The Story in a Nutshell
A recent UK employment tribunal stirred debate when it upheld an employer’s right to reject a candidate based on perceived incompatibility with the existing team even if the reason seemed trivial.
In Kalina v. Digitas LBI, the tribunal heard that the applicant, a Tottenham Hotspur supporter, was deemed not to “vibe” with an Arsenal-leaning office. The judge concluded that employers may lawfully prefer candidates who “fit” with the team, provided decisions are cautious and not rooted in stereotypes.
On the surface, this ruling may sound pragmatic—who wouldn’t want harmony in the workplace? But scratch beneath, and it raises deeper questions about equality, fairness, and the legal limits of “team fit” in recruitment.
Why This Ruling Misses the Spirit of Equality Law
1. Football Allegiance Is Irrelevant to Protected Characteristics
The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination based on legally recognised characteristics such as race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, age, and disability. Football support doesn’t qualify.
But by tolerating exclusions on arbitrary, non-protected grounds, tribunals risk normalising unfairness in hiring and reinforcing superficial sameness rather than genuine diversity.
2. “Fit” Can Mask Unconscious Bias and Indirect Discrimination
While football allegiance itself isn’t protected, the reasoning behind “team fit” can be a smokescreen. For example:
- Cultural references linked to nationality.
- Social preferences that disadvantage neurodivergent applicants.
- “Bantery” environments where sexism, racism, or homophobia go unchecked.
Indirect discrimination occurs when neutral criteria disproportionately disadvantage protected groups. Hiring based on “vibe” is fertile ground for this, especially when decision-making lacks transparency.
3. Philosophical Belief Protections Are Limited
Some might argue that supporting a club could amount to a philosophical belief. However, the Grainger test sets a high bar: a belief must be genuinely held, relate to a substantial aspect of human life, and command respect in a democratic society.
Past tribunals, such as Rangers vs. Celtic, found football allegiance to be a “lifestyle choice,” not a belief of philosophical depth. Therefore, football support offers no shield from discriminatory hiring.
4. “Positive Action” Doesn’t Apply
Positive action is lawful only to remedy disadvantage or under-representation in relation to protected characteristics. Football allegiance doesn’t fall within this. Using “fit” as a tie-breaker is not only vague but legally indefensible.
Lessons for Employers: Turning Risk Into Responsibility
| Issue | Concern | Recommendation |
| Subjectivity of “Team Fit” | Allows unlawful bias to creep in. | Use structured, competency-based recruitment with clear, objective criteria. |
| Lack of Accountability | “Vibes” lack transparency. | Document decision-making and carry out equality impact assessments. |
| Risk of Unlawful Discrimination | Cultural excuses may conceal bias. | Train hiring managers in unconscious bias and Equality Act obligations. |
| Culture vs. Law | Informal “banter” culture risks exclusion. | Embed inclusive values in policies and model professionalism across teams. |
Beyond Recruitment: Behaviour and Professionalism at Work
Workplace culture doesn’t end at the hiring stage. Employers must ensure that:
- Behaviour policies explicitly reject racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism, and all other discriminatory conduct.
- Professionalism standards prioritise respect, equity, and collaboration over conformity to narrow cultural norms.
- Conflict resolution processes are fair and protect those who challenge exclusionary practices.
The question worth asking is: If an organisation’s culture is racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or ageist, would someone who opposes these views be considered “not a fit”? If so, that culture is not just misaligned with equality law it is actively unlawful.
Final Thoughts
The tribunal’s ruling risks sending a dangerous message: that cultural sameness is more valuable than genuine inclusion. But workplaces cannot afford to let “team fit” become a catch-all excuse for excluding people who think, live, or identify differently.
Employers should focus on what truly matters:
- Can the candidate do the job?
- Do they meet the objective requirements?
- Will the workplace uphold their right to dignity, respect, and equality?
Diversity is not a disruption to team culture it is the foundation of innovation, resilience, and fairness. By holding professionalism, equality, and respect as non-negotiables, organisations can ensure that “fit” never becomes a fig leaf for bias.
Call to Action for Employers: Review your recruitment policies today. Ask yourself whether “team fit” is about genuine collaboration or coded exclusion. Update your equality and behaviour policies, train your managers, and commit to creating a workplace where every individual whether Arsenal, Spurs, or neither feels valued, respected, and included.