join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More
Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., 15-3239-cv (Aug. 29, 2016)

Articles Discussing Case:

Employers Be Careful Who You Believe When it is a Case of “He Said She Said”

Brody and Associates, LLC • December 07, 2016
In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, held that an employee’s retaliatory intent may be imputed to an employer when the employer’s negligence gives effect to the employee’s retaliatory animus and adversely effects the victim. In essence, the Second Circuit extended the “cat’s paw theory” to cover discriminatory animus of a rank and file employee to the employer’s negligent actions.

Second Circuit Adopts “Cat’s Paw” Theory of Imputing Nonsupervisory Employee’s Retaliatory Intent to Employer

Ogletree Deakins • September 13, 2016
In Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., No. 15-3239-cv (August 29, 2016), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals set new precedent when it held that an employer may be held liable for the retaliatory intent of a nonsupervisory employee under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Cat Is Out of the Bag: Second Circuit Rules Cat’s Paw Theory Applies to Nonmanagerial Coworkers

Ogletree Deakins • September 06, 2016
Rarely has the maxim “hard cases make bad law” found greater application than in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision to expand the “cat’s paw” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2011. Under the cat’s paw doctrine, an employer may be liable for discrimination or retaliation if it is unwittingly manipulated into taking an adverse employment action against an employee by a coworker with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.