McKennon v Nashville Banner Pub
...case of after-acquired evidence since later a lawful reason to terminate was discovered. The Court determined that in order for the after-acquired evidence doctrine to be applicable, the employer must establish that the wrongdoing is of such severity that the employee would have been terminated on those grounds alone if the employer had knowledge of such wrongdoing at the time of termination. According to the Court, the employee's wrongdoing must be taken into account in determining which remedies are appropriate considering the "lawful prerogative of the employer in the usual course of its business." The Court found that generally, in an after-acquired evidence situation, neither reinstatement nor front pay is an appropriate remedy. Back pay is more difficult to measure and cannot be completely barred. A court should take equitable circumstances into account in determining the appropriate remedies. Allowing after-acquired evidence to carry the same weight would not further the purposes of employment discrimination statutes. Discrimination statutes generally have two primary objectives--(1) deterrence and (2) compensation. "[I]f after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing that would have resulted in termination operates, in every instance to bar all relief for an earlier violation[,]" the two objectives of discrimination statutes would be lost. The fact that discrimination did take place cannot be ignored because the intent behind the ADEA is to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace. As a result, both deterrence and compensation are goals of the statute. Under the ADEA, means of relief normally include reinstatement, back pay, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and attorney fees. The witnesses in this trial attempted to distinguish Braswell as unpersuasive. The Witnesses would seek to distkinguish Braswell by arguing that the subpoenas in this case were directed to them CONCLUSION: The Court refused to bar McKennon from all relief in light of the after-acquired nature of the lawful reason for termination and remanded the case for further determination of the appropriate remedies. Where an employer seeks to rely upon after acquired evidence of wrongdoing, it must first establish that the wrongdoing was of such severity that the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds alone if the employer had known of it at the time of the discharge. The concern that employers might as a routine matter undertake extensive discovery into an employee's background or performance on the job to resist claims under the Act is not an insubstantial one, but the authority of the courts to award attorney's fees, mandated under the statute, and in appropriate cases to invoke the provisions of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will deter most abuses. Case questions: 1. What did the plaintiff McKennon do wrong? I would say that the plaintiff first of all, should not have stolen papers from the company, but since she did, her next mistake was that she brought them up in her discrimination case. ...