Where the employer worked in close coordination with petitioner's biased supervisor to conduct a sham investigation which adopted the supervisor's false charge of wrongdoing, did the court of appeals impermissibly refuse to apply the 'cat's paw' theory of liability in this retaliatory discharge case, putting it at odds with this Court's decisional law as well as other Circuit courts of appeals which apply this rationale?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Where the employer worked in close coordination with petitioner’s biased supervisor to conduct a sham investigation which adopted the supervisor’s false charge of wrongdoing, did the court of appeals impermissibly refuse to apply the “cat’s paw” theory of liability in this retaliatory discharge case, putting it at odds with this Court’s decisional law as well as other Circuit courts of appeals which apply this rationale? 2. Did the court of appeals irredeemably mishandle the summary judgment record by refusing to view the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to petitioner, the nonmoving party, when assessing her claim that after engaging in protected activity, she was discharged based on her biased supervisor’s false charge of wrongdoing?