If it’s a protected characteristic then you cannot discriminate over it. If it is not a protected characteristic then you can discriminate.
Supporting a football team is not a protected characteristic, so the boss in this case was not breaking the law when they discriminated against hiring an employee that supported a team they didn’t like.
Religion is a protected characteristic, so your example would not be lawful.
By law, technically, yes. But that’s the trick: you say you didn’t hire someone because you think they wouldn’t fit the team. In reality, it’s because of their religion or ethnicity or gender. Officially though, you say it’s because they wouldn’t join in for drinks on Friday. “I just didn’t vibe with them”.
Of course this has caveats. It’ll only be possible between two equally qualified candidates, but that can be subjective as well.
Also this specific candidate was not hired because the employer said they didn’t vibe with them. The football team is an example used by the judge. The not drinking and being introverted was used by the candidate. It’s a weak case. I don’t think the candidate had much to stand on, but the judge’s ruling is way too generic is what my point is.
No, it’s far simpler than that.
If it’s a protected characteristic then you cannot discriminate over it. If it is not a protected characteristic then you can discriminate.
Supporting a football team is not a protected characteristic, so the boss in this case was not breaking the law when they discriminated against hiring an employee that supported a team they didn’t like.
Religion is a protected characteristic, so your example would not be lawful.
By law, technically, yes. But that’s the trick: you say you didn’t hire someone because you think they wouldn’t fit the team. In reality, it’s because of their religion or ethnicity or gender. Officially though, you say it’s because they wouldn’t join in for drinks on Friday. “I just didn’t vibe with them”.
Of course this has caveats. It’ll only be possible between two equally qualified candidates, but that can be subjective as well.
Also this specific candidate was not hired because the employer said they didn’t vibe with them. The football team is an example used by the judge. The not drinking and being introverted was used by the candidate. It’s a weak case. I don’t think the candidate had much to stand on, but the judge’s ruling is way too generic is what my point is.