Case: Employer prevails because it took certain steps to avoid retaliation

Case in point

Part of Jeannie’s job was to take calls from customers. She took FMLA leave for her own condition and that of her father’s. About five months after approving the leave, her supervisor suspected that Jeannie was avoiding customer calls by telling then that she would get additional information, putting them on hold, and chatting with coworkers about personal matters while the customers waited.

As a result of this suspicion, a meeting was held regarding her job performance, and she was suspended while further investigation took place. During the investigation, the supervisor ultimately recommended that Jeannie be terminated.

The employer had a policy prohibiting supervisors from firing employees. Instead, a manager was selected to conduct a meeting for all parties to present arguments and evidence. In this case, after considering the arguments and evidence, the chosen manager agreed to the termination based on job performance.

In court (yes, Jeannie sued), the employer presented a legitimate reason for the termination — job performance. Jeannie tried to rely on the cat’s pay theory — that her supervisor’s bias based on her FMLA leave influenced the manager’s decision to fire.

The court disagreed with Jeannie, pointing out that the causal chain was broken because the employer directed other managers to independently investigate and decide whether to accept the supervisor’s termination recommendation. The cat’s paw theory doesn’t apply when independent decision makers conduct their own investigations without relying on biased subordinates, as this employer did.

Parker v. United Airlines, Inc., 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-4093, September 26, 2022.