Establishing Cat’s Paw Liability for Gender Discrimination and Retaliation in Academic Contract Renewals

Introduction

In Nonna Y. Sorokina v. The College of New Jersey, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed whether an institution of higher learning could be held liable for gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, national-origin discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII when biased lower-level actors (“cat’s paw” actors) influenced the ultimate contract-renewal decision. Dr. Sorokina, a tenure-track finance professor born in Ukraine, alleged that her employer (the “College”) refused to accommodate her pregnancy, removed her from a program she helped develop, issued negative peer evaluations, and then declined to renew her contract in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination.

The key issues on appeal were:

Whether Dr. Sorokina had presented sufficient evidence of gender, pregnancy, and national-origin discrimination to survive summary judgment;
Whether her internal and external complaints of discrimination triggered retaliation liability;
Whether the College’s discovery‐limiting order was an abuse of discretion.

Summary of the Judgment

On May 5, 2025, the Third Circuit panel issued a divided opinion. The court:

Affirmed summary judgment against Dr. Sorokina on her national-origin and pregnancy discrimination claims;
Reversed summary judgment on her gender discrimination and retaliation claims arising from the non-renewal of her contract, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that biased recommendations infected the ultimate hiring decision in a “cat’s paw” scenario;
Affirmed the District Court’s limitation on discovery.

Judge Freeman’s majority opinion held that while there was no evidence decisionmakers knew of Dr. Sorokina’s pregnancies or intended pregnancies at the time they acted, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of gender bias influencing the peer‐review committee and thus the College’s non-renewal decision. Judge Phipps dissented from the partial reversal, arguing that the volume of poor teaching evaluations supported the College’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason and that no reasonable jury could find pretext.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 1973): Established the burden‐shifting framework for discrimination claims under Title VII.
Fuentes v. Perskie (32 F.3d 759, 3d Cir. 1994): Clarified how a plaintiff can show pretext by exposing “weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies” in the employer’s rationale.
Staub v. Proctor Hosp. (562 U.S. 411, 2011): Defined “cat’s paw” liability—where a biased subordinate influences an otherwise unbiased decisionmaker.
Blunt v. Lower Merion School District (767 F.3d 247, 3d Cir. 2014): Directed courts to view summary judgment facts in the light most favorable to the non‐movant.
Canada v. Samuel Grossi & Sons, Inc. (49 F.4th 340, 3d Cir. 2022): Outlined the elements of a prima facie retaliation claim.
Geraci v. Moody-Tottrup, Int’l, Inc. (82 F.3d 578, 3d Cir. 1996): Held that a plaintiff must show the employer knew of her pregnancy to establish pregnancy discrimination.

Legal Reasoning

The Third Circuit applied the traditional McDonnell Douglas framework:

Prima Facie Case: Plaintiff must show membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (plus employer’s knowledge for pregnancy claims).
Employer’s Articulation: Defendant must offer legitimate, non‐discriminatory reasons for the adverse actions.
Pretext: Plaintiff must then show that those reasons are a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.

The court held:

National-Origin & Pregnancy Claims: No evidence that the decisionmakers were aware of her Ukrainian origin or pregnancies when they acted. Mere hiring of non-Ukrainian professors did not raise an inference of bias.
Gender Discrimination: Triable issues existed because (a) senior faculty made gender-biased comments and microaggressions; (b) a peer‐review committee report paired a Seventh-semester schedule adjustment (for maternity leave) with criticisms of her work ethic; (c) the committee deviated from ordinary procedures; and (d) that tainted recommendation drove the ultimate non-renewal.
Retaliation: Dr. Sorokina’s internal EEO complaints and her April 2019 EEOC charge qualified as protected activity. The “cat’s paw” bias infected the peer‐review recommendation and flowed up to the final hiring authority, generating causation and pretext issues.

Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies the following points in employment law, especially in academia:

Institutions must guard against “cat’s paw” scenarios in multi‐tiered promotion or renewal processes. Bias by any reviewer can taint ultimate outcomes.
Even non-binding, non-precedential opinions can shape district courts’ handling of summary judgment in discrimination and retaliation cases.
Procedural irregularities in promotion or renewal reviews—such as unilateral drafting of reports or unequal treatment of similarly situated employees—can be powerful evidence of bias.
Internal accommodations requests (e.g., teaching flexibility for new parents) can generate evidence of discriminatory intent if later paired with adverse employment actions.

Going forward, universities and other multi-level employers should document objective and consistent procedures for evaluations and renewals and ensure decisionmakers are insulated from biased inputs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A legal ruling before trial when no genuine dispute exists as to material facts and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting: A three‐step test requiring a plaintiff to first establish a basic (“prima facie”) case of discrimination, then the employer to proffer a lawful reason, and finally the plaintiff to show that reason is pretextual.
Cat’s Paw Liability: When a biased subordinate influences an otherwise unbiased decisionmaker, the employer can be liable for discrimination or retaliation.
Adverse Employment Action: Any action by an employer that could dissuade a reasonable person from making or supporting a discrimination claim—ranging from non-renewals and demotions to disciplinary warnings.
Prima Facie Case: The minimum evidence a plaintiff must present to raise an inference of discrimination or retaliation.

Conclusion

Nonna Sorokina v. The College of New Jersey delivers an important reminder that bias need not originate at the highest levels of an organization to corrupt employment decisions. By reaffirming “cat’s paw” liability in the academic context, the Third Circuit protects employees from discriminatory or retaliatory actions that emanate from lower-level reviewers yet decisively shape hiring and renewal outcomes. Employers must adopt transparent, consistent procedures and remain vigilant against subtle forms of bias to withstand legal scrutiny under Title VII.