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
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- EEOC
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Reasonable Accommodation
- FLSA
- FMLA
- Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Social Media
- Diversity
- Title VII
- Telework
- Coronavirus
- Employer Policies
- Religion Discrimination
- Employment Litigation
- Wage & Hour
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- NLRB
- Paid Leave Laws
- Workplace Violence
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Non-Compete Agreements
- OSHA
- Artificial Intelligence
- Tax Credit
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- Compliance
- NLRA
- Supreme Court
- Arbitration
- Worker Classification
- Federal Trade Commission
- Workplace Accommodations
- Harassment
- Litigation
- IRS
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Sexual Harassment
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Securities Law
- Privacy Laws
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- 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
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA
- EEOC Rescinds Anti-Harassment Guidance Addressing Transgender Protections
- The EEOC’s Renewed Focus on Employer DEI Programs in 2026
- The Commute Counts: DOL Confirms FMLA Leave Extends to Travel Time
- Expansion of State Paid Leave Laws in 2026
- Work Opportunity Tax Credit At Risk: Use It Before You Lose It
- IRS Releases Additional Guidance on New Tip and Overtime Tax Deductions for 2025
- EEOC Takes Aim at Perceived Anti-American Bias