> (1) You don't make legal cases against people involved in a hiring rejection, you make a case against a company. Entirely true. In my defense, I'm not a lawy

> (1) You don't make legal cases against people involved in a hiring rejection, you make a case against a company. Entirely true. In my defense, I'm not a lawyer. Technically also in my defense: the United States has a bad habit of calling corporations people. > (2) If you are making hiring decisions the appearance of random blog posts should not and will not give you any legal basis not to hire. Legality is encoded in the law, not in blogposts, especially not in blogposts by random passers by. If you were using this as a reason not to hire the person writing the blog post then you might get some mileage out of it but it could also easily backfire. This may be true in the Netherlands, but in many states in the US, quite a number of things can be used as grounds to not hire, with the notable exception of anything involving suspect classification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification). My understanding is that if someone is likely to cause the firm to be responsible for illegal conduct e.g. age discrimination, for many firms, that's a sufficient basis not to hire. I'd love to be corrected, though.