Biased supervisors and job decisions
Wilmore Lee Washington, III v. Bessent
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Wilmore Lee Washington III has asked the Supreme Court to review his Title VII case, arguing that an employee can hold an employer responsible when a biased supervisor influences the path to an adverse job action, even if another manager makes the final decision.
- What's at stake
- For Washington, it remains unresolved whether an employer can be responsible when a supervisor alleged to have acted with bias influences a job action but is not the final decisionmaker.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He also challenges how the Ninth Circuit assessed the evidence at summary judgment.
Washington's petition also challenges how the Ninth Circuit reviewed evidence about performance scrutiny and evaluations that he says led to the job action.
Question presented
1. Whether, under Title VII’s cat’s-paw doctrine, a plaintiff may establish causation where a second-line supervisor with established discriminatory animus initiates or influences a course of performance scrutiny and adverse evaluations that culminates in an adverse employment action, even though other managers participate in the intermediate employment decisions? 2. Whether, under Title VII, can an employer may be held liable under the cat’s-paw theory when a second-line supervisor acting with discriminatory or retaliatory animus influenced the adverse employment action but was not the ultimate decisionmaker? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit err by failing to adhere to its established legal framework, as articulated in Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003), and T.W. Electrical Service, Inc. v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Association, 809 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1987), by improperly weighing evidence and not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party at the summary judgment stage, thereby contradicting the principles governing the assessment of genuine issues of material fact?
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the petition. No argument or decision date is set while review remains ungranted.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What evidence-review issue does Washington raise?
- He argues the Ninth Circuit weighed evidence against him instead of viewing it in his favor when deciding whether a trial was needed.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.