I read with interest the news reports of the recent lawsuit filed against the University of Kentucky by an Astronomer who claims that his religion cost him a job. As reported by the New York Times:
In late November, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled that the case could go forward, and a trial is scheduled for February. The case represents a rare example, experts say, of a lawsuit by a scientist who alleges academic persecution for his religious faith.
Both sides agree that Dr. Gaskell, 57, was invited to the university, in Lexington, for a job interview. In his lawsuit, he says that at the end of the interview, Michael Cavagnero, the chairman of the physics and astronomy department, asked about his religious beliefs.
“Cavagnero stated that he had personally researched Gaskell’s religious beliefs,” the lawsuit says. According to Dr. Gaskell, the chairman said Dr. Gaskell’s religious beliefs and his “expression of them would be a matter of concern” to the dean.
What is of particular interest is the “smoking gun” in the case:
For the plaintiff, the smoking gun is an e-mail dated Sept. 21, 2007, from a department staff member, Sally A. Shafer, to Dr. Cavagnero and another colleague. Ms. Shafer wrote that she did an Internet search on Dr. Gaskell and found links to his notes for a lecture that explores, among other topics, how the Bible could relate to contemporary astronomy.
“Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with,” Ms. Shafer wrote, “but potentially evangelical. If we hire him, we should expect similar content to be posted on or directly linked from the department Web site.”
Notice the seed from which this lawsuit sprouted – an internet search about a job applicant. I have no knowledge about the University of Kentucky’s hiring policies or practices but I doubt that this internet search was an official part of them. This is an area that I have advised employers about again and again and it is an area that continues to cause problems. Given the easy availability of information online, we are at a point where the issue simply must be addressed in hiring policies. Whether your business decides to forego Google in the hiring process or prefers to develop a sound strategy to use the information that is out there, it needs to be handled consistently through a well crafted policy. If it is not, expect to encounter your own smoking gun at some point.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Wage & Hour
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- EEOC
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Department of Labor
- Artificial Intelligence
- Coronavirus
- Compliance
- NLRB
- OSHA
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Title VII
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- FLSA
- Supreme Court
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- National Labor Relations Board
- Diversity
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Arbitration
- Federal Trade Commission
- FMLA
- Overtime Pay
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Accommodations
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Social Media
- Medical Marijuana
- Employer Policies
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- Whistleblower
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Telecommuting
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA
- More on Equal Opportunity: Executive Order Seeks to End Disparate Impact Liability to promote Equal Opportunity
- PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
- The Independent Contractor Tug-of-War: Navigating the Latest DOL Shifts
- ICE Raids and Audits – What’s an Employer to Do