The new department chair had read his predecessor’s evaluation. He’d also taken some of the urologist’s patients to the operating room and seen firsthand what happened after her referrals.

---

TL;DR: The Eleventh Circuit upheld summary judgment on a urologist’s sex discrimination claims. She argued that her former supervisor’s alleged bias influenced the decision to pull her from clinical work and let her contract expire. The chair who made both decisions had gathered evidence of his own and relied on it.

📄 Read the court’s opinion.

---

The old evaluation told part of the story

The urologist worked part time at a university on one-year contracts. In 2015, her supervisor flagged scheduling and efficiency problems that had led to patient complaints. He still rated her as meeting expectations overall.

The new chair led the next evaluation, with input from the former supervisor. Her productivity had improved, but her overall rating dropped below expectations. A counseling letter flagged concerns about her work and how she got along with colleagues.

The university ultimately declined to renew her contract and moved her from clinical work to research for her final year. She sued, and the university won summary judgment on her sex discrimination claims.

The chair had seen what happened after the referrals

The chair had performed biopsies on patients the urologist referred for suspected bladder tumors. In his affidavit, he said he found either nothing in the bladder or nothing that concerned him. Other physicians reported similar experiences. He also spoke with residents, nurses, and faculty about her interactions with colleagues.

The urologist pointed out that the chair had never watched her examine a patient. The court accepted that and focused on what the chair learned firsthand when he performed the follow-up procedures.

What did the chair actually rely on?

The urologist argued that her former supervisor’s alleged bias drove both decisions, even though the new chair made the call. That’s the “cat’s paw” theory.

The court looked at what actually drove the chair’s decisions. The record showed he relied on his own observations and what he learned from others, and he concluded that those findings justified both decisions independently of his predecessor’s assessment. The urologist offered too little evidence for a jury to find that the former supervisor’s alleged bias drove either decision.

Her separate retaliation claims went to trial. The jury found for the university, and the appeals court left that verdict in place.

What an independent review should answer

The chair could assess the urologist’s work because he’d handled some of the follow-up procedures himself. In most workplaces, the decisionmaker will have to piece together what happened from the employee’s work and the records people made at the time.

The work itself may tell you more than the evaluation

The chair could assess the clinical concern because he saw what happened after the referrals. In other jobs, the work itself or the records it produced can help a decisionmaker assess what the supervisor reported.

Performance problems should be documented as they happen

When a performance issue comes up, the supervisor should record what happened, when it happened, and any feedback they gave. That gives the decisionmaker a record to review if the issue later factors into an employment decision.

A concern about bias calls for a closer look

If there’s a reason to question whether bias influenced a supervisor’s assessment, the decisionmaker should check the underlying facts before acting. Document what they verified and how it informed the decision.

The chair knew what his predecessor thought. At summary judgment, he could also explain what he’d seen for himself.