Opinion ID: 2318253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Decision-maker Liability for Improper Motives of an Individual

Text: [¶ 21] The United States Supreme Court recently held that an employer can be found liable for employment discrimination based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who intentionally influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision. Staub v. Proctor Hosp., ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1189, 1194, 179 L.Ed.2d 144 (2011). Staub involved a claim of discrimination in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C.S. 4301-4334 (LexisNexis 2008 & Supp.2010). In Staub, as in the instant appeal, the plaintiff did not contend that the employment decision-maker, there a company vice president, held any discriminatory animus that caused the adverse employment action. Staub, 131 S.Ct. at 1190. However, the Court held that the discriminatory animus of other corporate employees was enough to support a finding of liability if the jury could have found that the actions of those with discriminatory animus influenced the decision-maker and thus became a motivating factor leading to the adverse employment action. Id. at 1192-94. [¶ 22] Although Staub involved a private employer and action by a single decision-maker, rather than a public employer and action by a multi-member council, Staub addressed principles directly applicable to this appeal. In Staub, the Court addressed the so-called cat's-paw theory of liability. Id. at 1190 & n. 1. Normally, a decision-maker's adverse employment action that is free of discriminatory animus is a subsequent, independent cause that insulates the decision-maker from liability for a prior act of an agent that was motivated by discriminatory animus. However, the cat's-paw theory provides that if the plaintiff demonstrates that the agent with an improper motive influenced the ultimate decision-maker's decision, the agent's improper motive may be imputed to the ultimate decision-maker, thereby establishing a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Id. at 1192. See also Roberson v. Alltel Info. Servs., 373 F.3d 647, 653 (5th Cir.2004). [¶ 23] The Town of Millinocket argues that because only one member of the seven-member Town Council was proven to have exhibited discriminatory animus against Walsh, the Town cannot be held liable for discrimination, as a majority of the Council's members did not discriminate against Walsh. Thus, the Town argues, the court erred when it denied the Town's motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 50(b). [¶ 24] To prevail on a claim of unlawful retaliation pursuant to the WPA, Walsh had to prove, and the jury had to find, that: (1) she engaged in activity protected by the WPA; (2) she experienced an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Stanley v. Hancock Cnty. Comm'rs, 2004 ME 157 ¶ 11, 864 A.2d 169; DiCentes v. Michaud, 1998 ME 227, ¶ 14, 719 A.2d 509. Because the Town does not dispute the first two elements of the WPA analysis, the only issue on appeal is that of causation, specifically, whether Walsh's complaints to the State concerning the condition of the Town's snowmobile trails were a substantial factor or a motivating factor in the elimination of her position. See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Stanley, 2004 ME 157, ¶¶ 12, 24, 864 A.2d 169. [¶ 25] In Wells we held that the proper inquiry on an employment discrimination claim is whether the discrimination itself in this case retaliation against an employee who engaged in protected conduct pursuant to the WPAwas a substantial, even though perhaps not the only, factor motivating the employee's dismissal. Wells, 403 A.2d at 773; see also Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. City of Auburn, 408 A.2d 1253, 1268 (Me.1979). [¶ 26] We have not explicitly addressed the circumstances under which discriminatory animus of one or a minority of members of a multi-member local council or commission can be found to be a substantial factor or a motivating factor causing an adverse employment action approved by the multi-member body. The Town contends that we should adopt the quantitative approach of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which requires that in order for a plaintiff to recover, she must show that the municipal body itself acted with a discriminatory purpose or motive. See Matthews v. Columbia Cnty., 294 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir.2002). In Matthews, the court, concluding that improper motives of one member of a three-member majority was insufficient to impute improper motive and thus causation to an entire decision-making body, held that [b]ecause policymaking authority rests with the Commission as an entity, the County can be subject to liability only if the Commission itself acted with an unconstitutional motive. Id. The court concluded that it was improper to hold the County liable based on the improper motives of only one commissioner. Id. at 1298. [¶ 27] The Eleventh Circuit's approach appears to not fully appreciate the decision-making dynamics of local councils and commissions, which can be influenced by the improper but unstated views of a member with a particular interest in a matter to whom other members may defer in collegial discussions. As the First Circuit has observed, [B]ecause discriminatory animus is insidious and a clever pretext can be hard to unmask ... it may be overly mechanistic to hold [a plaintiff] to strict proof of the subjective intentions of a numerical majority of council members. Scott-Harris v. City of Fall River, 134 F.3d 427, 438 (1st Cir.1997), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 118 S.Ct. 966, 140 L.Ed.2d 79 (1998). [¶ 28] In a case involving a unanimous vote of a five-member board on which one member had articulated a discriminatory animus as a basis for his vote, the Second Circuit, allowing a cause to proceed, noted: [I]t is possible that, even if a majority of the individuals that participate in the decision lack unconstitutional motives, the unconstitutional intentions of a minority of those involved can taint the ultimate outcome. Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 786 (2nd Cir.2007). [¶ 29] The Eleventh Circuit's holding in Matthews may also be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Staub that an adverse employment action taken by a corporate decision-maker with no improper motive may be actionable if the decisionmaker's adverse employment decision is influenced or promoted by other corporate agents who have acted with a discriminatory animus. See 131 S.Ct. at 1192-94; see also Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 228, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (commenting that [p]roving the motivation behind official action is often a problematic undertaking when the action is taken by a multi-member government body). [¶ 30] The trial court in the present case employed the motivating factor or substantial factor causation standard articulated in Staub and in our prior opinions in Stanley and Wells. [2] The jury could, and apparently did, infer from the evidence in the record that the termination of Walsh's job would not have occurred but for Polstein's discriminatory animus. Polstein, because of his relationship to the snowmobile club and the trail grooming contractor, may have been viewed with significant deference by other councilors who may have had a lesser interest in the issue. In addition, Polstein was the deciding vote. Without his vote, the tally would have been split evenly, resulting in the resolution not passing and Walsh keeping her job. [¶ 31] An improper motive or discriminatory animus of one member of a multi-member council or commission may create an actionable claim against the governmental entity if a plaintiff proves, and the jury finds, that the improper motive or discriminatory animus was a motivating factor or a substantial cause for an adverse employment action taken against a plaintiff who is a member of a protected class or who has engaged in a protected activity. In this case, the plaintiff proved and the jury found such a causal connection between Polstein's discriminatory animus and the adverse employment action taken by the Town. [W]e will not substitute our judgment as to the weight or credibility of the evidence for that of the fact-finder if there is evidence in the record to rationally support the trial court's result. State v. Connor, 2009 ME 91, ¶ 9, 977 A.2d 1003. With the jury having been instructed in accordance with the law as we have articulated it over the past three decades, and there being evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict, the trial court did not err in denying the Town's motion for a judgment as a matter of law.