There are times when disagreements about football in the workplace cross the line from fun banter to downright rudeness or abuse.
An employment judge has now ruled that people can legally be turned down for a job if they happen to support the rival team followed by existing staff.
Employers are entitled to base recruitment decisions on whether a prospective colleague might “damage office harmony”, by not supporting the same team, employment judge Daniel Wright said.
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.
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.
Maia Kalina claimed that she was discriminated against because she was not outgoing and did not enjoy going to the pub.
Wright dismissed her claims, saying employers had the right to consider whether a prospective employee would get on well with existing staff.
He said: “There may be times when it is perfectly lawful for an employer to decide that somebody just will not be a fit with the team and that therefore it would be difficult to work together.
“An example of this could be a small company where everybody who works in the office is an ardent supporter 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 (albeit taking the example to the extreme would not necessarily be good for business).”
The hearing in Croydon, south London, heard Kalina applied for a role with Digitas LBI and got down to the final two candidates but lost out.
Explaining her decision, interviewer Stephanie Hill told the tribunal that she “vibed”’ more with the other applicant and that “ultimately the decision came down to who was the better fit in the team”.
Kalina, who said she is a Russian national, argued that she was discriminated against because she was restrained and did not swear and did not like going to the pub – habits she saw as typically British.
But Wright said: “We have two candidates who were both considered appointable. They were pretty evenly matched, with their own particular strengths. I see nothing wrong with looking at who would fit into the team better as long as the assessment is done with caution.”
He added: “In this case, [Ms Kalina] relies upon a stereotype of British people being outgoing, enjoying going to the pub, and being relaxed swearing whereas she is more restrained as she comes from a cultural background where going to the pub is not a big thing and swearing is frowned upon.
“I find that there is no stereotype of British workers being as [she] describes. I accept that a number of British people could be described as going to the pub, swearing liberally and being outgoing.
“But there are just as many British people who frown upon anything which could be considered a curse word, who eschew the pub culture and who are far from outgoing and instead have the British stiff upper lip.”
