When Can an Employer Reject a Candidate Due to Their Views? Is It Even Possible?

08.06.2026

Matylda is the CEO of a company that manufactures women’s streetwear. Her brand is one of the most recognizable apparel names in Poland. It is renowned not only for its original cuts and designs but also for pursuing a social mission alongside its business activities.

The organization builds its corporate image as a pro-women brand. It supports feminist initiatives, promotes equal opportunities for women, and allocates a portion of its revenue to social causes in this area. This approach is yielding results.

The company is growing from strength to strength, achieving increasingly better financial results, and the team is deeply engaged in both their work and the values closest to the organization.

Due to the company’s dynamic growth, Matylda decided to hire a new pattern maker to support the designers in translating their visions into finished products. The recruitment process is nearing its end. Jacek is the top candidate—the ideal choice. He possesses a relevant degree, an impressive portfolio, excellent references, and performed outstandingly in the recruitment tasks. The HR department has no doubts and unanimously recommends him for hire.

Matylda has already signed a letter of intent. A few hours later, out of sheer curiosity, she decided to search for Jacek on social media. All of his profiles were publicly accessible. Initially, she browsed through his past projects and professional achievements.

Suddenly, she stumbled upon a comment by Jacek on LinkedIn. Under a post by a company announcing the introduction of menstrual leave for its female employees, Jacek wrote:

“Just another excuse for lazy feminists to get paid for lying in bed. Our grandmothers gave birth in the fields and didn’t act like such princesses.”

Matylda decided to dig deeper. On Facebook, she found another comment. This time, it was under an article describing the success of a young female entrepreneur:

“A great businesswoman, but the kids are probably being raised by a nanny because the mother is never home. Success at the expense of one’s own family—I feel sorry for the husband.”

Matylda was shocked. The next day, even before her first coffee, she rushed to the HR department.

“This man publicly undermines the values upon which we build our brand! If we hire him, we will lose our credibility. We are rejecting him, no discussion.”

After a moment, she added:

“And from now on, we screen candidates’ social media in every recruitment process. I want to know everything about them. What kind of music they listen to, their sexual orientation, who they voted for. In fact, let’s audit the entire current team as well. I don’t want anyone here who isn’t a cultural fit!”

The HR staff nodded, but a red flag was already raised in the mind of every single one of them.

Are such practices even lawful?

“Who did you vote for?” – The Question Best Left Unasked

Political opinions, worldview convictions, religious affiliation, or life philosophies belong to an individual’s private sphere. Therefore, the answer to whether an employer can inquire about such matters is, as a rule, simple: no. This applies equally to job applicants and existing employees.

In the case of candidates, the Labor Code strictly defines the information a prospective employer may request. This is an exhaustive list (numerus clausus), primarily encompassing identification data, education, professional qualifications, and employment history.

Naturally, there are certain exceptions to this rule. In specific instances, obtaining background checks (criminal records) is permissible. As a general rule, however, a single principle applies: we may only inquire about matters that are objectively relevant to the performance of duties in a given position.

Nevertheless, it may happen that a candidate voluntarily discloses information regarding their private life, views, or beliefs. Even then, it is advisable not to expand on such topics. Otherwise, the employer easily exposes themselves to allegations that this information influenced the subsequent decision not to hire the candidate.

Similar principles apply to employees.

The workplace environment should remain politically and ideologically neutral. Employers are legally obligated to provide a safe working environment for all employees—regardless of their religion, worldview, or political leanings.

Matters such as political views, faith, life philosophy, or support for specific social initiatives should remain within the employee’s private domain. They cannot influence performance appraisals, promotion decisions, salary increases, or general treatment within the organization.

Vetting such matters is a direct path to discrimination claims, not to mention the substantial risks associated with personal data protection

“Any discrimination in employment, direct or indirect, in particular on the grounds of (…), religion, (…), political opinions, trade union membership, ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation (…) is impermissible. (…) Consequently, circumstances that lack foundation in the specifics of an employee’s duties, the manner of their performance, or qualifications, as well as personal attributes of an employee unrelated to the work performed, such as their worldview, are deemed impermissible criteria for unequal treatment” [Supreme Court Judgment of November 19, 2020, file ref. no. II PK 239/18].

A Brand with a Mission – Are There Exceptions to Workplace Neutrality?

As with every rule, there are exceptions to workplace neutrality.

In practice, there are many organizations with a specific ideological profile. These include political parties, foundations, associations, certain private schools, or media outlets aligned with a specific political or ideological movement. It may also occur that a commercial enterprise builds its brand identity around specific values. If a company bases its business model on concepts such as sustainability, diversity, or inclusivity, it can hardly be expected to remain entirely neutral in these areas.

Similarly, a vegan cosmetics manufacturer cannot be indifferent to animal welfare issues, and a company operating in the environmental sector will not remain neutral toward climate change. In such scenarios, specific values become an integral component of the brand identity.

When Values Become Part of the Brand – How Far Can an Employer Go?

However, even within value-based organizations, vetting employees’ views remains highly risky.

The law provides only a narrow exception here: churches, religious associations, and organizations whose ethos is founded on religion, creed, or worldview may require employees to act loyally toward those values.

This means that, under specific circumstances, such an organization may refuse to hire or may terminate a relationship with an individual whose actions directly contradict its mission. For instance, a Catholic school may expect its teachers to respect the values upon which it operates. Consequently, it may decline to employ a teacher who publishes agnostic content on their social media profiles.

Yet, even here, limitations apply.

The loyalty requirement must bear a direct nexus to the nature of the work performed. It is easily justified in the case of an editor-in-chief of a religious publication. However, it is far more difficult to justify for an IT support specialist.

But can you terminate someone for their views?

Regardless of the nature of the organization, the answer is no. The mere fact of holding specific views cannot constitute valid grounds for the termination of an employment contract. The situation changes, however, when the manner in which those views are manifested begins to cause detriment to the company. An employee has a duty of loyalty and a statutory obligation to safeguard the interests of the workplace. If their public actions harm the company’s interests, the employer has the right to intervene.

Returning to Matylda’s example—if Jacek, post-hire, continued to publish online content undermining the values upon which the company builds its brand, it could severely damage the brand’s credibility. This is especially true if he did so on LinkedIn, where it is incredibly easy to link an employee to a specific employer.

Culture Fit Without the Risk of Discrimination – Is It Possible?

Yes, but subject to certain conditions.

An employer may assess methods of working, communication styles, team collaboration, or approaches to specific professional scenarios. The key is to focus on business values and soft skills (social competencies) rather than legally protected personal characteristics.

• First: Structured and Targeted Interview Questions. It is not about asking questions regarding the candidate’s personal convictions. Instead of asking: “Do you support feminism?”, you can ask them to describe a situation involving the management of a diverse team, or inquire about how they handle a conflict of values in the workplace.
• Second: Transparency. It is vital to clearly communicate the organizational culture and corporate values from the outset. If a candidate holds a fundamentally opposing approach, they will often conclude on their own that the organization is not the right fit for them.
• Third: Lawful OSINT (Open Source Intelligence). Generally, social media data is not necessary to assess a candidate’s professional qualifications. Therefore, an employer should not analyze private profiles solely to harvest information about a candidate’s personal life or views.

The situation differs, however, regarding publicly available information that is directly relevant to the position. Examples include a designer’s portfolio published on Instagram or professional, industry-specific posts shared on LinkedIn.

Nevertheless, if, while verifying a candidate’s professional profiles, we “incidentally” spot photos from a church service, an equality march, or an election night, we cannot utilize this information when making the hiring decision.

On the other hand, we can safely evaluate the candidate’s personal conduct, communication etiquette, and public behavior.