Bosses can reject applicants who support rival football team to existing staff, judge says

Comments

• Wimopy@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  For football teams? Sure, maybe.

  But that’s not the main point in the case, is it? To me this decision seems like it says you could decide not to hire someone because they don’t drink (since that’s basically what was being argued). Couldn’t that then be used to legally discriminate against, say, Muslims? Or people more committed to family than work?

  source

  • Tweak@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Wimopy@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      By law, 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.

      source
  • rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I guess an argument could be that not drinking is unlikely to cause fights, whereas supporting rival teams, depending on the rivalry in question… There’s a lot of potential for tension

    source

    • Wimopy@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Agreed. As another commenter says, in Glasgow the football team might just matter, and considering how things go: fair enough.

      But this specific case was actually not about who the candidate supported, that’s just what the judge brought up as an example. I’d say it wasn’t even about not drinking, that’s what the candidate alleged. But the ruling seems like it would apply to all of those cases as precedent anyway.

      source
• Yeahigotskills2@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  In Glasgow if you have 2 guys go for a blue-collar job, where one is Celtic and one is Rangers, then who gets the position would be 100% determined by the team the boss follows, regardless of legislation.

  source
• Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  That’s England as fuck right there. I get it though

  source
• tazeycrazy@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The comments came in the case of a woman who took legal action after she lost out on a job with a marketing agency because she didn’t “vibe” with her interviewer.>

  it was vibes that lost the women her interview. I would assume that vibes make up more dissisions on hiring panels than we think.

  source
• Horse@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  actual clown country

  grow the fuck up

  source

  • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If you actually read the article though that’s not exactly what happened. It’s just saying it’s about football makes for a better headline.

    source

    • Horse@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      while it wasn’t the main subject of the hearing, it was used as an example of something that would also be legal

      Image

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Bot@sub.community ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Fuck Man U :)

  source