Chattman, a good 20-year employee of Toho Tenax America who was African-American, was fired after an incident of horseplay at work. Horseplay was a common occurrence in that department. Chattman, who had worked as a shipping coordinator, alleged that his immediate supervisor, Tullock, a Caucasian who was Human Resources Director at the plant, harbored racial bias against African-Americans, including Chattman. It was Tullock who recommended to upper management that Chattman be fired after the incident of horseplay. Chattman was issued a final warning for one year, during which time he was not eligible for promotion, although he had been promised one. He sued for discrimination, and the court entered summary judgment for the employer, believing Chattman had not proven liability. Chattman appealed. 

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. The court’s analysis of the other aspects of the plaintiff’s race discrimination claim is excluded from this excerpt. With the limited facts at our disposal, what is your assessment of the evidence of a discriminatory motive on the part of the HR manager (Tullock)? Of whether the stated reason for the disciplinary action was pretext? 

3. What two things must be shown by plaintiffs to establish employer liability for discrimination under the cat’s paw (subordinate bias) theory? How is the plaintiff able to establish these two things in this case?

4. What are the practical implications of this case for employers making disciplinary or termination decisions?