Thomas v. Berry Plastics Corporation, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17013

Thomas, an African American printing technician at Berry from 2003–2010, accumulated multiple disciplinary actions and was terminated in September 2010 after a September 10 print-quality incident.
Shortly before termination Thomas complained of racial discrimination during a Final Warning meeting with group leader Jason Morton and others.
Morton (a subordinate with limited authority) submitted reports implicating Thomas in the September 10 incident; Printing Manager Watson reviewed the incident and decided to terminate Thomas.
Berry’s Termination Review Panel (two independent managers) affirmed the termination after reviewing Thomas’s disciplinary file and interviewing Thomas within two days of termination.
Thomas sued for retaliation under Title VII and § 1981, relying on a cat’s-paw theory that Morton’s alleged retaliatory animus infected Watson’s decision.
The district court granted summary judgment for Berry; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Thomas failed to show Morton’s animus or that any animus was a but-for cause of the termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thomas raised a genuine dispute that Morton (subordinate) had retaliatory animus	Morton omitted exculpatory facts and produced inconsistent reports after Thomas complained about race; these support inference of animus	Morton's omissions/inconsistencies are not false or implausible evidence of bias and are explained by normal reporting and responsibility rules	Court: No genuine issue of material fact that Morton acted with retaliatory animus
Whether a cat’s-paw theory can render Berry liable absent decisionmaker animus	Thomas: Morton’s animus influenced Watson because Watson relied on Morton’s report	Berry: Independent Termination Review Panel reviewed record and interviewed Thomas, breaking any causal chain	Court: Even assuming animus, Berry’s independent review broke the causal chain; no but-for causation
Whether plaintiff established pretext under McDonnell Douglas	Thomas: Evidence of falsity/inconsistency in subordinate reports shows pretext	Berry: Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (print-quality/performance history); independent review corroborates decision	Court: Plaintiff failed to show employer explanation was pretextual
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Thomas: Disputed facts for jury on animus and causation	Berry: No material dispute sufficient to show but-for causation or biased decisionmaker	Court: Summary judgment for Berry affirmed

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for circumstantial discrimination/retaliation claims)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (falsity of employer’s explanation may permit finding of pretext)
E.E.O.C. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) (cat’s-paw theory; subordinate bias liability)
Simmons v. Sykes Enters., Inc., 647 F.3d 943 (10th Cir. 2011) (but-for causation in subordinate-bias context)
Young v. Dillon Cos., Inc., 468 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2006) (independent employer investigation breaks causal chain)
Pinkerton v. Colorado Dep’t of Transp., 563 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009) (employer asking employee’s version can defeat subordinate-bias inference)
Macon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 743 F.3d 708 (10th Cir. 2014) (grievance/review panel that follows policy can negate cat’s-paw liability)
Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (independent investigation not a sham defeats cat’s-paw claim)