For media
Three in four UK job seekers don’t know they may have a right to be rejected by a human
New Reject the Rejections campaign says if you’re going to be rejected, you may have the right to be rejected by a human — and hands job seekers the letter that makes employers answer
- 75% of job seekers don’t know that they may have a legal right to request a human review of an automated rejection — rights most employers are failing to honour, as only 28% of candidates received human review after requesting one
- 70% of ethnically diverse job seekers have altered or hidden something from their CV including their country of origin, faith and even their name out of fear software or AI assistants would reject them (vs 57% of white candidates)
- Only 15% of candidates have ever been told an automated system was used on their application
- 42% of job seekers have received identical or near-identical rejection emails from different employers, a sign the same software may be screening out the same people everywhere they apply
- People Like Us launches a powerful new short film starring Ebenezer Gyau (Black Mirror), built from real rejection lines received by job seekers and a free template so anyone rejected by a machine can demand answers
- The organisation calls for UK Government to ensure businesses declare use of automations in all job adverts and for annual independent reviews for bias — 82% say disclosure in job adverts should be required by law
London, 16 September 2026: New research from non-profit People Like Us and Censuswide reveals that automated hiring software now stands between UK jobseekers and work, rejecting candidates within minutes, sometimes before applications have even closed. The impact falls hardest on ethnic minority jobseekers. ‘Reject the Rejections’ is calling for greater checks and balances on the automation and AI tools reshaping recruitment. Used well, they serve a real purpose in managing huge volumes of applicants, but their use must be disclosed before candidates apply, accountable to a human when challenged, and independently audited for bias.
The survey of 2,000 UK job seekers found that 80% have been rejected in the past two years and of those, nearly three quarters (74%) suspect at least one rejection was generated automatically without a human reading their application. And they may never find out as just 15% of candidates say an employer has told them an automated system was used.
Ethnically diverse candidates are hit disproportionately as they apply for a third more roles than white counterparts, are rejected faster (41% within an hour of applying vs 32%), and are significantly more likely to remove elements of their identity from their CVs to get past automated systems (70% compared to 57%). Erasing parts of identity pre-dates automations and AI with decades of UK research on name bias demonstrating how this has been impacting workers, however automations add speed and scale and removes the person who could be asked why. The findings build on a recent substantial analysis of over 100,000 live graduate applications from UCL which reveal ethnic minority candidates are well represented in application pools for graduate roles but are disproportionately rejected at the initial screening and online testing stage of recruitment despite having similar qualifications. This suggests employer outreach efforts to diversify applicant pools have been successful while adverse impact during recruitment processes remains.
Key findings
An arms race nobody is winning
Over two-thirds of jobseekers (66%) have tried to ‘game’ recruitment software, 27% have used AI tools like ChatGPT to rewrite their CV to beat AI screening, and 13% have hidden keywords in white text. The average employer who is a member of the Institute of Student Employers receives around 140 applications per graduate vacancy, with both sides suspecting the other of using AI. The result is a vicious cycle: as AI-assisted applications inflate volumes, employers are forced to become more reliant on automations and hiring becomes a contest between machines, leaving real people caught in the middle. 31% have decided not to apply for a job they believed they were qualified for, because they suspected AI would screen them out anyway, rising to 39% of ethnic minority candidates.
Flying blind
28% of employers using automated screening don’t monitor whether outcomes differ by ethnicity or other protected characteristics. Of those who do, 82% found differences and 36% described them as meaningful. 30% of decision-makers don’t know, or aren’t sure how their own screening tool scores candidates and only around 35% of hiring decision-makers could identify each of the rights candidates already hold under UK Data Protection law.
Rejected at machine speed
34% of rejected candidates have been turned down within an hour with 9% within five minutes. 44% have been rejected before the deadline closed and 64% of UK jobseekers suspect they’ve been rejected without a person ever seeing their application. 81% agree that applying for jobs today feels like ‘trying to pass a test for a machine, not being seen as a person’.
The human cost
38% say rapid automated rejections knock their confidence, a third (34%) have been put off applying for other roles, and 8% have sought mental health support because of job rejections — this rises to 1 in 10 ethnic minority candidates. On average, jobseekers are ‘ghosted’, getting no reply at all on 35% of their applications.
Erasing identity to get through
60% of jobseekers have altered or hidden something on their CV out of fear of automated screening, rising to 70% of ethnic minority candidates, who are nearly three times more likely to remove their country of origin (14% vs 5%) and more than twice as likely to remove religious or cultural markers (14% vs 6%). 1 in 20 candidates have even changed their name.
The right to be rejected by a human
75% did not know they may have a legal right to request a human review of an automated rejection under UK Data Protection law. 42% have wanted to challenge a rejection but found no way to do it. Of those who did ask for a human review, only 28% got one.
Reject the Rejections
In response to the findings, People Like Us today launches Reject the Rejections, a national campaign to help make hiring more equitable. In addition to the research, the non-profit has released a short film directed by the critically acclaimed Amara Abbas and starring Ebenezer Gyau (Black Mirror, County Lines) who delivers a powerful spoken word piece where every rejection line delivered is from real rejection lines sent to real ethnic minority candidates.
Alongside the film, People Like Us has created a free email template developed with Planes Studio that any rejected candidate can send in just two clicks to ask whether an automation was used on their application and to exercise their right for a human review under existing UK Data Protection laws.
Ask of the Government
People Like Us calls on the UK Government to mandate disclosure of automated or AI-assisted screening in job adverts and identifies the upcoming Equality (Race and Disability) Bill as the vehicle: a bill establishing employer transparency on race at work is the natural home for transparency about how candidates are screened into work. The campaign further calls for mandatory independent bias audits of automated recruitment tools — a requirement New York has imposed since 2023. The public mandate is clear: 71% of jobseekers say independent audits would increase their confidence in automated recruitment, and 82% say disclosure in job adverts should be required by law.
“Employers aren’t the villains here, most resort to automations in good faith to cope with a surging volume of applicants, and four in ten did it believing they were reducing bias. However, good faith isn’t governance — when 82% of the employers who checked found outcomes vary by ethnicity, ‘we didn’t know’ stops being a defence. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill gives the Government the vehicle to make transparency the rule to enable fairer access to jobs for all. Automation has a clear role in managing surging application numbers — but checks and balances must keep recruitment equitable for all.”
“If your hiring software is rejecting ethnic minority talent simply because of their name or background, that could be discrimination. And arguing ‘the algo did it’ won’t save you in a tribunal. The law doesn’t care whether the bias is human or digital. Employers who outsource decision-making to machines don’t get to outsource accountability along with it.”
Ends
Notes to editors
About People Like Us
People Like Us is an award-winning not-for-profit championing ethnic minority talent and driving workplace equity across the UK. Since 2019, it has brought together thousands of professionals, delivered mentoring programmes, shaped industry conversations and pushed for legislative change. By connecting, developing and championing talent — and holding organisations and government to account — it is working to create genuine equity until workplaces reflect the world they serve.
About Censuswide
Censuswide is a member of the Market Research Society (MRS) and the British Polling Council (BPC), and a signatory of the Global Data Quality Pledge. We adhere to the MRS Code of Conduct and ESOMAR principles.
About the research methodology
The research was conducted by Censuswide, among a sample of 2000 UK workers or jobseekers who have applied to at least one job in the last 24 months with a minimum quota of 500 from minority ethnic backgrounds (Aged 18+). The data was collected between 11.08.2026 - 17.08.2026.
UCL’s research is cited as evidence of inequality in recruitment outcomes, the campaign’s policy recommendations are People Like Us’s own.
Press contact
For interviews, the full data tables or additional comment, contact the People Like Us press office.