Avoiding discrimination during recruitment checks

Recruitment checks should be applied consistently without assumptions based on nationality, accent, ethnicity or appearance. Explain the available right-to-work routes and assess the actual evidence while giving candidates a fair opportunity to complete a valid process.

Different lawful evidence routes do not justify a preference for one nationality. Train staff to escalate uncertainty and protect personal information.

Make the checking policy consistent from the outset

Right-to-work checks should form part of the recruitment process for all prospective employees, including British citizens. Selecting people for additional scrutiny because of an accent, surname, appearance or assumed nationality creates an avoidable discrimination risk. Set out the process in the recruitment policy and explain it neutrally to candidates. The Home Office guidance requires employers to prevent illegal working while avoiding unlawful discrimination. ^[1]

Consistency does not mean every person must produce an identical document. Different lawful routes exist, and some applicants cannot use the online share-code service. The useful standard is that each candidate receives a fair opportunity to demonstrate permission through an accepted route. Keep the assessment of competence separate from the administrative check, with a clear point at which the check must be completed before employment begins.

Offer the appropriate evidence routes

Train recruiters to identify the routes available rather than imposing a blanket passport or share-code demand. British and Irish citizens cannot obtain a right-to-work share code. An eligible digital identity service may be available for holders of valid British or Irish passports, while acceptable manual evidence provides another route. Other applicants may need the Home Office online service or verification through ECS. ^[1]

Explain what the employer needs in plain English and give the person a contact for questions. If someone cannot immediately provide the preferred evidence, ask whether another accepted route applies. Do not describe the person as uncooperative merely because they cannot use a particular technology. Our guide to Recruiting British and Irish citizens: check routes covers British and Irish evidence options and helps prevent a digital-only policy from excluding candidates unnecessarily.

Ask about permission without making assumptions

A recruiter can ask whether the candidate has the right to do the proposed work and whether sponsorship will be required. The questions should relate to the actual vacancy and be applied consistently. Avoid casual enquiries about birthplace, parents' nationality or how “British” a person appears. These do not replace the prescribed check and can introduce irrelevant personal information into the hiring decision.

Time-limited permission should be assessed accurately rather than treated as proof that a candidate cannot perform the role. Identify any work restrictions, the relevant dates and what the employer would need to do next. Where sponsorship is genuinely unavailable, explain the employer's position accurately without inventing a legal prohibition. Decisions involving an existing employee, an extension application or a disputed status record may require both employment and authorised immigration advice.

Give candidates a reasonable opportunity to resolve problems

Document errors, lost records and technical failures can affect people who are entitled to work. Establish a process for reviewing these cases rather than letting individual managers improvise. Record what evidence was requested, when the candidate responded and what remains unresolved. Distinguish an inability to complete a particular check from a conclusion that the individual has no right to work.

Any proposed withdrawal of an offer should be reviewed against the available evidence, the recruitment policy and the employer's legal obligations. Avoid automatic rejection rules based simply on nationality, a short remaining visa period or failure to produce a passport when another acceptable route exists. Explain the actual reason for the decision in a factual way. The employment-law framework differs across UK jurisdictions, so obtain advice appropriate to the location where the person will work.

Audit behaviour as well as completed forms

A file containing a document copy does not reveal whether candidates were treated fairly. Review which applicants were asked for evidence, which alternatives were offered, how long cases remained unresolved and who approved refusals. Look for patterns between teams or recruitment agencies. An audit can identify a manager who asks only overseas-sounding applicants for checks even when the central policy correctly covers everyone.

Use realistic training examples: a British citizen without a passport, a candidate with a changed surname and an employee awaiting a digital correction. Give managers a clear escalation route and discourage assumptions based on immigration terminology they do not understand. For support through Employer right-to-work process review, describe the hiring policy and specific point of concern. Any individual immigration advice must be provided by an appropriately regulated or otherwise legally authorised adviser, while employment decisions also require the appropriate employment-law expertise.

Maintain a short decision record showing the evidence route offered, any additional time or assistance considered, and the objective reason for the outcome. This makes the process easier to explain to a candidate and to review internally. It also helps distinguish a genuine legal restriction on the proposed work from an inconsistent local practice that the employer can correct.

Illustrative scenario

A recruiter initially asks only candidates with foreign-sounding names for documents. The employer replaces that practice with a consistent process for all prospective employees and trains the team on the permitted routes.

Preparation checklist

• Apply a consistent process
• Explain valid evidence routes
• Avoid nationality assumptions
• Record objective decisions