Time period is a month.
Google translation:
The Regulation implementing Organic Law 15/1999, Article 29,
establishes that the person responsible within a month must
resolve the
request for access and communicate it to the interested party
http://www.lainformacion.com/politica/derechos-humanos/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_990801892.html.
http://www.telecinco.es/informativos/sociedad/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_2308950586.html.
https://okdiario.com/sociedad/2017/01/16/ex-miembros-testigos-jehova-acusan-organizacion-ocultar-ley-miles-casos-abusos-sexuales-menores-671613jehovah's witness members will report to the organization for failing to provide them with documents regarding child abuse.
Time period is a month.
Google translation:
The Regulation implementing Organic Law 15/1999, Article 29,
establishes that the person responsible within a month must
resolve the
request for access and communicate it to the interested party
http://www.lainformacion.com/politica/derechos-humanos/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_990801892.html.
http://www.telecinco.es/informativos/sociedad/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_2308950586.html.
https://okdiario.com/sociedad/2017/01/16/ex-miembros-testigos-jehova-acusan-organizacion-ocultar-ley-miles-casos-abusos-sexuales-menores-671613jehovah's witness members will report to the organization for failing to provide them with documents regarding child abuse.
Maybe sp74bb who is the individual involved in this matter will show up and explain the situation.
http://www.lainformacion.com/politica/derechos-humanos/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_990801892.html.
http://www.telecinco.es/informativos/sociedad/exmiembros-testigos-jehova-denunciaran-entregarles_0_2308950586.html.
https://okdiario.com/sociedad/2017/01/16/ex-miembros-testigos-jehova-acusan-organizacion-ocultar-ley-miles-casos-abusos-sexuales-menores-671613jehovah's witness members will report to the organization for failing to provide them with documents regarding child abuse.
Article 15. Right of access
1. The data subject shall have the right to request and obtain free of charge information
on his personal data subjected to processing, on the origin of such data and on their
communication or intended communication.
2. The information may be obtained by simply displaying the data for consultation or by
indicating the data subjected to processing in writing, or in a copy, fax or photocopy,
whether certified a true copy or not, in legible and intelligible form, and without using
keys or codes which require the use of specific devices.
3. The right of access referred to in this Article may be exercised only at intervals of not
less than twelve months, unless the data subject can prove a legitimate interest in
doing so, in which case it may be exercised before then.
background:.
my parents got the “truth” while i was in primary school.
i was baptised at 14. i loved school and was extremely studious.
Thanks
Another recommendation against sending the letter.
http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/mlgw-sued-for-religious-discrimination-harassment-retaliation/496547868.
news video included.
mlgw sued for religious discrimination, harassment & retaliation.
The law on this is very clear and is the same of all religions, when the case is deemed worthy of a suit the employee will prevail most of the time.
http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/mlgw-sued-for-religious-discrimination-harassment-retaliation/496547868.
news video included.
mlgw sued for religious discrimination, harassment & retaliation.
http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/mlgw-sued-for-religious-discrimination-harassment-retaliation/496547868.
news video included.
mlgw sued for religious discrimination, harassment & retaliation.
PRESS RELEASE
10-23-07
EEOC Wins Jury Verdict for Two Fired Customer Service Technicians
JONESBORO, Ark. – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a favorable jury verdict of $756,000 in a religious discrimination lawsuit brought against AT&T Inc. on behalf of two male customer service technicians who were suspended and fired for attending a Jehovah’s Witnesses Convention.
The jury of nine women and three men awarded the two former employees, Jose Gonzalez and Glenn Owen (brothers-in-law), $296,000 in back pay and $460,000 in compensatory damages under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. During the four-day trial, the jury heard evidence that both men had submitted written requests to their manager in January 2005 for one day of leave to attend a religious observance that was scheduled for Friday, July 15, to Sunday, July 17, 2005. Both men testified that they had sincerely held religious beliefs that required them to attend the convention each year. Both men had attended the convention every year throughout their employment with AT&T -- Gonzalez worked at the company for more than eight years and Owen was employed there for nearly six years.
Commenting on the case, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division (Case No. 3:06-cv-00176), before Judge Leon Holmes, former employee Joe Gonzalez said, “I am very pleased with the jury's verdict.” Glenn Owen added, “I'm glad that the justice system works and that the jury saw what was going on and corrected it.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs as long as this does not pose an undue hardship.
“In this case, AT&T forced Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Owen to choose between their religion and their job,” said Faye A. Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC Memphis District Office. “Title VII does not require that an employee make that choice in order to maintain gainful employment.”
EEOC supervisory Trial Attorney William Cash, Jr., who tried the case with agency attorney Darin Tuggle, said, “Protecting the rights of employees to be free from religious discrimination is an important part of the EEOC’s mission.”
Religious discrimination charge filings (allegations) reported to EEOC offices nationwide have substantially increased from 1,388 in Fiscal Year 1992 to 2,541 in FY 2006. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/mlgw-sued-for-religious-discrimination-harassment-retaliation/496547868.
news video included.
mlgw sued for religious discrimination, harassment & retaliation.
In the US on labor matters before starting a legal proceeding you have to get approval from the EEOC, the fact that they authorized his right to go forward is an indication that his case has some merit. Clearly the final determination will be made at the hearing, most of the time a settlement will be reached before that.
http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/mlgw-sued-for-religious-discrimination-harassment-retaliation/496547868.
news video included.
mlgw sued for religious discrimination, harassment & retaliation.
Please read, he has a good legal case:
1. Are employers required to accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees?
Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business). A religious practice may be sincerely held by an individual even if newly adopted, not consistently observed, or different from the commonly followed tenets of the individual's religion.
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/workplace_religious_accommodation.cfm
this you will never see on the mainstream media.
before you comment watch the whole video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqaigeqxqgi.
The US has a great deal of experience dealing with refugees, after WII they did it continually for almost 50 years. The admission rules were very strict, intense vetting and preferential treatment for families; unmarried males were placed at the bottom of the list.
From what I read it seems like in Europe they had admitted with no vetting a whole bunch of single, younger males; if after that they have no opportunity of holding a job you have a formula for disaster.