MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263718464

Protecting the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Perverse Consequences of the McKennon Rule

2000· article· en· W2263718464 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Bourne

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMerger and Competition Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffConvictionBannerSupreme courtEmployment discriminationProductivityStatistical discriminationConfidentialityLawBusinessPolitical scienceLaw and economicsEconomicsLabour economicsHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suppose an employer accused of discrimination learns during litigation that the plaintiff had fabricated a college degree, hidden a criminal conviction, or stolen confidential documents. Under the landmark case of McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that such plaintiffs might obtain relief even if the after-acquired evidence would have led to lawful termination or lawful failure to hire if defendants had uncovered it when it occurred. Most commentators applaud McKennon but fail to acknowledge its perverse consequences in diluting the effectiveness of labor-market signaling. The unintended result may be reduced productivity, poorer matches of workers to jobs, higher turnover, and increased costs of hiring and assessment. The ruling may also increase the incidence of statistical discrimination as well as erode the benefits of acquiring human capital. In sum, despite its praiseworthy objectives, McKennon may worsen labor-market conditions for those protected by discrimination laws. This paper describes the typical scenarios that arise in after-acquired-evidence cases, reviews the law surrounding McKennon, and discusses how the economic literature on information and signaling applies to such cases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMerger and Competition AnalysisFrench-language works237,207