[asdfasvea]

Not trying to go ad hominem, but that's a very ignorant statement.

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.

[lwelyk]

Pregnant women are not supposed to drink.

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.

[peroxy]

You can go to the pub and order a non alcoholic drink.

[oliwarner]

Saying they won't get the job if they don't come out for drinks excludes (on characteristic) recovering alcoholics, pregnant women, and about a quarter of the world's population on religious grounds.

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.

[chronos00]

Religion is a protected class, and many religions don’t drink. If the reason they don’t drink is their religion, it isn’t a valid reason to state for not hiring them. Yes, most hr people in this case would use some other alternate reason that isn’t linked to the protected class.

[nickkell]

They could have had an orange juice

[DANmode]

> cant quickly come up with any protected class that is assigned as teetotalers

Religious or spiritual belief.