This question is hypothetical

Say, I was denied several Jobs because of my beliefs as a right wing nationalist. I have made some comments in the past with regards to certain groups (mostly on Immigrants and Muslims). I've deleted those comments and all my accounts but somehow these comments are archived somewhere which the Company HR has access to. I've also been a registered member of some right wing groups until today, and somehow my membership is known.

I recently knew about this when a company insider explained to me why my employment was denied. They say that they cannot take the risk of employing me. Their company had a significant number of non-native employees and clients.

I live in the State of California.


4 Answers 4


As a adult of sound mind, you are responsible for your actions.

Background checks for job applications are common place to determine suitability. The employers have the right (and responsibility) to choose what is in their best interest.

If through your previous and present actions, they come to the conclusion that you will become a liability to their interests, they will determine that you are not suitable for the position.

Not being suitable for a position is not a discrimination, but a determination of fact.

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.

The same is true for the employers.

They too have the obligation to act in

  • their own
  • that of their other employees
  • that of their clients


In cases where a judge comes to a conclusion that the rights of others are being impeaded, they will most likely decide for that party.

It is unlikely that a judge will assume that an individual is the center of the universe and that everyone else must revolve around that individual.

  • 1
    This is a truly ignorant and useless answer. "Not suitable for the position" is the same sort of "determination of fact" that white people have been using to engage in unlawful discrimination for centuries, and yet you're throwing it out there as though it's somehow legitimate: "Your honor, I/my employees/my clients wouldn't like working with a black woman, so that's not in their interests, and I'm just not going to hire her." "Sorry, black guy -- you're not the center of the universe. Judgment for Cracker Barrel." I am pleased to inform you that this is not how the law works.
    – bdb484
    Nov 14, 2020 at 6:57
  • 1
    @bdb484 And I'm pleased to inform your that if a qualified plumber applies for the position of qualified electrician, the plumber will be told they are not suitable for the position and no judge will determine that it was a case of discrimination. That is how the law works. Nov 14, 2020 at 11:22
  • 1
    Yes, you're of course allowed to discriminate based on the presence or absence of bona fide occupational qualifications. Personal beliefs are not BFOQs in virtually any employment context.
    – bdb484
    Nov 14, 2020 at 18:26

Political beliefs are not a protected class under either California or Federal law. A company is well within their rights to refuse to hire you for being racist.

  • Asking "How can I stop my racist views and associates getting in the way of applications would be an interesting Workplace question though. Nov 13, 2020 at 11:48
  • 1
    It seems tyhat under California Labor Code § 1101,, linked in another answer, political views are in effect a protected class. Aug 27, 2021 at 5:06

Under California Labor Code § 1101, businesses are generally prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of their political beliefs. As I understand it, neither the fact that you are a nationalist nor the fact that you are "right-wing" is a legitimate basis for declining to hire you.

It may be, though, that the type of comments you made -- assuming we're still talking about the racist rant you previously disclosed -- led the company to believe that whatever your political beliefs would be, you were incapable of aligning your behavior with professional standards -- specifically in terms of state and federal laws that prohibit creating a hostile work environment. If that's the case, they would have a stronger argument to defeat any discrimination claim you might bring.

Another possibility is that based on your racist comments, they just realized that you aren't very smart, and they rejected you because the job requires someone who is capable of higher-level reasoning than you. As far as I know, that's a lawful basis for rejecting an employment application.

  • 5
    I'm calling you racist because of your racist words and beliefs. I'm not stating a position on whether you should be discriminated against because of your racist words and beliefs -- just analyzing how such discrimination would be treated in the courts.
    – bdb484
    Nov 14, 2020 at 9:12

You cannot require that your views which make you an undesirable hire are ignored by the employers. You can, however, change your views (or the way you express them publicly) and then get the mentions of your past removed. There is no "right to be forgotten" in the US, but the case law could get you close enough:

any person living a life of rectitude has that right to happiness which includes a freedom from unnecessary attacks on his character, social standing or reputation.

Practically, you'll have to find out what source the HR is using to find the comments which you have deleted. Then you contact those sources and ask for the information about you to be removed. It may take a long time, and you may have to sue and prove that the information you're contesting (a) is no longer accurate and (b) results in harm to your social standing and reputation.

  • wow this is the best answer so far... all other answers are just about political correctness! Nov 17, 2020 at 18:24
  • 4
    (-1) For not mentioning that this right essentially doesn't exist in the United States. The right to be forgotten is the right to have private information about a person be removed from Internet searches and other directories under some . The concept has been discussed and put into practice in both the European Union (EU) and in Argentina since 2006. Nov 18, 2020 at 10:31
  • @MarkJohnson The absence of the law doesn't mean the topic starter can't sue. It just means they won't be able to base their argument on the statute, and instead will have to prove the information that is being distributed is no longer relevant and causes them excessive harm, perhaps referring to precedent cases. But it's a fair remark: in the EU the topic starter would just follow a standard procedure defined by GDRP's right of erasure. Nov 18, 2020 at 11:05
  • Your answer doesn't say that. It suggests a course of action that is correct for the European Union, but not for the United States (the jurasdiction of this question). It would be better to adapt your answer to make this clear, since the OP reaction seems to imply that this a solution for him (to contact those sources...), but as you stated it is not (he must sue these sources). Nov 18, 2020 at 11:19
  • Then there is the differences in cost. The first is free and the second, for each case, may swiftly exceed his expected yearly income. Only then could the OP judge if this a realistic solution for his situation. Nov 18, 2020 at 11:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .