Baker v. Comley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that there were jury questions of credibility on “cat’s paw” liability concerning the extent to which the decisionmaker accurately assessed the plaintiffs situation or merely performed a perfunctory review
• the question is “whether [the deci-sionmaker] accurately a[ss]essed [the plaintiffs] situation or performed a perfunctory review and ‘rubber stamped’ the recommendation [for detrimental job action]”
• pertinent question for cat’s paw liability is “whether [the decisionmaker] accurately a[ss]essed [the plaintiff’s] situation”
• front pay is monetary equivalent of reinstatement and therefore not subject to cap
• reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law
• “[F]ront pay is not so much a monetary award for the salary that the employee would have received but for the discrimination, but rather the monetary equivalent of reinstatement, to be given in situations where reinstatement is impracticable or impossible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).