Is it discriminatory to reject a candidate who needs a visa?

The sponsorship system for Skilled Worker visas in UK may be viewed as quite onerous by some employers. Not only are there the unavoidable financial costs of associated fees, such as the Immigration Skills Charge, but there are also ongoing record-keeping and reporting obligations that sponsors must comply with in respect of both their wider organisation and their sponsored employees. For a business that does not yet have a sponsor licence, the prospect may be especially daunting – the process of applying for a sponsor licence can be quite tricky to get right, with licence application refusals and rejections hitting record highs.

An employer approached by a candidate who requires sponsorship as a Skilled Worker – whether because their current immigration permission is set to expire, or because they do not yet have a visa allowing them to work in the UK – may therefore be hesitant to employ them, given the financial and administrative consequences mentioned above.

Some employers might therefore presume that they can refuse a candidate simply because hiring them would necessitate sponsorship, perhaps citing the cost of doing so – or possibly go as far as to put a blanket statement on their website or in job application forms, confirming that they are not considering any candidates who would need to be sponsored.

But taking such an approach involves significant risk, as it is arguably discriminatory. In Osborne Clarke Services v Purohit, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that a law firm’s policy of not accepting training contract applications from non-EEA nationals, who would require work permits in order to work in the UK (this was prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, and therefore EEA nationals could still work in the UK without a work permit), was indirectly discriminatory on nationality grounds. Mere cost could not justify the policy, and the assessment of a candidate’s suitability should have been based on merit rather than whether they would require a work permit (a question that was necessarily linked to nationality).

This case predates the UK’s modern points-based immigration system, Skilled Worker visa and sponsorship requirements. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code echoes the EAT decision, setting out that: “Eligibility to work in the UK should be verified in the final stages of the selection process rather than at the application stage, to make sure the appointment is based on merit alone, and is not influenced by other factors… Employers… should not exclude potentially suitable candidates from the selection process.”

Does this mean that you have to hire a candidate who requires sponsorship if you want to avoid a claim of indirect discrimination? Thankfully, no! But it does mean that you should be careful in your approach. Here are a few of our top tips:

• Avoid stating on your website, in application forms, or elsewhere, that you will not sponsor work visas or that workers requiring sponsorship are ineligible for the role. This is likely to be discriminatory, as in the Purohit case.
• Judge candidates on their merits and ensure decisions are supported by evidence such as interview notes, assessment scores, and so on.
• If you are unable to identify reasons other than sponsorship to justify rejecting a candidate, then we would recommend that you seek legal advice. We will be able to guide you on whether you can justify your proposed approach, which is likely to require some rationale other than just pure cost.

This intersection between employment law and immigration practice is a complex and tricky area, and we would always recommend seeking legal advice on your recruitment processes if you have any questions or concerns.

One point to note is that the above may all be set to change. The Migration Advisory Committee’s (“MAC”) Review of Salary Requirements, published 17 December 2025, noted that “Many employers with sponsor licences are uncertain about their legal obligations towards job candidates who require sponsorship and are concerned that they could fall foul of employment and equality laws if they do not hire someone because the person requires a visa. The government should consider clarifying (either in guidance or regulations, as necessary), that employers are not obliged to sponsor and can choose to prioritise candidates who will not require sponsorship.”

The MAC’s comments could be read as suggesting that prioritising candidates who do not need sponsorship is an entirely lawful approach, which would not be accurate. We now wait to see whether the Government might act on the MAC’s recommendation and introduce legislation or guidance clarifying the law in this area.

If you have questions regarding your hiring practices or concerns regarding a particular candidate, or if you would like to learn more about sponsorship, please do get in touch at [email protected]