“[I]gnorance of an occasion for retaliation can only constitute a defense as to those actors who were in fact ignorant of the plaintiff’s protected activities.” That passage from Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95 is the heart of cat’s paw liability in California. A manager who knew nothing of an employee’s complaint can sign the termination, and the company still faces a FEHA claim if a biased supervisor fed the process. The defense is an independent, documented decision.
What does “cat’s paw” mean in an employment case?
It’s the theory that a biased supervisor used an unbiased decision-maker as a tool.
The Reeves court described the question as whether the manager and investigator “acted as tools or ‘cat’s paws’ for the supervisor, that is, instrumentalities by which his retaliatory animus was carried into effect to plaintiff’s injury.” The court put the rule this way: “If a supervisor makes another his tool for carrying out a discriminatory action, the original actor’s purpose will be imputed to the tool, or through the tool to their common employer.”
The underlying claim is usually retaliation or discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Government Code section 12940(h) makes it unlawful “to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.”
Is California law on cat’s paw different from federal law?
Not in its basic shape. California adopted the federal theory.
The Reeves opinion noted that the model “has also been adopted or referred to approvingly in all but one of the federal circuits,” and said “California law will follow the overwhelming weight of federal authority and hold employers responsible where discriminatory or retaliatory actions by supervisory personnel bring about adverse employment actions through the instrumentality or conduit of other corporate actors who may be entirely innocent of discriminatory or retaliatory animus.”
The focus is on supervisors. In a footnote, the court said that “An employer can generally be held liable for the discriminatory or retaliatory actions of supervisors,” while “The outcome is less clear where the only actor possessing the requisite animus is a nonsupervisory coworker.” When the person with the alleged bias is a peer rather than a supervisor, the imputation argument is weaker, and defense counsel should press that point.
What went wrong for the employer in Reeves?
Four people touched the termination, and the employer’s summary judgment motion defended only the last one.
A longtime clerk complained to the store manager about sexual harassment of female coworkers. Months later, after a dispute at the store door one night, the manager referred the incident to the security department as possible workplace violence. A security investigator interviewed the clerk and recommended termination, and a district manager made the final call. The employer showed that the district manager acted for disciplinary reasons. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment anyway, holding that the employer “had to address the conduct, role, and motives of each of these actors; instead it addressed only the role and motives of the last.”
The investigation itself drew the sharpest criticism. The court observed that the investigator’s report labeled the coworker who reported the incident as the “Victim” and the clerk as the “Suspect,” instead of neutral terms like “complainant” or “accused.” It concluded that “plaintiff’s account is presented as a story, while the Juarez/Sparks version is presented as history.” It also noted that “two witnesses who gave exculpatory testimony in deposition were never interviewed,” and found no evidence the investigator ever questioned the supervisor’s framing of the incident.
How can an employer show the decision was independent?
By building an investigation that would hold up even if the supervisor’s motives were the worst a jury could find.
Reeves is a guide to what not to do, and the reverse of each problem is the defense. Employers that win these cases usually can show the following:
| Problem the court flagged in Reeves | What a defensible record looks like |
|---|---|
| The supervisor routed the matter to security instead of human resources | Complaints and discipline referrals follow the written policy, and HR knows about prior complaints by the employee |
| The investigator relied on the accounts of witnesses with possible motives | Every relevant witness is interviewed, including the ones the accused employee names |
| The report labeled the employee a “Suspect” and the accuser a “Victim” | Neutral language, with the employee’s account given equal weight |
| Exculpatory facts weren’t passed to the decision-maker | The decision-maker reviews the full file, including mitigating facts |
| The motion addressed only the final decision-maker | Declarations cover the motives and knowledge of every person who influenced the outcome |
The strongest independent-decision defense is one where the decision-maker can testify to reviewing the evidence personally, talking to the employee, and reaching a conclusion the supervisor didn’t dictate. A decision-maker who signs off on a recommendation without reading the file is the cat’s paw the case law describes.
Timing matters too. An investigation done after the decision is made, to paper a result already reached, looks worse than no investigation at all. The order of events should be visible in the file: the referral, the interviews, the report, the decision-maker’s review, and only then the decision. Dated notes and emails make that sequence easy to prove. Employers with repeat discipline issues in one department should also look at whether the same supervisor keeps generating the referrals, because a pattern of one manager’s complaints leading to terminations is exactly what a plaintiff’s lawyer will chart for a jury.
Does it matter that the decision-maker didn’t know about the complaint?
It helps, but only for that person.
Reeves said ignorance of protected activity “can only constitute a defense as to those actors who were in fact ignorant.” So a declaration from the final decision-maker denying any knowledge of the complaint doesn’t end the case if the supervisor who started the process did know. The employer has to account for the knowledge of everyone in the chain, which is why decision-maker declarations are only one piece of a summary judgment motion in these cases.
This is a place where employers often lose by under-preparing. The supervisor whose motives are attacked is frequently the witness the company least wants to put forward, and Reeves shows the cost of leaving that person’s role unexplained.
Steps to take when a termination is challenged as retaliatory
- Preserve the investigation file, interview notes, emails and texts among the supervisor, HR, and the decision-maker, the personnel file, and the policy versions in effect, under a litigation hold once a claim arrives.
- Calendar the response date on the demand, CRD complaint, or summons, and check for an arbitration agreement and an EPLI policy with notice requirements.
- Map everyone who influenced the decision, from the first report to the final signature, and stop any further action against the employee that could look like retaliation.
- Pull the documents the defense depends on: the employee’s protected complaint, the referral, the investigation report, what the decision-maker actually reviewed, and the termination paperwork.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding, contacting the employee or their lawyer, or offering anything to settle.
Cat’s paw claims are a regular part of the work of employment defense attorneys in California, and they’re won or lost on the investigation file.
FAQ
Can a company be liable if the person who fired the employee had no bias?
Yes, under the cat’s paw theory. If a biased supervisor influenced the decision and the decision-maker acted as a conduit for that supervisor’s motives, California courts can impute the supervisor’s motive to the employer. The defense is showing that the decision-maker acted independently, based on an investigation the supervisor didn’t control.
Does an internal investigation automatically protect the employer?
No. In Reeves, the court found a jury could infer the investigation was “not truly independent,” which made the investigator a possible cat’s paw. An investigation helps only when it interviews the relevant witnesses, including those the employee identifies, uses neutral language, questions the supervisor’s account, and passes the full picture to the decision-maker.
What if the biased person was a coworker, not a supervisor?
The theory is weaker. Reeves said employers can generally be held liable for supervisors’ discriminatory or retaliatory actions, but the outcome “is less clear” when the only biased actor is a nonsupervisory coworker. Other rules can still apply, so a coworker’s role should be examined, but the imputation argument is harder for a plaintiff to make.
Should the supervisor who reported the problem be kept out of the decision?
Usually that’s the safer course. The more a supervisor whose motives may be attacked controls the investigation or the recommendation, the easier the cat’s paw argument becomes. Having HR or a neutral investigator gather the facts, and a separate manager decide, gives the employer a cleaner independence defense.
If a former employee says a biased supervisor caused the termination
If your company has been sued or named in a CRD complaint by a former employee who says a supervisor’s bias drove the decision, the investigation file and the decision-maker’s own review usually decide whether the claim survives. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including retaliation claims based on a supervisor’s alleged influence. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
Government Code section 12940; Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.