Ossanna v. Nike, Inc., 445 P.3d 281

Background

Ossanna, a Nike electrician, repeatedly reported safety concerns about an apprenticeship program and filed complaints with JATC and OSHA; he alleged retaliation and whistleblower claims after being denied promotion and later terminated.
His immediate supervisor (Delgado) and second-level supervisor (Treppens) allegedly expressed antagonism and threatened him for reporting, and Treppens documented Ossanna's OSHA intent.
After a PowerDown incident where Ossanna used his access badge to let contractors and his son into a gym, Nike investigated and St. Jacques (an upper manager with firing authority) terminated Ossanna for misuse of access.
Plaintiff claimed Delgado and Treppens’ retaliatory bias influenced St. Jacques’ decision and requested a "cat's paw" jury instruction to allow imputation of subordinate bias to the formal decision-maker.
The trial court refused the instruction; the jury returned a defense verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Oregon recognizes the "cat's paw" theory and whether the refusal was error and prejudicial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oregon recognizes the "cat's paw" doctrine for statutory employment discrimination/retaliation claims	Oregon should adopt the doctrine to permit imputing subordinate supervisors' bias to an ultimate decision-maker when the subordinate influenced the decision	Nike did not argue against availability of doctrine on review (focused on instruction wording and applicability)	Court adopted the "cat's paw" theory for Oregon statutory employment discrimination and retaliation claims
Whether the requested "imputation of subordinate bias" jury instruction correctly stated the law	The instruction accurately permitted the jury to impute subordinate bias if the subordinate influenced/was involved in the decision; causation is addressed by separate substantial-factor instruction	Instruction allegedly misstated law by lowering causation and failing to tie bias to protected activity	Instruction was a correct statement of law when read with the separate substantial-factor causation instruction; not misleading
Whether evidence supported giving the "cat's paw" instruction (i.e., influence/involvement by supervisors)	Evidence showed Treppens/Delgado made retaliatory remarks, threatened Ostranna, communicated with investigator, and influenced the investigation handled by Miller	Nike argued St. Jacques acted as an independent, sole decision-maker and termination was based on the Bo Jackson incident, not subordinate influence	Record contained sufficient evidence that Delgado/Treppens influenced the process (Miller relied on info from Treppens; St. Jacques did not interview Ossanna); instruction was supported
Whether refusal of the instruction was harmless error	Plaintiff argued the absence likely affected the verdict because his theory targeted subordinate influence and Nike emphasized St. Jacques’ independence in closing; jury instructions control jury's law understanding	Nike argued other jury rejections (promotion, hostile work environment) showed lack of prejudice and that existing causation and agency instructions sufficed	Error was prejudicial: refusal probably affected outcome; reversal of judgment on the retaliation claims and remand ordered

Key Cases Cited

Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (recognizing "cat's paw" liability and explaining employer investigation may absolve liability only if it breaks causal link)
Shager v. Upjohn Co., 913 F.2d 398 (7th Cir.) (origin of "cat's paw" concept: biased subordinate's recommendation can taint an otherwise neutral decisionmaker)
Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir.) ("influenced or was involved in" formulation for imputing subordinate bias)
La Manna v. City of Cornelius, 276 Or. App. 149 (Or. Ct. App.) (Oregon Court of Appeals applying cat's paw theory)
LaCasse v. Owen, 278 Or. App. 24 (Or. Ct. App.) (Oregon Court of Appeals applying cat's paw theory)