Prejudice is when you pre-judge someone without cause to do so.
If your entire decision to not hire someone is because of a circumstance that the person has no control over, and nothing that he/she has done wrong, then you're acting in a prejudiced manner.
That person may or may not have done anything wrong, but your decision to not hire him/her was determined solely by your conviction that there was wrongdoing without confirmation.
That's because you have a elastic and twisted definition of what is "wrong".
Contrary to you assertions, you don't need to do something illegal to do something wrong. Refusing to help in investigations that surround a gut-wrenching gang rape IS wrong. We know who offered help and who refused. There are people who helped and there are people who didn't. That's proven.
You seem to think only proven
illegal activity can cost you a job or a situation. It is not a the case. If you post on your public blog that you just went to Europe and found all men over there looked like revulsive wimps, or that you hope the US borders are reinforced because you find south americans are untrustworthy, you're bordering on forms of hate speech but probably not enough to be charged with anything in Canada.
However, an organization or employer is perfectly within their rights to consider that they do not want to associate with you in any way because they do not share those values. It's perfectly OK to suspend or ban players who bluntly refuse to help in sexual assault cases, until it can be made clear 100% that they had damn good reasons not to cooperate.
I think you should stop always focusing on legal matters in this terrible tragedy. Especially since it's obvious you're terrible at interpreting the law in general. It's been one reply after another of people who have had to correct how you minsinterpret everything. There is a limit to how much misinformation one can spread on such a topic.