Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in an employment discrimination case that could have far-reaching implications for people experiencing any form of discrimination, harassment or retaliation in the workplace. Although the case involved discrimination based on military service rather than sexual harassment, experts believe it is likely to apply to virtually all job discrimination cases.

Vincent Staub, a first sergeant in the Army Reserves, had worked for 15 years as an angiography technician at Proctor Hospital in Peoria, Illinois. After years of working with no difficulties, a new supervisor was assigned to him in 2000, and things changed. The supervisor, apparently hostile to his Army Reserves responsibilities, began scheduling him for times when he was required to attend reserve training.

Doing so was a violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against veterans and military service members, and requires them to give reservists time off for their training and service obligations.

In 2004, Staub was notified that he would be called back to active duty. Shortly afterward, his supervisor falsely accused him of violating a hospital rule and issued a disciplinary order.

"My boss knew what was coming," Staub told reporters, "and within days ... the ball went into motion with the false allegations."

The disciplinary order was forwarded to the hospital's human resources department, and Staub was fired. He sued the hospital for discrimination and wrongful termination, and a jury awarded him $57,640 in damages.

The hospital appealed, claiming that even if his supervisor intended to discriminate against Staub on the basis of his military service, it was the hospital's HR department that was responsible for firing him. Since the HR department didn't do so out of discrimination, the hospital could not be held liable. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the hospital's favor, reversing the jury's verdict.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the fired employee. It ruled against the Court of Appeals and ordered the court to either reinstate the jury verdict or give Staub a new trial.

Pro-employee ruling in military case expected to apply to gender discrimination and sexual harassment cases

The strategy Proctor Hospital attempted to use to absolve itself of responsibility for the supervisor's discrimination is sometimes called the "cat's paw" theory. It gets its name from a 17th Century fable about a monkey who persuades a cat to pull chestnuts out of a fire, so the cat's paw gets burned and the monkey can make off with the chestnuts.

In recent years, many large employers have implemented discrimination and sexual harassment policies like those of Proctor Hospital, relying on the "cat's paw" strategy to try to shield themselves from liability. Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia firmly rejected those attempts because HR departments rely on information from supervisors to make their decisions.

"The employer is at fault," the opinion reads, "because one of its agents [the immediate supervisor] committed an action based on discriminatory animus that was intended to cause, and did in fact cause, an adverse employment decision."

Because the language used in USERRA mirrors language used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination laws, experts believe the ruling will apply to discrimination, harassment and retaliation complaints brought under any of those laws.

Sources: