Opinion ID: 1375811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Good Samaritan's Petition for Review

Text: Good Samaritan did not seek review of the Court of Appeals' holding that the after-acquired evidence doctrine applied. Gassmann has not cross-petitioned for review on any issue. Under Rule 8.03(a)(5)(c) (1996 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 48), applicability of the after-acquired evidence issue is fairly included in the two issues upon which Good Samaritan seeks review. Those two issues concern whether genuine issues of material fact remain as to two of the three McKennon prongs needed for application of the after-acquired evidence doctrine. The material fact issues necessarily involve determining whether the after-acquired evidence doctrine should be considered applicable in Kansas wrongful discharge cases based on implied contract. We reason that the afteracquired evidence issue is before us. The Court of Appeals' opinion addressed the definition and rationale of the after-acquired evidence doctrine: The after-acquired evidence doctrine in its purest form allows an employer to be relieved of liability in a wrongful discharge lawsuit where it is discovered, normally during litigation, that the employee was guilty of pre-discharge misconduct sufficient for termination that the employer was unaware of and was not relying upon for discharge. See Summers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir. 1988); Yoo, The After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine, 25 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 219, 228 (Fall 1993) (the Summers rule). The after-acquired evidence doctrine has its foundation in the logic that an employee cannot complain about being wrongfully discharged because the individual is no worse off than he or she would have been had the truth of his or her misconduct been presented at the outset. See Annot., After-Acquired Evidence of Employee's Misconduct as Barring or Limiting Recovery in Action for Wrongful Discharge, 34 A.L.R. 5th 699, 707. 22 Kan. App.2d at 634-35. Although Gassmann's petition alleges in conclusory fashion that she was wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy, she offers no evidence to show that her termination raised any public policy concerns. She does not claim that her discharge was retaliatory or based on any form of discrimination. She claims that: (1) under the implied employment agreement, she could be terminated only for good cause, (2) Good Samaritan did not follow the procedure for termination outlined in the personnel handbook, and (3) the reason for her termination (inconsiderate treatment of residents) had no factual basis. Gassmann's claim is founded on breach of an implied employment contract and raises only private concerns. The Court of Appeals' three-pronged test for application of the after-acquired evidence doctrine is derived from the following language in McKennon, 130 L. Ed.2d at 864: Once an employer learns about employee wrongdoing that would lead to a legitimate discharge, we cannot require the employer to ignore the information, even if it is acquired during the course of discovery in a suit against the employer and even if the information might have gone undiscovered absent the suit.... Where an employer seeks to rely upon after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing, it must first establish that the wrongdoing was of such severity that the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds alone if the employer had known of it at the time of the discharge. There is no reason why the after-acquired evidence doctrine should not apply if the three-prong test of McKennon can be satisfied. Also, the Court of Appeals' reliance on Schuessler v. Benchmark Mktg. & Consulting, 243 Neb. 425, 500 N.W.2d 529 (1993), although it is a pre-McKennon case, is not inconsistent with the way other jurisdictions have applied the after-acquired evidence doctrine in post-McKennon cases. See, e.g., Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, 35 Cal. App. 4th 620, 41 Cal. Rptr.2d 329 (1995) (summary judgment for employer affirmed against employees' claims of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; after-acquired evidence doctrine applied based on resume fraud); Mitchell v. John Weisner, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. App. 1996) (Although reversing summary judgment for employer and declining to apply after-acquired evidence doctrine in retaliatory discharge/resume fraud case, Texas Court of Appeals discussed the public policy reasons why the doctrine should not protect an employer in a retaliatory discharge situation.).