Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 21.3
STAUB V. PROCTOR HOSPITAL
Supreme Court of the United States
562 U.S. 411; 131 S. Ct. 1186; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1900 [March 1, 2011]
FACTS:
While employed as an angiography technician by respondent Proctor Hospital, petitioner Vincent
Staub was a member of the United States Army Reserve.
Both his immediate supervisor (Mulally) and Mulally’s supervisor (Korenchuk) were hostile to his
military obligations.
Mulally gave Staub a disciplinary warning which included a directive requiring Staub to report to
her or Korenchuk when his cases were completed.
After receiving a report from Korenchuk that Staub had violated the Corrective Action, Proctor’s
vice president of human resources (Buck) reviewed Staub’s personnel file and decided to fire him.
Staub filed a grievance, claiming that Mulally had fabricated the allegation underlying the warning
out of hostility toward his military obligations, but Buck adhered to her decision.
Staub sued Proctor under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994
(USERRA), which forbids an employer to deny “employment, reemployment, retention in
employment, or any benefit of employment” based on a person’s “membership” in or “obligation
to perform service in a uniformed service,” and provides that liability is established “if the person’s
membership …is a motivating factor in the employer’s action.”
Staub stated that Buck was not motivated by hostility to his military obligations, but that Mulally
and Korenchuk were, and that their actions influenced Buck’s decision.
PROCEDURE: The jury found for Staub and awarded $57,640 in damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit reversed.
ISSUE: Can an employer under USERRA be held liable for employment decisions based on the
discriminatory motivations of a supervisor who influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment
decision?
RULE: “If a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the
supervisor to cause an adverse employment-action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate
employment action, then the employer is liable under USERAA.”
REASONING:
1. Both Mulally and Korenchuk were acting within the scope of their employment when they took the
actions that allegedly caused Buck to fire Staub.
causal factors underlying Buck’s decision to fire Staub.
3. Buck’s termination notice expressly stated that Staub was terminated because he had “ignored”
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Intentional torts such as this, “as distinguished from negligent or reckless torts”….generally require
that the actor intend ‘the consequences’ of an act,’ not simply ‘the act itself.’
The requirement that the biased supervisor’s action be a causal factor of the ultimate employment
