943 F.3d 1320
10th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Anjela Greer worked as a security guard at the Wichita Art Museum and concurrently served in the Navy Reserves.
- Greer applied for an internal Operations Supervisor vacancy; Human Resources screener Olivia Hensley declined to advance her application to interview, leaving only one other applicant.
- Greer sued under USERRA, alleging museum executive Patricia McDonnell harbored anti-military animus and, through influence over Hensley (cat’s paw theory), caused the denial of an interview.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding (1) Greer’s application showed lack of required supervisory experience, and (2) defendants proved the same-action defense (they would have denied an interview regardless of military status).
- The Tenth Circuit reversed, concluding genuine disputes of material fact existed as to (a) whether McDonnell had anti-military animus, (b) whether that animus motivated Hensley’s decision, and (c) whether defendants’ same-action defense was proven as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonnell harbored anti-military animus | Greer: McDonnell made repeated disparaging statements about Greer’s reserve service and said Greer would not be promoted while in the military | Defendants: Remarks were isolated or concerned only about availability for drill weekends, not hostility to service | Court: A reasonable factfinder could infer anti-military animus from McDonnell’s remarks; creates genuine dispute |
| Whether McDonnell’s animus motivated Hensley (cat’s paw) | Greer: Hensley attributed her decision to McDonnell’s instructions and testified McDonnell had told staff to keep Greer "right where she was" | Defendants: Hensley decided based on application showing lack of supervisory experience; McDonnell didn’t review this application before decision | Court: Testimony that Hensley blamed McDonnell plus other evidence permits inference that animus influenced Hensley; genuine dispute exists |
| Whether Greer’s application failed the supervisory-experience requirement | Defendants: Application listed job title as security and described non-supervisory duties, so she did not meet the one-year required supervisory experience | Greer: She supervised two employees, performed supervisory tasks (scheduling, oversight), and HR practice permitted resolving ambiguities at interview | Court: Application ambiguous and HR witnesses said number supervised could suffice; a factfinder could find Greer met the qualification; genuine dispute exists |
| Whether defendants established the same-action defense | Defendants: Even absent military status, Greer would not have been advanced because of lack of qualifications and consistent city practice | Greer: Evidence permits inference that discretion existed and McDonnell’s animus caused the non-advancement, so defendants cannot show they would have acted the same | Court: Defendants failed to prove as a matter of law they would have denied interview regardless of military service; genuine dispute remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (supervisor’s biased animus can be imputed to employer under cat’s paw theory)
- Sheehan v. Dep’t of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (anti-military statements can show discriminatory motivation under USERRA)
- Bradberry v. Jefferson Cty., 732 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2013) (military status as a motivating factor and employer same-action defense allocation)
- Coffman v. Chugach Support Servs., Inc., 411 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2005) (motivating-factor standard under USERRA)
- Erickson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 571 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (employer cannot disadvantage reservists for military absences)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Evers v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 509 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2007) (self-serving testimony can defeat summary judgment)