|
|
|
Printable version  |
"English Only" Rules
Can Lead to Litigation |
When your company's staff is culturally diverse, it may be tempting to require all employees to speak only English during work hours. After all, it might seem easier to promote unity and teamwork when everyone speaks the same language.
But is it legal? This is a confusing area, but one that is becoming increasingly important because the number of complaints being filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state agencies is on the
|
|
|
In the Words of the EEOC
"If an employer believes the English-only rule is critical for business purposes, employees have to be told when they must speak English and the consequences for violating the rule. Any negative employment decision based on breaking the English-only rule will be considered evidence of discrimination if the employer did not tell employees of the rule." | rise.
Background: There is no federal law that specifically prohibits employers from adopting an English-only policy. But the EEOC has a history of suing companies with such policies by invoking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin.
The EEOC requires compelling business reasons for English-only rules and arbitrary policies can lead to discrimination charges - especially if a company tries to enforce the rules during breaks or other off-duty time.
Relevant Cases
There have been a number of cases that help illustrate how employers should handle this issue. Here are four:
In 2009, a nursing home company agreed to pay up to $450,000 and provide remedial relief to a class of Hispanic employees who were subjected to an English-only rule.
The lawsuit arose after a janitor was fired from a California facility, operated by Skilled Healthcare Group, for violating the company policy of only speaking English. In contrast other employees at the nursing homes and assisted living facilities were not disciplined for speaking Tagalog, the language of people native to the Phillipines.
The EEOC identified 53 current and former Hispanic employees at the company's California and Texas facilities who were subject to disparate treatment and harassment based on their national origin and shared Spanish language. The EEOC alleged that the workers were prohibited from speaking Spanish in the parking lot while on breaks and from speaking Spanish to residents of the facility who spoke the language.
A cosmetics retailer insisted that its sales clerks had to speak English whenever customers were in its stores. The only time the employees were allowed to speak in foreign languages was when there were no customers present or when the clerks were on break or at lunch.
On the other hand, employees were permitted -- in fact, encouraged -- to speak to customers in languages other than English if the customers preferred to do so.
The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the retailer alleging that the policy was, in effect, discriminatory. But the district court in New York tossed out the case in 2005. It noted that speaking in non-English languages when customers are present has a negative impact on helpfulness, accessibility and approachability. Therefore, such a policy is justified for business reasons. (EEOC v. Sephora USA, No. 03-Civ- 8821, S.D.N.Y.)
The EEOC filed a lawsuit against an Arizona diner on behalf of Native American employees who were subjected to an English-only policy. According to the suit, the diner's management didn't allow employees to speak Navajo in the workplace and terminated them for refusing to sign an agreement to abide by the restrictive language policy. (EEOC v RD's Drive In, No. 02-Civ- 1911 PHX LOA)
The EEOC stated "this policy and its implementation was a form of national origin discrimination." It was imposed during employee break times and this notice was posted at the restaurant:
"The owner of this business can speak and understand only English. While the owner is paying you as an employee, you are required to use English at all times. The only exception is when the customer can not understand English. If you feel unable to comply with this requirement, you may find another job."
In another case, a private Texas university settled a class action suit for $2.44 million that was filed on behalf of 18 Hispanic housekeepers. According to the 2001 suit, the employees had to speak only English in the workplace at all times, including lunch and breaks, and were harassed if they violated the rule. "The workers complained that they had difficulty complying with the rule because they did not speak English or unconsciously lapsed into Spanish when conversing," the EEOC stated.
If your company is interested in having an English-only policy on its premises, proceed with caution. Before instituting language rules, consult with your human resources advisor and employment law attorney. Be aware that businesses that deal with the general public have more leeway to impose restraints. Some examples of rare instances when a company might be able to institute an English-only policy are when:
Customers are exclusively English-speaking.
Foreign languages create a hostile environment among employees.
Foreign languages make it impossible to ensure that safety rules are understood and applied.
Generally, reasons such as "more harmony" or "better company image" won't pass muster with federal regulators. To determine whether your English-only requirement is justified, ask these questions:
1. Is English language proficiency an essential function of the job?
2. Do customers require English-only contact?
3. Will the rule place an undue burden on employees whose first language is not English? Will it cause safety problems?
4. Is the English-only policy limited in scope? In other words, can employees speak in other languages on breaks and when it doesn't interfere with customer service?
There is a great deal of debate over the use of language in the U.S. But if you want to avoid the trouble and expense of litigation, seek professional advice before instituting an English-only policy.
For more information about this topic or about the Human Resources services offered by Stambaugh Ness, please contact Operations Manager Lois Ribner at 717-757-6999 or 800-745-8233. |
|
|
|
 |
Our firm provides the information in this e-newsletter for general guidance only, and does not constitute the provision of legal advice, tax advice, accounting services, investment advice, or professional consulting of any kind. The information provided herein should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional tax, accounting, legal, or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should consult a professional adviser who has been provided with all pertinent facts relevant to your particular situation. Tax articles in this e-newsletter are not intended to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding accuracy-related penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. The information is provided "as is," with no assurance or guarantee of completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
IRS Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any US tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code. |
|
|
Full Newsletter
