidence offered by Ms. Vasquez, and fired her.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit because there was no evidence that the company’s supervisors, who were the actual decision-makers, had any intent to harass or retaliate against the plaintiff.  But the Court of Appeals decided that the trial court had missed the point. Although the cat’s paw doctrine had previously been applied only to supervisors, the Court ruled that by neglecting to do its own independent investigation, the company had negligently allowed itself to be manipulated by the conniving co-worker,  and under the cat’s paw doctrine, the company became liable for the co-worker’s intentional act of retaliation.

Investigations of sexual harassment complaints are obviously very sensitive, requiring immediate attention and consideration of the rights of both the accuser and the accused, as well as other employees who may be caught up in the situation.  But as the Vasquez case shows, it is important to be thorough and objective; the consequences of a superficial investigation can be severe.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page