Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

Staub v. Proctor Hospital

United States Supreme Court
562 US 411 (2011)


Vincent Staub (Staub) (plaintiff) worked as a hospital technician for Proctor Hospital (Proctor) (defendant). Staub was also a military reservist, which required him to perform military duties one weekend per month and two or three full-time weeks per year. At Proctor, Staub's supervisor, Janice Mulally and Mulally's supervisor, Michael Korenchuk, were hostile toward Staub’s military obligations. Mulally and Korenchuk made antagonistic comments suggesting Staub's military duties were a drain on hospital resources, and Mulally assigned Staub extra shifts without notice based on her belief that Staub should compensate the hospital for absences related to his military service. Korenchuk knew Mulally wanted Staub fired. Several months prior to Staub’s firing, Mulally gave Staub a formal disciplinary warning accusing him of violating hospital rules and imposing certain remedial requirements. Several weeks later, based on a co-worker’s complaint, Korenchuk informed Linda Buck, a Proctor human resources executive, that Staub had violated the disciplinary warning. Before Staub could contest the accusation, Buck reviewed Staub’s personnel file and decided to fire him. Staub challenged his firing through Proctor’s internal channels, claiming that Mulally and Korenchuk had falsely accused him of violating the disciplinary warning due to their hostility toward his military status. When Buck refused to reverse the decision, Staub sued Proctor under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (the USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §4301 et seq., alleging he was fired as a result of unlawful discrimination based on his military service. A jury found that Staub’s firing was unlawfully motivated by discriminatory animus and awarded Staub damages, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that Proctor, as the ultimate decision-maker, was not liable for Mulally’s and Korenchuk’s discriminatory conduct. Staub appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 410,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial