In Cooper v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 614, an employee who had been terminated asserted claims for breach of contract and age discrimination against his employer. (Id. at p. 615.) During discovery, the employer learned that the employee had made false statements about his work history on his job application, namely, that he had been laid off by a prior employer, and that subsequently he had been self-employed. (Id. at p. 618.) In reality, the prior employer had fired the employee for having an accident in a company van, and the employee had subsequently been fired by a second employer for moonlighting. (Ibid.) Thereafter, the employer obtained summary judgment on the basis of the after-acquired-evidence rule. (Id. at p. 615.) The Court reversed, concluding that this rule is not an absolute defense to claims that employment was wrongfully terminated, and that the facts of the case did not support a complete bar to relief, noting that the employee had a spotless and competent work record with the employer until he was terminated. (Cooper v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at pp. 617-619.) The Court reasoned that "although resume fraud is a serious social problem, so is termination of employment in violation of antidiscrimination laws or in breach of contract. Automatic forfeiture of all employment rights regardless of the circumstances can be too harsh a penalty in many cases. Where an employer has fired a worker in violation of a statutory ban on discrimination in the workplace, the purpose and effect of the antidiscrimination statutes are unacceptably undermined by a principle that would allow a fact that played no part in the firing decision to bar any recovery." (Id. at pp. 618-619.)