leads to an adverse employment action for another employee. However, if the formal deci-sionmakers choose to act in accordance with a report, decision, or recommendation of a biased subordinate without independently evaluating the aggrieved employee’s situation, the imposition of liability may be appropriate. If such claims are accepted at face value, the subordinate’s discriminatory statements and actions may then be fairly imputed to the formal decisionmak-ers and, by virtue of them, to the employer. See e.g., Rios, 252 F.3d at 382 (noting that “[statements of non decision makers become relevant ... when the ultimate decision maker’s action is merely a ‘rubber stamp’ for the subordinate’s recommendation”); Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1231 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Willis v. Marion County Auditor’s Office, 118
holding that an atwill employee may not be discharged for refusal to violate the law recognizing case law holding that an employer may be held liable if the manager who discharged the employee merely acted as a rubber stamp or the cats paw for a subordinate employees prejudice even if the manager lacked discriminatory intent holding that employer may be held liable under  1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability holding that a mutual fund magellan cannot be held primarily liable on a theory of respondeat superior for the alleged misstatements of its fund manager notwithstanding plaintiffs contention that the market understood that the fund manager