losing her position as a result of her advanced age and the copies were meant to provide "insurance" and "protection" against her dismissal. After her deposition, the company sent Ms. McKennon a letter stating that the removal and reproduction of the documents was in violation of her job responsibilities and informed again that she was terminated. The letter stated that had the company known of her actions during her tenure, she would have been dismissed for that reason.
Before the District Court, the company conceded that it had discriminated against Ms. McKennon on the basis of her age. The District Court, however, granted the company's motion for summary judgment, holding that the misconduct of Ms. McKennon was proper grounds for her dismissal and that no remedy was thus available to her under the ADEA. Ms. McKennon appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the decision of the District Court on the same rationale.
After she was stymied twice, Ms. McKennon appealed the Sixth Circuit's decision to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. On January 23, 1995, the Supreme Court unanimously held that wrongdoing by an employee, which is discovered by an employer subsequent to the employee's dismissal for other reasons, will not bar this employee from seeking remedies under the ADEA. The Court held that the statute is designed to compensate employees injured by prohibited discrimination and to deter employers from engaging in such discrimination. The achievement of these objectives would be hindered if after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing barred all relief. The Court also held, however, that the subsequent discovery of such evidence by an employer must be taken into account in determining the proper remedy. The ADEA simply prohibits discrimination; it does not prohibit employers from exercising discretion in the usual course of h...