Opinion ID: 2811504
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Requirement to attend training

Text: Although not clearly articulated by Valderaz, he relies on the so-called “cat’s paw” theory of liability to establish that he was subject to a materially adverse action when he was forced to undergo training as a result of false performance reports made by female coworkers. This theory allows the coworkers’ alleged discriminatory animus to be imputed to Leal’s decision to require Valderaz to attend training, if Leal “acted as a rubber stamp, or the cat’s paw, for the [coworkers’] prejudice.” Ameen v. Merck & Co., 226 F. App’x 363, 376-77 (5th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). To invoke the cat’s paw analysis, Valderaz must submit evidence sufficient to establish two conditions: (1) that his coworkers exhibited retaliatory animus, and (2) that they possessed leverage, or exerted influence, over Leal. Id. at 377 (citation omitted). Valderaz has provided sufficient evidence showing that his coworkers had reason to retaliate once they learned that he complained of their illicit behavior, but he has not put forth evidence that they had any undue influence over Leal. Moreover, on this record, training in and of itself would not dissuade a reasonable employee from making a discrimination claim. Indeed, Valdarez admitted that he did not resent the fact that he was required to go through training. 5 previously found that “charge nurses” are not considered supervisors in labor-relations cases. See Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. NLRB, 253 F.3d 203, 210 (5th Cir. 2001). 5 Ironically, because training usually benefits the employee, many employees base their Title VII claims on a denial of training. See, e.g., Earle v. Aramark Corp., 247 F. App’x 9 Case: 14-10761 Document: 00513091787 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/24/2015 No. 14-10761