6 ms·

An interesting outcome of the GPDR! Does the author have any recourse? Can they sue?

by lordfoom 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago
For what? Someone's negative opinion of them?
- eivarv 7y ago
  Well, TFA opens with "Blacklisting at work has been illegal in the UK since 2010", but I guess it'd be hard to argue that what's described is bona fide blacklisting.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  For libel and slander, calling him stupid when he passed the exams set by the very examiner himself. Loss of earnings, etc. Also against the universities for breach of the blacklisting prohibitions in the employment act. Their lack of checks and balances against this informal blacklist has left them wide open to be sued.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    There's a wide gap between a blacklisting system and someone getting a bad recommendation from an advisor. I've met plenty of stupid people who can pass exams.
    - traderjane 7y ago
      But intervening on a test result makes you look suspicious and opens you to narrative about motivation.
    - rmellow 7y ago
      Exams are the formal yardstick here, and a serious institution should not subject itself to such a powerful and informal system that is completely unchallengeable and opaque as "your supervisor's secret opinion of you". If "stupid people" are passing these exams, maybe these are not good exams either. Finally, thinking in terms of "stupid people" also incorrectly frames intelligence as a scalar, is unhelpful and lacks descriptive power of how one's mental capacity falls short: Are they socially clueless? Are they forgetful? Are they not able to put in the mental work when it comes to answering questions?
  - jerf 7y ago
    That just gets you into a Catch-22... being seen suing previous employers and supervisors will make it even harder to get hired in that field, and possibly any other as well. If the person in question is not really unpleasant (and I don't know that they are not, but let's take it as given for a moment), my suggestion would be doing some strong networking. If you interact with people at conferences and are clearly not a bad person, then it's easier to defend yourself against the accusations by pointing out their variance with actual experience. In a perfect world, yeah, that work should not be necessary, but nobody's accused the world of being perfect in a long time. (Ironically, if you pull this off and manage to build a new reputation on your own, then you might actually be able to safely sue.)
    - zeveb 7y ago
      > being seen suing previous employers and supervisors will make it even harder to get hired in that field, and possibly any other as well. If you win enough in damages then you don't need to worry too much about earning in the future. No idea how likely that is, particularly after paying attorneys' fees.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - ghusbands 7y ago
        You seem to be assuming that money is the only goal, rather than, say, contributing in academia.
    - mattmanser 7y ago
      To an extent, but the private sector in the UK learnt a long time ago to simply refuse to give a reference instead of detailing their actual (disprovable) bad opinion. We're only hearing one side, but given his professional accomplishment of people using his textbook in Masters courses, this comes across as a personal vendetta. You don't say those sort of things about someone who clearly does have talent unless you want to cause harm.
- jsty 7y ago
  The UK has famously strict libel laws, and notably the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the truth of their defamatory speech. https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slander-laws https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Truths that caused harm (even justifiable harm) were still actionable. In Austria it's still illegal to make true comments that offend religion sensibilities.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Wasn't justification a different name for a truth defence?
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    I think there needs to be an act of publication for defamation law to be engaged though. It might be rather hard to argue that private emails reach that bar.
    - jsty 7y ago
      I'd note that the relevant definition of publish isn't the common-sense use (i.e. make available publicly), but merely "the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person" [0]. Indeed the first link in my prior post specifically calls out defamation via private methods of communication (texting) as something that may be actionable. [0] http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporti...
      - ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
        It seems like the reform act of 2013 might make these comments in-bounds: Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion; that it indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; that an honest person could have held the opinion on any fact which existed when the statement was published, including any fact in a privileged statement that was pre-published. The defence is defeated if the claimant shows the defendant did not hold the opinion.
- kcseg 7y ago
  There is no concept of free speech in the EU; you can be sued for calling someone stupid, etc.
- nness 7y ago
  The author mentions their Aspergers; which means the content of those emails, such as comments like 'stupid,' could be seen as coded discrimination. In nearly all of Europe, intellectual disabilities are a topic of non-discrimination legislation. Ignoring the legal arm-chairing; universities and colleges retaining staff who discriminate students based on intellectual disabilities could face down some bad PR.
  - mirages 7y ago
    In France (Law n°2018-493 of June 20, 2018 ) you are not permitted to make any race/illness/political/jugdment statement inside any database system (paper or eletronic) be it public or private
    - istjohn 7y ago
      I wouldn't think an email would be considered to be inside a "database system."
      - ape4 7y ago
        Not to us, but its info stored in a structured way so... maybe legally.
        Shivetya 7y ago
        I would hope not. How can one's demand for information supersede another persons right to privacy in their communications? So will this come down to any email which passes through an officially recognized organization, be it government or corporation or educational, as open to inspection and possible litigation? Talk about an Orwellian nightmare
        brokenmachine 7y ago
        You have it backwards. If the government/public corporations keep everything secret, that's the Orwellian nightmare. The person you are suggesting has the right to privacy is acting in an official capacity, paid for by public money. These are not personal emails. Just that fact that one person is bringing a litigation, is not a valid reason to mark everything top secret. If you make everything in the machinations of government secret, then these things (and much worse) will still happen, but there will be no transparency or recourse. That is the worst possible outcome.
- justin66 7y ago
  Literally the first words in the article: Blacklisting at work has been illegal in the UK since 2010
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    But what is the bar for blacklisting? If I don't like a colleague and someone asks me for my opinion on them, is it blacklisting for me to honestly share my opinion?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Sure, but now you have to support the idea that the person in the article was blacklisted. Getting a bad recommendation and getting blacklisted are not the same thing.
silveroriole 7y ago
Yes, I’m interested in the legal status of the remarks made about the author. Nothing seems outright discriminatory or illegal; there’s no law against calling people stupid and unpleasant, presumably. And since your PhD supervisor and examiner aren’t your employers, what laws would apply even regarding obviously discriminatory stuff said about you? Do they actually have any legal obligations to bring disciplinary action against someone who is just “unpleasant” before openly calling them unpleasant?
- matthewheath 7y ago
  The university would have obligations under the Equality Act 2010 - it's possible the Aspergers could be considered a disability. The university wouldn't have an obligation to bring disciplinary proceedings against someone deemed "unpleasant" before calling them such - they would be required to follow their own internal process for raising a disciplinary case. It sounds like the threshold for a disciplinary case wasn't met in this case. In any event, these sorts of remarks are a grey area and any action to take depends entirely on the specific content of the communications. It's not nice to be called "unpleasant", but it's probably not libellous.
DanBC 7y ago
Not really. Defamation in England is not easy to sue for. The OP has to show that the statements were published, they are defamatory, and that the OP suffered serious harm as a result. It'd be for the publisher of the comments to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the comments were either truthful fair comment privileged Suing someone for defamation is expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
matthewheath 7y ago
Yes, they can sue – anyone can sue for anything, after all. Would they win? Maybe, but the cost would probably not be worth it and of course there's the reputational damage caused by being seen as someone willing to litigate against their employer / university, etc.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  At this point, they seem to be rather close to the bottom anyway. So their best option probably involves self-employment related to their field of study. A settlement can go a long way towards financing their endeavor.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

An interesting outcome of the GPDR! Does the author have any recourse? Can they sue?

ceejayoz 7y ago

For what? Someone's negative opinion of them?

eivarv 7y ago
Well, TFA opens with "Blacklisting at work has been illegal in the UK since 2010", but I guess it'd be hard to argue that what's described is bona fide blacklisting.
mattmanser 7y ago
For libel and slander, calling him stupid when he passed the exams set by the very examiner himself. Loss of earnings, etc. Also against the universities for breach of the blacklisting prohibitions in the employment act. Their lack of checks and balances against this informal blacklist has left them wide open to be sued.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  There's a wide gap between a blacklisting system and someone getting a bad recommendation from an advisor. I've met plenty of stupid people who can pass exams.
  - traderjane 7y ago
    But intervening on a test result makes you look suspicious and opens you to narrative about motivation.
  - rmellow 7y ago
    Exams are the formal yardstick here, and a serious institution should not subject itself to such a powerful and informal system that is completely unchallengeable and opaque as "your supervisor's secret opinion of you". If "stupid people" are passing these exams, maybe these are not good exams either. Finally, thinking in terms of "stupid people" also incorrectly frames intelligence as a scalar, is unhelpful and lacks descriptive power of how one's mental capacity falls short: Are they socially clueless? Are they forgetful? Are they not able to put in the mental work when it comes to answering questions?
- jerf 7y ago
  That just gets you into a Catch-22... being seen suing previous employers and supervisors will make it even harder to get hired in that field, and possibly any other as well. If the person in question is not really unpleasant (and I don't know that they are not, but let's take it as given for a moment), my suggestion would be doing some strong networking. If you interact with people at conferences and are clearly not a bad person, then it's easier to defend yourself against the accusations by pointing out their variance with actual experience. In a perfect world, yeah, that work should not be necessary, but nobody's accused the world of being perfect in a long time. (Ironically, if you pull this off and manage to build a new reputation on your own, then you might actually be able to safely sue.)
  - zeveb 7y ago
    > being seen suing previous employers and supervisors will make it even harder to get hired in that field, and possibly any other as well. If you win enough in damages then you don't need to worry too much about earning in the future. No idea how likely that is, particularly after paying attorneys' fees.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - ghusbands 7y ago
      You seem to be assuming that money is the only goal, rather than, say, contributing in academia.
  - mattmanser 7y ago
    To an extent, but the private sector in the UK learnt a long time ago to simply refuse to give a reference instead of detailing their actual (disprovable) bad opinion. We're only hearing one side, but given his professional accomplishment of people using his textbook in Masters courses, this comes across as a personal vendetta. You don't say those sort of things about someone who clearly does have talent unless you want to cause harm.
jsty 7y ago
The UK has famously strict libel laws, and notably the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the truth of their defamatory speech. https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slander-laws https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Truths that caused harm (even justifiable harm) were still actionable. In Austria it's still illegal to make true comments that offend religion sensibilities.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Wasn't justification a different name for a truth defence?
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  I think there needs to be an act of publication for defamation law to be engaged though. It might be rather hard to argue that private emails reach that bar.
  - jsty 7y ago
    I'd note that the relevant definition of publish isn't the common-sense use (i.e. make available publicly), but merely "the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person" [0]. Indeed the first link in my prior post specifically calls out defamation via private methods of communication (texting) as something that may be actionable. [0] http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporti...
    - ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
      It seems like the reform act of 2013 might make these comments in-bounds: Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion; that it indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; that an honest person could have held the opinion on any fact which existed when the statement was published, including any fact in a privileged statement that was pre-published. The defence is defeated if the claimant shows the defendant did not hold the opinion.
kcseg 7y ago
There is no concept of free speech in the EU; you can be sued for calling someone stupid, etc.
nness 7y ago
The author mentions their Aspergers; which means the content of those emails, such as comments like 'stupid,' could be seen as coded discrimination. In nearly all of Europe, intellectual disabilities are a topic of non-discrimination legislation. Ignoring the legal arm-chairing; universities and colleges retaining staff who discriminate students based on intellectual disabilities could face down some bad PR.
- mirages 7y ago
  In France (Law n°2018-493 of June 20, 2018 ) you are not permitted to make any race/illness/political/jugdment statement inside any database system (paper or eletronic) be it public or private
  - istjohn 7y ago
    I wouldn't think an email would be considered to be inside a "database system."
    - ape4 7y ago
      Not to us, but its info stored in a structured way so... maybe legally.
      - Shivetya 7y ago
        I would hope not. How can one's demand for information supersede another persons right to privacy in their communications? So will this come down to any email which passes through an officially recognized organization, be it government or corporation or educational, as open to inspection and possible litigation? Talk about an Orwellian nightmare
        brokenmachine 7y ago
        You have it backwards. If the government/public corporations keep everything secret, that's the Orwellian nightmare. The person you are suggesting has the right to privacy is acting in an official capacity, paid for by public money. These are not personal emails. Just that fact that one person is bringing a litigation, is not a valid reason to mark everything top secret. If you make everything in the machinations of government secret, then these things (and much worse) will still happen, but there will be no transparency or recourse. That is the worst possible outcome.
justin66 7y ago
Literally the first words in the article: Blacklisting at work has been illegal in the UK since 2010
- aidenn0 7y ago
  But what is the bar for blacklisting? If I don't like a colleague and someone asks me for my opinion on them, is it blacklisting for me to honestly share my opinion?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Sure, but now you have to support the idea that the person in the article was blacklisted. Getting a bad recommendation and getting blacklisted are not the same thing.

silveroriole 7y ago

Yes, I’m interested in the legal status of the remarks made about the author. Nothing seems outright discriminatory or illegal; there’s no law against calling people stupid and unpleasant, presumably. And since your PhD supervisor and examiner aren’t your employers, what laws would apply even regarding obviously discriminatory stuff said about you? Do they actually have any legal obligations to bring disciplinary action against someone who is just “unpleasant” before openly calling them unpleasant?

matthewheath 7y ago
The university would have obligations under the Equality Act 2010 - it's possible the Aspergers could be considered a disability. The university wouldn't have an obligation to bring disciplinary proceedings against someone deemed "unpleasant" before calling them such - they would be required to follow their own internal process for raising a disciplinary case. It sounds like the threshold for a disciplinary case wasn't met in this case. In any event, these sorts of remarks are a grey area and any action to take depends entirely on the specific content of the communications. It's not nice to be called "unpleasant", but it's probably not libellous.

DanBC 7y ago

Not really. Defamation in England is not easy to sue for. The OP has to show that the statements were published, they are defamatory, and that the OP suffered serious harm as a result. It'd be for the publisher of the comments to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that the comments were either truthful fair comment privileged Suing someone for defamation is expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

matthewheath 7y ago

Yes, they can sue – anyone can sue for anything, after all. Would they win? Maybe, but the cost would probably not be worth it and of course there's the reputational damage caused by being seen as someone willing to litigate against their employer / university, etc.

mywittyname 7y ago
At this point, they seem to be rather close to the bottom anyway. So their best option probably involves self-employment related to their field of study. A settlement can go a long way towards financing their endeavor.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]