McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.

This comment will discuss the issue of after-acquired evidence in employment discrimination cases by looking at the Supreme Court decision in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. The first part of the comment will provide a factual introduction to the case and the issues. The second part of the paper will discuss the antecedents to the decision, focusing mainly upon the Circuit Court decisions in this area. The third part of the paper will discuss the analysis in the case itself and the ramifications of the decision.

Christine McKennon worked for the Nashville Banner Publishing Company for thirty years before she was discharged at age 62. The company claimed that Ms. McKennon was discharged as part of a work force reduction plan which was implemented in order to reduce costs. Ms. McKennon, on the other hand, believed that she was discharged because of her age. She filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; in her complaint, she alleged that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Under this act, it is unlawful for an employer to "discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." In this suit, Ms. McKennon sought a number of legal and equitable remedies, including back pay.

. . .
esented that she had completed some college education and that she had never previously applied for a job with her employer, failed to disclose the existence of a previous employer, and finally, misrepresented her son's age so that he would qualify as a dependent for her Blue-Cross Shield health insurance coverage. The District Court relied on the Summers decision and determined that plaintiff Driscoll's employment claims failed because even if she was unjustly terminated for issues relating to her age, she had no right to a remedy because her employer had discovered unrefuted evidence that indicated that the employer could have terminated her had her employer known of her misconduct. Thus, the Driscoll opinion held that such unrefuted "after-acquired" evidence which is obtained by an employer of an employee's misconduct will operate to preclude plaintiff from obtaining relief from her termination, even if that employee might have had a claim for discrimination based on age. Rejection of Summers In its decision rejecting the rule developed in Summers and its progeny, the Eleventh Circuit in Wallace v. Dunn Construction Co. criticized the rule and the reasoning underlying it. The court said that the Summers court had misint
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Title VII, Supreme Court, ADEA Court, McKennon Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ms McKennon's, Mt Healthy, District Court, Rights Act, Ms McKennon, after-acquired evidence, title vii, supreme court, mt healthy, district court, after-acquired evidence defense, evidence defense, civil rights, employer discovered, ms mckennon, employment discrimination, mckennon nashville banner, nashville banner publishing, banner publishing company, mixed motive test,
Approximate Word count = 6475
Approximate Pages = 26 (250 words per page)