Search for: "Staub v. Proctor Hospital" Results 1 - 20 of 118
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2016, 10:36 am by Samantha Beltre (US)
Proctor Hospital in 2011, where it found that if a biased supervisor is the proximate cause of an employee’s termination, the employer can be held liable. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 3:24 am by Robin Shea
Supreme Court recognized the “cat’s paw” theory of liability for discrimination in Staub v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 12:52 pm by Fox Williams & Sink
Employment Discrimination Case – Cat’s Paw Theory In 2011, in the matter of Staub v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 7:18 am by Fox Williams & Sink
  In 2011, in the matter of Staub v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 7:18 am by Fox Williams & Sink
Employment Discrimination Case – Cat’s Paw Theory In 2011, in the matter of Staub v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 9:59 am by Michael Lombardino
Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), when they cannot show that the decision maker – the person who took the adverse employment action – harbored any discriminatory animus. [read post]
23 Aug 2015, 3:36 pm by Joy Waltemath
Proctor Hospital made clear that the cat’s paw analysis remains viable in the but-for causation context. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 5:18 am
I guess they were waiting for the Supreme Court to issue its opinion in Staub v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 6:53 am by Joy Waltemath
His additional “cat’s paw” claim was also unfounded, the Tenth Circuit held, rejecting the notion that the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Staub v Proctor Hospital established a categorical rule that, if a biased supervisor’s animus leads in any way to an adverse job action, an employer is liable. [read post]