Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc.
835 F.3d 267
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Andrea Vasquez, an EMT employed by Empress Ambulance, received unsolicited explicit sexual photos and advances from co-worker Tyrell Gray and complained to supervisors the next morning.
- Supervisors asked Vasquez to file a formal complaint and assured her they would investigate; Vasquez offered to show her phone evidence but was refused.
- Gray produced fabricated screenshots and a racy photo that he claimed proved a consensual relationship; supervisors credited Gray’s materials and refused to consider Vasquez’s proffered contrary evidence.
- A committee (including HR) concluded Vasquez had engaged in sexual harassment and fired her the same morning.
- Vasquez sued under Title VII and NYSHRL for retaliatory discharge; the district court dismissed, holding Gray’s retaliatory intent as a low-level employee could not be imputed to Empress.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that employer negligence in relying on a biased co-worker’s false evidence can permit imputation of that co-worker’s retaliatory animus under a "cat’s paw" theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "cat’s paw" liability applies in Title VII retaliation claims | Vasquez: employer can be liable when a biased employee’s animus causes adverse action via employer decisionmakers | Empress: cat’s paw not applicable because biased person was a low-level co-worker without decision authority | Court: Cat’s paw theory available for Title VII retaliation claims |
| Whether employer may be liable for a low-level co-worker’s retaliatory intent | Vasquez: employer’s negligence in crediting co-worker’s false evidence permits imputing co-worker’s intent | Empress: co-worker’s animus not imputable because he lacked supervisory authority | Court: Employer may be liable if its negligence gives effect to co-worker’s animus (agency principles/Ellerth) |
| Standard to impute co-worker’s prejudice to employer | Vasquez: negligence-based imputation where employer knew or reasonably should have known of bias and negligently relied on false accusations | Empress: reliance on information alone insufficient to establish employer liability | Court: Imputation requires employer negligence that afforded biased employee a decisive role; good-faith, non-negligent reliance defeats liability |
| Sufficiency of Vasquez’s pleadings on negligence and causation | Vasquez: pleadings allege suspicious timing, fabricated evidence, refusal to review exculpatory proof — supporting negligence and causation | Empress: alleged facts insufficient to show employer negligence or causal link | Court: Allegations plausibly allege Empress acted negligently and that Gray’s animus proximately caused the firing; claim survives 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (employer liable when an agent’s biased act intended to cause adverse action does so)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (agency principles impose employer liability where employer negligence contributes to employee torts)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (12(b)(6) pleading standard in employment cases)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (elements of retaliation claim)
- Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2011) (discussion of cat’s paw theory in circuit precedent)
- Velazquez-Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 753 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2014) (employer may be liable where negligent reliance on biased co-worker causes termination)
- McPherson v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 457 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) (focus on employer’s motivation, not truth of allegations)
- Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 1999) (biased non-decisionmaker can taint ultimate decision if played meaningful role)
- Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (Title VII plaintiff may succeed absent bias by ultimate decisionmaker if biased actor played meaningful role)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (but-for causation standard for Title VII retaliation claims)