One interesting aspect of discrimination is the notion that a discriminatory motive from a lower level employee can still result in liability for the employer, even though this lower level employee is not even the decision maker when it comes to an employment action. This concept is referred to as the subordinate bias theory of liability, but more colorfully labeled as the "cat's paw." A good example of what this looks like is the Vasquez case.

If you were a plaintiff's attorney having to prove a subordinate bias theory of liability, what sorts of things would you need to show in order to prove it?