What is the test for determining whether a supervisor acted with discriminatory animus against an employee?

3. Appellants rely on the principle that "[i]mputation of retaliatory animus will be justified by any set of facts that would permit a jury to find that an intermediary, for whatever reasons, simply carried out the will of the actuator, rather than breaking the chain of causation by taking a truly independent action." (Reeves v. Safeway Stores Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 114-115, fn. 14.) This principle applies where a supervisor acts based on animus, but someone else makes the ultimate decision adverse to the employee. (Id. at p. 114.) The principle, however, is inapplicable here because as we explain appellants present no evidence that Shannon's supervisors acted with discriminatory animus.