“From ‘Sheer Surmise’ to Substantial Evidence” – The Second Circuit’s Refinement of Cat’s-Paw Retaliation and the Post-2019 NYSHRL Standard in Edelman v. NYU Langone

1. Introduction

In Edelman v. NYU Langone, No. 24-251-cv (2d Cir. June 18 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated significant portions of the district court’s post-trial judgments, reinstating a $700,000 jury verdict on retaliation and breathing new life into claims set aside through Rule 50(a) and 50(b) motions. At its core, the decision cements three critical propositions:

Cat’s-paw liability for retaliation remains viable where a non-decision maker’s animus infects the ultimate decision, even after the Supreme Court’s Staub framework;
The 2019 amendments that liberalised the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) are now treated as coextensive with the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) for retaliation standards in federal courts; and
District courts must exercise extreme caution before removing fact-intensive intent questions from the jury by JMOL or JNOV, especially where circumstantial evidence supports multiple reasonable inferences.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Equal Pay Act (EPA) Claims: Jury verdict for defendants affirmed; Second Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Edelman’s post-trial motion because substantial evidence showed unequal skill and effort between Dr. Edelman and her male comparator.
Punitive Damages: JMOL for defendants affirmed; the court reiterated that even NYCHRL punitive damages require a heightened culpability.
Retaliation – NYU & Antonik: District court’s JNOV vacated; jury verdict reinstated. Evidence of a post-complaint “issues log” and temporal proximity sufficed to link Edelman’s protected activity to the non-renewal of her contract.
Retaliation – Kaplan: JMOL vacated; case remanded for a new trial because Kaplan’s knowledge of the complaints and his role in gathering negative information could reasonably show retaliatory intent.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – Classic burden-shifting template for retaliation, adopted for Title VII, NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.
Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) – Defined cat’s-paw theory; Second Circuit applied it to retaliation, stressing that a biased subordinate must intend the adverse action.
Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance, 835 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2016) – Employer liability where, through negligence, it gives effect to a subordinate’s animus; heavily relied upon to impute Antonik’s bias to NYU.
Zann Kwan v. Andalex, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) & Summa v. Hofstra, 708 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2013) – Temporal proximity principles; court analogised Edelman’s firing at the first actual opportunity after complaints.
Chauca v. Abraham, 30 N.Y.3d 325 (2017) – Established punitive-damages standard under NYCHRL; cited to affirm JMOL against Edelman.
Recent circuit decisions (Banks, ING Global, Eisenhauer) defined JMOL/JNOV thresholds and equal-skill/effort EPA analysis.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review Rigor. The panel repeatedly reminded that JMOL or JNOV is proper only where a complete absence of evidence exists. Credibility assessments, especially where the jury heard live testimony, fall strictly within the jury’s domain.
Protected Activity & Knowledge. The court parsed Edelman’s multiple HR complaints, emphasizing that the content explicitly referenced gender bias, satisfying “protected activity” even under Title VII’s heightened notice requirement.
Cat’s-Paw Applied. By instructing an office manager to compile the “Dr. Edelman Issues” log immediately after her complaints, Antonik evidenced retaliatory animus. Rubin’s decision, based solely on that log with minimal inquiry, rendered NYU liable because its negligence enabled the biased information to cause termination.
Post-2019 NYSHRL Standard. Citing Qorrolli, the panel treated NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation tests identically (“reasonably likely to deter”), marking the first published Second Circuit decision doing so after the statutory amendments.
Punitive Damages. Even the lower NYCHRL threshold (willful or wanton negligence) was unmet; the panel clarified that mere proof of retaliation does not automatically entail punitive liability.

3.3 Practical Impact

Corporate HR Protocols: Employers in the Second Circuit must ensure independent vetting of negative information to avoid cat’s-paw exposure.
Litigation Strategy: Plaintiffs can survive JMOL/JNOV where circumstantial evidence—logs, timing, unexplained deviations from practice—supports animus.
NYSHRL Harmonisation: District courts are now likely to mirror NYCHRL standards in state-law retaliation claims arising after August 2019.
Cat’s-Paw Revival: The decision confirms that Staub remains a potent tool in Title VII retaliation beyond military-bias contexts, particularly for physician contracts and other professional services arrangements.
Evidence Preservation: Electronic metadata (e.g., HR-note alteration dates) may decisively undermine employer narratives at trial.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

JMOL (Rule 50(a)) vs. JNOV (Rule 50(b)): JMOL is a motion before the case goes to the jury; JNOV is a renewed motion after the verdict. Failing to move under 50(a) raises the bar—relief is then allowed only to prevent “manifest injustice.”
Cat’s-Paw Theory: Named after Aesop’s fable, it describes a scenario where a biased subordinate (the monkey) tricks or influences an unbiased decision-maker (the cat) to discipline the employee, making the employer liable for the subordinate’s bias.
NYSHRL 2019 Amendments: Effective 12 August 2019, the NYSHRL directs courts to construe its provisions liberally regardless of federal precedent, aligning it with the already plaintiff-friendly NYCHRL.
Punitive Damages under NYCHRL: Not automatically available upon liability; plaintiff must show willful or wanton negligence, recklessness, or conscious disregard of rights—a step below Title VII’s “malice or reckless indifference,” but still signifying “high moral culpability.”

5. Conclusion

Edelman v. NYU Langone is a textbook reminder that retaliation claims often rise or fall on nuanced, circumstantial proof—and that juries, not judges, are the proper arbiters unless the record is unequivocal. The Second Circuit’s reversal:

Strengthens cat’s-paw doctrine for retaliation;
Signals that post-2019 NYSHRL claims will be evaluated under the city’s expansive deterrence standard; and
Warns district courts against prematurely displacing jury verdicts on close factual calls.

For practitioners, the decision underscores the evidentiary value of document timing, metadata, and apparently routine internal memoranda. For employers, it underscores the necessity of independent investigations whenever a complaint implicates protected activity. And for the evolving body of employment law, Edelman marks a significant precedent clarifying the thresholds for JMOL/JNOV and the reach of subordinate bias in the modern workplace.