De facto and de jure are two different things. Mandatory is "De jure", when you say (for example), ”Surfing with the team every weekend is part of your contract. Otherwise, you will be let go.”
What I'm asking about is ”De facto”. If practically, you are letting go of people who can't or won't surf with you on the weekends because of ”culture fit issues”, surfing becomes a de facto (but not de jure) requirement of the job. And the reason I'm asking about it is that it has been mentioned as one of the four points related to letting this employee go. Otherwise, why is it even in the response? Notice that it is not part of the advertisement (which comes later, outside the points).
Not to mention that even if it's OK for people to not go surfing, there are still other issues that can arise from it. Like, say the surfing trips are because the CEO loves surfing, and part of the team goes on them and the other part doesn't. Now the CEO has to be extra vigilant about not giving preferential treatment to those that do go, because of having good feelings about them as his "surfing buddies."
What I'm asking about is ”De facto”. If practically, you are letting go of people who can't or won't surf with you on the weekends because of ”culture fit issues”, surfing becomes a de facto (but not de jure) requirement of the job. And the reason I'm asking about it is that it has been mentioned as one of the four points related to letting this employee go. Otherwise, why is it even in the response? Notice that it is not part of the advertisement (which comes later, outside the points).