entirely without a personal discriminatory motivation, Hill was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and dispute the information she now challenges. There is no evidence that she did so at the time. Nor, for that matter, is there any indication that she did so during her deposition. Hi ll of the supposed “lie” and gave Hill an opportunity to tell her side of the story or otherwise refute it. It was, in my view, incumbent upon her at that point to do so if she intended to complain later. See English, 248 F.3d at 1011 (“A plaintiff cannot claim that a firing authority relied uncritically upon a subordinate’s prejudiced recommendation where the plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to and rebut the evidence supporting the recommendation.”); Willis, 118 F.3d at 547-48 (<HOLDING>). In addition, Hill’s evidence fails to support
holding that the cats paw line of cases was not applicable because the formal decisionmaker investigated the subordinates motives by meeting with the plaintiff before acting on the subordinates adverse recommendation holding that liability attaches if the decisionmaker merely rubber stamps the recommendation of the retaliating supervisor or if the retaliating supervisor dupes the decisionmaker into taking action or otherwise controls the decisionmaker holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false holding that the court must assume on summary judgment that the nondecisionmakerharasser relayed the plaintiffs complaints about sexual harassment to the decisionmaker even though both the harasser and the decisionmaker denied this fact the harasser was present at the meeting in which it was decided that plaintiff would be terminated he had an incentive to pass on this information and his credibility was in question as to other matters