In June of 1997, the Supreme Court of Kentucky heard a case involving employment discrimination and after acquired evidence. (See Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Inc., v. Epperson, 945 S.W.2d 413 (1997)). In this employment discrimination case the issue was whether misrepresentations by the employee on his employment application will bar a suit for employment discrimination under the civil rights act. The appeals court held that it did not, and this Court agreed for the following reasons. Plaintiffs’ employment discrimination lawyer won and now had to go back and try the case.
The plaintiff employment discrimination employee suffered a wrist injury at work. Id. He was on medical leave for six months when the employer discharged him pursuant to a company policy. The employee hired an employment discrimination lawyer and filed suit claiming he was discharged based upon his disability. During discovery it was discovered that the plaintiff had misrepresented certain facts on his employment application. Id.
The employer’s employment discrimination lawyer relied heavily on a workers’ compensation case where the worker failed to disclose relevant portions of his medical history on his preemployment application and had a cousin undergo the preemployment physical in his place. (cites omitted). In that case, since he failed to perform the physical the court held that he failed to perform a condition precedent to the contract formation and thus the case was dismissed.
In the case at hand, this is a civil rights case. There is no contract of hire concept. Further, the plaintiff’s current wrist injury had no apparent connection to the medical conditions omitted from the application.
Also, the court noted that the public policy in a civil rights case is to safeguard all individuals from discrimination. The concerns of a worker’s compensation case are far narrower. Id. In the case at hand, the employer only found out about the misrepresentations after litigation of this suit had begun. Id. “The employer could not have been motivated by knowledge it did not have and it cannot now claim that the employee was fired for the nondiscriminatory reason.” (cites omitted).
The defendant employer in this case does not deny that it discharged the employee from his position based on company policy requiring such a discharge after six months of medical leave. Id. The after-acquired evidence of misrepresentation of the employment application does not act as legal bar to the bringing of this action. Id.
If you have been the subject of a employment discrimination case, please call and speak to a employment discrimination lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!