Farrell Cherry v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics
829 F.3d 974
8th Cir.2016Background
- Farrell Cherry, an African American technician at Siemens from 1981–2011, was terminated in a company-wide reduction in force in November 2011.
- Cherry worked in Rapid City and for years was the sole field technician there; Dave Eide later began working in the area and repeatedly criticized Cherry.
- Supervisor Blaine Raymer (Caucasian) prepared Cherry’s performance reviews (2009–2011), which became more critical over time and included a 2010 performance-improvement plan; Raymer also made derogatory comments and jokes contributing to a racially hostile atmosphere.
- Service Director David Siebert (Raymer’s supervisor) selected employees for the RIF based on recent performance reviews; Siebert implemented the layoff decisions but Raymer did not know the RIF selections before they were made.
- Cherry sued under Title VII alleging racial discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment to Siemens, and Cherry appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cat’s paw liability applies | Raymer’s biased reviews/comments caused the RIF decision through Siebert | Raymer couldn’t have used Siebert as a dupe because he did not know of the RIF when he acted | No — cat’s paw inapplicable because subordinate lacked knowledge of the adverse action timing |
| Whether direct evidence supports mixed-motives analysis | Raymer’s comments and favoritism are direct proof of racial bias warranting Price Waterhouse treatment | Employer points to neutral, company-wide RIF as nondiscriminatory reason | No — court declined mixed-motives analysis; proceeded under McDonnell Douglas |
| Whether Siemens offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason | N/A (burden shifts to employer) | Siemens: a documented, regionwide reduction in force based on performance reviews | Yes — RIF was a legitimate nondiscriminatory justification |
| Whether Cherry showed pretext as to the actual decisionmaker | Cherry: Raymer’s bias taints the decision and shows pretext | Siemens: Siebert, the decisionmaker, relied on performance data; no evidence Siebert was biased | No — no genuine issue of pretext as to Siebert, so summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (mixed-motives analysis for direct-evidence proof of discrimination)
- Qamhiyah v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech., 566 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining cat’s paw theory and limits)
- EEOC v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) (cat’s paw description cited by Qamhiyah)
- Richardson v. Sugg, 448 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2006) (employer liability when decisionmaker is a mere conduit)
- Loeb v. Best Buy Co., 537 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2008) (no pretext where biased actors weren’t the termination decisionmakers)