2

This question was closed for the reason of legal questions, however no legal question was asked here.

Ethical obligation after finding fraudulent applicant?

The original title was "Ethical obligation after finding fraudulent applicant?"

Nowhere in the question was any legal conundrum introduced, it was not until the comments started piling up that the question started gathering close votes, and the change of title finished it IMO.

Again, the question was simply:

Beyond simply declining to hire the candidate, does Acme have any further ethical responsibilities?

There is no actual or implied legal issue here.

EDITED TO ADD:

The OP rolled back the edit and explicitly gave as his reason that the change of title changed the intent of his post.

Also, this is another case of comments changing the perception people have of the question.

  • changed my mind after reading OPs feedback (maybe the post should be edited to include it?), voted to reopen. 1 more missing. – DarkCygnus Oct 27 '17 at 22:24
  • Voted to reopen – Kilisi Oct 27 '17 at 22:30
  • Question is now open – DarkCygnus Oct 28 '17 at 6:31
  • Voting to re-open – Mister Positive Nov 2 '17 at 19:01
  • The question is now closed. – WBT Nov 3 '17 at 12:27
3

My problem is that this question is off topic because it is not about navigating the workplace. This is a question of what people think a company should do, which is an opinion of what business policy should be, which is off topic.

This question should be closed.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .