The impact of after-acquired evidence in employment discrimination cases after McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Company

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court held in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. that after-acquired evidence was admissible in job discrimination cases but cannot be used to dismiss the case though it can reduce the remedy. The Court found that the intent of the anti-discrimination laws was to penalize employers for discriminating and so in cases where the dismissal was clearly motivated by discriminatory intent, employers should not be relieved of liability just because the employee also committed a wrongdoing. However, this philosophy does not work in cases of mixed intent dismissals.

Cases, Evidence (Law), After-acquired evidence (Law), Newly acquired evidence

---

Preferential affirmative action in employment

Article Abstract:

Affirmative action programs (AAP) are strictly regulated under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause to prevent reverse discrimination. All government contractors are required to maintain an AAP and other businesses may chose to voluntarily institute one. However, employers are required to meet four criteria: a specific intention, temporary duration, no barring of non-minorities and no replacement of employees. Employees, minority and non-minority, have the legal right not to have race, color, gender, religion, age, national origin or disability used in employment decisions.

Analysis, Reverse discrimination, Affirmative action

---

Statutory workforce size requirement and the tort of abusive discharge: small employers beware

Article Abstract:

Maryland courts adopted the abusive discharge tort to protect employees from job discrimination by employers not included under state and federal anti-discrimination laws due to the number of employees. This tort was first applied in Adler v. American Standard Corp but results in small businesses being burdened with harsher penalties than larger ones, clearly violating the intent of their exclusion from the laws. Therefore, a single penalty standard for all sized employers or a gradated scale where penalties increase with employer size would better resolve the inequities.

Small business, Maryland

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The plaintiff's expense in restitution: difficulties in the High Court. Contractual services, restitution and the avoidance of bad bargains
• Abstracts: Agreements to arbitrate statutory fair employment practices claims: unforeseen consequences for the at-will employer
• Abstracts: Ending the culture of corporate discrimination. Why business should help save the rainforests
• Abstracts: Marriage traps in the workplace: nepotism rules make it harder for spouses to be colleagues in public sector. Greetings from independent Hawaii
• Abstracts: Ombudspersons and the limits of the general counsel's authority under the National Labor Relations Act: an open letter to Fred Feinstein

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.