a defense if the employer would not have hired the employee if it had known of the fraud. See Welch v. Liberty Mach. Works, Inc., 23 F.3d 1403, 1405 (8th Cir.1994). “The after-acquired evidence doctrine has its foundation in the logic that an employee cannot complain about being wrongfully discharged because the individual is no worse off than he or she would have been had the truth of his or her misconduct been presented at the outset.” Gassman v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y, 22 Kan.App.2d 632, 921 P.2d 224, 226 (1996), aff'd, 261 Kan. 725, 933 P.2d 743 (1997). Basic principles of law and equity support a rule allowing an employer to avoid liability for breach of implied contract or promissory estoppel claims arising from an employm F.Supp. 1306, 1309 (E.D.Mich.1992) (<HOLDING>), rev’d, on other grounds, 25 F.3d 1047 (6th
holding that employer may use afteracquired evidence of resume fraud to avoid liability for breach of an employment contract if it can show that it had the power to void the contract due to reliance on material misrepresentations even where the employer was unaware of that power when the breach occurred holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding that afteracquired evidence may completely bar a claim for breach of the employment contract because the employers duty arises from the contract itself and falls with that contract