Just how many of your front line supervisors (who do not have authority to hire and fire anyone) are making comments and issuing biased disciplinary actions to set you up for a “cat’s paw” case? Probably more than you think. A cat’s paw discrimination case is one in which the actual decision maker is unbiased but a biased lower level supervisor’s recommendation or influence taints the ultimate employment decision. The courts have not been uniform in their approach to this issue—some holding employers responsible if the biased supervisor exerted some degree of influence and others finding that a decision maker’s independent review of a biased recommendation will protect against liability. In March the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited (at least in employment lawyer circles) decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital finding that cat’s paw liability is alive and well, and that an independent review is not an absolute bar to liability.