>He ruled that a boss would not be breaking employment law, for example, if they rejected a job application from an avid Tottenham Hotspur supporter because the office was full of Arsenal fans.
That seems like a very childish example to pick. It puts the power in the hands of the more childish employees ...
I don't think the judge ruled "...even if they're a protected class", but I didn't read the ruling. And the actual case isn't even about what football team the candidate likes, so it's a bit odd to me the judge trotted out that line of reasoning. So, yeah, I can see where this ruling as precedence could be abused.
Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to me since I'm in the US not the UK and my "no Chelsea fans" hiring rule won't get air cover. GO Gunners!
>He ruled that a boss would not be breaking employment law, for example, if they rejected a job application from an avid Tottenham Hotspur supporter because the office was full of Arsenal fans.
That seems like a very childish example to pick. It puts the power in the hands of the more childish employees ...
Thats silly. I wonder what is worse not caring about a specific sport or being a fan of the opposite team.
Depends how loudly, frequently, and annoyingly they mention "Oh I'm just not a fan of football."
What about if you hate football?
Sounds like way to reject people for a protected characteristic while avoid the liability of doing so.
I don't think the judge ruled "...even if they're a protected class", but I didn't read the ruling. And the actual case isn't even about what football team the candidate likes, so it's a bit odd to me the judge trotted out that line of reasoning. So, yeah, I can see where this ruling as precedence could be abused.
Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to me since I'm in the US not the UK and my "no Chelsea fans" hiring rule won't get air cover. GO Gunners!