McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company: The Use of After-Acquired Evidence in Adea and Title VII Cases

Ross L. Fink
Robert K. Robinson
Ann L. Canty

---

DOI: 10.2190/4LHP-B5JX-B4Y7-3B90

Abstract

The Supreme Court in the case of McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company addresses the inconsistencies within the federal judicial system regarding the use of after-acquired evidence in ADEA and Title VII cases. Specifically in this case, Nashville Banner Publishing found evidence of wrongdoing by McKennon during the discovery process. This after-acquired evidence, if known at the time of termination, would have created a mixed-motive case, thus barring McKennon from remedies under the ADEA. However, the Supreme Court ruled, citing Price-Waterhouse, that a mixed-motive defense was inappropriate in this instance since the employer was not motivated by this after-acquire evidence at the time of their termination decision.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.