Is the requirement to have any type of degree or certain amount of years worked discriminatory? I am mostly curious about qualified candidates that cannot prove their skill, because they cannot get it to the interview. I'm a developer, but the question is not focused on IT. I've had two cases to be curious about this topic. One time I got a refusal to attend an interview from a recruiter, because I had 2.5 years' of experience with certain technology, but they searched for somebody with 3+ years. But in my opinion it does not even qualify the skill in that particular field, because one can work on side-project for 4 hours a week for 5 years with that technology: that is far less experience in comparison to somebody, who worked a full-time job, plus a part-time job, plus some courses for 2 years. Another case is I was refused an interview was because I haven't got a bachelor's degree. But on the other side, I have almost 4 years of employment in industry and chances are my qualification would probably suit the position. My guess is that some positions require a certain type of degree by law, but is it the case for all positions and does it even happens often? I'm residing in Ukraine and these were Ukrainian companies, but it is generally interesting about laws for such cases in different countries.
Yes. But it isn't illegal discrimination in many places. Laws against discrimination prevent the discrimination based on forbidden categories. Take the national Olympic team: They are allowed to discriminate based on athletic performance, obviously. They are allowed to discriminate based on gender. There are men's teams and women's teams, and men cannot simply apply for a slot on the women's team. They are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Discrimination based on a minimum age might be legal, discrimination based on a maximum age probably not. For an employer, it is legal in many places to discriminate based on (formal) qualifications, but not to discriminate based on sexual orientation or race. (It may be legal to discriminate based on nationality, however ...)
To my knowledge, using protected post nominal letters that are related to a professional organization, like M.D. or P.Eng. are enforced by state/provincial organizations that can take legal action against anyone using that title improperly. But with BA, BS, BBA, or others there is no organization that protects these, so what are the legal ramifications here? In the U.S., there is no generalized governmental regulation of degree quality. There are private accreditation bodies, and in some fields, a degree from an accredited institution from a body that the government recognizes as legitimate is necessary to obtain licensure. This said, using post-nominal letters for an undergraduate degree would be a &quot;yellow flag&quot; in the U.S. and is rarely done (and when done is probably most often done for a Bachelor of Fine Arts, BFA, which presents particularly tricky questions of what is a legitimate degree or institution). Likewise, one would need to distinguish between &quot;degree mill&quot; degrees and honorary degrees awarded by institutions to recognize someone's non-educational life achievements, rather than their earned degree work. More often, in the U.S., a degree would be listed only in a resume or website biography. Of course, this is strictly a matter of regional custom. In Tanzania, for example, it is common to use as many post-nominal letters are possible, often including post-nominal letters for a high school diploma and short certification classes (e.g. CPR training), as well as a primary professional certification, and it is common practice to include both a post-nominal professional certification and the degree qualifying one for it, rather than only the former as in the U.S. (e.g. &quot;J.D., Esq.&quot;, rather than merely &quot;Esq.&quot;) Would using the post-nominal letters, B.A. be illegal in anyway? If the person didn't actually get the degree from the degree mill, it would be fraud, but if they did get a degree, even from a dubious institution, it would be legal in the U.S. Note that this is just how the law happens to be right now. The U.S. Fair Trade Commission (FTC) or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), or a state deceptive trade practices act, could easily make it illegal to claim a degree from a degree mill without full disclosure that it is a degree mill (the law can't completely bar truthful speech under the 1st Amendment in the U.S.) by defining what sort of accreditation an institution must have to qualify to be described by an unexplained representation. Would it give legal grounds for firing? The vast majority of non-union, private sector, non-senior management employment in the U.S. (outside Montana) is employment at will. An employee at will can be fired at any time for any reason that is not a violation of a discrimination law (which this reason would not be). If an employee were in a protected class and alleged discriminatory firing based upon membership in that class, and the employer asserted that the diploma mill degree was the reason for firing, which on its face is non-discriminatory and not based upon a protected class, a finder of fact would have to determine if the diploma mill degree basis for firing was sincerely the reason that the employee was fired, or was merely a pretext for an actual illegal discriminatory reason. If it was the sincere reason for firing someone rather than a discriminatory reason, the employer would not have employment discrimination liability. The only ramification of firing someone without cause is that they are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, which someone fired for cause, or someone who voluntarily quits, is not entitled to receive. But the discovery that someone has a degree from a degree mill, while not illegal, might still be considered misleading enough to constitute good cause for firing, so unemployment eligibility if someone were fired for this reason in the U.S. (outside Montana which does not have employment at will and requires severance payments if someone if fired without sufficient grounds to do so) would be 50-50. Montana In Montana, in contrast, the Montana Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act passed in 1987 sets forth certain rights and remedies with respect to wrongful discharge. The act declares a discharge is wrongful for employees who would be employees at will in other states, only if: It was in retaliation for the employee’s refusal to violate public policy or for reporting a violation of public policy; The discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer’s probationary period of employment; or The employer violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy. An employee’s failure to adequately perform the task for which they were employed, an employee’s negligence to working lawfully, the employer’s company being dissolved or the interruption of business for any other reason are all lawful excuses for firing an employee. In Montana, for purposes of this statute: &quot;Good cause&quot; means reasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the employer's operation, or other legitimate business reason. The legal use of a lawful product by an individual off the employer's premises during nonworking hours is not a legitimate business reason, unless the employer acts within the provisions of 39-2-313(3) or (4). It isn't obvious if an employee representing that the employee has a degree mill diploma in an application that is not fully disclosed would or would not qualify &quot;good cause&quot; so it would be determined on a case by case basis under the relevant case law (if any). The remedy for wrongful discharge in Montana under the state act alone is a severance payment, rather than reinstatement or the greater damages awardable in a discrimination lawsuit. What about suing for damages against a consultant? Not clear what is being asked in this question. Who is the &quot;consultant&quot; in relation to whom? If the &quot;employee&quot; were actually an independent contractor (i.e. a &quot;consultant&quot;) for the &quot;employer&quot;, the &quot;employer&quot; would not have grounds to sue the independent contractor based upon the degree representation (if factually true, even though it was deceptive) and the independent contractor would probably have grounds to sue for breach of contract if fired for this reason (unless the contract has a termination without cause provision). An independent contractor fired without cause is not entitled to unemployment insurance in the U.S. in most cases, outside the pandemic specific unemployment program for gig workers. Also, the &quot;employer&quot; would be hard pressed to show damages from the misleading representation. Of course, there would also be exceptions. Under a variety of circumstances, when there are damages (e.g. if a client of the employer cancels its profitable contract with the employer upon learning that the employee providing high end consulting services to it had a degree from a degree mill) even a factually true statement that is misleading can be actionable. Among the circumstances where this can happen are: State deceptive trade practices act often raise a higher bar. Representations made to someone in a &quot;confidential relationship&quot; with the employee (e.g. a close relative, a parishioner at a church where the employee is a member of the clergy, a beneficiary of a trust where the employee is a trustee, etc.) are held to a higher standard. Representations made in connection with the sale of securities (e.g. stocks and bonds of a business sold to a passive investor, in which the employee's credentials are listed in a way that tends to mislead) are held to a higher standard. The employee actually knows that the employer has a misapprehension regarding where the employee got a degree (often degree mills have institution names that are confusingly similar to well respected colleges and universities) and fails to correct. For example, say that the employee got a bachelor of science in mathematics degree from &quot;Columbia College&quot; a for profit college in Aurora, Colorado, based upon three and a half years of &quot;life experience&quot; credit that wasn't even verified and three classes which 50 pages textbooks and an easy and short final exam with half a dozen basic high school level math questions each. But at an interview, the employer says, immediately after the employee names the institution from which the employee dot the degree, &quot;so how did you like living in Manhattan for four years&quot; (where the employee never lived, but where prestigious Columbia University is located). The employee might have a common law duty to disclose that the interviewer was confused. On the other hand, there is a &quot;shame on you, shame on me&quot; aspect to the law of misrepresentation, where the employer can be faulted for failure to exercise due diligence regarding a point that is material to the employer. Also, some sort of damages claim would be only authorized if the misleading statement was material. If the employee is a maid in a hotel, or flips burgers, it isn't material. If the employee is a management consultant who provides services on behalf of the employer, or a degree is listed as a job requirement in the posting for the position, it probably is material. If the &quot;consultant&quot; were the person who helped the employee get the degree mill degree, or advised the employee to use it, the employee would have grounds to sue the consultant only if the consultant engaged in some sort of deceptive trade practice or misrepresentation in marketing the degree mill degree. It isn't impossible that such a suit could prevail (often degree mills are misleading themselves to potential purchasers of degrees). But the OP has no facts that suggest this possibility and the degree mill probably has few assets from which a disgruntled consumer who prevails could collect. Also, the degree mill would have a credible defense that it didn't claim accreditation from an institution that didn't accredit it (if true, not that often degree mills create bogus accreditation organizations to endorse them), and that the employee was not justified in relying on the belief that a degree obtained without doing real college quality work for a nominal price would be treated the same as a degree from an ordinary college with a respected accreditation body. Comparative Law, In General Some countries are much less lax about claims of degrees than the U.S. For example, in Germany (and a number of neighboring central European countries like Austria and the Czech Republic) representations about degrees earned are highly regulated and it is usually both a crime and a tort to violate those regulations, and there have been a number of high profile cases of misrepresentations of this kind in business and among elected officials. This is in the context of an economy where almost every occupation (even, e.g., waiting tables in a restaurant in some places) requires a professional certification, regulation of business is more pervasive, and free speech protections are not as absolute. In the 19th century and early 20th century, U.S. and U.K. legal protections for employees were weaker, and regulation of fraud was even more lax than it is today, so the likelihood of a legal remedy for any party in this situation was even smaller. Many countries in the developing world have levels of economic regulation, in practice at least, similar to the U.S. and U.K. in the 19th century. Canada Canada doesn't have employment at will for non-management, non-union, private sector employees who have been employed for at least twelve months, so the &quot;unjust dismissal&quot; analysis or wrongful dismissal analysis there would be different. Federally regulated employers in Canada are subject to the &quot;unjust dismissal&quot; regimes below (which the grounds undefined for the most part and a reinstatement remedy possible), while other employees are entitled to remedies for wrongful dismissal (for which reinstatement is not a possible remedy). The federally regulated employees are: Air transportation Banks Grain elevators, feed and seed mills, feed warehouses and grain-seed cleaning plants First Nations Band Councils Most federal Crown corporations, for example, Canada Post Corporation Port services, marine shipping, ferries, tunnels, canals, bridges and pipelines (oil and gas) that cross international or provincial borders Radio and television broadcasting Railways that cross provincial or international borders and some short-line railways Road transportation services, including trucks and buses, that cross provincial or international borders Telecommunications, such as, telephone, internet, telegraph and cable systems Uranium mining and processing and atomic energy The Canadian Unjust Dismissal statute is as follows: Unjust Dismissal 240 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and 242(3.1), a person who has been dismissed and considers the dismissal to be unjust may make a complaint in writing to the Head if the employee (a) has completed 12 consecutive months of continuous employment by an employer; and (b) is not a member of a group of employees subject to a collective agreement. (1.1) A person shall not make a complaint under subsection (1) if they have made a complaint that is based on substantially the same facts under either subsection 246.1(1) or 247.99(1), unless that complaint has been withdrawn. (2) Subject to subsection (3), a complaint under subsection (1) shall be made within ninety days from the date on which the person making the complaint was dismissed. (3) The Head may extend the period set out in subsection (2) (a) if the Head is satisfied that a complaint was made in that period to a government official who had no authority to deal with the complaint but that the person making the complaint believed the official had that authority; or (b) in any circumstances that are prescribed by regulation. 241 (1) If an employer dismisses a person described in subsection 240(1), the person who was dismissed or the Head may make a request in writing to the employer to provide a written statement giving the reasons for the dismissal, and any employer who receives such a request must provide the person who made the request with such a statement within 15 days after the request is made. (2) On receipt of a complaint made under subsection 240(1), the Head must endeavour to assist the parties to the complaint to settle the complaint. (3) If a complaint is not settled under subsection (2) within the period that the Head considers to be reasonable in the circumstances, the Head must, on the written request of the person who made the complaint that the complaint be referred to the Board, deliver to the Board the complaint made under subsection 240(1), any written statement giving the reasons for the dismissal provided under subsection (1) and any other statements or documents that the Head has that relate to the complaint. (4) If the person who made the complaint does not reply to a written communication from the Head within a period that the Head considers to be reasonable in the circumstances and a period of at least 30 days, or any longer period that may be prescribed by regulation, have elapsed from the day on which the complaint was made, the Head may give written notice to the person who made the complaint that they have the period of 30 days, or any longer period that may be prescribed by regulation, set out in the notice to make a written request that the complaint be referred to the Board. (5) Subject to the regulations, if the person who made the complaint does not, within the period set out in the notice, make a written request that the complaint be referred to the Board, the Head may deem the complaint to be withdrawn. 241.1 (1) If the Board is satisfied that the complainant must take measures before the Board may continue to deal with the complaint referred to it under subsection 241(3), it may, at any time, suspend consideration of the complaint, in whole or in part. (2) If the Board suspends consideration of a complaint, the Board shall notify the complainant in writing and specify in the notice (a) the measures that the complainant must take; and (b) the period within which they must take those measures. (3) The suspension ends when, in the Board’s opinion, the measures specified in the notice have been taken. 241.2 (1) The Board may reject a complaint referred to it under subsection 241(3), in whole or in part, (a) if the Board is satisfied that (i) the complaint is not within its jurisdiction, (ii) the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith, (iii) the complaint has been settled in writing between the employer and the complainant, (iv) there are other means available to the complainant to resolve the subject matter of the complaint that the Board considers should be pursued, or (v) the subject matter of the complaint has been adequately dealt with through recourse obtained before a court, tribunal, arbitrator or adjudicator; or (b) if consideration of the complaint was suspended under subsection 241.1(1) and if, in the Board’s opinion, the measures specified in the notice under subsection 241.1(2) were not taken within the specified period. (2) If the Board rejects a complaint, it shall notify the complainant in writing, with reasons. (3) Subject to subsection (3.1), the Board, after a complaint has been referred to it, shall (a) consider whether the dismissal of the person who made the complaint was unjust and render a decision thereon; and (b) send a copy of the decision with the reasons therefor to each party to the complaint and to the Minister. (3.1) No complaint shall be considered by the Board under subsection (3) in respect of a person if (a) that person has been laid off because of lack of work or because of the discontinuance of a function; or (b) a procedure for redress has been provided under Part I or Part II of this Act or under any other Act of Parliament. (4) If the Board decides under subsection (3) that a person has been unjustly dismissed, the Board may, by order, require the employer who dismissed the person to (a) pay the person compensation not exceeding the amount of money that is equivalent to the remuneration that would, but for the dismissal, have been paid by the employer to the person; (b) reinstate the person in his employ; and (c) do any other like thing that it is equitable to require the employer to do in order to remedy or counteract any consequence of the dismissal. 243 (1) Every order of the Board is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court. (2) No order shall be made, process entered or proceeding taken in any court, whether by way of injunction, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto or otherwise, to question, review, prohibit or restrain the Board in any proceedings under section 242. 244 (1) Any person affected by an order of the Board under subsection 242(4), or the Head on the request of such a person, may, after 14 days from the day on which the order is made, or from the day provided in the order for compliance, whichever is later, file in the Federal Court a copy of the order, exclusive of reasons. (2) On filing in the Federal Court under subsection (1), an order of the Board shall be registered in the Court and, when registered, has the same force and effect, and all proceedings may be taken in respect of it, as if the order were a judgment obtained in that Court. 245 For the purposes of this Division, the Governor in Council may make regulations (a) defining the absences from employment that shall be deemed not to have interrupted continuity of employment; (b) prescribing circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 240(3)(b); (c) prescribing periods for the purposes of subsection 241(4); (d) prescribing the circumstances under which a complaint is not to be deemed to be withdrawn under subsection 241(5); and (e) prescribing the conditions that are to be met before a complaint may be deemed to be withdrawn under subsection 241(5). 246 (1) No civil remedy of an employee against his employer is suspended or affected by sections 240 to 245. (2) Section 189 applies for the purposes of this Division. The statute itself is vague concerning what constitutes &quot;unjust dismissal&quot;. Apart from federally regulated employees, in Canada, a private sector employer who is not federally regulated has the right to terminate a non-union employee in one of two ways: a) for cause without notice (getting fired), without payment of a severance package. b) termination without cause, after giving the employee reasonable notice or payment of severance package. One of the main relevant statutes is Canada’s ESA (Employment Standards Act) (British Columbia's version is here). The operative section of the statute states: Liability resulting from length of service 63 (1)After 3 consecutive months of employment, the employer becomes liable to pay an employee an amount equal to one week's wages as compensation for length of service. (2)The employer's liability for compensation for length of service increases as follows: (a)after 12 consecutive months of employment, to an amount equal to 2 weeks' wages; (b)after 3 consecutive years of employment, to an amount equal to 3 weeks' wages plus one additional week's wages for each additional year of employment, to a maximum of 8 weeks' wages. (3)The liability is deemed to be discharged if the employee (a)is given written notice of termination as follows: (i)one week's notice after 3 consecutive months of employment; (ii)2 weeks' notice after 12 consecutive months of employment; (iii)3 weeks' notice after 3 consecutive years of employment, plus one additional week for each additional year of employment, to a maximum of 8 weeks' notice; (b)is given a combination of written notice under subsection (3) (a) and money equivalent to the amount the employer is liable to pay, or (c)terminates the employment, retires from employment, or is dismissed for just cause. (4)The amount the employer is liable to pay becomes payable on termination of the employment and is calculated by (a)totalling all the employee's weekly wages, at the regular wage, during the last 8 weeks in which the employee worked normal or average hours of work, (b)dividing the total by 8, and (c)multiplying the result by the number of weeks' wages the employer is liable to pay. (5)For the purpose of determining the termination date under this section, the employment of an employee who is laid off for more than a temporary layoff is deemed to have been terminated at the beginning of the layoff. (6)If, after 3 consecutive months of employment, an employee gives notice of termination to the employer and the employer terminates the employment during that notice period, the employer is liable to pay the employee an amount equal to the lesser of (a)an amount in money equal to the wages the employee would have earned for the remainder of the notice period, or (b)an amount in money equal to the amount the employer is liable to pay on termination. Like &quot;unjust dismissal&quot;, the term &quot;just cause&quot; for a dismissal is not well defined in the statute itself, although case law and regulations may provide further guidance. The act prohibits misleading statements by an employer in hiring, but doesn't expressly regulate misleading statements by an employee in hiring.
Does "in the course of providing services" mean "during the same time as providing services" or "for the purpose of providing services" or something else? I ask because I am a programmer who will be working on my own project during the same period as I am providing services to this Client, but after-hours and not for the same purpose or business. I want to make sure that what I create for myself I will own. The best definitions that come to mind off the cuff are "related to" and "in connection with", and both of those phrases appear in the same sentence, so that is quite close to the mark. Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition 1979) (from my hard copy edition) defines "in the course of employment" as follows (citation omitted): The phase "in the course of" employment, as used in worker's compensation acts, related to time, place and circumstances under which accident occurred, and means injury happened while worker was at work in his or her employer's service. Dictionary.com defines "in the course of" as: during the course of. In the process or progress of The best definition I gleaned from relevant case law is as follows: [A]n invention made or conceived in performing, or as a result of performing, the work required by a contract is made or conceived "in the course of" that contract. That would be true even though the invention was not specifically sought in the terms of the contract. An invention is made or conceived "under" a contract when it is made or conceived during the life of the contract and the invention is, in whole or in part, specifically provided for by that contract. Fitch v. Atomic Energy Commn., 491 F.2d 1392, 1395 (Cust. &amp; Pat. App. 1974). The law which forms the background against which the contract term in question is drafted is discussed in the following language from a Federal Circuit patent law case: The general rule is that an individual owns the patent rights to the subject matter of which he is an inventor, even though he conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his employment. There are two exceptions to this rule: first, an employer owns an employee's invention if the employee is a party to an express contract to that effect; second, where an employee is hired to invent something or solve a particular problem, the property of the invention related to this effort may belong to the employer. Both exceptions are firmly grounded in the principles of contract law that allow parties to freely structure their transactions and obtain the benefit of any bargains reached. Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A similar contact is applied in the case Greene v. Ablon, 794 F.3d 133, 142 (1st Cir. 2015), but the term was not defined or disputed in that case. This case is still useful, however, for purposes of seeing the kind of issues that are typically raised in a case like this one and to assure yourself that the contract probably is enforceable. For the purposes of this question, the difference between an employee and an independent contractor is immaterial.
This question concerns Dutch law. Specifically, the Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek (&quot;WHW&quot;) is applicable, as well as further rules seth forth by the Board of your university. Pursuant to Article 7.10(2) WHW, a degree is completed once all study elements (individual exams) of the degree program are graded/completed, insofar the examencommissie (Examination Board) has not called for an additional investigation into the knowledge, understanding and skills of the candidate. Once a degree is completed, the University Board must grant the candidate the applicable degree pursuant to Article 7.10a WHW (e.g. by declaring that you are now a Master of Science). Pursuant to Article 7.11(2) WHW, the examencommissie (Examination Board) must grant a diploma after completion of all study elements of the degree and after the University Board has declared that all procedural requirements for grant have been met. From Dutch parliamentiary history (Kamerstukken II 2008/09, 31 821, nr. 3, p. 57-58 (MvT)) (which is an authorative legal source for explaining provisions in Dutch legislation), it is clear that with &quot;procedural requirements&quot;, the lawmaker referred to obligations such as the payment of tuition fees. The University Board is allowed to make such procedural rules. Therefore, the University Board must grant you a degree if you have completed all ECTS, however the Examination Board may not grant the diploma if it deems that procedural requirments (different per university) were not met. It would thus be advisable to find out (via the university website) what these procedural requirements are. If you request the University Board in writing (ex Article 4:1 and further Algemene wet bestuursrecht (&quot;Awb&quot;)) to grant you the degree pursuant to Article 7.10a WHW and to make the declaration pursuant to Article 7.11(2) WHW, the University Board is obliged to make a written formal decision on your request, generally within 8 weeks at the most (ex 4:13(2) Awb). You have the right to appeal this decision before an administrative body. Please note that amicable setlement with the university is in any case preferable. If that doesn't work however, I would advise you to contact a Dutch lawyer.
Are all interview questions that don't apply to essential functions illegal? No. Not all such questions are illegal, but see one exception from California legislation as pointed out by @GeorgeWhite and others in section 432.7 of the state Labor Code. Other jurisdictions very likely have equivalent prohibitions, but questions like the one you envisioned ("What music do you like") would not infringe statutory provisions. Generally speaking, it is lawful for an employer to assess candidates' personality &amp; non-essential skills under casual and not-so-casual scenarios through the use of questions with no relevance to the job at issue. Only in very specific circumstances certain pattern(s) of questions may lead to a finding of harassment or discrimination. Questions related to categories which the Civil Rights Act protects are risky because a rejected candidate would have at least some grounds for a claim of discrimination. Those categories are [candidate's] race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Questions on those protected categories are not illegal, but the employer will have the burden of proving that its challenged practice (i.e., making seemingly discriminatory questions) "is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" (see 42 USC § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii)) rather than for purposes of unlawful discrimination.
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 &quot;editing, writing, or translation&quot; obviously requires language fluency. But unless a business can demonstrate that it is impossible for non-native speakers to achieve fluency comparable to native speakers needed for a particular position, demanding a specific native language would be demanding a particular national origin, and thus be an unlawful practice. According to 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2 It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; (emphasis added) The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has a page on &quot;Immigrants' Employment Rights under Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws&quot; which says: The law protects people against employment discrimination on the basis of their national origin. Following are some examples of employment discrimination based on national origin. ... Unlawful national origin discrimination may include discrimination because of a person's looks, customs, or language. ... Treating employees differently because they have a foreign accent is lawful only if accent materially interferes with being able to do the job. .... According to Nolo's page on &quot;Language and Accent Discrimination in the Workplace&quot;: A job requirement that an employee must be fluent in English is legal if fluency is required to effectively perform the position. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that interprets and enforces the laws prohibiting discrimination, has pointed out that the degree of fluency required varies from job to job, even within the same company. Therefore, blanket fluency requirements that apply equally to the customer service department and the warehouse workers might not be legal. According to Workplace Fairness's page on &quot;Language Discrimination&quot;: Language discrimination is a subset of national origin discrimination. Language discrimination refers to the unfair treatment of an individual based solely upon the characteristics of their speech; such as, accent, size of vocabulary, and syntax. It can also involve a person's ability or inability to use one language instead of another. Because language discrimination is a form of national origin discrimination, the same body of law prohibits it. ... Language discrimination is the unfair treatment of an individual solely because of their native language or other characteristics of speech, such as accent, size of vocabulary, and syntax. ... Some courts and government agencies have said that discrimination based on language is a form of national origin discrimination because primary language is closely related to the place a person comes from ... In &quot;What Recent Court Cases Indicate About English-Only Rules In The Workplace&quot; by Rosanna McCalipst (U. PA. JOURNAL OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW, volume 4 issue 2) it is said that: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that it is unlawful to discriminate in the terms or conditions of employment based on one's race, religion, sex or national origin. There are two ways a plaintiff can prevail. Either the plaintiff can prove disparate treatment, meaning the employer intentionally discriminated on the basis of one of the protected grounds, or disparate impact, meaning a seemingly neutral employment practice puts an undue burden on members of a protected class. ... The disparate impact analysis was first set out by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971). From that case and the decisions of various courts interpreting the holding, a burden shifting analysis has emerged. There are three steps to the analysis. First, the plaintiff must establish that the policy in question has a disparate impact on a protected class. Next the employer must defend the policy by proffering a legitimate business purpose for it. Last, the plaintiff can still prevail if it shows there is a less discriminatory method by which the legitimate business goal can be obtained. According to &quot;Avoiding Claims of Citizenship and National Origin Discrimination When Interviewing, Hiring, and Onboarding Foreign Workers&quot; by the Dickinson Wright law firm: National origin discrimination includes, but is not limited to, discrimination due to place of birth, country of origin, ancestry, native language, and may be based on a perception that the individual looks or sounds “foreign,” or any other national origin indicator. I should add that if an employer is using &quot;native&quot; simply to mean &quot;a very high level of fluency and skill with the language&quot; then such a requirement is not discriminatory under 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–2, and quite likely not under any US law. If the employer is using &quot;native&quot; to mean &quot;a very high level of fluency and skill obtained by learning the language as a young child&quot; then the case is less clear, and most of the precedents cited above will be of only limited significance at best. I could not find a case squarely on point where a requirement for a &quot;native speaker&quot; in either of these senses, or indeed in any sense, was challenged.
the company does have the right to "verify the eligibility of the person and terminate the service to the ineligible at any time" is pretty unambiguous. They have assessed your eligibility, determined you don't have one and have terminated the service. They are completely within their rights to do this. If you feel that they have assessed your eligibility wrongly then you can dispute their assessment - either through whatever dispute resolution is detailed in the contract or by going to court if the contract is silent. The fact that they previously assessed you as eligible (or didn't actually make an assessment) is irrelevant.
Read it carefully. "Work additional hours as required by the nature of your work assignments". Does the nature of your work assignments require additional work hours? That's very unlikely. It may be that your boss wants you to do three weeks work in two weeks, but it's not in the nature of your work assignments that they take two weeks. If it's three weeks of work, then it is actually in the nature of your work assignments that it takes three weeks. It may be in the nature of a work assignment that once it is started it must be finished quickly. For example if you are a plumber, it may very well be that once you start a job and unscrew the first screw, that job must be finished. In that case, you can't go home after 8 hours and leave a job unfinished which could be a major problem for your customer. Are you in a similar situation? If your company is too tight to hire enough people to do the job, and deadlines will be missed if people work 40 hours a week, that is not in the nature of your work assignment - it's because your company is too tight to hire enough people.