http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/15 Articles discussing national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:02:10 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11379 Article: 11379 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11339 Article: 11339 Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=11262 Article: 11262 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stated guidelines on this issue, which, in fact, the briefing report advises should be withdrawn. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=9552 Article: 9552 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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 EEOC�s 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=9361 Article: 9361 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6251 Article: 6251 Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=5073 Article: 5073 Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=5034 Article: 5034 Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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 city�s �English-only� policy violated federal employment discrimination laws and their First Amendment Rights. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=4877 Article: 4877 Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) 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. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=4750 Article: 4750 Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:00:00 EST webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) A federal court has ruled that an Afghanistan-born restaurant worker�s claim of national origin harassment was not unlawful because the employee could not prove that the harassment adversely affected his working conditions or that anyone in management was aware of the harassment.