Occasionally, the dull, gray world of legaldom can emit flashes of color as the US Supreme Court did in its recent decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital.
Staub was a member of the military reserve, and as an employee of Proctor was required periodically to spend time fulfilling his military obligation. His immediate superior, Mulally, had an anti-military bias and maliciously and erroneously reported to her superior, Korenchuk, that Staub was missing work excessively because of his military duties. Korenchuk, again with malice, passed the erroneous information on to Buck, vice president, human resources. Ultimately, Staub was fired by Buck and then sued Proctor, alleging he was fired because of the anti-military bias of Proctor’s employees. A federal statute protects members of the military from discrimination because they are serving.
In holding against Proctor, Justice Scalia ruled that the company was liable for the acts of its agents because of their anti-military bias, even though Buck did not act in bad faith. In his opinion, Justice Scalia described Buck as the “cat’s paw” in reference to an Aesop fable.
In the fable, a monkey wins the favor of a cat by flattery; having done so, the monkey convinces the cat to reach into a nearby fire to extract some chestnuts. The cat reaches in and withdraws the chestnuts, but the monkey takes the chestnuts and runs off, leaving the cat with nothing but a burnt paw.
It is a bit of a stretch to extend the metaphor to the Staub decision, where the Justice characterizes the innocent Buck as the “cat’s paw”, singed with nothing to show for it. Actually, less than nothing because of the adverse verdict.
Incidentally, in addition to the definition of a “cat’s paw” as “one used by another as a tool, a dupe” (our case), Merriam-Webster also defines it as “a light air that ruffles a calm sea” and “a hitch knot formed with two eyes for attaching a line to a hook”. And, for those old enough to remember, Cat’s Paw was also a replacement heel (with a promotional poster in every shoemaker’s window).
Call it feline inscrutability.
— Ken Butera