You don't have enough information.
What you have is a feeling. And feelings are a lousy reason to engage in a legal action.
Now, you have a very strong feeling, and that makes it seem to you like the strength of the feeling alters the above advice. Yes, it does. Very strong feelings are an exceptionally terrible reason to engage in a legal action!
I never lose. My superpower is to set aside feelings, gather all the facts, including the ones I don't like, and so doing, know what the judge will say.
What you need is more info. For instance, out of your prejudice, you have decided for yourself that "unaccredited" is the same thing as "degree mill". It isn't. There's a huge gulf between:
- an eccentric university whose brilliant management is too busy actually teaching to play the political games necessary to get an accreditation certificate, and that process may be corrupt in that state.
- This could be especially so if the university largely serves minorities, and the barriers to accreditation are borne out of bigotry. If so, you could blunder your company right into the middle of some other state's discrimination problem.
- a fake college whose solitary purpose is sneak immigrants in to take employment, by misusing student visas.
- a college who uses new media to teach, and their methods are too cutting-edge for the stodgy old accreditation institutions to accept.
- a college who represented themselves as genuine to the students, and indeed made a fair effort to book-teach them, but the person whose job was to secure accreditation didn't know what they were doing, and found an accreditation agency which wasn't genuine.
- Exactly what you presume: a student swaps a huge pile of money for a degree, presumably that pile of money is in the form of a private student loan at stupid interest rates.
It's likely the person actually did all the real work of college, the accreditation issue is news to them, and if anyone was hoodwinked, it was them.
All this misses the point: accreditation is not the important issue. What matters is whether the student applied themselves, organized themselves well, did their best, and willfully extracted a good education. A person can "do the minimum" all the way through Harvard, and be not half the employee as a go-getter at Boston Community College who exceeded the course material and snuck over to Harvard's library for more. Damn the credentials, you want the successful student.
Oh wait, this is the Law SE. Why do you want the successful student? Because you have a fiduciary duty to do what is in the best interest of the company and place good employees. To follow your own Don Quixote crusade against people whose colleges had faulty accreditation, is a conflict of interest.
You aren't even interested in ascertaining whether this person is a good employee. And that, really, is the bottom line. You (or rather, anyone but you) should be looking at that person's PRs and 360's, and looking at their overall performance for the company. The company's criteria for keeping or replacing should be the probability of finding someone significantly better at about the same pay rate. If this person is an earnest performer, you may have trouble doing that.
It's that simple. Employees must do what is in the company's best interest.
There's an old joke. Kevin asks the sales manager, "Why do you keep Morty? I've seen his written memos and reports, the guy is a terrible speller."
"Yeah, but he outsells all the other salesmen 3:1," said the manager. And I pay him to sell, not to spell."