Opinion ID: 3173985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coates’s Influence on the Council’s Decision

Text: In order to maintain his suit against the Board for the Council’s decision, Bordelon must also show that Coates in‐ fluenced the Council’s decision by relying on the cat’s paw theory of liability. “[C]at’s paw liability may be imposed on an employer where the plaintiff can show that an employee with discrimi‐ natory animus provided factual information or other input that may have affected the adverse employment action.” Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888, 897 (7th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted and emphasis added). Because Coates and the Board were not the decision‐makers in this case, Bor‐ delon must show that Coates bore a discriminatory animus that influenced the Council. Bordelon did not point to evi‐ dence “that the biased subordinate actually harbored dis‐ 14 No. 14‐3240 criminatory animus against the victim of the subject em‐ ployment action,” so the cat’s paw theory of liability cannot save his case from summary judgment. Johnson v. Koppers, Inc., 726 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, there is substantial evidence in the record that the Council had independent reasons for choosing not to renew Bordelon’s contract, making it quite unlikely that Coates influenced its decision. Accordingly, the district court properly granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment.