After-acquired evidence: What is it, and why should you care?

Law & Order, Suits, Boston Legal, The Practice, and . . . wait for it . . . Perry Mason! That’s right, good ole’ Perry Mason! You know you’re guilty. You’ve watched the legal drama series, and now you’re an expert. You could probably even try your first case in federal court, though you’ve not taken a single course in law school. But when the other side argues the “after-acquired evidence” doctrine applies, what does that mean, and what do you do? Did your “legal training” prepare you for this moment? Let’s be sure so you aren’t “Legally Blonde” when it's finally your chance to litigate.

Facts

While out on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave from his employment with Sanderson Farms, Jacob Galloway took flights for another employer for pay. He hid the activity because he knew it violated his employer’s policy forbidding employees on paid FMLA leave from performing other work for pay and would result in his termination.

After Galloway was fired for “disruptive and inappropriate conduct,” he filed suit against Sanderson Farms claiming the termination was in retaliation for his taking FMLA leave. Among other remedies, he sought to recover back pay, which would compensate him for the amount he would have been paid had he not been wrongfully discharged.

Decision

Sanderson Farms filed a request for summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) against Galloway’s back-pay claim and asked the district court to reconsider its ruling. The court did so and reversed itself, recognizing it had previously “misunderstood the evidence.”