EMPLOYEE LAWSUITS CHALLENGE EMPLOYERS’ ENGLISH-ONLY POLICIES
Q: Earlier this month, two Latina workers filed a lawsuit against their former employers, accusing them of discrimination by forcing them to follow an English-only policy and creating a hostile work environment. What can you tell us about their allegations?
A: The plaintiffs sued their former employers, both of whom operated debt collection companies, in federal court in New Jersey, alleging that the companies discriminated against them by forcing them to follow a “speak-English-only” policy and by creating a hostile work environment that routinely included other employees making racist comments and mocking their Latina co-workers. They claim they were ridiculed and given warnings for speaking Spanish with Spanishspeaking credit card holders on whose accounts they were trying to collect, and that they were told they would be terminated if they continued to speak Spanish, despite the fact that their ability to speak Spanish was one of the reasons they were hired. The employees also allege they were given warnings for speaking Spanish among themselves.
Q: Are employers legally prohibited from adopting and enforcing an English-only policy for their workplaces?
A: No. Employers may adopt and enforce an Englishonly policy as long as the policy was not put in place for the purpose of discriminating against employees on the basis of their race or national origin, and the policies were adopted to further a legitimate business interest of the employer. It should be noted the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) strongly disfavors such policies and aggressively will scrutinize English-only policies if they’re challenged.
Q: Has the EEOC issued any guidance on how it will analyze language restrictions in the workplace?
A: Yes. In addition to earlier statements, the EEOC issued new guidance on national origin discrimination late last year that included some discussion of language requirements in the workplace. According to the EEOC, an employer should only make an employment decision based on an individual’s accent if the person’s accent “interferes materially with job performance.” To satisfy this standard, the EEOC states the employer must show that effectively speaking English is required to perform the job duties, and that the individual’s accent materially interferes with his or her ability to communicate in spoken English. Similarly, the EEOC guidance states that a workplace requirement for English fluency or proficiency is permissible only where it’s required for the effective performance of the specific position at issue.
Q: What standard has the EEOC offered for assessing English-only policies?
A: The EEOC guidance notes that an across-theboard requirement that employees speak only English at all times will be presumed to violate federal anti-discrimination laws. The guidance notes language-restrictive policies may be applied “only to those specific employment situations for which they’re needed to promote safe and efficient job performance or business operations.” Examples of situations in which business necessity would justify an English-only rule include the following: for communications with customers, co-workers, or supervisors who only speak English; in emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety; for cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency; and to enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with co-workers or customers. Additionally, employers must provide adequate notice of restrictive language policy, including effectively communicating the language policy to employees, as well as the consequences for violating that rule.