McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co.- Age Descrimintation Act

During her de billet, Ms. McKennon testified that she had copied several confidential phoner documents concerning the company's financial condition during her last year of employment. The plaintiff had portal to the confidential documents as secretary of the company's comptroller, and she took copies home and showed them to her husband. She explained that she had been fearful of losing her position as a result of her advanced age and the copies were meant to furnish "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 crease responsibilities and informed again that she was terminated. The letter stated that had the company cognise of her actions during her tenure, she would have been dismissed for that reason.

Before the govern coquet, the company conceded that it had discriminated against Ms. McKennon on the basis of her age. The District Court, however, given(p) the company's motion for summary judgment, belongings that the misconduct of Ms. McKennon was tight-laced grounds for her dismissal and that no remediation was thus available to her on a lower floor 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.

Milligan-Jensen v. Michigan Technological Univ., 975 F.2d 302 (6th Cir. 1992), cert. granted, 113 S. Ct. 2991, and cert. dismissed, 114 S. Ct. 22 (1993).

Summers v. State Farm Mut. gondola Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir. 1988).

Southern Airways Co., 124 N.L.R.B. 749 (1959), enforced in part, enforcement in part denied on other grounds, 290 F.2d 519 (5th Cir. 1961).

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, bequeath not bar this employee from seeking remedies under the ADEA.

The Court held that the canon 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 besides held, however, that the subsequent discovery of such evidence by an employer mustiness be taken into account in determining the proper remedy. The ADEA simply prohibits discrimination; it does not prohibit employers from exercising free will in the usual course of hiring, promoting, and discharging employees. Consequently, evidence of employee wrongdoing is germane(predicate) in the consideration of the law-abiding prerogatives and equities of the employer which arise from the employee's wrongdoing. Although the Court tell that the subsequent discovery of employee wrongdoing cannot prevent recovery under the statute, it does render certain types of remedies inappropriate. These remedies include reinstatement and front pay. It would be inequitable to force an employer to reinstate an employee who would have been otherwise terminated upon lawful grounds.

The Seventh Circuit finally adopted the dicta in metalworker concerning the date of discovery rule with reg
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.