Add a Comment
Save my information
Unfortunately Mr. Thaler is wrong. Although they generally must be in compliance with ORI regulations if the institution is receiving HHS funds, misconduct findings made by an institution are made under those institutional policies and are considered employment actions. There are no federal laws that limit the disclosure of employment actions to future employers, very few state laws limit disclosures and none I know of could be interpreted to cover a misconduct finding. The employee freely agreed to the institutional policies as a condition of their employment.
ORI agency findings are completely separate, although they often rely in large part on the institutional report. ORI explicitly affirms a relatively small percentage of the reports it receives, and declines to pursue any additional action in the majority without making any formal determinations. In such cases, ORI acknowledges the institution’s right to make a finding according to their own policies. It’s no surprise why Mr. Thaler would want us to wait for ORI, but fortunately for us, defamation suits against employers who make external disclosures of their own findings go absolutely nowhere, and quite rightly so.
The only problem is the investigation by ORI. Unless until you mention your name, ORI does not investigate. They should look into statement when someone informs ORI. Based on the merit of statement, they should investigate. If proper investigation is not done, many will fall through the cracks.
Perhaps this is a case in which prosocial gossip could have been used to alert Chicago about a potential problem? Despite his past misdeeds, they could have given him a chance to behave appropriately while keeping an eye on him and his work.
Privacy be damned! If you allow this misconduct to continue via your silence, that makes you guilty, too!
Are we are trying to operate personal ethics by rote and rule?
This was not the case in earlier times, when people had individual responsibility. Then, the answer was quite simple. You knew the fellow. Did you think he was deserving of a second chance? If so, you said nothing. If you thought he was a bad lot and unlikely to reform, you had a quiet word.
I can recall numerous examples in Holmes stories – Abbey Grange, for instance….