Protected characteristics and social media screening: avoiding bias
A social media profile tells a reviewer far more than an application form does, including things such as age, religion, disability, pregnancy and sexual orientation that equality law says must not affect who you hire. In Great Britain, the Equality Act 2010 protects nine characteristics, and section 39 says an employer must not discriminate in the arrangements it makes for deciding to whom to offer employment. Our view: a social media check is one of those arrangements. A reviewer cannot forget what they have seen, so the protection has to come from how the check is organised.
The Information Commission (ICO) says its draft recruitment guidance is under review following the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, but it gives the structure. It says: “The staff members who research the candidate’s social media profiles should not also make the recruitment decisions about them.” It also says you should ensure decision makers are not presented with irrelevant information about the candidate before they make their decision. Add written criteria, the same sources for every candidate, a chance for the candidate to comment and a record of reasons. Northern Ireland has its own equality law, which also protects political opinion.
The nine protected characteristics
Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 lists them. GOV.UK explains that race includes colour, nationality and ethnic or national origin. Section 10 says religion includes a lack of religion, and belief means any religious or philosophical belief, including a lack of belief. Our answer on protected characteristics covers the law more widely.
- age
- disability
- gender reassignment
- marriage and civil partnership
- pregnancy and maternity
- race
- religion or belief
- sex
- sexual orientation
Why social media exposes them
Photos, names, languages, groups joined, causes supported and family posts all carry signals. Much of this is also special category data; our main page on social media screening lists the categories.
The ICO says that inferring or guessing a candidate's race or ethnic background is processing special category information, whether the inference is correct or not. It also says that a candidate deliberately making such information public does not make it fair or lawful to use it for recruitment, because candidates are unlikely to expect it. A reviewer who never writes a characteristic down can still be influenced by it, which is why the decision maker should not see it at all.
Direct and indirect discrimination in a screening process
Section 13 defines direct discrimination as treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic than you treat or would treat others. Acas says it can still be discrimination even if the less favourable treatment was not intended. A reviewer marking down a candidate whose photos suggest they are older than the rest of the team is the obvious risk. Pregnancy has its own rule for work cases: section 18 says it is discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because of her pregnancy during the protected period, with no comparison needed.
Section 19 covers indirect discrimination: a provision, criterion or practice applied to everyone that puts people sharing a characteristic at a particular disadvantage, and which the employer cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Pregnancy and maternity are not among the characteristics listed for indirect discrimination. Our view: screening criteria such as "no posts in another language", "professional-looking photos" or "no gaps in online activity" are worth testing against this definition before you use them. The same applies to any software that scores profiles; the ICO says that if there is a risk of discrimination you must mitigate it or avoid using the software or algorithms.
Keep irrelevant detail away from the decision maker
The ICO's guidance on shortlisting applies the same principle to application forms: a designated member of staff should remove any irrelevant information before it is presented to the decision makers, which helps ensure decisions are not based on irrelevant information. Acas supports the idea from the equality side: ideally two or more people should choose who to interview, which reduces the risk of personal biases or unintended discrimination.
Our view: in practice the reviewer works from written criteria, records only findings that meet them, and sends the panel a short note giving the finding, the source, the date and the criterion it meets, with no screenshots of whole profiles and no profile links. Acas takes the same approach to equality monitoring forms: anyone involved in interviewing or deciding who to hire must not have access to them. Our example social media screening report shows what a filtered note can look like.
Northern Ireland
The Equality Act 2010 does not form part of the law of Northern Ireland, apart from a few listed provisions. nidirect lists the grounds protected there, which include religion or political opinion, and says it is against the law for an employer to discriminate because of religious or similar philosophical beliefs or political opinions. A claim about these grounds can be made at a Fair Employment Tribunal. The ICO's recruitment guidance names the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 among the laws that can give a legal basis for equality processing there.
Our view: for roles based in Northern Ireland, treat political opinion as a protected ground in your filtering, not just as special category data. nidirect notes one exclusion: a political opinion which includes approval or acceptance of the use of violence for political purposes in Northern Ireland is not protected.
Records to keep
Where checks raise discrepancies, the ICO says you should keep records of your decisions. It also says you must securely and permanently destroy vetting information as soon as reasonably practicable, though you could keep a record of the outcome and your decision. Candidates can make a subject access request for information you record at interview, such as interview notes, so write as if the candidate will read it.
- the documented risk and the written criteria, dated before the search
- who carried out the review and confirmation they were not on the panel
- the sources checked, the same for every candidate at that stage
- the filtered note sent to the panel
- the candidate's comments and how the panel took them into account
- the outcome and reasons, then destruction of the raw results
Human-review checklist
Use this before any finding reaches a decision maker. If any answer is no, the finding stays with the reviewer.
- Does the finding meet a criterion written before the search began?
- Is the criterion linked to a documented risk for this role?
- Have you removed anything that reveals or hints at a protected characteristic, political opinion or trade union membership?
- Would the same finding have been flagged for every other candidate checked at this stage?
- Are you confident the account belongs to the candidate, and is the content current?
- Has the candidate been told and given a chance to comment?
- Is the note to the panel limited to the finding, source, date and criterion?
Sources
- Equality Act 2010, section 4 · legislation.gov.uk
- Equality Act 2010, section 10 · legislation.gov.uk
- Equality Act 2010, section 13 · legislation.gov.uk
- Equality Act 2010, section 19 · legislation.gov.uk
- Equality Act 2010, section 39 · legislation.gov.uk
- Equality Act 2010, section 217 · legislation.gov.uk
- Discrimination: your rights · GOV.UK
- Pre-employment vetting of candidates · ICO
- Data protection and recruitment · ICO
- Shortlisting, testing, and interviewing candidates · ICO
- What is special category data? · ICO
- Discrimination and the Equality Act 2010 · Acas
- Following discrimination law · Acas
- Choosing who to interview · Acas
- Introduction to discrimination · nidirect
- Religious belief and political opinion discrimination · nidirect
General information for employers in the UK, not legal advice. HRjoy advises on screening policy and fair process. We do not run checks ourselves; where you need checks run, we can introduce you to our screening partners. Check the official sources for your situation.
Questions
Something else? Ask us.
Can we use a candidate's public posts about their disability if they chose to share them?
No, not to judge suitability. In the ICO's example of a retailer that finds a candidate's public blog about living with a disability, it says using that information to decide whether the candidate is suitable would be unfair. Acas also reminds employers that, under the Equality Act 2010, you must make reasonable adjustments for job applicants or interviewees if they are disabled.
Does blind review remove the risk entirely?
Our view: no, but it reduces it. The reviewer has still seen everything, so their choice of what to flag can be influenced. Written criteria, a second reviewer checking a sample, and asking the candidate to comment before anything is relied on all narrow the room for bias.
Can a protected characteristic ever be relevant?
Rarely. The ICO says that if you consider special category information significantly relevant to the role, you can use it fairly, for example by letting the candidate explain at interview. Acas lists narrow situations such as an occupational requirement. Neither is a reason to search for characteristics online.
Related checks
Guides
- What can social media screening legitimately flag? Which social media findings can fairly reach a UK hiring decision, which must be filtered out, and an illustrative criteria list to adapt.
- What a good social media screening report looks like A fictional, annotated social media screening report for a care worker role, showing what a UK employer should record at each step and why.
- Manual search or social media screening software? How a documented manual search compares with a specialist social media screening service on records, accuracy, privacy, automated decisions and contracts.
- Which social media platforms can employers screen? UK law does not list platforms. How public versus private information, purpose, relevance and consistency decide what an employer can look at.
Related answers
- What are the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010? The Equality Act 2010 lists nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. In Great Britain, employers must not discriminate against job applicants, workers or former workers because of any of them.
- How does the law protect religion or belief at work? Religion or belief is one of the nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. It covers any religion, any religious or philosophical belief, and having no religion or belief. Employers must not directly or indirectly discriminate, harass or victimise anyone because of it, and Acas says they should try to accommodate related requests where possible.
- What should employers consider when using AI in recruitment? Employers remain responsible under data protection and equality law when they use AI to source, screen or score candidates. The ICO expects a data protection impact assessment, a lawful basis, clear contracts with the provider, checks for bias, transparency with candidates and minimal data collection. Employers should also plan reasonable adjustments for disabled applicants.
- How should employers handle an employee subject access request? Employers should recognise the request, which can be made verbally or in writing, confirm the person's identity if needed, make a reasonable and proportionate search and respond without undue delay and within one month. Complex requests can be extended by up to two months. A fee usually cannot be charged, and information about other people may need redacting.