## Facts

- Christine McKennon, age 62, worked for Nashville Banner Publishing Company for about 30 years.
- The Banner discharged McKennon, asserting her termination resulted from a cost-driven workforce reduction.
- McKennon sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging she was fired because of age.
- During discovery, McKennon admitted that in her final year she removed and copied confidential financial documents, took them home, and showed them to her husband.
- McKennon stated she copied the documents because she feared she would be fired due to age and wanted “insurance” and “protection.”
- After learning of this conduct, the Banner stated it would have fired McKennon immediately had it known of the misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether after-acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing that would have led to lawful termination bars all relief in an ADEA discriminatory-discharge action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- After-acquired evidence of wrongdoing does not eliminate liability for an ADEA-violative discharge because the employer could not have been motivated by information it did not have at the time of termination.
- The after-acquired evidence is relevant to remedies and may limit the relief available.
- As a general rule, reinstatement and front pay are not appropriate when the employer proves it would have terminated the employee upon learning of the misconduct.
- Backpay generally should run from the unlawful discharge to the date the employer discovered the misconduct, subject to case-specific equitable adjustments.

## Legal Principles

- An employer’s liability for discriminatory discharge cannot be defeated by a post-termination justification discovered only through litigation.
- The ADEA’s remedial scheme serves both compensation and deterrence; a total bar on relief based on after-acquired evidence would conflict with those aims.
- After-acquired evidence may be used to limit remedies to account for the employer’s legitimate interests arising from the employee’s wrongdoing.
- When the employer proves it would have terminated the employee for the misconduct, reinstatement and front pay are ordinarily unavailable.
- The presumptive backpay cutoff is the date the employer discovered the misconduct, with remedial boundaries determined case by case.

## Conclusion

The Court held that after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct does not erase an employer’s ADEA liability for a discriminatory discharge, but it generally restricts remedies by foreclosing reinstatement and front pay and by limiting backpay to the period ending when the misconduct is discovered.


McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995)