October Term 2010 · Docket 09-400

Does a biased supervisor's report make an employer liable for a neutral manager's firing?

Vincent Staub argues his supervisor's biased report caused his firing. Proctor Hospital argues the neutral manager's decision breaks the chain of liability.

Official caption
Staub v. Proctor Hospital
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Miller argued the employer is liable when a supervisor uses delegated authority to cause harm.

    Mr. Davis argued the parties agree Linda Buck made the final decision to fire Staub.

    Mr. Davis argued there is no evidence Linda Buck possessed animus toward Staub.

    Mr. Schnapper argued agency law determines the employer's responsibility for specific officials.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether an employer faces liability when a biased supervisor influences a neutral decisionmaker. The lower court ruled against Staub. It required the supervisor to exert singular influence over the final decision.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 2, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Staub wants the Court to hold the employer liable for the supervisor's biased report.

Proctor Hospital wants the Court to limit liability to the neutral decisionmaker's own motives.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Staub argues agency law makes the employer responsible for the supervisor's discriminatory actions.

Proctor Hospital argues the statute only covers actions by the official with discharge authority.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked if a biased report alone is actionable under the statute.

Justice Scalia asked why lower supervisory employees' decisions trigger employer liability.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of employer liability for biased employees. It determines when a neutral manager's decision shields the company from legal responsibility.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON