Supreme Court schedules oral arguments in BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles v. EEOC
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles v. EEOC, Docket No. 06-341, for April 18, 2007. At issue in the case is under what circumstances an employer is liable under federal anti-discrimination laws for a subordinate's discriminatory animus, when the person who actually makes the final adverse employment decision based on the immediate supervisor’s input harbors no such discriminatory motive and is unaware of the supervisor’s animus. Stephen Peters, an African-American employee, was discharged by Pat Edgar, a human resources officer at one of the company’s different locations, based on information from Mr. Peters’s immediate supervisor, Cesar Grado. Ms. Edgar was unaware of Mr. Peters’s race. Mr. Grado apparently harbored racial animus, of which Ms. Edgar was unaware. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued BCI on behalf of Mr. Peters under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, or religion. The U.S. district court for New Mexico dismissed the case, finding the EEOC had not demonstrated that Mr. Grado's bias had a significant influence on Ms. Edgar's decision, especially given that Mr. Grado had never made any specific recommendations as to what Ms. Edgar should do. In an opinion available below, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, saying the case should go to trial. The Tenth Circuit found that it did not matter that Mr. Grado had not recommended firing Mr. Peters, because his actions had still led to the decision and Ms. Edgar's independent investigation had not been sufficient to shield the company from subordinate bias liability, also known as a "cat’s paw" or "rubber stamp" claim. BCI’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme was granted.
NSBA has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Tenth Circuit. NSBA argues that the case could lead to serious unintended consequences for the nation’s school districts if the Court renders a decision that fails to take into account the "particular legal requirements and governance realities that dictate school board operations." This is because "under many state statutes, school boards are the final decision-makers in many school employment decisions, including hirings, firings, and promotions, that are subject to Title VII and other non-discrimination statutes … [but] as a matter of sound governance, school boards generally are not involved in the day-to-day operation of schools and necessarily rely on the judgment and recommendations of their school administrators in rendering these personnel decisions." The brief contends that the Tenth Circuit’s approach to this case, which essentially requires an investigation for possible bias even in the absence of any evidence of such bias, fails to consider these realities and the other safeguards on which school boards rely to protect employees from discrimination.
[Tenth Circuit opinion]
[NSBA brief in BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A. v. EEOC]