## 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 o. 11

- 2502 D EB OR AH C OO K, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. I PC I NTERNATI ONA L C OR PO RA T I ON, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:0 9-cv-00 27 5-GPM-SCW

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge

. A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 13, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 8, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Circuit Judge

. T he pl ai nt i ffs ue d the de f en dan t f orse x dis cri m i na tion and ret al i ati on i n vi ol ati on o f Tit l e VI I o fthe Civi l Ri ghts A ct o f19 64 . T h e case was tr i ed to a j ury, whi chr etur ne d a v er di cti n f av o r o fthe defen dan t. The pl ai nt i ffa ppea l s from th e j udg m en t en te r ed bythe di st r i ctc o ur t i n c o nf o r m i tywi ththe ver dictand f ro m the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fher m ot ion u n d er Fe d . R. C iv. P . 59 fo r a n ew tria l.2 N o. 11

- 2502 The de f en dan t pr o vi ded sec ur i tyf o r a mal l i n Al to n, I l l i noi s, an d em plo yed the pl ai nti ffas a secur i ty supervi sorat t he m al l

. S he pre sente d evi dence thather i mm e di a t e s up e r vi sor, a ma n na med S pa nn, ma de sexual l y o f fen sive co m m ents to othe r w om en i n her pr es en ce , s ai d h e want ed to ha ve a n a l l

- m al e st aff, a nd exh ibite d fa vor i ti sm to w ar d his m al e s ubor dinat es. T h e p lain tiff c om p lain ed to h im rep ea te d ly a b o u t h is behavi or . H e r efused to change hi s ways, and i nstea d b e g a n g i v i ngh e r n e g a t i v e e v a l ua t i o ns a nd a c c us i ngher in c om m un ications to th e d efend an t’s head qu arters of s er iou s m isc on d u c t, in c lu d in g t h eft ; th e jur y c ou ld have f ound that the ac cusati ons w er e f abr i cati ons. Appar en tl y i n r es po ns e to S pan n’ s ch ar g es the de f en dant’s regi onalm anage r ( and Spann’s i m m edi ate super i o r ) , a man na m ed Colbur ne , t o l d t he p la i nt i fftha t he w as a b o l i s hi ngh e r j o b a tthe Al t o n mal l a nd t r ansf er ri ng herto a m al l thatthe com pany p ro vided secur i ty f or in a no t he r t o wn. T he t r a ns f e r ma y a c t ua l l y h a v e b e en a d em ot ion , f ori t was to be to a m al l f ar therfro m her hom e, an d thus woul d l engthe n her co m m ute, and to a li ne pos iti on rath er than th e pos iti on of “secu rity su p ervi sor ” that she hel d a t the A l ton m al l

. She ask ed h im w hethershe w as bei ng fi re d, and he sai d no. Tha twa s o n a T hu r s da y , a nd tha ta ft e r no o n, a f ter th e m ee ting wi th hi m , sh e r etur ne d to work. She w as not schedule d to w or k o n Fr id ay , but she re turned to w ork as us ua l on Satu rd ay. Sp an n saw her in un if orm

— sa w sh e w as st ill w or kin g a t t h e A lto n m all

— an d to ld her to c lea n o u t herl ock erand gi ve hi m hero ffi ce k eys ,N o. 11

- 2502 3

an d s he i nfer r ed no t unrea so nabl y tha t sh e was b eing fi r ed. And s o the j ur y f o und

— con trary to the d efend an t’s po si ti o n, mai nt aine d thr o ug ho utthi s l i ti g at i o n, tha t sh e w as neverfi re d. W h at i s ce rt ai n i s that s he neve r ac ce pte d the t r an sfero r t r i ed to r ec l ai m he r j ob at th e A lto n m all. I fthe tr ansferwould actually have been a dem oti on, o r an acti on other w i se “m ate ri al l y advers e” to her, i ntended as r et al i at i o n fo r he r c o m pl ai ni ngabout empl o y m en t d isc rim in at ion , sh e w ou ld h av e a c laim u n d er T itle V II. B url ington Northe rn & Santa Fe R y. v. White, 54 8 U.S

. 53 , 67

- 71 ( 20 06 )

. Buts he ha s ne ve r c l ai m ed that, s i nc e sh e ne ve r w as tr an sfer r ed, a nd s he do es no t ar g ue tha t th e tr ansfero rderwas a c onst ructi ve disc harg e ( that i s, tan tam ou nt to firin g , and treated the sam e by th e law ). H erc l ai m i s th atS pan n fi r ed he r w he n sh e s ho wed up f o r wor ka t th e Alton m al l t wo da y s afte r he r meet i ng w i th Colburne, and that he di d so both beca use o fher g end er ( r ememberhe r t es ti m o ny tha t he ha d s ai d he w anted an “ al l

- m al e” sta ff ) and i n re tal i ati on f orher ha ving com p lai ne d to him abou t his beh avior tow ard w om en, behavi or that coul d r eas onabl y have be en th o u g h tt o v i o l a t e T i t l e V I Ia n d wo u l d th u s b r i n gt he a l l e g e d r e t a l i a t i o n wi thi n the s t a t ut e ’ s scope . 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2 000e

- 3( a) ; C raw

f or d v

. M e t r opol i t an Gove r nm e ntof Nas hvill e & D avidson C o unty, 555 U

. S. 271, 276-78 (2009 ); B url ington Northe rn & Santa Fe R y. v. White, sup ra , 54 8 U .S . at 6 7-7 3; Fin e v. R ya n In t’l A irlines , 3 0 5 F

. 3 d 74 6 , 7 51- 52 (7th C ir. 2002). The j udg e i ns tr uct ed th e j ur y thatt o fi nd f o r the pla i nti f f it h ad to fi nd fi rs t that s he had bee n fi re d4 N o. 11

- 2502

an d secon d “tha t a de cisionm aker for IP C fired P lai nt iff e i t h e r b e c a u s e s he w a s fe ma l e o r b e c a u s e s h e c o mpl aine d ab o ut se xua l l y ha r as sing co m m en ts
. The de ci si o nm ak eri s th e I PC e m pl o y ee who was r es pons ibl e f o r the deci si on t o ter m i nate Pl ai nti ff

. H er e, Pl ai nti ffhas alleged th at h e r s u p er vis or C h ar les Sp an n w as th e IP C d ec isi o nm ak erwho t er m i na te d he r e m pl o y m en t. ” The pl ai nti f f’ s l awy ero bj ec te d t o the “ dec i si o nm ak er ” i ns tr uct i o n, expla i ni ng tha t “ al l the j ury has t o do i s dete rm i ne that the pl ai nti f fwas dis charg ed fro m I PC as a resul t o f h er gender

. . . and/or i n re tal i ati on f or her re si sti ng in g o o d f ai thwhats he b el i ev ed to b e se xua l l y ha r as sing orse xuall y di scr i m i nator y c onduct. ” T he j ud ge rej ecte d th e o bj ec ti o n wi th o ute xpl an at i o n. The j ury as w e s ai d fo und that the pla i nti ffhad i nde ed be en fi r ed. But i t an swe r ed “No” to th e second qu est io n o n th e verd ict f orm , the q ue stion corr es po ndi ngt o the de ci si o nm ak eri ns tr ucti o n: “ Do y o u, th e J u ry, find that Ch arles Span n w as th e I PC I nt ernati onalCor pora ti on deci si onm ake r w ho t er m i nated Deb orah Cook ’ s e m plo ym ent?” ( The pla i nti ff’ s l aw yer ha d o bj ec te d t o the que st i o n a l o ngwi ththe i ns tr uc tio n, al so unsuccessfull y. ) A nd so she l osthercas e. A fterdel iber ating for f our hours the j ury had sent a not e to the di st r i ctj udg e r eque st i ngc l ar i fi ca ti o n o fthe deci si onm ake r questi on. The j ury w anted to know whethe r the wor d “ th e” in the phr as e “the I PC dec i si o nm ak er w ho t er m i na te d he r e m pl o y m en t” mean t “he w as the soledeci si onm ake r ver sus be i ng ‘ a ’ deci si onm ake r m eani ng he w as a par t o fthe deci si onN o. 11

- 2502 5
to ter m i nate Debor ah Cook

. ” O ve r the pl ai nti ff’ s o bj ecti on the j ud ge answ er ed: “ ‘H e’ m eans the ‘ sol e’ deci si onm ake r. ” The j ud ge w as ask ed to cl ar i fy “the, ” no t “h e,” an d d ou b tle ss m ea n t t o d o s o , b u t h e w ro te “H e.” The j ur y may, ho wev er, ha ve though t the j udg e m ea nt that “he” m ust be the “so l e” deci si onm ake r, w h i ch woul d a ns wer the que st i o n. I n re fusi ng to se t a si de the ju ry ’ s v er dict, the dist ri ct j ud ge sai d that the pl ai nti ffhad f ai l ed to advance a “ca t’s paw ” the ory of em p loyer l iabil ity and the r e fo re coul d prevai l o nl y i fthe j ury f ound that S pann had b ee n th e “ so l e d ec isio n m ak er ,” th at is, ha d be en so lely re sponsibl e f orfi ri ng her . O n ap peal the pla i nti ffar gues that the j ud ge “r epl aced the Ti tl e VI I‘ a m oti vating f acto r ’ c au sa ti o n r equi r ementwi tha ‘ so l e ca us atio n’ s ta nd ar d ” a n d th at th is w a s “ e rro r as a m at te r of law .” T h e re p ly b rie f inv ok es “m u ltip le p ro x im at e c au se s.” This i s a l l a dreadful m ud dle , f orwh i ch w e a pp el l ate j ud ges m ust a ccept s om e bl am e be cause doctr i ne st ate d as m eta phor, such a s the “c at’ s paw” theor y o fl i abi l i ty, w hi ch w e i ntro du ced i nto em plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on l aw i n Shag e rv. Upj ohn Co. , 913 F. 2d 398, 405 (7 t h Cir. 1990 ) ; se e St aub v. Pr oc t orHos pi t al , 13 1 S

. Ct. 118 6, 11 90 n . 1, 119 2-9 4 (2 01 1), c an b e a ju d icia l at tr ac tiv e n u isance; bec ause vague j ud i ci al ter m i nol ogy, such a s “m oti vating f acto r” and “pro xi m ate cause ” ( the l att er has be en a part ofthe j u d icia l vo cabul ar y f orthe l ast 150 yea rs , yet i ts m eani ng has never beco m e cl ear, see C D XLiqu ida ting Trust v . Ven roc kA ssoc ia tes , 64 0 F

. 3d 20 9, 21 4 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); BC S S e r vi ce s , In c. v . He ar t wood 88 , LLC, 63 7 F

. 3d 750 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ) , co n fu ses j ud ges , j uror s,6 N o. 11

- 2502

an d l aw yers ali ke; an d b ecau se p hilosoph ical con un d ra such as “causa ti on” prese nt unnecess ar y c hal l enges to und er sta nd i ng. I n the f abl e o fthe cat’s p aw ( a f abl e o ff ensi ve to cats and cat l ove rs , be i t no ted) , a m onke y who w an ts ches tn u ts th at ar e roa st in g i n a fire p er su ad es a n int ell ec tu al l y c ha l l en g ed c at to fet chthe c he stnut s f r o m the fi r e f o r th e m onk ey, a nd the c atdo es s o b uti n the proce ss burns i ts paw . I n em plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on law th e “ c at ’s p aw ” m et ap h or refe rs to a sit u at ion in wh i c h a n e mp l o y e e i s fi r e d o r su b j e c t e d t o s o me o th era dve r se em p loymenta ct i o n b y a s upe r vi so r who hi m se lf has no di scr i m i nator y m oti ve, but w ho has bee n m an i pul at ed bya s ubo r di na te who do es ha ve s ucha m oti ve and i ntended to bri ng ab out the a dverse e m plo ym en t a c tio n . So if for ex am p le t h e s u b or d in at e h as to ld th e sup ervisor that t h e e m p loyee i n q ue stion is a thief, b u t as the s ubor dinat e wel l kno w s s he i s no t, the f act th atthe supe r vi so r ha s no r ea so n t o do ubtthe t r uthfulne ss ofthe accusat i on, an d h aving no doubt fi re s her, does notexo nera te the e m ploye r ifthe subor d in at e’s m ot ive w as d isc r im in at or y. A s e x p lain ed in St aub v. Pr oc t orHos pi t al , su pra , 13 1 S

. Ct. at11 93, “s i nce a su per vi so r i s ana g en t o fthe e m pl o y er, whenhe causes an a dvers e e m ploym en t a cti on the em plo yer causes i t; and wh en di scr i m i nati on i s a m oti vating f acto r i n h i s d o i n gs o , i ti s a ‘ mo t i v a t i ng f a c t o r i n th e e mp loy er ’s a c tio n .’ ” H ad Colburne fi re d the pl ai nti ffbec ause Sp an n had tol d him she w as a th i ef, she w oul d have a cat ’ s paw cl ai m . Buts he ha s not m ad e sucha c l ai m ; i nde ed, s heN o. 11

- 2502 7 ha s d isclai m ed i t. H er c la im i s tha t Spa nn fired h er. S pan n w a s n o o n e ’ s c a t ’ s p a w; h e wa s th e mo n k e y . He w anted to get rid o f h er, and did so with hi s o w n paw s, ra th er th an en list in g s om e h ap l e s s c at to d o s o. T h at in a n y e v e n ti s th e p l a i n t i ff’ s c l a i m. A s f or “ ‘ m oti vating f acto r’ causa ti on, ” that’ s a n al l usi on to a do ct r i ne tha t the S upr eme Co ur t i n M t. Healthy C ity Schoo l D is tr ictBo ard of Education v. D oyle, 42 9 U.S

. 274 ( 1977 ) , cr eat ed f oruse i n ci vi l r i ghts sui ts al l egi ng vi ol ati ons ofthe Fi rs t A m en d m ent, and that Congre ss add ed to Tit l e VI I, with a r efi nem ent no ted be l ow , i n 199 1. D ese rt Pa lace, Inc. v. Co st a , 5 3 9 U. S

. 9 0 , 9 2

- 9 5 , 1 0 1

- 02 (2003). I f th e p la in tiff p roves th at th e d efend an t’s re aso ns f orfi ri ng heri ncl ud ed an unl aw ful re ason

— prove s i n other w or ds that an unl aw ful i ntent w as a “m oti vating f acto r” i n the deci si on t o fi re o r tak e othe r advers e a cti on a ga in st her

—b u t t h e d efe n d an t in turn pr ove s that i t would have fi re d h eranyway, f or a l awful re aso n, the n s he ha s no t be enhur t bythe i l l i c i tmo t i v e a nd c a nn o tr e c o v e r da mag e s , 4 2 U. S

. C. §§ 2 00 0e -2(m ), -5(g)(2 )(B )(ii); H os s ac k v. Fl oorCove r i ng A ss ociate s of Jolie t, Inc. , 49 2 F .3d 853, 860 (7th Cir. 2007); B obo v. U nite d P arce l Se rvic e, Inc. , 66 5 F

. 3d 741, 75 7 ( 6th Cir

. 20 12) , though a n i nj uncti on, a decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent, or a n a wa r d o fa t t o r ne y s ’ fe e s i s p e r mi s s ib l e . 4 2 U. S

. C. §§ 200 0e-5(g)( 2)(B)(i ), ( ii ). Th e “ca t ’ s p a w” do c t r i ne c a n b e tho ughto fa s a n a ppl i ca ti o n o f th e “mot i va ting f ac to r ” do ct r i ne ; the m o nkey’s m alevolent inten t is im p ut ed to the em p loyer. So i f th e em p loyer can’t sh ow that the m onk e y ’s sup er-8 N o. 11

- 2502 vi sor, wh o did the actua l fi ri ng ( orto ok som e o ther advers e em plo ym ent acti on) , had a l aw ful m ot ive uncontam i nated b y the m onke y that would have l ed t h e s u p e r v i s o r t o fi r e th e e mpl o y e e e v e n wi th o ut t he mo n k e y ’ s i n t e r f e r e n c e , th e e mp l o y e e i s e n t i t l e d t o d a mage s. S ee St aub v. Proc t orHos pi t al, sup ra , 131 S

. Ct. at11 92. B u t “ m ot iva tin g fa c to r” is an ot h er irre lev an c e i n th is c as e. T h er e’s n o e vid en c e t h at h ad Sp an n n ot b e e n in the pi cture the plai nti ffwould have been fi re d anyw ay. The defe nd ant di d not t ry to pro ve that

— i t deni ed ha ving fi red her. I nj ecting “s ol e deci si onm ake r” i nto the j ury’ s delibera

ti o ns mad e th e co nfus i o n c o m pl et e. The c o m pan y ar gu e d t h a t t h e p lain tiff h ad n ’t b ee nfired , no t t h at, i f Spann’s te l l i ng herto cl ean o ut herl ock erand surr ender her key s a m ounted to fi ri ng her, n ev er th el ess he was pu t up to i t bya su p er ior, such as Colburne, wh o had ha d a l awful mot i ve a nd hadn ’tb ee n monk ey ed. The co m pan y pr es en te d no e vi den ce tha t an o th erde ci si o nm ak er or ot h er d ec isio n m ak er s w er e in v o l ve d in Spann’s deci si on t o or der he r to cl ean o ut herl ock er an d ret u rn h er ke ys . Sinc e n eit h er p ar ty p r e se n te d ev idence abo ut wh ethero therdeci si onm ake rs had bee n i nv o l ve d, a nd the pl ai nt i ffhad the b ur deno fpr o o f, the re qui r e men ttha tt o i mpo s e l i a b i l i t y the j ur y h a d t o fi nd thatS pann had bee n the “ so l e” deci si onm ake r am ou nt ed to directing a verd ict f or the em p loyer. Fr om a l ega l as dist i nct f ro m a f actualst an dp oi nt, th e c as e w as sim p le a n d sh o u ld h av e b ee n p re se n te d in alli ts sim p li city to the j ury. J u r o r s a r e un li kely to und er-N o. 11

- 2502 9
stan d l egal conc ep ts th at j ud g e s hav e d iffi cu lty un d ersta nd i ng . T he p l a i nt i ffc l a i med tha tS pa nnh a d fi re d her because she w as a wom an and i n reta liat ion f or her com pla i ni ng ab out hi s s exual l y o ff en sive behav i or and his di scr i m i nati on i n f avo r ofhi s m al e s u b or d i nates
. Th e de f e nd a ntc l a i med tha ts he h a d n o tb e e n fi r e d, but i nstea d had been o ff er ed a t ransf erand had not re sp on d ed t o t h e o ffer an d h ad qu it w h en Sp an n to ld her to cl ean o ut herl ock erand turn i n her ke ys, wh er eas if sh e ha d w an te d to c on tin u e w or kin g s h e w o u ld have co m pl ai ne d t o Co lbur ne , who ha d t o l d he r s he was n’ t be i ngfi red, a nd s he woul d ha ve a cc ept ed th e off er ed t ra nsf er . The j ury had to choos e be tw een these c om p et in g n ar ra tiv es . A ll th e ju d ge h ad to d o w as te ll th e j ury that. The j ury’ s note shoul d hav e al er ted h im t ha tthe j ur o r s we r e i n a l l l i k e l i ho o d s e r i o us l y c o nfus e d. The i nstr ucti on a nd ve rdi ct for m were unsou nd , as was the j udg e’ s r es po ns e to the j ur o r s’ inq uir y , a nd the er ro rs were not harm les s be cause a pro perl y i nstr ucted j ur y mightwel l h av e f o und i n the pl ai nt i ff’ s f av o r . The j u d gm ent i s there f or e r eve rs ed and the ca se re m anded for a n ew tria l. R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .

3- 8- 12