Employment Law
513 U.S. 352 (1995)
Study notes for McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
After-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing cannot completely bar relief in a discrimination claim but may limit remedies.
Professors will likely emphasize the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the use of after-acquired evidence in employment discrimination cases. This case clarifies that while after-acquired evidence can limit the remedies available to an employee—such as backpay—it cannot serve as a blanket defense against the discrimination claim itself. This distinction highlights the Court's affirmation of the principle that violations of laws like the ADEA should be addressed regardless of the employee's subsequent misconduct, as public policy aims to protect employees from unlawful discrimination, even if they may have acted wrongfully in the past.
Additionally, the case serves as a vital learning point for understanding the balance between employer rights in the face of legitimate misconduct and the rights of employees protected under anti-discrimination laws. This case underscores the imperative for employers to provide valid reasons for termination that are justified and non-discriminatory, as well as the necessity for employees to be aware of their rights under employment laws.
Limitations on Liability: Wrongdoing After Knowledge Doesn't Exempt Liability
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur | In LaFleur, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of unfettered employee rights in cases of discriminatory termination, focusing on substantive due process rather than post-termination evidence. |
| Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins | In Price Waterhouse, the ruling dealt with mixed-motive cases; the focus was on the burden of proof regarding discrimination rather than the implications of after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing. |
| Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi | Smith focuses on disparate impact claims under the ADEA, rather than the specific defense of after-acquired evidence raised in McKennon. |
Allowing after-acquired evidence to limit remedies maintains accountability for employee misconduct while protecting employees from discriminatory practices.
Limiting remedies based on post-termination evidence might encourage employers to fabricate reasons for termination or discourage legitimate claims of discrimination.
On exams, look for questions related to the implications of after-acquired evidence in discrimination claims, and how this case sets a precedent for limiting employee remedies while still recognizing the validity of the discrimination claim itself.