I suspect discrimination at hiring — what now?
GDPR Art. 15 access to selection data + algorithms. Complaint to NL Human Rights Institute + ACM on AI screening. Evidence of profiling = stronger.
Discrimination at hiring falls under Dutch Equal Treatment Act (AWGB) + WGBL (age) + Wgbh/cz (disability/chronic) + GDPR on algorithmic screening. Suspicious indicators: notably fast rejection without interview, your ethnically recognisable name vs same-qualification rejection, biased interview questions (about marriage plans, children, religion), AI screening weighing "culture fit". Routes: (1) Access request (Art. 15 GDPR): ask employer for all data held on you + selection criteria + whether algorithm was used. letter generator. (2) If AI screening: GDPR Art. 22 prohibits automated decisions with legal effect without safeguards. Employer must offer human review + explain logic (Art. 13/15 + Recital 71). (3) NL Human Rights Institute complaint: non-binding but morally + civilly heavily weighted. Free. (4) ACM: on commercial AI-screening providers reproducing discriminatory patterns. (5) Civil court: damages claim. Burden of proof: on prima facie discrimination burden shifts to employer (Wgbm Art. 10). Note: also indirectly discriminatory criteria (postal-code screening, sports-club membership) count.
Step by step
GDPR Art. 15 access request
Specifically ask: criteria + AI use. generator.
On AI: Art. 22 + explanation request
Human review + explanation of algorithm.
NL Institute for Human Rights complaint
mensenrechten.nl. Free. 030-888 38 88.
AP complaint + civil damages claim
GDPR aspect AP, harm Art. 82 + AWGB.
Ready to act?
We'll draft the right letter for you
Personalised PDF · Send-ready · One-off €9,99
- ⚡ PDF in your inbox in 60 seconds
- 📄 BTW-compliant invoice included
- ↩️ 30-day fix-it guarantee
Sources
🔎 Common search variants
Recognise your own search? Our answer above covers these too.
- “hiring discrimination netherlands”
- “ai screening hiring”
- “gdpr hiring access”
- “human rights institute complaint”