Opinion ID: 701378
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fraud in a Job Application

Text: 10 Dunn argues that McKennon is not applicable to this case because the petitioner in McKennon had committed wrongful acts during employment, whereas Neal lied on her job application. Dunn urges the conclusion that one who obtains a job or employment contract by misrepresentation has no employment contract, no employee status and no standing to sue for alleged employment-related wrongs. We cannot agree. 11 Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, like the ADEA, serve to deter discriminatory conduct in the workplace and to compensate for injuries caused by the prohibited discrimination. 5 Each of these statutes thus grants an injured employee a right of action to obtain the authorized relief. McKennon, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 884; see also 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) (authorizing private actions under the Equal Pay Act); 29 U.S.C. Sec. 626(c) (authorizing private actions under the ADEA); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1) (authorizing private right of action under Title VII). Moreover, [t]he private litigant who seeks redress for his or her injuries vindicates both the deterrence and the compensation objectives of the [Acts]. McKennon, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 884. 12 In McKennon, the Supreme Court explained that these twin objectives of the ADEA would not be served if an employer were free to discriminate against an employee merely because the employer learned of that employee's wrongdoing: 13 The objectives of [ADEA] are furthered when even a single employee establishes that an employer has discriminated against him or her. The disclosure through litigation of incidents or practices which violate national policies respecting nondiscrimination in the work force is itself important, for the occurrence of violations may disclose patterns of noncompliance resulting from a misappreciation of the Act's operation or entrenched resistance to its commands, either of which can be of industry-wide significance. 14 McKennon, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 885. 15 Likewise, the objectives of deterrence and compensation would not be served if an employee lacked standing to seek relief under these statutes because he or she misrepresented information on his or her job application. We therefore hold that the after-acquired evidence rule announced in McKennon applies to cases in which the after-acquired evidence concerns the employee's misrepresentations in a job application or resume, as well as cases in which the after-acquired evidence relates to employee wrongdoing during employment. See Shattuck v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 49 F.3d 1106 (5th Cir.1995) (applying McKennon to case in which the employer discovered that plaintiff had lied about his education on his resume); Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc., 49 F.3d at 1150 (applying McKennon to case in which employer discovered that plaintiff had lied about employment background and medical history on resume); Hercules Inc., 52 F.3d at 294 (remanding fraud-in-application case for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court decision in McKennon ). 6