State of Florida, Department of Corrections v. Carolann Bracewell and Ted Jeter, 220 So. 3d 1228

Carolann Bracewell (Assistant Warden) and Ted Jeter (Warden) at Jackson Correctional Institution were terminated by Florida DOC after an OIG investigation into inmate medical-care complaints.
OIG inspector Julie Mader initially investigated; after Bracewell and Jeter complained about her conduct, Mader was removed from the active investigation in December 2011 and replaced by inspectors Cordova and Harrison, who conducted most interviews and authored the final report.
Mader nonetheless provided clerical assistance (e.g., typed interview summaries) and conferred with the new inspectors but did not make disciplinary recommendations or sign the final report.
Secretary Kenneth Tucker, advised by Deputy Secretary Crews and Assistant Secretary Cannon, reviewed the OIG report and made the decision to terminate Bracewell and Jeter in May 2012.
Bracewell and Jeter sued under the Florida Whistle-blower’s Act, alleging DOC retaliated in violation of the Act via a cat’s paw theory: that Mader’s alleged retaliatory bias caused DOC to terminate them even though DOC decisionmakers lacked bias.
The jury found for plaintiffs; DOC appealed arguing (inter alia) that cat’s paw liability is inapplicable because Mader was not a supervisor or empowered to take or recommend tangible employment actions, and replacement investigators eliminated any taint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC may be vicariously liable under a "cat’s paw" theory for biased acts of a non-supervisory OIG investigator	Mader influenced the investigation and thereby caused DOC decisionmakers to adopt a tainted report; her bias should be imputed to DOC	Mader was not a supervisor, lacked authority to take or recommend tangible employment actions, and provided no recommendations for DOC to "rubber-stamp"; cat’s paw thus inapplicable	Reversed: cat’s paw inapplicable as a matter of law because Mader was neither a supervisor nor empowered to effectuate or recommend employment actions; judgment for DOC required
Whether denial of DOC’s motions for directed verdict and judgment as a matter of law was proper	Plaintiffs relied on jury to find causation and impute Mader’s bias to DOC under cat’s paw	DOC argued no legally sufficient evidence to support vicarious liability or proximate causation; Staub and agency principles limit cat’s paw to supervisors or those with delegated authority	Court reviews de novo and held trial court erred in denying motions; entry of judgment for DOC mandated

Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (approves cat’s paw liability where supervisor acts with discriminatory animus and that act is a proximate cause of adverse employment action)
Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (vicarious liability generally tied to supervisors or persons acting with company authority to take tangible employment actions)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (defines "supervisor" for vicarious liability as one empowered to take tangible employment actions)
University of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (but-for causation standard for Title VII retaliation claims)
Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits Lab., Inc., 163 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 1998) (formulation of cat’s paw theory in employment context)
Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 835 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2016) (discusses employer negligence theories and limits of cat’s paw liability)