Mr, W. applied for a job as an infographic. His candidacy was denied on the ground that he was a member of the family W., which, in the opinion of the recruiting company, was well-known to be a “dishonest” family. Mr. W. did not accept this rejection and demanded an indemnity for discrimination on the ground of social origin and birth. In her defence, the recruiting company raised the argument that belonging to a particular family is not a criterion protected by the anti-discrimination legislation, and that being part of a family does not fall under the criterion of ‘social origin of a person’. However, the Labourt Court ruled that Mr. W. had clearly been discriminated against on the basis of his family name and that a family name constitutes a ground which falls under the protected criterion of social origin and birth. As there was no legitimate goal for this direct discrimination, the Labour Court granted Mr. W. the legal indemnity of 6 months’ pay to be calculated on the basis of the salary which would have been connected to the job offer. This case is interesting as it rarely happens that the criterion of social origin and birth is invoked in cases related to discrimination.