Lexplug logoLexplug

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.

United States Supreme Court
513 U.S. 352 (1995)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employee discharged in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is not barred from all relief even if the employer later discovers evidence of employee wrongdoing that would have independently led to termination. However, such after-acquired evidence generally limits the employee's remedy by precluding reinstatement and front pay, and restricting backpay to the period between the unlawful discharge and the discovery of the misconduct.


Facts:

  • Christine McKennon worked for Nashville Banner Publishing Company for approximately 30 years.
  • At age 62, McKennon was discharged by the Banner, which officially cited a workforce reduction plan.
  • McKennon believed her age was the true reason for her dismissal.
  • During her final year of employment, McKennon became concerned that she was about to be fired because of her age.
  • As a form of 'insurance' and 'protection,' she copied several confidential company financial documents.
  • McKennon took these copies home and showed them to her husband.

Procedural Posture:

  • Christine McKennon filed suit against Nashville Banner Publishing Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging her discharge violated the ADEA.
  • During a deposition in the case, McKennon testified that she had copied confidential documents, which the Banner learned of for the first time.
  • The Banner moved for summary judgment, arguing this misconduct barred any recovery.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment for the Banner.
  • McKennon, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the Banner, as appellee.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted McKennon's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the discovery of an employee's wrongdoing after their unlawful discharge, which would have independently justified termination, completely bar the employee from obtaining any relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

No. After-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing that would have resulted in a lawful termination does not operate as a complete bar to relief for an employer's earlier violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court reasoned that the ADEA serves the dual public purposes of deterring discriminatory employment practices and compensating victims of such discrimination. Allowing after-acquired evidence to completely absolve an employer of liability would undermine these objectives. The Court distinguished this situation from mixed-motive cases like Mt. Healthy, clarifying that the employer's liability is fixed at the time of the discriminatory act; the employer could not have been motivated by knowledge it did not yet possess. However, the employee's misconduct is relevant when determining the appropriate remedy. To balance the interests of the employer and the statutory goals, remedies like reinstatement and front pay are generally unavailable, and backpay should be calculated from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the new information was discovered.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a crucial middle-ground approach for handling after-acquired evidence in employment discrimination cases, rejecting the complete bar rule some circuits had adopted. It ensures that employers cannot escape liability for proven discrimination by engaging in post-termination investigations to uncover employee misconduct. By limiting remedies rather than barring claims, the Court preserves the deterrent and compensatory goals of anti-discrimination statutes while preventing a windfall for an employee whose own misconduct would have led to a lawful termination. This framework requires courts to balance the equities, acknowledging both the employer's wrongdoing and the employee's, which has become the standard for such cases under the ADEA and Title VII.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"