Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 2010

While employed as an angiography technician by respondent Proctor Hospital, petitioner Staub was a member of the United States Army Reserve.  Both his immediate supervisor (Mulally) and Mulally’s supervisor (Korenchuk) were hostile to his military obligations.
The jury instruction did not hew precisely to the rule we adopt today; it required only that the jury find that “military status was a motivating factor in [Proctor’s] decision to discharge him.” App. 68a. Whether the variance between the instruction and our rule was harmless error or should mandate a new trial is a matter the Seventh Circuit may consider in the first instance. * * * The judgment of the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

JUSTICE KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

  • Attachment(s): PDF
  • Organization: US Supreme Court
  • Date Created: December 02, 2016
  • Last Updated: December 07, 2016
  • U.S. Supreme Court Appeal