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.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: