 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O''Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co.5/26/1998
En Banc
United States District Court No. CV-91-777-PGR
Certified Questions from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
The Honorable Paul G. Rosenblatt, Judge
QUESTIONS ANSWERED
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two questions on the proper use of after-acquired evidence in employment termination disputes. We accepted jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-1861, and Rule 27, Rules of the Supreme Court.
I. CERTIFIED FACTS
On June 8, 1990, McDonnell Douglas failed to promote Dennis O'Day to lead engineer at its helicopter plant in Mesa. He was laid off as part of a general work force reduction one month later. O'Day was 46 years old, had worked for the company for fourteen years, and believed he had been denied the promotion and laid off because of his age.
After exhausting his administrative remedies in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, O'Day filed an action against McDonnell Douglas challenging the denial of promotion and layoff. His complaint stated four causes of action:
1. Discrimination in employment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et. seq.
2. Discrimination in employment under the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. § 41-1481 et seq.
3. Breach of contract.
4. Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
The night after O'Day was denied his promotion, he returned to the plant and searched his supervisor's office. He took documents that he thought might be useful to his discrimination claim, copied them, and returned the originals to the supervisor's desk.
It was not until after discovery began in the action that McDonnell Douglas learned of O'Day's misconduct. McDonnell Douglas moved for summary judgment, asserting the "after-acquired evidence defense." The District Court granted judgment in favor of McDonnell Douglas on all counts.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the finding that the after-acquired evidence defense had been established, but reversed the dismissal of the complaint based upon the principles articulated in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352, 115 S. Ct. 879 (1995). O'Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals remanded the case for trial but reserved ruling on whether the "after-acquired evidence" defense applied to O'Day's state contract and tort claims. The court noted that we had not yet "determined the extent to which after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing limits an employee's recovery of compensatory and punitive damages on these causes of action." Id. at 764 n.7.
II. CERTIFIED QUESTIONSThe certified questions are:
1.Whether the "after-acquired evidence" defense as delineated by the United States Supreme Court in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352, 115 S.Ct. 879 (1995) applies to limit recovery under Arizona law in a case of wrongful discharge from employment in violation of public policy, and, if the defense applies, how it limits or precludes recovery of damages.
2.Whether the "after-acquired evidence" defense applies in a case of breach of employment contract, and, if the defense applies, how it limits or precludes recovery of damages in such a case.
III.
A. After-Acquired Evidence in Federal Statutory Discrimination Cases: the McKennon Rule
McKennon resolved a conflict in the circuits on the proper role of after-acquired evidence in federal statutory
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|