Eddy Worked with a Glass Manufacturing Company and He Was

Multiple Choice

Eddy worked with a glass manufacturing company and he was laid off from the firm due to his age. He filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  After his removal, the employer provided evidence that proved Eddy had accessed and copied confidential documents prior to his discharge, and that the tampering of documents could preclude the right of the plaintiff to sue under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court would most likely state that:

A) after acquired documents have no significance in this kind of case.
B) the employer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the plaintiff is not guilty of tampering with documents.
C) the case was in favor of the employer and precluded the rights of plaintiff to sue against employer.
D) the after-acquired evidence does not preclude the plaintiff's suit but rather goes to the issue of what remedies are available.