Dear Littler: Offside at the Office? When World Cup Rivalries Cross the Line

Dear Littler: With the World Cup in full swing and Houston as one of many host cities, our office has turned into a daily “fan zone.” At first, it was fun: jerseys, team songs, and watch parties. But lately, some of the comments have shifted from playful to uncomfortable. Colleagues joke about certain countries being “lazy,” or say American workers are “soft” compared to others. I’ve even heard a supervisor say we should hire more foreign workers because they “work harder.”

Is this just harmless soccer talk or something employers should worry about?

—Concerned Referee

Dear Concerned Referee,

Like any good World Cup match, a little competitive spirit can energize a workplace, but when the commentary turns from spirited to stereotyping, employers’ human resources should start to hear their internal whistle blaring.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, national origin discrimination is not limited to overt exclusion. It includes treating employees unfavorably (or even favorably) because of where they come from, their ethnicity, accent, or perceived background. That means jokes, hiring preferences, or workplace policies tied to national origin can raise concerns, especially when they affect terms or conditions of employment. 

When the “Fan Zone” Becomes the Risk Zone

The examples you describe are not hypothetical cases. In fact, they align closely with what federal agencies are actively targeting:

• Comments about certain nationalities being “harder working” or “lazy.”
• Preferences for hiring workers from specific countries or visa categories.
• Workplace environments where repeated remarks create discomfort tied to ethnicity or origin.

Even when framed as World Cup banter, these comments could contribute to a hostile work environment if they are frequent or severe enough. 

And importantly for employers, what might start as casual commentary could be cited later as evidence of intent, particularly in hiring, promotion, or discipline decisions, as retaliation claims often outlive the underlying discrimination allegation. 

A Shift in Enforcement Priorities

Here’s where your question becomes especially timely. The current enforcement landscape has put national origin discrimination front and center, including in ways many employers have not historically emphasized.

In February 2025, the EEOC issued a press release explicitly highlighting “anti-American bias” as a form of unlawful national origin discrimination.¹ The guidance underscored national origin protections apply broadly and are not limited to traditionally recognized forms of discrimination. The agency’s guidance emphasized:  

• The law protects all workers, including U.S. citizens.
• Employers cannot justify decisions based on cost, perceived work ethic, or customer preference tied to national origin.

For example, earlier this year, an IT-staffing company settled for $313,420 (of which $255,420 was penalties) with the Department of Justice over allegations it preferred temporary H-1B visa holders in a recruiter-created job posting. While this violation occurred under the Immigration and Nationality Act, part of the settlement aligns with Title VII considerations of enhancing recruiting, hiring, and employment verification practices to prohibit discrimination based on national origin (and citizenship status). And while citizenship status is not a protected characteristic under Title VII, Title VII's prohibition on discrimination based on national origin encompasses characteristics related to a person's ancestry, ethnicity, place of birth, cultural background, and association with a particular national or ethnic group. Further, some state anti-discrimination statutes expressly prohibit discrimination based on citizenship status.

Federal agencies have gone further, signaling this is not just guidance, but an enforcement priority. 

What This Means for Employers

Think of this as a shift from reactive officiating to video-assisted refereeing. Workplace decisions that might once have gone unchallenged are now being reviewed more closely for signs of national origin discrimination, including preferences for foreign workers over U.S. workers. 

Employers should be especially mindful of:

• Hiring language: Job postings that reference nationality or visa preference;
• Workforce decisions: Assignments, pay, or layoffs disproportionately affecting one national origin group; or
• Culture risks: Jokes or ongoing commentary potentially supporting a hostile work environment claim.

Practical Takeaways: Playing Good Defense

For employers, the best defense remains a focus on the fundamentals: 

• Train managers to recognize national origin includes U.S. employees and not just foreign-born employees.
• Audit language in job postings and recruiting practices ensuring nondiscriminatory factors as the basis for employment decisions.
• Monitor workplace conversations during culturally charged events (like the World Cup).
• Apply policies consistently across all groups: no “star player exceptions.”
• Investigate complaints promptly, even when they arise from seemingly casual workplace banter.
• Document employment decisions using objective, job-related criteria rather than subjective impressions about work ethic, culture, or communication style.

Final Whistle

We can celebrate global diversity in a lawful manner. In soccer, the best referees are the ones going unnoticed, keeping the game fair for all players. In the workplace, the same principle applies.

When employers proactively set clear expectations, reinforce respectful conduct, and avoid national origin bias in any direction, they keep the game competitive and compliant.

Because in today’s enforcement climate, the real risk isn’t just a red card—it’s a lawsuit.