24

Employment discrimination based on the initial or native language of a prospective employee is probably not lawful under US federal law. Requiring the English-language skills actually needed for a particular job is lawful. Doing "editing, writing, or translation" obviously requires language fluency. But unless a business can demonstrate that it is ...


13

This is a potentially litigatable matter under US employment law, where the outcome would hinge on what a "native speaker" is. One interpretation – a legally discriminatory one – of "Native speaker of Somali" is "a person born and raised in Somalia, who acquired Somali as their first language". This requires a specific national ...


7

They are setting that requirement in q very broken and illegal way - but their core goal is a legal one. Think about it: if you require employees to speak Navajo because you need that, that is lawful, even though it will have a strong tendency to select for certain Native American tribes (i.e. Navajo). An employer can require English language because it's ...


4

You are only responsible for the data that you collect or process, or data that you direct others to collect or process on your behalf. You are not responsible for the actions of third parties that may carry out incidental collection or processing that you have no control over - this includes such things as your ISP, backbone providers etc, but if you direct ...


4

Can Hacker Corp. claim that they acted in good faith, believing that the Permission to Attack was granted by someone from within the company who was allowed to grant such a permission? Unless ACME proves that Hacker knew or should have known that ACME's low-level employee had no authority to make the decision on behalf of ACME, Hacker ought to prevail on ...


3

It may depend on how strictly they interpret the term "native speaker". I would certainly have cause for complaint if they classified me as a non-native speaker of English, given that it has been my primary language since I was about 4. If they're using the term as a shorthand for a level of fluency in the language, rather than its literal meaning ...


3

Just because something is personal data doesn't mean you're prohibited from using/sharing/processing that personal data. You just need an Art 6 GDPR legal basis. Here, the copyright holder is offering you a contract: you're allowed to freely use that image, as long as you attribute them properly. Since this attribution is necessary for fulfilling the license ...


2

This is not a completely settled matter, but we can discuss some consequences and limitations. I will discuss legitimate interest, consent walls, and the special case of cookies. When legitimate interest is OK A legitimate interest is a great and very flexible legal basis. However, not every interest is a legitimate interest. Before this legal basis can be ...


2

Concerning the risk-based approach, the introduction says Certain particularly harmful AI practices are prohibited as contravening Union values, while specific restrictions and safeguards are proposed in relation to certain uses of remote biometric identification systems for the purpose of law enforcement. The proposal lays down a solid risk methodology to ...


2

Pactical Law's page on UK GDPR says: The UK GDPR is the retained EU law version of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) (EU GDPR) as it forms part of the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by virtue of section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and as amended by Schedule 1 to the Data Protection, Privacy and ...


2

Under GDPR article 6 paragraph 1 item (c) one lawful basis for processing personal information (PI) is: processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject; The obligation to attribute a reused work under a CC license is such an obligation. Moreover, the licensor has the option under any CC license to specify ...


2

While I'm unaware of any case law in the specific case of translators, one possible defense to an employer who hires only native speakers is that national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). BFOQ is an exemption to anti-discrimination law. The only scenario where I could imagine a BFOQ defense surviving a court challenge is in a ...


1

If the donors freely consent to such display, then obviously yes. If they do not consent there would need to be another lawful basis. It is not clear to me if "legitimate interest" would apply in such a case, and that is the only other basis that I can see as possible. It would probably be best if the group sought consent from donors, and simply ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible