COMMENTS: PLAINTIFF'S BANE: THE AFTER-ACQUIRED EVIDENCE DEFENSE AND TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION SUITS Skip over navigation
LexisNexis® Browse Law Reviews and Treatises
Skip over navigation
Sign in with your lexis.com® ID to access the full text of this article.
-OR-
Order the full text of this article if you do not have a lexis.com® ID.
 
Price: 
US $22.00 (+ tax)
 
 

Copyright (c) 1994 Wake Forest Law Review Association, Inc.
Wake Forest Law Review

COMMENTS: PLAINTIFF'S BANE: THE AFTER-ACQUIRED EVIDENCE DEFENSE AND TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION SUITS

WINTER, 1994

29 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1325

Author

R. Shawn Wellons

Excerpt



INTRODUCTION


One need not search far to see how the impact of after-acquired evidence of employee misconduct can affect Title VII litigation. 1 For example, consider the case of Patricia Milligan-Jensen. In November 1987, Michigan Technological University hired Milligan-Jensen as its only female public safety officer. 2 Almost immediately, Milligan-Jensen experienced incidents of sexual discrimination and harassment from her supervisor. 3 As a result, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 4 Two weeks later Michigan Tech fired her. 5 In return, Milligan-Jensen filed suit against Michigan Tech alleging sexual discrimination and retaliatory firing in violation of Title VII. 6

As it conducted discovery, Michigan Tech learned that MilliganJensen had lied on her employment application because she failed to reveal that in 1982 she pled guilty to driving while impaired. 7 Using only
this after-acquired evidence, Michigan Tech successfully defeated Milligan-Jensen's Title VII claims. 8 Because Milligan-Jensen lied on her employment application, the Sixth Circuit held that she was precluded from relief under Title VII as a matter of law. 9 Thus, the court found that any actual wrongdoing by the university was irrelevant in resolving her claims. 10

Michigan Tech's successful defense of Milligan-Jensen's claim was based on the after-acquired evidence doctrine. 11 This doctrine allows a court to assume for summary judgment purposes that an employment action was unlawful. However, despite this assumption, the doctrine allows the court to defeat an employee's recovery with evidence of employee misconduct 12 discovered after ...
 
 
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.
Search Documents
 
eg., Environmental Insurance Coverage Under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy
 
 
 
 

Lexis® Web - The only search engine that delivers free web content specifically from legal sites validated by LexisNexis® attorney editors and includes tools for faster research and more relevant results.

 
LexisNexis Store
Research Now - Go to lexis.com
Connect the Dots - Free 1 hour webcast
Share. Network. Discover. - Go to LexisNexis Communities