2010 Supreme Court term

VINCENT E. STAUB v. PROCTOR HOSPITAL

Dockets 09-400Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

Guide pending. Verified case metadata and available source documents are shown below while a supported explanation is prepared.

Background and question before the Court

According to Mr. DAVIS, vincent E. Staub was terminated by Linda Buck, who made the final decision to fire him.

According to Mr. DAVIS, the respondent asserts there is no evidence that Linda Buck possessed anti‑military animus toward Mr. Staub.

According to Petitioner (Eric Schnapper), according to Petitioner (Eric Schnapper), the petitioner argues that agency law, not the Eleventh Circuit’s “cat’s paw” doctrine, is the controlling standard for determining employer liability.

According to United States (amicus) (Eric D. Miller), according to United States (amicus) (Eric D. Miller), the United States amicus argues that liability under USERRA can attach to any person to whom the employer has delegated significant employment responsibilities, not only the ultimate decision‑maker.

What each side argues

Petitioner Position

According to Petitioner (Eric Schnapper), according to Petitioner (Eric Schnapper), agency law, rather than the Eleventh Circuit’s “cat’s paw” doctrine, should govern employer liability in this case.

Respondent Position

According to Mr. DAVIS, Linda Buck made the decision to fire Vincent Staub, and there is no evidence that she held anti‑military animus toward him.

What happened at oral argument

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

According to United States (amicus) (Eric D. Miller), according to United States (amicus) (Eric D. Miller), the case could clarify whether an employer is liable under USERRA for actions taken by supervisors who have been delegated significant employment responsibilities.

According to Petitioner (Eric Schnapper), according to Petitioner (Eric Schnapper), understanding the proper standard—agency law versus the “cat’s paw” doctrine—affects how courts assess employer responsibility for discriminatory motives.

Terms to know

employer
Under USERRA section 4303, the term “employer” includes any person to whom the employer has delegated the performance of significant employment responsibilities.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 33381ecbd0e4444c4c6b-r1-01733025b4e1ca9e.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.