In the case of Vincent E. Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Staub, a former employee at Proctor Hospital and member of the United States Army Reserve who claimed he was unlawfully terminated due to his military obligations causing scheduling conflicts with his work duties. The hospital argued that they fired him because of poor performance unrelated to his military service, but evidence suggested that supervisors were hostile towards Staub's reserve commitments and may have influenced the decision to fire him. The court found that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by anti-military animus which is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action (in this case termination), then liability under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) can be established when said act is a proximate cause for termination even if other reasons are also given for dismissal. This ruling clarified how "cat’s paw" cases - where someone manipulates another person into carrying out their discriminatory intent - should be handled under USERRA law; it held employers accountable not only for explicit discrimination but also situations where bias indirectly leads to unfair treatment.

In the dissenting opinion for Staub v. Proctor Hospital, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that the majority's decision to hold employers liable for employment discrimination based on the biased motives of an employee who influenced but did not make the ultimate employment decision was inconsistent with previous court rulings and federal law. They contended that under Title VII of Civil Rights Act 1964, liability should only be imposed if a biased supervisor performs an act motivated by discriminatory animus intending it to cause adverse employment action and it does so. In this case, they believed there was no evidence showing that either supervisor intended their actions to lead to Staub’s dismissal or had any influence over Vice President Buck's independent investigation which led her to fire him. Therefore they disagreed with holding Proctor Hospital vicariously liable for supervisors' alleged bias.