50 For 50: Five Decades Of The Most Important Discrimination Law Developments - Number 23: After-Acquired Evidence

by Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP
Contact

“You did what?  If I Hadn’t Already Fired You, I’d Fire You Now!”

What if?  This is the question that has followed Title VII since its inception: how do you apply this revolutionary (yet seemingly straightforward) prohibition on workplace discrimination to an ever-changing series of facts and circumstances?  What if, for example, an employer found out, during the course of defending itself against claims of employment discrimination, that the plaintiff-employee had engaged in misconduct that would have warranted immediate termination–had the employer known of such misconduct during the employee’s employment?  Should the employer’s legitimate concerns about misconduct trump any claim of employment discrimination, or vice-versa?  Or is there, perhaps, a third path?  These were the questions addressed by the United States Supreme Court in 1995 in the case of McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company (513 U.S. 352).  The Court responded with a resounding “It depends.” 

The plaintiff, Christine McKennon, had worked in various positions for The Banner, a longtime Nashville evening newspaper, continually for 30 years.  In 1990 she was terminated as part of a wider layoff as the Banner (like many newspapers at that time and since) struggled with declining circulation. In 1991, McKennon, who was then 62 years old, filed suit under the ADEA, alleging that she was terminated on the basis of her age.  During her deposition in 1991, McKennon, whose final position with the Banner was as secretary to the Comptroller, admitted that she had copied numerous documents regarding the Banner’s financial condition as “job protection.”  The Banner subsequently wrote a letter to McKennon, informing her that such copying violated its policies, confirmed her termination, and stated that it would have terminated her at the time of such copying had it been then discovered.  The Banner moved for and was granted summary judgment on the basis that McKennon’s violation of company policy made her ineligible for any relief under the ADEA.

The Supreme Court reversed, basically on the basis that the employee’s very real and serious violation of company policy had to be balanced against the intent behind the ADEA (and by extension, Title VII).  The Court first noted that the substantive, antidiscrimination provisions of the ADEA were modeled upon those of Title VII, and that Congress designed the remedial measures in both statutes to serve as a “spur or catalyst” to cause employers “to self-examine and to self-evaluate their employment practices and to endeavor to eliminate, so far as possible, the last vestiges” of discrimination.  As such, the Court reasoned, there were two main purposes or remedies behind both the ADEA and Title VII: deterrence of discriminatory conduct, and compensation for the injuries to plaintiffs.  The Court then reasoned that a blanket rule barring recovery for plaintiff-employees who, as in this case, had engaged in later-discovered misconduct, would frustrate these purposes.

The Court did not, however, dismiss such employer concerns: “[t]he employee’s wrongdoing must be taken into account [] lest the employer’s legitimate concerns be ignored.”  The Court reasoned that the ADEA “does not constrain employers from exercising significant other prerogatives and discretions in the course of the hiring, promoting, and discharging of their employees.” In short, the Court reasoned that if an employer discovered misconduct warranting termination—even if such discovery occurs during a lawsuit, and even if such information would otherwise have been undiscovered—“we cannot require the employer to ignore the information.”

The Court did not, however, set a bright line rule as to how to balance these interests.  Instead, it provided factors that are still the basis for weighing the after-acquired evidence defense.  The Court reasoned that “the beginning point” in coming up with a remedy would be awarding backpay to the plaintiff-employee, but only from the date of termination to the date that the illicit conduct is discovered.  In other words, the after-acquired evidence defense would usually not bar all recovery, but, under the right circumstances, it would restrict recovery to backpay while barring recovery of front pay, or future employment losses, as well as reinstatement.

The Court also set forth an “it depends” factor in such cases; that is, “in determining the appropriate order for relief, the court can consider taking into further account extraordinary equitable circumstances that affect the legitimate interests of either party.”  In short, although backpay is a starting point, the Court could not rule out circumstances where an absolute bar to recover was appropriate, and it likewise could not rule out circumstances where relief beyond backpay might be appropriate.  The Court also set a requirement that the alleged misconduct be material.  The alleged wrongdoing needs to be “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.”

Clearly, McKennon does not answer all questions regarding the after-acquired evidence defense.  For one thing, the Court did not expressly state that this decision applied to Title VII as well as ADEA cases.  Given the common history of both statutes, however, courts have generally assumed that application to Title VII (and state law versions of Title VII and the ADEA) is appropriate.  On a practical level, because the Court’s decision in McKennon provides more guidelines than it does rules, state and federal courts have generally considered after-acquired evidence defenses on a case by case basis.  California Courts of Appeal, for instance, have demonstrated an independent streak by holding that, under the proper circumstances, the after-acquired evidence defense can operate to bar all recovery under the California version of Title VII (the California Fair Employment and Housing Act).  See Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro (1995) 35 Cal.App. 4th 620.  Generally, however, employers and employees can expect that application of the defense will turn on a case-by-case, fact intensive analysis.

On an historical footnote, the Banner’s financial straits appear genuine, in retrospect.  After more than 120 years of continuous publication, and just three years after the Supreme Court issued this decision, the Banner published its last issue in February 1998 and closed its doors for good.

Written by:

Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP
Contact
more
less

Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!