Employment Judge Wright commented in the recent decision of Miss M Kalina v Digitas LBI Ltd, that employers may legally reject job applicants who support rival football teams if it risks workplace harmony. The decision has sparked debate about the boundaries of lawful hiring practices and the role of personal affiliations in professional settings.
The Case
Miss Kalina, a Russian national, brought claims of sex, race and disability discrimination against the marketing and technology agency Digitas LBI Limited (“Digitas””), alleging that she was unlawfully rejected for two separate roles during the recruitment process. Digitas denied any wrongdoing as part of the recruitment process and contended that, although the Claimant was a suitable and equally appointable candidate, the decision not to appoint her was driven by the hiring manager’s stronger rapport with the successful candidate, with whom she “vibed” better with and who was considered to be a better fit for the team
Following a three-day hearing in London South Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Wright dismissed Miss Kalina’s claims, using football allegiances as an illustrative example of how employers can lawfully prioritise a “team fit”.
In paragraph 42 of his judgment (read full judgment by clicking here), Employment Judge Wright referred to an example of a small company where “everybody who works in the office is an ardent support of Arsenal Football Club, and they decide to pick an Arsenal fan at interview over a similarly qualified Tottenham Hotspur season ticket holder because they do not want to damage the harmony of the office. The decision there would be lawful".
Employment Judge Wright also rejected Miss Kalina’s claims that there is a “stereotype of British people being outgoing, enjoying going to the pub, and being relaxed swearing”. She went on to refer to this as an “unspoken template of Britishness” and that this was the opposite of her cultural background, where going to the pub is not a big thing and swearing is frowned upon. As Miss Kalina did not provide evidence of this stereotype of a British employee, Employment Judge Wright found that there was no stereotype of British workers being as described.
Wider Implications
Workplace culture vs. discrimination
The ruling raises questions about where the line is drawn between protecting workplace harmony and discriminating against prospective candidates. Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person during the recruitment process based on protected characteristics such as age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. However, as this case has confirmed, employers may base a decision to hire on a candidate’s suitability to fit into an office’s culture without falling foul of discrimination laws, albeit caution should be used when coming to such a decision.
It is acknowledged that employers often take “cultural fit” into account during recruitment, and this case illustrates that the use of subjective criteria, such as football loyalties, can, in certain circumstances, be lawful. Employers are not required to rely solely on objective measures when assessing candidates, provided the approach is applied fairly and reasonably.
That said, employers must tread carefully, ensuring there is no bias towards one particular group of people, which leads to the exclusion of candidates from diverse racial or cultural backgrounds.
Conclusion
This tribunal decision highlights the growing importance of workplace culture in recruitment. By affirming that football rivalries can be justification for rejecting applicants, the ruling highlights the tension between individual identity and collective harmony. Employers may welcome the clarity, but the case also raises broader ethical concerns about fairness and inclusivity in hiring practices.
It is worth noting also that this decision is not binding authority. While employment tribunal judgments may be persuasive, other tribunals are not required to follow them, and the outcome here is therefore indicative only of how a similar case might be approached.
If this article resonates with you and you are interested in finding out more information, get in touch with our Employment team by clicking here.
