## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 08

- 1316 , 08

- 2255 & 08

- 2402 V I NCE NTE . S T AUB , P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. P R OC T ORH OS PI T AL, a n I l l i no i s co r po r at i o n, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 04 C1219

—Jo hn A . G orman, Magistrate Judg e.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 11, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 25, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . E VANS, Cir cu i tJudg e . One would guess that the c hances ar e pr etty s l i m thatthe w or k o fa 17th centur y F re nch poet w oul d find i ts w ay i nto a C hi cago co urtr oo m i n 200 9. Bu t that’ s the si tuati on in thi s ca se as w e t ryto m ake se nse o uto fwhatha s be endub be d the “ ca t’s p aw ” th eo r y . The ter m deri ves fro m the f abl e “ The M on ke y a nd the Cat” p en n ed by Jea n d e L a F on ta in e (1 62 1-1 69 5). Inth e t ale , a cl eve r

— an d r athe r uns cr upul o us

— m onkey per suades a n unsuspecti ng fel i ne to snatch chestnuts fr om a fi re . The cat burns her paw i n the proce ss w hi l e th e m onkey pro fi ts,2 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 gul ping dow n the chestnu ts one by one. A s underst oo d to d ay , a cat ’ s paw is a “to ol ” o r “one used by anothe r to acco m pli sh his pu rpos es. ” W ebst er ’ s Thi rd N ew Inter national Diction ary (1976). M ore on th is a li ttle l ater. Vince nt S taub s ued the Pr oct orH ospi talo fPeo ria, I l l i no i s, unde r the Uni f o r m ed Se r vi ce s Em pl o y m en t an d R ee m p loym ent Ri ghts A ct ( U SERRA ) , 38 U
. S. C. § 4 301 et se q. , afterhe was di scharge d fr om hi s pos i ti on a s a n an g i o g r aph y t echn ol o g i st
. An Army r es er vi st, S ta ub al l ege d that the rea sons gi ven

— i nsubor dinat i on, shi rk i ng, a n d a t t i t u d e p r o b l e ms

— w er e j ust a p re text f ordi scr i m i nati on ba sed on hi s ass oci ati on w i th the m i l i tar y. A j ury si ded w i th S taub, and the dist ri ct cour t denie d Pr oct or ’ s r enewed m ot ion for jud gm en t a s a m at te r of law or fo r a n ew tria l. On app eal, Pro cto r ar gues that the c ourtga ve a fa ulty in st ru c tio n reg ar d in g t h e “ c at ’s p aw ” t h eo ry an d , in connect i on w i th thater ro r, i m proper l y a dm i tte d evi dence ofani m us by nondeci si onm ake rs . The cat ’ s paw theo ry, w hi ch w e wil ldi scuss l ate r i n m or e detail, i s a way of p ro vin g d isc rim in at ion w h en t h e d ec isio n m ak er h er se lf is ad m itted ly unbiased ; un d er the th eory, th e d iscrim inatory an i m us o fa no nde ci si onm ak eri s i m put ed to the deci si onm ake r w here the f or m erhas si ngul ari nfluence ove r the l att erand uses that i nfluence t o cause the a dvers e em p loy m en t a c tio n . B re w erv. Bo ard of Trust ees of U niversi ty of Ill inois , 47 9 F
. 3d 90 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. In additi on t o att acking the way the dist ri ct c ourt h an d l ed thi s theor y, Pro cto r say s the ev i dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o supp or t a ve r di ctunde r i t. St au b co nt es ts the se a r g um en ts he ad- o n, but he a l s o s a y s the p r e mi s e i s fl a we d. We ne e d n ot an alyze this as a cat’s p aw c ase, Staub clai m s, bec au se th ere w as evi dence thatt h ere were t wo deci si onm ake rs , o ne o fNo s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 3

Tho ugh w e s tar t our narr ati ve in 2000

— as thati s whenSt aub 1 al l e g e s h i s m i l i t a r y -b a se d p ro b lem s aro se

— Sta u b ’ s em p loy ee file was al re ady thi c k by thatdat e. I n 1 99 8, P ro ctor fi re d St aub (tem p or arily , as it turn s ou t) for re fu si n g to w or k p ast his s c he dul ed s hi ft
. St aub was re i ns t at ed aft er fi l i ng a gr i eva nc e, but w ith cer tai n conditi ons i n place. Those condit ions add res se d percei ved w eakness i n availability , att itud e, and com m unication
. F or instan ce, Stau b w as to co m m u nica te w ith h is sup erv iso r w h en ever he l eft hi s w ork area, and he w as w arned that “a n y in sub or d ina tion , im m atu re b eh av ior, un p ro fessi on alism orl ack o fsup po r to f[ a ] m a na ge m e ntde c i s i on [ ] w[ ou l d] be g r o u n ds f or i mm e di a t e d i s mi s s a l

. ” T h i s i s r e l e v a n t, a s we shal l se e, because Proctor says St aub ’ s lat est te rm inat ion was d u e to sim ilar insu b or d ina tion an d shirk ing of du ties. w hom was cl ear l y pr ej ud iced. W e s tar t with the f acts vi ew ed i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the v er dict

. S t a u b w a s a v e t e r a n me mb e r o fth e U n i t e d S t a t e s A r my R eserve . Like allreserv is t s , h e w as a p art-tim e soldier, spending the b ulko fhi s ho urs i n the c ivilia n w or l d. For S t a ub , tha t mea nt e mpl o y men t a s a n a ng i o t e ch f or Pro cto r. Bal anc in g w or k a nd m i l i tar y duti es can be a com p li cate d task, bu t S t a u b ap p aren tly m an aged

. For a w hi l e, atl eas t. In l ate 20 00, so m e 1 0 y ear s a fterhe was hi re d, thi ngs b ega n to gr ow a l i ttl e t ense. 1 It w as aro u n d t h a t t im e t h at Jan ice M u lally , sec on d in com m and ofthe Diagnost i c I m aging D epart m ent, began t o p re p ar e t h e d ep ar tm en t w or k s c h ed u les . Sta u b w ou ld noti fy M ula l l y o fhi s dri l land tr ai ni ng o bl i gat i ons, wh i ch o cc upi ed o ne wee k en d per m o nth an d two wee k s dur i ng th e su m m er . Be f o r e M ul al l y t o o ko ve r s ch edu l i ng, S ta ub4 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 ha d wee k en ds o ff

. ButM ulal l y pl ac ed S ta ub ba cki n the w eek end ro tat i on, cr eat i ng co nfl i cts w i thh i s dr i l lsche du l e. M ula l l y di d thi s e ven though s h e had advance not i ce o fS tau b ’ s mi l i t a r y o b l i g a t i o ns , a nd wh e n S t a ub a ppr o ac he d he rabo utthe i ss ue s he b ec ame a g i ta ted. Be g i nni ng i n 200 0, t h e sched uling co nfl i cts w er e o nl y “ occa si onal, ” but M ula l l y’ s a tt itu de re fl ecte d a deeperpro bl em. M ul al l y r es po nde d t o S ta ub’ s que st i o ns bythr o wi ng hi m o ut o f he r o ffi c e a nd s a y i ng s he “ di dn ’ t wa ntto deal wi thi t. ” S ta ub f o und so m e r el i efb y g o i ngt o de par tment head M i chaelKorenchuk, ye t i t was f arfro m co m ple te. So m eti m es M u lal l y would chang e S taub’ s s chedule after K or enchuk spok e with her, bu t othertim es she would pos t a not ice on the bu ll etin board statin g tha t volun teers w ere needed to cove r the d ril lweekends, por tr aying S taub a s i rr esponsibl e. A n d o ccasi onal l y M ula l l y m ade S taub use hi s v acat i on t i m e for d ri l ldays orsche du l ed hi m f or addi ti o na ls hi fts wi th o ut no ti ce . M ul al l y made he r r ea so ns p lain : Sh e c alle d Sta u b ’s m ilita ry d u tie s “b u llsh it” an d sa id the e xtra shi fts w er e hi s “ w ay ofpayi ng bac k the depart

m ent forev er yone el se h aving to bend ove r back w ar ds to co ve r [ hi s] s ch ed ule fo r the Re se r ve s. ” And i t ca m e as no su r pr i se th at Kor en ch uk di d l i tt l e to r emedy the s i tu at i o n. A lthou gh K or e nc hu k only com m en ted abou t Stau b’s re ser ve du ti es on a “co uple differ ent o ccasi on s,” thes e com m ents w er e no ne to o subtl e. Korenchuk c hara cter i zed dri l lw eek ends as “A rm y Reser ve bul l shi t” and “a b[ u]nch of sm oking an d j oking an d [ a] w aste of ta x p a y e rs[’ ] m on ey .” Bad as tha t was , thi ng s be ca m e wor se i n 20 03
. I n F eb r uaryo ftha t y ea r, S ta ub was c al l ed to a ct i ve d ut y for a p e r i o d o fu p t o o n e y e a r . T h o u g h u n f o r e s e e n c i r c u m-No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 5

A pp arent ly s h e d id , at le astto som e degree. The very next 2 day, Kore nchu k c om pl et ed S t aub’ s an nua l e val uat i on, gi vi ng (co n tin u ed ...) stan ces cu t the tour sh or t a t the 92 -da y m ark, Stau b’s re turn ho m e was l ess than ple asant
. Korenchuk t ol d one o f St aub’ s co w or ker s, A m y K noer l e, that M ula l l y was “o ut to get ” S taub. Kn oer l e was ata los s be cause she s aw not hin g i n Stau b bu t a hard w or k e r a nd team player. H owever, she noti ced thatwh eneve r St aub approa ched M ula l l y about dri l lo bl i gat i ons, M u lal l y would r ol lher eye s a nd m ake si ghi ng noi ses . K noer l e l e ft he r po s t i n J ul y o f 2 0 0 3 , t o b e r e pl a c e d by Lesl i e S w eborg . Tw o w eek s into the j ob, S w ebo rgm et M ula l l y a nd ano therco w or ker, A ngi e D ay, fordri nks a fter w or k. Exp ecting nothi ng m or e than casualchi t- chat, Swebor g was sho cked when the co nver sat i on t u rned to Stau b. M ulally w as blun t: “Sh e said th at [Staub ’s] m il itary d u ty h ad be en a st ra in on th e[] d ep ar tm en t” an d “s h e d id not l ike him as an em p loyee. ” So M ulally asked Sw eborg “to hel p her getr id o f h i m . ” S w ebo rgr efused. In her op in ion, St au b w as alw ay s com p et en t an d p ro fes sio n al, and ther e was no re aso n f orsuch a ni m osi ty. Day, o n the othe r hand , sha re d M ula l l y’ s di sl i ke of St au b. In a depar tm entalm eet i ng o n Decem ber9, 20 03, Day sa i d Sta ub f ai l ed to tr ai n herpro perl y a nd al w ays seem e d t o “d isap p ear” w he n h elp w as ne ed ed

. Sw eborg defen ded S ta ub

— say i ng he w as a s ol i d tra i ner and “j ust a s avai l abl e a s a ny o therte ch i n the departm ent”

—but M ulally sh ot he r d ow n. M ulally told Sw eborg she “d idn ’t kn ow w h at [sh e] w as ta lkin g a b ou t.” 26 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 hi m ani m pre s s i ve s c or e of97
. 53 outof 100

. To be f ai r, though, Sta u b ’ s ev alu atio ns from ye ars p ast w ere n ot so s p a r k ling ; his att i t ude , pr ofe s s i on a l i s m , a nd a bi l i t y t o wor k we l l wi th others w er e n o te d as co n sta n t w ea k n es se s. S ee s u pra n. 1. Inan y c as e, th e t id e w as tu rn in g a ga in st Sta u b , an d h is mi l i t a r y o b l i g a t i o ns we r e a tl e a s tp e r i ph e r a l l y i nv o l v e d. On J anuary9, 200 4, St au b r ecei ved an o rderto r epor t for “so l die r re adine ss proce ssing, ” a p re c urso r to anothe r r o und o fa ct i ve de p loym ent
. S ta ub g av e a co py o fthe o r dert o b o thKor en ch uka nd M ul al l y, a nd Ko r en ch uk bec am e a pp re hensi ve. H e a ske d Sta ub sev er alti m es per w eekwh en he w oul d have to sh ip o ut. Day had r esi gned b y th i s p o i n t, l e a v i n gS we b o r ga n d S t a u b a s th e o n l y t wo an g i o te ch s. I f S ta ub went o n ac ti ve duty, K o r en ch uk woul d h a v e t o u s e “ r e n t
- a - t e c h s , ” p l a c i n gs t r a i n o n the departm ent’ s budget

. One mightthi nkthi s enha nc ed S ta ub’ s j o b se cur i ty, b ut not so . On J anuary27, 20 04, M ula l l y g ave St aub a w ri tte n w ar ni ng ac cusi ng hi m o fshi rk i ng hi s duti es. A bi t o f back gr ound in form ati on i s nec ess ar y t o und er sta nd wh at St aub al l ege dlyf ai l ed to d o, because i t bo re no connect i on to a ng i o g r aph y . The Di agno st i c I m ag i ngDe par tment ( he ade d b y Kor en ch uk ) w as d i vi ded i nt o t wo un i ts : o ne unitf orangi ogr aphy, and a far largeruni t fortr adit i onal diagnostic im ag in g s er vic es like radi ol ogy, m am m ogr aphy, u ltr a s ou n d s, C A T sc an s, an d M R Is. T h ou gh th ey n or m ally stu c k to their spe ciali ty, an gio tech s w ere trained to w ork i n b o thuni ts a nd therefore h ad th e ab i l i tyt o he l p o ut wi thr adi o l o g y a nd the l i k e when th e ne ed a r o se a nd theNo s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 7 circum stan ces p erm itted

. A ccord ing to M ulally, how ever, St aub di dn ’ t r espectthatar ra ngem ent. On the m or ni ng o fJ anuary26 , a w orkerfro m ge nera l di agno st i cs c al l ed M ul al l y t o se e i fa ny o fthe a ng i o t ec hs wer e fr ee t o he l p o ut
. M ul al l y i n tur n c al l ed S webo r ga nd ask ed i fshe and S taub had a ny pati ents. Swebor g sai d they d idn ’t and , accord ing to M ulally, l ater ad m itted they w ere com ple tel y fre e fro m 8: 30 to 9: 45 a. m . N ev er thel ess , Sw eborg an d Staub f ail ed to l en d a h an d

. M ulally th erefore i ss ue d S ta ub a wri tt enwar ni ng

— S webo r gr ec ei ve d o ne the ne xt day

— noting tha t he had al re ady bee n w ar ned abou t t his beh avior sev eral tim es. B ut Sta ub a nd Sw eborg dispute al lthat

. They s ay they h ad a n angi o pati ent a t 8: 30 a. m . , and al though that c ase was ul ti m ate l y c ancel l ed b y t h e d oc to r, th ey lea rn ed of th e c an c ella tio n on ly 15 m i nutes pr i orto the cal lf orhel p i n gene ra ldi agno sti cs, to whi chthe y i m m edi at ely r es po nde d. F ur th er, a cc o r di ng to S webo r ga nd S ta ub, the y ha d n ever be f o r e be eni nstr ucted to r epor t a utom ati cal l y t o ge n eraldi agno sti cs iftheydi d not hav e a ngi o case s. S taub thus re fused to s i g n the wa r ning, and he a s k e d Ko r e nc hu k( who a ppr o ve d the ac ti o n) why he was be i ngt ar g et ed. Kor en ch uk sai d M ula l l y “ had al lo fthe pertinent f ac ts ,” and he j ust si g ne d the war ni ng“ to g ethe r o ffo fhi s ba ck

. ” S o the w ar ni ng st oo d , a nd so di d i ts i nstr ucti ons f orthe future. Goi ng f or w ar d, St aub w as to “r epor t t o M i ke [ K or enchuk] o r J an[ M ul al l y ] when[ he ] ha [ d] no p ati en ts a nd [ th e an gio ] ca se s [w e]r e c om p let e[d ].” H e w ou ld a l s o “ re m ain i n the generaldi agno sti c ar ea unle ss [ he] speci fi ed to M ike or Ja n w h er e a n d w h y [h e w ou ld ] go e lse w h er e.”8 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 T h is d isc ip lin e o f Sta u b e m b old en ed M u lally . Sh or tly afterw ard s s he c all ed Sta ub ’s Reserv e U nit A d m inistrator, J ose ph A bbi dini, in B ar tonvi l l e, Il l i noi s. M ula l l y had ca l l ed A bbi dinio n a pr i oro ccasi on t o confi rm thatS taub was actual l y a m em bero fthe Reser ves, but now she w anted to kn ow if St au b co u ld b e e x c u s ed from so m e o f h is m ilita ry d u tie s. M u lally as ke d A b b id in i if St au b rea lly had to att end tw o- w eektraini ng i n the sum m erbec ause he w as ne eded atwor k

. Abbi di nis ta te d tha t th e tr aini ng wa s m a nd a t o r y . Mo s tR e s e r v e me mbe r s h a v e o ut s i de em plo ym ent, he e xplained, so excusi ng S tau b w oul d set an ugl y pr ecedent. M ula l l y’ s r esp onse? S he cal l ed A bbadi n i an “ass hol e” and hun g up. ( A gain, we add that w e a re , as we are r equi re d to do at thi s s tag e of the pro

ceedi ngs, ta ki ng al lf acts in the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o M r. Sta u b .) A fte r all th is, th er e c a n b e litt le d isp u te th at M u lally didn’tl i ke St aub, and that par t o fthi s a ni m us fl owed fro m hi s m em ber shi p i n the m i l i tar y. But i t was D a y’s beefwith S ta ub

— not M ulally’ s

— th at w ou ld u ltim at ely ge t t h e b all r o l l i ngt o wa r ds t e r mi na t i o n. OnApr i l 2, 20 0 4 , Da y h a d a m eet i ng with K or enchuk, Li nd a Bu ck ( vi ce- presi dent of H um an Reso urces ) , and R. Garret t M cGow an ( chi ef oper ating offi cer )
. Day was upset w i th Korenchuk because sh e c o mpl a i n e d t o h i m ab o u tS t a u b a n d h e d i d n o th i ng i n re sponse. D ay s aid she had diffi cul ty w or ki ng with St au b , he w ou ld “a b se n t h im se lf from t h e d ep ar tm en t,” a n d h e t e n d e d t o b e “ ab r u p t
. ” A ft e r D a y l e ftth e r o o m, K or enchuk, B uck, and M cGow an di scusse d w hat they sh ou ld d o. T his w asn ’t th e fi rst tim e M cG ow an had heard ab ou t “ av aila b ility ” p ro b lem s in vo lvin g St au b , so h e t oldNo s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 9

T ho u g h it is clear Sta u b w as fir e d o n th e 20 th, there is 3 som e am biguity as to w hetherthe tr iggeri n g e v ent occ ur re d thatd ay. St aub, Sw ebo rg, and Kore nc huk s ai d the e ven t occ u rred on the 2 0th , b u t B u ck claim ed it hap p en ed on the 1 9th and s a id she m ull ed the s ituation over for a day b ef ore s et t l i ng on a dec i s i on. W e fi nd the c ol l ec t i ve re c ol lection of Staub, Sw eb o rg , and K orenchuk m ore c redible, but ei ther w ay ithas no effecton the outcom e ofthe cas e. K or enchuk to work w i th Buck to cr eat e a pl an that wo ul d s ol v e the i s s ue . T he y n e v e r f o un d t i me t o do that

— St aub r an int o tr oubl e a gain and w as fi re d thre e w eek s l ate r on Ap ri l20
. 3 The da y o fr eckon i ngs ta r te d o utno r m al l y e no ug h. St aub and Swebor g w or ke d to gether i n the angi o departm ent al lm or ni ng, fi ni shi ng up ar ound lunchti m e. H ungry, yetm i nd fu l o fthe pri orwarni ng, S taub wal ked to K orenc hu k’s office to tel l him that he an d Sw eborg w ere going t o lun ch

. Bu t K orenc hu k w asn ’t there. So St aub walk ed bac k to the angi o sui te, pl aced a cal lto K or en c h u k’s o f f i c e , an d lefta vo ice m ail in for m in g h im they w er e o ffto the cafete ri a. Staub and Swebor g r eturned 30 m i nutes l ate r an d w ent t o w or k o n so m e l eftove r fi l m i ng. Korenchuk s how ed up a few m om ents a ft e r wa r d s , d e ma n d i n gt o kn o w wh e r e th e y h a d b e e n . He said he w as “look in g allover” for Stau b, an d Stau b’s expla nati on

— that they w er e o nl y at lunch and left a vo i ce m ail

— appe as ed hi m l i tt l e. Kor en ch uke sc o r te d S ta ub do wn t o Bu c k ’ s o ffi c e i n Huma n Re s o ur c e s , p i cki ngu p a secur ity guar d al ong the way. Korenchuk had m et wi th Bu c ke a r l i e r i n the day

— info r m i nghe r tha t S ta ub1 0 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 f ai l ed to r epor t in as in st ructed and coul dn ’ t be l ocate d

— s o th e d e c i s i o n t o t e r mi n a t e wa s a l r e a d y ma d e . As S ta ub wal k ed i nt o the room, Buc kha nde d hi m hi s pi nk sli p . T he gu ard th en es corted h im off the grou nd s. Sw eborg w as not disc i plined, tho ugh she re signed a few days l ate r out ofdi sgust
. A cc o r di ngt o the wr i t t e n no t i c e , S t a ub wa s di s c ha r g ed for failin g t o h ee d th e e ar lier w ar n in g in st ru c t i n g h im to rep ort to K orenc hu k w he ne ver he h a d n o m ore w ork i n th e an g i o depa r tment an d o th er wi se to r emai n i n the g e ne r a ldi a g no s t i c s a r e a . W i tho utthe J a nu a r y 2 7wr i t e - up , Day’ s Ap ri l2 com pla i nt, and the even t o n A pri l20

— all ofwh i ch i nvol ved unavai l abi l i ty o r “dis appearance s”

— Bu ck sai d she would nothave fi re d Sta ub. Buck’ s t es tim ony m ake s i t cl earthatal th ou gh she re l i ed on K or enchuk’ s inpu t, the ult i m ate deci si on was her s. Kor en ch uk“ r eluctantl y a g r ee d” wi thhe r de ci si o n, b ut i t was hercal lto m ake

. B e y ond cons ulting K orenc hu k and review ing the m ore re c en t in c id en ts , B u c k re lied on p as t is su es w ith Sta u b in ma k i nghe r d e c i s i o n . S h e s a i d s h e h e a r d “ fr e q u e n tc o mp lai nt s” abou t Stau b d uring her fi rst year w ith Proc tor, 2001
. A nd she knew o ftwo w or ker s who re si gned beca us e o fS ta ub i n 2 00 2: ana ng i o t ec h qui t be ca us e S ta ub mad e h e r fe e ll i k e “ g um o n the b o t t o m o fh i s s ho e , ” a nd a re gi ste re d nurse gave up f orsi m i l arreas ons. W hat’ s m or e, a recru iter told Bu ck sh e had difficulty attrac ting w orkers to angi o because S taub “ had a r eputati on. ” A m on g other thi ngs, he was know n f orfl i rt i ng with m edi calstud ents. A dm i tte dly, how eve r, Buck f ai l ed to speakwith o ther angi o techs w ho w or ked with St aub, i ncl ud i ng S w ebo rg,N o s . 0 8

- 1 3 1 6, 0 8

- 2 2 5 5&0 8

- 24 0 2 11

an d s he ha d no i dea that M ul al l y a nd Da y want ed S ta ub fi r ed. ButBuc kdi d r ev i ew S ta ub’ s empl o y ee fil e, i ncl udi ngthe g o o d (li k e hi s m o str ec en t annua le va l ua ti o n) an d the ba d ( li ke th e Janu ary 27 w rite- up ). S ta ub fi l ed a g r i ev an ce f o l l o wi ngthe te r m i na ti o n. S ta ub i ns i st ed th atthe J an ua r y 2 7 wri te
- up

— co ntaini ngthe com m and he al l ege dlyvi ol ate d

— w as f abr i cate d by M ula l l y to gethi m i n tr oubl e. Buck di d not fol l ow up with M u lally ab ou t t h is c laim

— though s he di d discuss i t with another H um an Reso urces o ffi ci al

— and she di d not i nvest i gat e S taub’ s co ntenti on that M ula l l y was o ut to ge t hi m bec ause he was i n the Reser ves. Instea d, Bu ck stuck w i th heri ni ti alas ses sm ent: S taub, despit e t echni cal com petency, di dn ’ t w or k w el l w i th othe rs and deserv ed to be fi re d fo r i nsubor dinat i on. S taub’ s invol vem en t with the m i l i tar y pl aye d no r ol e in heranal ysi s. A ga in st th is b ac kd ro p , Sta u b fac ed an u p h ill ba tt le in hi s USERRA di sc r i m i na ti o n s ui t. Li k e o th ere m pl o y m en t d i scr i m i nati on l egi sl ati on, U SERRA pro hibi ts advers e action based on a p rohibited criteri on, i n th is case m il itary sta tus. 38 U
. S. C. § 4 311( a) , ( c )(1). But al so as w i th o ther di sc r i m i na ti o n l eg i sl at i o n, a pl aint i ffs ui ngunde r USERRA does not w i n by showing prohibi ted ani m us by j ust a ny o ne . He mus t s ho w tha t t he dec isio nm a k erharbor ed an i mus a nd r e l i e d o n tha ta ni mus i n c ho o s i ngt o ta ke action . Since Bu ck w as the deci si onm ake r and ther e was no e vi dence s hehad a pr oblem with S taub o n acco unt of hi s m em b ershi p i n the Reser ves, S taub was o ut o fl uck unde r the t r adi ti o na lr ubr i c. Buttha t do es n’ t m ea n h e h ad n o c as e a t a ll.1 2 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 Dep l oying the cat ’ s paw theo ry, S taub s ought to att ribute Mul a l l y ’ s a n i mu s t o B u c k, a n d th e r e f o r e t o P r o ct o r . He posi ted thatM ula l l y fed f al se i nfo rm ati on t o Bu ck ( i
. e. , that he dodged w or k o n J anuary26 , 20 04) ; tha t M ula l l y was m o ti va te d t o do thi s be ca us e he w as a mem be r o fthe A rm y Res er ves; and that Bu ck re l i ed on thi s f al se i nfo rm ati o n ( wi th o utv et tingi t a ny mean i ng fulway ) i n de ci di ng to fi re him

. Th e case m ad e it to trialon th is theory, w he re the j ury apparen tly f ound itco nvi nci ng, r etur ni ng a ver dict i n St aub’ s f avo r. Pursuant to the parties ’ st i pu l ation, Stau b w as aw ard ed $57,640 in da m age s . T h e cou rt then deni ed Pro cto r’ s r enewed m oti on fo r a new tr i al o r j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e r o fl a w. P ro c torar gues on a pp ealthatthe dist ri ct c ourtm i sha ndl ed th e ca t’ s paw the o r y(bo thi n t er m s o fi ns truct i ng th e j ur y a nd a dm i tt i ngc er ta i n e vi den ce ) , a nd a l so tha t th e ev i den ce was i ns uffi ci en t. Be f o r e r ea ch i ngtho se a r g um ents, however, we m ust a dd re ss St aub’ s invi tat i on t o re vi ew thi s no t a s a c at ’s p aw cas e, but as a t ra dit i onal dis c rim inati on s uit
. S taub a tte m pts to sk i rtthe cat’ s paw an aly si s bya r g ui ngtha t Buckwas n ot the o nl y de ci si o nm ake r. S taub s ays Buck shar ed th at re sponsibi l i ty w i th K orenc hu k, w ho ad m itted ly m ad e som e ant i- m il itary re m ar ks. I fthatwere the c ase , it w ou l d not m att er w he th er Bu ck act ed as the ca t’s paw , becau s e t h e j ury cou ld fi nd that a dec isi onm aker him se lf w as bia se d

. See 38 U .S.C . § 43 11 (c )(1) ; Le wis v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 49 6 F
. 3d 645, 65 1-5 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); M a xfi eld v . Cin ta s C o rp. No . 2 , 42 7 F.3 d 54 4, 55 2-5 3 (8 th C ir. 20 05 ). Th e p ro b lem w ith th is th eory is ne ither its l ogic nor e v e n its lack of record su ppo r t ( th o ug h tha t’ s do ubtful a s wel l )
. Ra th er, theN o s . 0 8

- 1 3 1 6, 0 8

- 2 2 5 5&0 8

- 24 0 2 13 probl em i s that S taub fa i l ed to pres ent thi s theor y b el ow, so it is w aiv ed on ap p ea l. Se eM o t ev. Ae t na Li f eIns . Co. , 50 2 F.3 d 60 1, 60 8 n .4 (7t h C ir. 20 0 7 )
. E v e n if th e e vid en c e d id supp ort thi s new theory, we w oul d be di si ncl i ned to ass um e the j ury enter tained i t be cause St aub pre sente d h is c as e o n l y a s a ca t’s p aw m at te r. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ie nco , 92 F .3d 56 4, 57 0 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 96 ) (“[W ]h en th er e is re as on to d ou b t t h a t t h e jur y e ve n co n sid er ed th e o n ly pr o perthe o r y unde r whi chthe de fen dan t ca n be c o nv i c te d , th e v e r d i c tc a n n o tb e u p h e l d me r e l y b e c a u s e we ar e c on fid en t t h at th e jur y w ou ld h av e c on vic te d h ad it c o n s i d e r e d th a tth e o r y . ”)
. I fS t a u b wa n t e d t o p i t c h t wo al te r na ti ve the o r i es a t t r i al, he co ul d hav e do ne so . Buthe chose to st i ck w i th the cat ’ s paw, so n ow it sti cks w i th hi m . A nd with that, we turn t o the a pp l i cabi l i ty of L a F on ta in e’s “c at ’ s p aw ” t o 2 1s t c en tu ry fed er al a n tid i s c r i mi n a t i o n l a w. I n B rew er, w e ap p lied th e ca t’s p aw c on c ep t t o d isc rim in at ion law . Th at c as e d ea lt w ith t h e “ M ac h iav ellia n w or ld ofper m i t par ki ng atthe U ni ver si ty ofI l l i n ois ’ s UrbanaCha m pai g n c ampus, a nd the i l lf o r tu ne o fa s tu den t who becam e invol ved i n i t. ” 4 79 F. 3d at 909. The stud ent, Lo nne l lBr ewe r, was fi r ed fr o m his pa r t- ti m e j o b afte r he w as ca u gh t w ith a m od ified p a r k i n g t ag . B re w er sa id h is supervi sor( K er rin Thom pson) ga ve hi m per m i ssi on t o m o di fy the t ag, a nd s he k eptthis f ac t a se cr etb ec au se he w as bl ack and she wanted him fi re d. The evi dence of an i m us o n the pa r t o fTho m pso n was si g ni fi ca nt, to sa y the l e a s t
. J us tb e f o r e Br e we r g o tthe b o o t, T ho mps o n y e l l e d, “I ha ve ha d i t wi th y o u ni g g er, g et m y ta g ! ” Th om p son, ho we v e r, d i d n o tma k e th e d e c i s i o n t o t e r mi n a t e . T he1 4 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 d ec isio n ins te ad ca m e fro m s o m eo n e h igh er u p th e c h ain o fc o m m an d

— Denise H endri cks

— an d the r e was no evi dence that s he harbo r ed an y r ac i ala ni m us . Underthe nor m aldi scr i m i nati on fra m ew or k, thatwould have been th e e n d o f t h e ro ad fo r B re w er ’s c as e. B u t w e h eld th at h is cl ai m co uld s urvi ve i f h e s how ed Thom pson used He nd r i c k s a s h e r c a t ’ s p a w. We s a i d,
w h er e a n em p loy ee w ith ou t for m alautho rit y t o m at er ia l l y a l t e r th e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o fa p l a i n t i ff’ s e mplo ym ent no n ethel ess uses her“s i ngul ari nfluence” over an em p loyee w ho d oes ha ve su ch pow er to harm th e p l a i n t i fff o r r a c i a lr e a s o n s , th e a c t i o n s o ft h e e mpl o y ee wi th o ut f o r m al au th o r i ty ar e i m put ed to the em p loy er an d th e e m p loy er is in v iola tio n of T itle V II. Id. at 917. A nd w e note d that this i nfluen ce m ay be ex erci sed by, am ong othe r thi ngs, “s up ply i ng m i si nfo rm ati on orf ai l i ng to pro vid e re l evanti nfo rm ati on t o the per son m aking the em plo ym ent deci si on. ” Id. S o B r e w e r ’ s c a s e lo o k e d s t r o n gu n d erth is for m u la

— th er e was e vi den ce tha t Tho m pso n was rac ist, a nd tha t sh e i nfl uenced H end ricks’ s deci si on bywithhol ding the f act that she t ol d Brew erhe c oul d park w h er e he l i ked. But, al as, we hel d against Bre w er . I t wasn’tf ai r to im pu te Thom pson’ s a ni m us to H endri cks, w e co ncl ud ed, bec ause H endri cks l oo ked i nto the s i tuati on fo r hers el f; tho ugh sh e “ list en ed to th e in for m at ion T h om p so n rela ye d t o h er ,” she “ did notsi m plyrely on i t. ” Id. a t9 1 9
. F r o m th i s we d erived a sim p le rule to p reven t the cat’s pa w theory fro m sp ira lin g ou t o f co n tr ol:N o s . 0 8

- 1 3 1 6, 0 8

- 2 2 5 5&0 8

- 24 0 2 15 [ W ] here a deci si on m ake r i s not w hol l y dependent on a s i ngl e sourc e o fi nfo rm ati on, but i nstea d conducts i ts o wn i nv es ti g at i o n int o the f act s r el ev an t to the d ecision, th e em p loyer i s not li able for an em p loyee’s su bm issi on of m isi nform ation to th e d ecision m aker. Id. at 91 8. By as k i ng whethe r th e dec i si o nm aker condu cted hero w n i nvest i gat i on and anal ysi s, we re specte d th e ro le of t h e d ec isio n m ak er . W e w er e, an d re m ain to th is day, unpr epa r ed to fi nd a n e m pl o y erl i ab l e ba se d o n a non d ecisionm aker’s anim us un less the “d e c isi onm aker” he r se l fhe l d tha t ti tl e o nl y no m i na l l y . I fthe de ci si o nm ake r w asn’ t use d as a cat ’ s paw

— i f s he di dn ’ t j us t t ake th e m o nk ey ’ s wor d f o r i t, a s i t we re

— th en o fc o ur se the theo ryi s no t in pla y. W e affi r m ed this pr i nc i pl e i n M etzg er v. Il li nois State Pol ice, 5 1 9 F .3d 67 7 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Th ou gh w e a c kn ow le d g e d th e c a t ’ s p a w a s a v i ab l e t h e o r y i n c e r t a i n c a s e s , we hel d th at it w as w hol l y inapp ro pri ate i n M etz ger ’ s s i tuati o n b ec au se the r e was ne i th ere vi den ce o fs i ng ul ari nfl uence norpro ofthatthe deci si onm aker’s r evi ew was “anythi ng but i nd ependent .

. . . ” Id. at68 2. M easu red against th is preced en t, w e find thatthere w a s i ns uffi c i e nte v i de nc e t o s up po r ta v e r di c ta g a i nst P r o c t o r u n d e r th e c a t ’ s paw th e o r y . B u tb e f o r e we ex pl ain why, i t i s ne ce ss ary t o c o m m en t o n the waythe trialc o urt han d led th e m atter. W e d o not fau lt the cou rt m u c h f ori ts approach

— th e j u d g e c e r t a i n l y d i d a n a dm i rabl e j ob gi ven the dear th o fcas e l aw

—but we agr ee w ith Pr o ct o r tha t th e di vi si o n o fl ab o r b etwee n j ury an d co u r t, i fn otth e jur y in st ru c tio n its elf, w as lega lly defe cti ve.1 6 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 J us t be f o r e th e ca se wentt o t r i al, Pr o ct o r fil ed m o ti o ns in l i m i nes e e k i n gt o e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e o fmi l i t a r y a n i m us o n the pa r t o find i vi dual s, pr i nc i pal l y M ul al l y, no t i nvo l ve d i n the de ci si o n t o t er m i nate
. The c o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o ns , ho wev er, re as o ni ngtha t the ev i den ce w as e ss en ti alto the cat’s p aw theo ry . But the cour t a gr eed that an i m us b y a no nde ci si o nm ak eri s o nl y r el ev an t i fs he ex er ci se d s i ng ul ari nfl ue nc e o ve r the de ci si onm ak er, a nd i t instr ucted the j ury to that effect. The i nstr ucti on r ead as f ol l ows: T h e D efe n d an t is a c or p or at ion a n d c a n ac t o n ly thro ugh i ts offi cer s and e m plo yee s. A ni m osi ty ofa cow orker tow ard the P lai nt iff on th e ba s is ofPlaintiff’s m i l i tar y s tatus as a m ot i vating f acto r m ay not be attribu ted to Defen d an t un less that co-w orker exerci sed such s i ngul ari nfluence o verthe deci si on- m ake r that the c o- w or ke r w as basi cal l y the r ealdeci si on m ak er . Thi s i nfl ue nc e m ayhav e be enexe r ci se d by co nceal i ng r el evanti nform ati on fro m o r feedi ng f al se i nf o r m at i o n o r s el ec ti ve l y - ch o se n inf o r m ati on t o the perso n orper sons w ho m ade the de c isi on t o disch arge Plaintiff

. I fthe de ci si o n make r i s no t whol l y de pen den t o n a si ngl e s ourc e o fi nfo rm ati on b u t ins tea d conducts i ts ow n inv es tig at ion int o th e fa c ts rele va n t t o t h e d ec isi on, the Defe nd ant i s no t l i abl e fo r a no n-deci si on m ak er ’s s u b m iss ion of m isin f or m at ion or s ele c tiv ely ch o se n inf o r m ati o n o r f ai l ur e to pr o vi de r el ev an t i nfo rm ati on t o the deci si on m ake r. It d oes notm att er that m uch i fthe i nfo rm ati on ha s co m e fro m a si ngl e,N o s . 0 8

- 1 3 1 6, 0 8

- 2 2 5 5&0 8

- 24 0 2 17

I ns t e a d o fs a yi ng“ the De fe nd a nt, ” f ori ns t a nc e , the c ou rt 4 cou ld ha v e said “P ro ctor ,” rep laced “d ecision m ak er” w ith “Buc k, ” a nd s o o n. J us tas j ur i es ar e i l l

- equi pped t o c ons t ru e leg al e se

— are n’t w e all!

— the y a re m or e l i ke l y t o un der s t and instru ction s that u se f acts ra the r tha n a b stract term s. potenti al l y bi ase d sour ce, so l ong as the deci si on m ake r does nota r ti fi ci al l y o r b y v i r tu e o fhe r r o l e i n the com pany l i m i t heri nvest i gat i on t o i nfo rm atio n fro m that sour ce. Th i s i ns t r uc t i o n, we think, i s u nwi e l dy

— a f act- dri ven i n s t r u c t i o n wo u l d h a v e b e e n f a r mo r e u s e ful

—but not 4 tech nically w rong. I t cap tu res the essen ce of B rew er, t el l i ng the j ury th at it can onl y c onsi der no nd eci si onm ake r ani m osi ty i n the case ofsingula r i nfluence, and ev en the n thatthe e mpl o y e r i s o ffthe h o o ki fthe de c i s i o nm ake r d id h er ow n inv es tig at ion . So w e rej ec t P ro c to r’s c h all en ge to the i ns truct i o n i ts el f

. Buta c o ur t f ac ed wi ththe cat’ s paw theor y c ase sho uld notj ust g i ve an inst ructi on a nd a s kthe j ur y t o s o r ti ta l lo ut
. T he c o ur th a s a c ri ti cal t a s kt o p e r f o r m befo reg i v i n gth e i n s t r u c t i o n o r a d mi t t i ng evi den ce o fno nde ci si o nm ak era ni m us

— p r e fe r ab l y a tt he su m m ary j ud gm en t or i n l i m i nest age o fthe proce edi ngs. N am ely , th e cou rtsh ou ld d et er m in e w h et h er a re as on ab le j ury could fi nd singul ari nfluence o n the evi dence to be p resen ted

. I f th ere is not suffi cientevid e n ce to su p p ort such a d et er m i nati on, then the c ourthas no business adm i tting ev i dence ofani m us by nondeci si onm ak ers. A dm i tting thi s s or t o fev i dence w oul d not o nl y b e techni call ega ler ro r; i t would l i kel y b e p re j u d ici aldue to1 8 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 th e j ury’s ten d en cy to assoc ia t e the non d ecisionm aker’s re m ar ks w i th the em plo yer, f ai rl y o r not. A s we say, h ow eve r, we do not f aul t the co urt here f or f ai l i ngto per f o r m thi s t as k

. Nothi ngi n B rew er, M etzg er, o r ou r ot h er ca se s o n th e c at ’s p aw , s e e, e . g. , Byr d v
. Il l
. D ep’ tof P ub. Health , 4 23 F .3d 6 96 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Sc hrein er v. C a terpill ar, Inc. , 250 F. 3d 1096 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) , i m part gui dance as to h ow a tr i alco urt shoul d hand l e the the or y. They s ay whatthe c at ’ s paw req uir es , b utno th i ngabo utthe di vi si o n o fl ab o r b etwee n j udg e a nd j ur y . Nev er th el es s, the approach w e s ugges t

— w ith t h e jud ge m ak in g a th re sh old det er m i na ti o n o f whethe r a r ea so nabl e j ur yc o ul d fi nd sin gu lar influ en c e b efo re ad m itt in g e vid en c e o f n on d ec is i o n ma k e r a n i m us

— i s su ppo r te d i n the l aw. Al l o wi ng the j ur y t o e nt e r t a i n the c a t ’ s p aw theo r y a nd de c i de wh etherthe r e was s i ng ul ari nfl ue nc e, b uto nl y upo n a pr i o r de t e r mi na t i o n tha tthe r e i s s uffi c i e nte v i de nc e f or such a fi nd i ng, i s co nsi ste nt w i th FederalR ule o fEvi dence 10 4(b ). Th at ru le in st ru c ts c o u r t s t o a d m it c on d itio n ally re l evantev i dence

— he r e, a ni m o si tyby a no nde ci si o nmaker

— “u po n . . . the i nt r o duct i o n o fe vi den ce s uffi ci en t to su p p or t a find in g of t h e fulfillm en t o f th e c on d itio n .” In ot h er w or d s , t h e j u ry co u ld on ly p ro p er ly c on sid er ev id en c e o f an im os ity by M u lally (o r a n y ot h er n on d ec isio n m ake r) i fthe cour t dete rm i ned that ther e was suffici ent e vi dence to support a fi nd i ng o fsingul ari nfluence by M ula l l y ( orano ther ) o verBuck. B ec au se th e t ria l co u rtin t h is c as e d id n otfollow th is pr o c e du r e , S t a ub ’ s ab un da nte vi dence ofM ula l l y’ s a ni m osi tywas e r r o ne o us l y a dm i tt ed i nt o e vi den ce . AndN o s . 0 8

- 1 3 1 6, 0 8

- 2 2 5 5&0 8

- 24 0 2 19 thi s e rr orwas prej ud i ci albec ause the s tr on ge st proo fo f a nt i

- mi l i t a r y s e nt i men tc a me fr o m t he i mpr o pe r l y a dm i tte d evi dence. The nor m alr em edy f orprej ud i ci alev i denti ar y e rr or i s a n e w tria l. SeeU nite d State s v. G arci a , 5 2 8 F
. 3 d 4 8 1 , 4 85 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. H ow ev er, a new tr i ali s no t warr anted w here the proper l y c onsi dered ev i dence i s insuffi ci ent t o supp or t the j ury’ s v er dic t. In thatcas e

— as su m i ngthe los in g party fi l ed a Rule 50(b) m oti on f or j ud gm ent as a m att er of l aw or a new tr i al after the ver dict, as Pro cto r d id

—j u d gm en t sh ou ld b e en te re d in i t s fa vo r, seeF ed. R. C iv. P . 50(b ); Tate v. E xec. M gm t. Serv s., In c. , 54 6 F
. 3d 528, 53 1 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 00 8); Fues ti ng v. Z im m er, Inc. , 44 8 F
. 3d 936, 939 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( ci ti ng U nithe rm Food Sys., Inc. v. SwiftE ckri ch, Inc. , 546 U
. S. 394 ( 2 0 0 6 )). O f cou rse, th e stan d ard i s st ee p. “ A ve r di ctwi l lb e se t as i de as c o nt r ary t o the m an ifest w eight of the evid en ce o n ly i f no ration al j ury coul d hav e re nd er ed th e v er dict

. ” M ooreex re l
. Es t at eof G rady v . Tu el

ja , 54 6 F
. 3d 423, 42 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( i nter nal quotati on m ar ks om itte d). Consi deri ng the ev i dence as a w hol e, we concl ud e that Pr oct ori s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent. U SERRA st ate s th at “ [a] per son w ho .

. . has perf or m ed .

. . se rv ice in a unifor m ed ser vi ce s hal lnot be deni ed i ni ti alem plo ym ent, r ee m plo ym ent, r ete nti on i n e m pl o y m en t, pro m o ti o n, oranyben efi t o fe m pl o y m en t by an em plo yeron the b asi s o fthat

. . . per f or m ance o f ser vi ce . . . . ” 3 8 U.S
. C. § 4 311( a)
. A pl ai nti ffsui ng under thi s A c t m u st “dem onst ra te that he suffer ed an adver se em plo ym ent a cti on a nd thatthe advers e a cti on was m oti vate d i n partbyhi s m ilita ry se rv i ce. ” M aher v. C ity2 0 No s. 08-13 16, 08 -2255& 08 -2402 of Chi cago , 547F.3d 8 1 7, 8 2 4 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). C f. 3 8 U. S
. C. § 4311 (c)( 1) ( ex p lai n in g tha t an em p loyer i s not li able if, des pi te a nt i

- m i l i ta r y b i as , i t w ou l d ha ve t ak enthe action j us t the sam e). Staub f ail ed to clear th is bar. T he st ory to ld by th e e vide nc e is reall y qu ite plain. A p art fro m th e frict ion c au se d b y his m ilita ry se rv ice , th e e vidence sug g e s t s thatS taub, al though t echni cal l y c om petent, wa s p r o ne t o a t t i t ud e p ro bl ems . T he f a c ttha th e ma de som e fri en d s alo n g the w ay (suc h as Sw eborg) d oesn ’t dim i ni sh the f act that he offended num er ous othe rs for re aso ns unrel ate d to hi s par ti ci pati on in the Reserves. S o, w hen St aub r an in to troubl e in the w i nterand spring o f 20 04, he di dn’ t ha ve the s afety ne t o fa g o o d repu tati o n. Even i fS t a ub b e ha v e d r e a s o nab l y o n the da y o fh i s di scharg e a nd the J anuary27w rit e- up was exagg er ate d by M ulally, his track record non eth eless sup p orted Bu ck’s ac ti o n. M o sti m po r ta nt l y, Buc kt o o kthi s a ct i o n f r ee o fa ny m il itary-based anim us , w hich Staub ad m its. A nd th e cat’s p a w is n otap p lica b le

— even setting asid e the eviden tiary er ro r

—because a re aso nabl e j u ry c oul d not fi nd that M ula ll y ( oranyo ne el se) had si ngul ari nfluence o ver Bu ck. To th e contr ar y, the evi dence es tabl i shed that Bu ck loo ke d be yo n d w h at M u lally an d K or en c h u k s aid

— re m em ber, Korenchuk supp or ted the fi ring o nl y “ re l uctantl y”

— an d de te r m i ne d tha t S ta ub was a l i ab i l ity t o the com pany. W e a dm i t that Buck’ s invest i gat i on co uld have b e en m or e ro b u st, e . g. , s he f ai l ed to pur su e S ta ub’ s th eo r y tha t M ul al l y f ab r i ca te d the wri te
- up; ha d Buc kdo ne thi s, she m ay have disc ove re d that M ula l l y ind eed bo re a gr ea t d ea l of an ti-m i lita ry an im u s. B u t t h e ru le w e d ev elo ped i n B rew erdoes notr equi re the deci si onm ake r to be aN o s . 0 8

- 1 3 1 6, 0 8

- 2 2 5 5&0 8

- 24 0 2 21 par ag o n o fi nde pen den ce . I t i s en o ug h th at th e dec i si o nm a k e r “ i s no t who l l y de pe nd e nt o n a s i ng l e s o ur ce o f i nfo rm ati on” and c onducts her“o w n i nvest i gat i on into the f a c t s r e l e v a ntt o the de c i s i on” B rew er, 47 9 F
. 3d at 918 . T o r e q uire m uc h m ore tha n th at w ou ld be to ignore th e re alit ies of th e w or k p l ac e. D ec isio n m ak er s u su ally have to re l y o n others ’ o pini ons to so m e extent because they ar e r em ov ed from the und er l yi ng si tuati on. But to be a cat ’ s paw requi re s m or e; true to the f abl e, i t r equi re s a bl i nd r el i ance, the stuffof “singul arinfl uence. ” B uck was not a ca t’ s paw fo r M ula l l y o r anyo ne el se. A l though M u lally m ay h av e e nj oy ed se ein g St au b fire d d u e t o h is ass oci ation w ith the m i l i tar y, thi s was notthe re aso n h e w as fired . Vie w in g t h e e vid en c e r e a s on ab ly, it sim p ly cannot be s ai d that Bu ck did anythi ng o therthan exer ci se h er ind ep en d e n t jud gm en t, follow in g a rea so n ab le re vi ew o fthe f acts , an d si m plydeci de that St aub was n ot a tea m p lay er . W e d o n ot m ea n to su gg es t b y a l l th is that w e a gr ee w i th Buck’ s deci si on

— i t s eem s a bi t har sh g iv e n Stau b’s up side s and tenu re

—but thati s no t th e is su e. T h e q u e s t i on for u s is w h et h er a re as on ab le j ury coul d have co ncl ud ed that St aub w as fi re d because he w as a m embe r o fthe mil i ta r y . To tha t que st i o n, the answ eri s no . W e R EV ERSE a nd R EMA ND with instr ucti ons to enter j ud gm en t in f avor of Proctor.

3- 25- 09