Understanding After-Acquired Evidence Defense in Employment Disputes

Explore the nuances of After-Acquired Evidence Defense with Waltman Employment Law. Learn how this legal strategy can impact employment litigation and employer defenses.

rs badge min
el product min
bl b min

Importance of Understanding After Acquired Evidence Rule

Imagine an employer discovering wrongdoing by an employee after a wrongful termination. This scenario introduces the after-acquired evidence defense, a potential legal tool for employers in wrongful termination lawsuits.

If an employer uncovers, for instance, that a former employee falsified credentials or engaged in significant misconduct during employment, this newfound information could be significant.

The after-acquired evidence defense acknowledges that while an employee’s termination might have been under legally questionable circumstances, the subsequent discovery of an employee’s misconduct could justify the decision.

Navigating the complexities of this defense requires careful consideration of employment discrimination laws. It also requires an understanding of both the employer’s and employee’s rights and a strategy that respects the judicial system’s intention to protect employees from unlawful termination as well as allow employers to maintain integrity within their organizations.

That’s why it’s crucial for both employers and employees to seek advice from an experienced employment attorney when navigating these situations. At Waltman Employment Law, we understand these cases are complicated and sensitive. We acknowledge their seriousness, ensuring each is weighed with due diligence and the gravity it deserves.

What Is After-Acquired Evidence?

After-acquired evidence refers to information that comes to light post-termination, often during litigation. For example, if an employee files a wrongful termination claim and the employer finds out there actually was employment misconduct, it could have been grounds for dismissal had it been discovered earlier.

This defense is typically relevant when acts of employee misconduct that were unknown to the employer at the time of termination are later revealed. The types of misconduct can vary greatly, including but not limited to:

  • Falsifying qualifications or experience during the hiring process
  • Violating company policies or code of conduct
  • Engaging in illegal activities, such as embezzlement

For employers, the discovery of after-acquired evidence presents a complex scenario. While it doesn’t necessarily absolve initial wrongful termination, it can limit a plaintiff’s recovery of damages. The evidence, discovered through avenues like internal audits or during the discovery phase of litigation, must be substantial enough to have independently justified termination.

Legal Basis for After-Acquired Evidence Defense

This defense is articulated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It’s not an absolute barricade against all forms of liability; instead, it can influence the scope of damages. For instance, if the employee wrongdoing is proven, the employer doesn’t have to provide back pay from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the new information was discovered.

However, the case can hinge on the employer’s ability to demonstrate the severity of the after-discovered misconduct and its consequent role in an employment decision had it been known.

It’s crucial in cases where the initial termination might have been influenced by discrimination, but the after-acquired evidence justifies a lawful and independent ground for dismissal.

After-Acquired Evidence in Employment Termination Cases

This type of evidence is discovered post-termination and can significantly alter the course of employment disputes. For instance, evidence might reveal that an employee falsified qualifications during their hiring process. If such deception is uncovered, after-acquired evidence can become a crucial defense for employers in wrongful termination lawsuits.

In cases where the after-acquired evidence reveals severe misconduct, such as theft of trade secrets or serious violations of company policy, the employer could argue that these actions alone were grounds for termination, irrespective of any alleged wrongful termination claim.

Attorneys play a vital role in these cases, as they must carefully navigate the complex legal terrain. They must determine whether the after-acquired evidence is compelling enough to limit damages.

Case Studies and Legal Precedents

The Supreme Court addressed the implications of after-acquired evidence in Mckennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. In this case, the plaintiff was terminated at age 62 from the Nashville Banner Company. She filed the suit, claiming that she was terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), asking for damages, including back pay. 

However, during litigation, the plaintiff admitted that she had committed wrongdoing that would have been grounds for termination if the company had known about it.

The Supreme Court held that after-acquired evidence does not absolve an employer of wrongdoing. However, it may mitigate the damages payable to the employee.

Following McKennon, courts have encountered numerous scenarios applying the After Acquired Evidence doctrine.

The Supreme Court established that an employer who wants to use after-acquired evidence to limit the remedy has to prove that the wrongdoing was of such severity that they would have taken the adverse employment action against the employee if they had known of it at the time of the discharge. In fact, the employer has to prove this by a preponderance of the evidence. This standard was explained by the Ninth Circuit in O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co.

Furthermore, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published an Enforcement Guidance on After-Acquired Evidence. It contains a useful outline of remedies in after-acquired evidence cases in light of McKennon if an employer’s liability for employment discrimination is established.

Challenges in Proving After-Acquired Evidence Defense

The after acquired evidence defense may be used when employers discover misconduct in an employee’s past. Yet, the path to proving this defense is fraught with obstacles.

Legal Hurdles:

  • Burden of Proof: It has to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct was severe enough to merit termination.
  • Direct Relevance: The discovered evidence must be directly pertinent to the individual’s qualifications or performance.

Evidential Standards:

  • Undisputable Proof: Discrepancies or ambiguity can weaken the defense. The evidence must be indisputable, such as clear instances of resume fraud or serious code of conduct violations.
  • Time of Discovery: It is critical that the evidence was not known before the discriminatory act claim.

Employers often encounter a maze of proof complexities. If the discovered information comes to light via questionable means, its very legitimacy may be scrutinized, potentially undermining the employer’s defense.

Need More Help? Reach Out to Waltman Employment Law

The after-acquired evidence defense can play a pivotal role in an employment discrimination claim. It addresses the rare but impactful juncture where an employer discovers misconduct by an employee after an adverse action has been taken.

If an employer wants to invoke the after-acquired evidence defense, they must ensure that the misconduct in question meets the stringent criteria for application. It’s imperative to evaluate if the newfound evidence would have indeed led to the same employment decision, independent of any discriminatory conduct.

If you are an employee affected by what you believe to be wrongful termination or discriminatory treatment, consider seeking legal consultation despite the presence of after-acquired evidence.

Hiring an employment attorney who can clarify the matter can benefit both employers and employees. The way Waltman Employment Law can help goes beyond guidance; our thorough understanding of employment law allows us to manage the process with the utmost professional integrity.