. No. R-1, 157 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir. 1998) (pertinent question for cat's paw liability is “whether [the decisionmaker] accurately a[ss]essed [the plaintiff's] situation”); Dickinson v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., 2016 WL 4500777, at *3 (D. Idaho Aug. 26, 2016) (no cat's paw liability where account given to decisionmaker “was accurate and was expressly confirmed”). Finally, no direct or circumstantial evidence suggests Lt. Cherry or Sgt. Lee bore retaliatory animus to Plaintiff.

Additionally, the majority of those tardies occurred after Plaintiff admitted he was specifically warned he could not rely on any grace period to excuse his absences. also Lindsey v. Walgreen Co., 615 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming summary judgment where supposed cat's paw manipulator did not conceal evidence from or present falsehoods to decisionmaker); Dickinson v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., No. 4:14-CV-00397-REB, 2016 WL 4500777, at *3 (D. Idaho Aug. 26, 2016) (“[T]his is not a situation in which the alleged discriminator gave a biased account to the decisionmaker which led to an adverse employment action, but rather a situation where the account was accurate and was expressly confirmed.”)