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 “Commissionâ€) 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Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stated guidelines on this issue, which, in fact, the briefing report advises should be withdrawn.
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 week’s 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 they’re English-only policies, but the same rules could apply to any employer’s policy limiting the language employees may speak on the job.
'English Only' - Only for Business Necessity
Philadelphia landmark Geno’s 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.
What’s in a Name? Ninth Circuit Disagrees with Shakespeare.
Shakespeare didn't think names were important. In Romeo and Juliet, he observed “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The Ninth Circuit, however, disagrees with the Bard. In El-Hakem v. BJY, Inc., the court upheld a jury verdict against an engineering firm CEO who insisted on calling an Arab employee, Mamdouh El-Hakem, “Manny” and “Hank” despite El-Hakem’s strenuous objections over a period of almost a year.
Ninth Circuit Blocks Employer Inquiries into Employee Immigration Status (pdf).
When lawsuits are filed, parties usually engage in
pre-trial discovery seeking information about the other
party’s claims and defenses. The information gleaned
through discovery can position a lawsuit for a dispositive
motion, and often helps the parties reach settlements.
