The paper analyses the applications of the doctrine and how employees and employers may equitably maximize the rule to its full extent. The doctrine may level the playing field for employers in employment discrimination claims. However, there is also a danger of inequitably undermining the plaintiff's claims of demonstrating authentically unlawful motivations of employers.
The After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine is one of the most controversial rules recently contained in the employment law. As claims on employment discrimination are often invoked in courts by those who alleged unlawful discharge as a consequence of their ethnicity, religion, disability, gender or race, the US courts' decisions with regards these claims have transformed and encompassed contingencies that were neither promulgated nor mulled over by legislature. The After-Acquired Evidence Rule spawned to be a ground-breaking doctrine which takes into account misconducts - such as document and resume fraud - and the legality of the working status of a person - such as that of an illegal alien. The most controversial aspect of this doctrine is that, the evidence discovered which included the misconducts and the illegality of a person's status as aforementioned, are still admissible in courts which will consequently undermine a plaintiff's claim of employment discrimination - even if the misconducts are discovered after the employee is discharged.
One of the most significant aspects of the Acquired-Evidence doctrine is that, plaintiffs are prohibited from all remedies although the misconduct done by the claimant is discovered after the termination of employment has been put into effect (Bangert et al, 1999). This ruling is essentially distinct from the customary employment discrimination cases in that, it bestows employers a more reasonable summary judgment. The claim for discrimination becomes irrelevant as the emphasis of the employment discrimination case switches towards the employee misconduct. Normally in an employment discrimination case, the argument centers on the employment decision, as for instance, termination of employment, and the purpose of the employer. This only means that the falsification of documents, resume fraud and the legality of a worker's status may reduce or even eliminate the liability of the employer in an employment discrimination suit. Wettre (2007) asserts that the after-acquire evidence defense 'may level the playing field for employers' in the current system whose bias leans towards employees.
The scope and range of the after-acquired evidence doctrine is extensive since it applies to a variety of cases with regards employment law. The scope includes, for instance, an employee who discharged harmful chemicals, an act unknown to his employers, before his termination. The court would normally decide that it is justifiable for the claimant to receive limited or no back pay damages at all in the light of his violations as for example, releasing hazardous chemicals. 1 In other applications of the doctrine, a claimant's prior conviction unknown to his employer and in the first place barred him from employment for public position, are rationales for his claims to be dismissed. 2Failure to divulge status as an illegal alien - an entity of foreign origin who does not hold a legal