Use of “English-Only” Policies is Subject of Disagreement Between Governmental Agencies
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) has posted a report which recommends that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) modify its position that the use of “English-only” policies is a presumptive violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See EEOC’s guideline at 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7 (2010). This report sets up an interesting dichotomy in the analysis of such policies by two governmental agencies, both of which ostensibly were formed primarily to insure civil rights.
Use of "English-only" policies is subject of disagreement between governmental agencies.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) has posted a report which recommends that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) modify its position that the use of “English-only” policies is a presumptive violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See EEOC’s guideline at 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7 (2010). This report sets up an interesting dichotomy in the analysis of such policies by two governmental agencies, both of which ostensibly were formed primarily to insure civil rights.
USCCR Briefing Report Recommends Scrapping EEOC Guidelines on English-Only Policies
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (“USCCR” or “Commission”) has issued a briefing report – English Only Policies in the Workplace (pdf) – recommending that an employer’s English-only policy be deemed unlawful only if such policies are enacted to harass, embarrass, or exclude employees and/or applicants based on their national origin. The report also suggests that Congress amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to clarify the meaning of discrimination on the basis of national origin. This recommendation runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stated guidelines on this issue, which, in fact, the briefing report advises should be withdrawn.
Federal Court Rules EEOC Should Include Navajo Nation in Navajo Employment Preference Suit.
The Navajo Nation should be joined as a defendant in a case for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled. EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal, No. 06-17261 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010). The EEOC had sued a mining company for discrimination against non-Navajo Indians by maintaining an employment preference for Navajo workers. Avoiding any ruling on the merits of the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the EEOCs claims for injunctive relief should be allowed to proceed, but claims for damages should be dismissed. The case was returned to the district court for further proceedings.
New Arizona Immigration Law May Impact Workplaces Nationwide.
Arizona's new immigration law, enacted on April 23, makes it a state crime for anyone in the U.S. illegally to be in the state of Arizona, and it requires police to arrest anyone who cannot produce proof of U.S. citizenship or authorization to be in this country. Although this law reflects current federal immigration law, it has generated considerable controversy.
Free Speech and English-Only Policies in the Workplace.
Last weeks free speech ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case reminds us that employers, like educational institutions, have the right to regulate speech in the workplace. Private sector employers are unrestricted by the First Amendment, which applies only to government action. But there are legal restrictions applicable to private employers as well. One such restriction that is often misunderstood by employers is single-language policies. Usually theyre English-only policies, but the same rules could apply to any employers policy limiting the language employees may speak on the job.
'English Only' - Only for Business Necessity
Philadelphia landmark Genos Steaks has received a great deal of media attention since it posted a sign that reads, This is America. When ordering, please speak English.
Developing Law on English-Only Policies (pdf).
EEOC regulations prohibit blanket restrictions on the use
of languages in the workplace, and the agency has
targeted employers who impose broad English-only
policies. However, a narrowly drawn policy that requires
English to be spoken at certain times and/or in certain
areas is permissible if the employer can establish a
business necessity for the policy.
Court Allows Challenge To Citys "English-Only" Policy (Hospitality Industry) (pdf).
When the City of Altus, Oklahoma received a complaint
that non-Spanish-speaking employees could not
understand what was being said on the city radio because
employees were speaking Spanish, the city promulgated a
policy to address the situation. The policy, which generally
provided that all work related and business communications
be conducted in English, drew a lawsuit from eleven
Hispanic employees who were fluent in both English and
Spanish. The employees contended that the citys
English-only policy violated federal employment discrimination
laws and their First Amendment Rights.
Plaintiffs Entitled to Trial on Discrimination Claims Based on Employer's English-Only Policy.
The Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that several Hispanic plaintiffs should be permitted to go to trial on their claims that their employer's English-only policy violates federal antidiscrimination laws. See Maldonado v. City of Altus. In this case, the employer adopted a policy requiring employees to speak English in all work-related communications, except when necessary to communicate with a citizen in his or her native language because of the citizen's limited English skills. The policy exempted private conversations between co-workers that occur while on break or during lunch hours or before or after work hours, as long as city property is not used in the communication. The policy also exempted private communications between an employee and a family member so long as the communications are limited in time and not disruptive to the work environment.
