united-kingdom
How would companies judge an application with False Statement appearing on the first Page of search engines?
<p>Following the questions raised here, <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/70436/defamation-false-statement-involving-her?noredirect=1#comment146687_70436">Defamation - False statement involving HER</a>, and have the society viewing such statement (<a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/70455/how-todays-society-would-consider-a-statement-with-an-error-if-that-error-inclu">How todays society would consider a statement with an error, If that error included Her instead of Him?</a> ).</p>
<p>Bob is now looking for Job, business ventures and other opportunities to increase his income. However Bob do not get replies at all, Bob searches his name in search engines and come across the false statement appearing in the first page and is the first result.</p>
<p>In todays society How would companies see the false statement portraying Bob as &quot;beating her&quot; and as they don't have access to the original and true statement?</p>
<p>It would be worst for Bob? Why?</p>
<p>How would companies that Bob is applying for or negotiating with view Bob?</p>
<p>What would be Bob remedies?</p>

<p>In the other question, you stated that a newspaper printed a statement along the lines of &quot;Bob was convicted of assaulting a person by beating her&quot;. You assert that the gender is incorrect but the rest of the statement is true.</p>
<p>As I understand it, you are now asking if there would be any remedies against a company which chose not to hire Bob due to having seen the above statement. You've also asked how companies would be likely to view Bob, but I won't address that as that part of the question contains no legal content and is therefore off-topic for this site.</p>
<p>It is very unlikely that Bob would succeed in a claim against such a company. Remember, the statement is entirely correct apart from the victim's gender.</p>
<p>Bob could <em>try</em> to argue direct discrimination under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010</a> on the basis that he was treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Sex is a protected characteristic <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pursuant to section 4</a> and the courts have previously held that section 13(1) can refer to <em>another</em> person's protected characteristic, not just the characteristics of the person being discriminated against.</p>
<p>Bob's argument would be that the company refused him the job purely on the basis that the assault victim was female, and that they would have given Bob the job if the victim had been male.</p>
<p>My money would be on the defendant convincing the court that they refused you the job because of the assault generally and that the victim's gender was irrelevant.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: the Equality Act is a complex piece of legislation with many caveats and exceptions. The defendant may be able to defeat Bob's claim in ways that I haven't considered. Bob's lawyer would be able to give more detailed advice (which will probably consist of telling Bob not to waste his time).</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/australia" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;australia&#39;" rel="tag">australia</a></p>
<h2>Discrimination on the basis of a criminal record may be <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/human-rights-record-brochure" rel="nofollow noreferrer">unlawful</a></h2>
<p>Under the <em>Australian Human Rights Commission Act</em> an employer may only discriminate on the basis of a criminal record if it makes you unable to perform the 'inherent requirements of the job.</p>
<p>In some cases, this is prescribed by law: for example, a person convicted of fraud cannot work in banking or insurance and a person convicted of a sex crime cannot work with children. In other cases, the employer, if accused of discrimination on this basis must demonstrate how the particular conviction violates the 'inherent requirements.</p>
<p>For most jobs in most industries, one or more convictions for common assault would not disqualify the applicant. For example, a colleague and I had to produce our criminal records to get Classified clearance with the Royal Australian Navy. Mine was empty, his ran to two pages of common assaults and resisting arrest (all discharged i.e. he had served the sentence); we both got the clearance. The Navy was looking for crimes of greed: that is, were we likely to sell defence secrets.</p>
<p>However, there may be jobs where a common assault conviction may legitimately disqualify an applicant: policing, prison guard, working with victims of violence etc. There may also be circumstances where the gender of the victim is relevant: working in a woman's refuge for example.</p>
