Bengaluru
oi-Madhuri Adnal
A Bengaluru entrepreneur’s decision to stop hiring male candidates from four states has kicked off a heated discussion online, with people debating where workplace safety ends and discrimination begins.
Karthik SG, founder of A1 Sports World, announced on X that his company would not hire male candidates from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
Bengaluru entrepreneur Karthik SG of A1 Sports World stopped hiring men from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh following an employee’s alleged misconduct, sparking debate on workplace safety versus hiring discrimination.
He said the decision was taken after a “lengthy discussion and quarrel” within the company. Karthik also pointed out that a woman from Rajasthan already works at the company and said she supported the decision.
The entrepreneur later explained what had happened before the announcement.
According to Karthik, the company had recently fired a male employee from one of the four states. He alleged that the employee had behaved abusively towards female colleagues even after receiving two warnings. He also alleged that the employee had tried to force himself on one of the women.
Im sorry for this…
But today we have made it very clear after lengthy discussion and quarrel…
We will not hire any male candidates in our company who come from these 4 states in north india…
1. Uttar Pradesh.
2. Rajasthan.
3. Bihar.
4. Madhya Pradesh.We do have 1…
— Karthik SG (@kkarthikkgs) September 22, 2026
Karthik said the nature of his business made the issue particularly sensitive because the company works with young children.
“We work with quite young kids,” he wrote, saying the safety of his employees and the children they work with mattered more than the business.
He said the company has 32 employees, including 14 women. According to Karthik, 20 employees are from other states, including 12 from non-southern states. He also said people from different religious backgrounds work at the company.
Karthik said he would stand by the decision despite the criticism it had attracted.
He claimed the former employee had an MBA and had appeared to have a clean background when he was hired. According to him, the alleged behaviour surfaced only after the employee had spent around two months at the company.
‘Yes ill definitely standby this decision… he was an MBA graduate and resume and background looked clean…But after 2 months he started being abusive to female employees and also tried to force himself on one of them…For us our teams safety standards and the Young kids we work with is more important than running a business… We value human life… and respect one another,” he wrote.
Yes ill definitely standby this decision… he was an MBA graduate and resume and background looked clean…
But after 2 months he started being abusive to female employees and also tried to force himself on one of them…
For us our teams safety standards and the Young kids we… https://t.co/oUThLZAszu
— Karthik SG (@kkarthikkgs) September 23, 2026
The post did not take long to attract criticism. Some users said Karthik had every right to be concerned about the safety of his employees, but questioned whether the alleged actions of one employee could justify excluding male applicants from four entire states.
One user said the company should focus on screening individual candidates rather than treating an entire region as a hiring red flag.
Karthik pushed back, asking whether abusive behaviour would necessarily show up on a resume or even in a police background check.
Another user took a similar position but put the argument more bluntly. They said people should not be judged by where they were born and argued that the company should identify and act against individuals accused of misconduct rather than reject an entire group.
The user also warned that simply refusing to hire someone would not necessarily prevent problematic behaviour from appearing elsewhere.
A third user called the decision “ignorant” and “unprofessional”, arguing that recruitment should be based on a person’s qualifications and individual conduct.
The user said workplace safety should be taken seriously but questioned the logic of treating a person’s state of origin as a reason to reject their job application.
The discussion has since grown into a wider argument about hiring practices, background checks and workplace safety.
