In Staub v. Proctor Hospital , 562 U.S. 411 (2011),
this Court held that an employer is liable under a "cat's
paw" theory when a supervisor acts with discriminatory
animus, intends that act to cause an adverse employment
action, and that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate
decision. The Court rejected categorical defenses based on
layered decisionmaking or independent review, explaining
that causation is severed only when the adverse action
rests on reasons unrelated to the supervisor's original
biased act.

The courts of appeals are now divided over how to
apply Staub . Most circuits treat "cat's paw" liability as a
proximate-cause inquiry, holding that intervening review
or multiple decisionmakers do not automatically defeat
liability. But the Fourth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits
treat organizational structure—such as independent
investigation or multilayered review—as categorically
breaking the causal chain. The question presented is as
follows:

Whether, under Staub v. Proctor Hospital ,
an employer is categorically insulated from
"cat's paw" liability whenever higher-level
officials conduct independent review or share
decisionmaking authority, even if a biased
subordinate's act was a proximate cause of the
adverse employment action?

Whether, under Staub v. Proctor Hospital, an employer is categorically insulated from 'cat's paw' liability whenever higher-level officials conduct independent review or share decisionmaking authority, even if a biased subordinate's act was a proximate cause of the adverse employment action?