Royal

Cat's Paw Theory

July 5, 2023

The cat's paw theory is a legal concept that applies to employment discrimination cases. It is based on an old fable by Aesop, in which a monkey tricks a cat into retrieving chestnuts from a fire, leaving the cat with a burnt paw and no chestnuts. The theory holds that an employer can be liable for the unlawful motive of a subordinate employee who influences a supervisor to take an adverse action against another worker. The theory was first coined by Judge Richard Posner in 1990 and recognized by the Supreme Court in 2011 for some discrimination categories. It has since been expanded to cover other forms of employment claims, such as FMLA retaliation.


Here, we have a Plaintiff who was laid off in a 2017 reduction in force. The Plaintiff then sued his former employer. The Plaintiff produced evidence that officials at his former employer wanted to increase “age diversity” by hiring recent college graduates and reducing the number of older employees.


The court found that sufficient evidence had been produced, beyond “stray comments by those outside of the decision-making process,” to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant had put in place a policy to replace older employees with younger ones.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Employer’s Counterclaims in Response to Suit Under Wage Act Dismissed Per Employee’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Compensation Plans and Contingent Compensation Pitfalls

January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: