> good candidates interview but decline the pub afterwards - they did not get offers
That's one hell of a lawsuit you're opening yourself up to there. People who don't drink have significant overlap with protected classes.
That's one hell of a lawsuit you're opening yourself up to there. People who don't drink have significant overlap with protected classes.
1. Which ones? I used to be able to stereotype with the best of them, but I cant quickly come up with any protected class that is assigned as teetotalers.
2. Saying you're not hiring someone because they don't drink is a perfectly valid reason for not hiring someone, even if it's a cover for not hiring them because of protected class membership. The laws protecting protected classes are super weak. It is virtually impossible to prove that is the sole reason they weren't hired. All you need is an actual other reason to not hire them--and of course don't put into writing that the real reason is their protected class membership.
Religious or spiritual belief.
Many religions discourage or disallow drinking.
I believe a recovered/recovering alcoholic could be considered a protected class.
Many medical conditions or medications cannot be combined with alcohol.
And just more broadly, some people have lives, family where they can't just be expected out on the piss in the afternoon.
Admitting it on forum is the in. Just like admitting you've been working while up on ket.
The excuse is always culture fit, if that even gets recorded anywhere...