There is an interesting case out of Green Bay, Wisconsin where Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. (WPI) is being sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for making English speaking a condition of employment. WPI was found by the EEOC to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from discrimination based on national origin. The company fired Hispanic and Asian employees on the basis of not speaking English in the workplace.
EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson stated that “Our experience at the EEOC has been that so-called ‘English only’ rules and requirements of English fluency are often employed to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable,. But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone. When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer’s business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin — and thus violates federal law.”
The EEOC said that the action was taken after relatively short interviews to judge the English ability of the employees. In 2009 the agency issued a controversial order making a workplace English rule illegal.
While clearly any threshold rule can be used for superficial and discriminatory ways, the Obama Administration seems to view English only rules as per se discriminatory as opposed to an “as applied” discriminatory practice. However, I could see legitimate reasons for a business to want a single language to be spoken by all employees from efficiency to safety concerns.
Here is the policy from the EEOC website:
The EEOC has stated that rules requiring employees to speak only English in the workplace violate the law unless they are reasonable necessary to the operation of the business.
A rule requiring employees to speak only English in the workplace at all times, including breaks and lunch time, will rarely be justified.
An English-only rule should be limited to the circumstances in which it is needed for the employer to operate safely or efficiently.
Circumstances in which an English-only rule may be justified include: communications with customers or coworkers who only speak English; emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety; cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency.
Even if there is a need for an English-only rule, an employer may not take disciplinary action against an employee for violating the rule unless the employer has notified workers about the rule and the consequences of violating it.
It seems to rule out the argument that a business generally functions more efficiency with a single language in use and that multiple languages can impede actions taken in emergency situations like workplace accidents.
What do you think?
Kudos: Michael Blott
Democrats want illegal aliens to have a path to citizenship because they tend to vote Democratic. Corporations want it because they will have a flush of workers willing to work for low wages. A tidal wave of immigration drives wages down. So it’s the job seekers who get hit the hardest. When we have 4 people competing for 1 job, why would you increase it to 8 people?
It is amusing when the administration “admits” they were blindsided by the crush of unaccompanied children flooding the border, and that it was their own policies that attracted them. Documents have been discovered last year asking for bids from contractors to deal with 65,000 unaccompanied children that were expected to cross the border this year. That number was double the figure from last year.
So they were not “blindsided.” They anticipated that their policies would cause this. They created a humanitarian crisis and then claimed the only humane response was to let them all stay. It’s all about the votes, now and in the future.
In Mexico, if you illegally immigrate, you get thrown in jail and deported. In the US, you get bussed to whatever your original destination was, and then you make a promise you don’t intend to keep to return for a hearing. 99% of illegals never show up for their court appointment.
People immigrate legally to the US each and every day, from countries around the world. And yet there are those naive enough to believe that Mexicans cross illegally because there is just no other way. And there are many people who feel it is unfair or somehow rude for our closest neighbor to follow immigration rules. Those rules are only for OTHER countries. People from El Salvador of COURSE have to follow the rules, but not MEXICO! And we have no right, apparently, to do background checks to keep out drug cartels, rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. Or to keep the quantities of good, hardworking people to levels that we can support and absorb without straining our resources.
First I want to know if the Obama administration is using the peoples money to sue anything and anybody that does not agree with the administration? Second, does congress of the people allow this behavior? Third, if they were true Americans holding American jobs, why have they not assimilated to America’s customs?
“In the first place, We should insist that if the immigrant Who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Words of: Theodore Roosevelt
http:Hwoody.typepad.comf
There are situations where inadequate expertise in a language, or numeracy, can be dangerous, such as in hospitals or medical concerns.
I think the Tower of Babble is applicable. A business has the right to demand a single language be spoken in the workplace. I speak Spanish, although I’m no longer fluent, and innumerable times I have observed Latinos gossiping about Caucasians right in front of them in Spanish. I also at one time was the only non-Chinese member of a group that worked in a lab. It was really annoying, but they would always break into Mandarin in meetings or in the lab. A business has the right to require employees to be able to communicate clearly and effectively. People despise being unable to communicate with an offshore phone tree support so much that it is a cliche. English-speaking technical support is actually a selling point.
Americans should be able to read the signs and communicate anywhere in the US, and yet there are many neighborhoods in which none of the signs are in English at all.
What kind of country discourages learning its language, or requiring it be spoken? The result will be the Balkanization of the country.
“What do you think?” – JT
Some of their work is floating in the ocean, ending up in our food chain.
The language they speak is less important than their products made from fossil fuels.
raff, My point is the EEOC has “crossed the line.” The “line” is for both parties, is it not?
“When Obama gets all of his illegals in here, he wants to make companies hire them.” Paul s I think the opposite ism true. Companies have been hiring illegals for years and paying themlow wages.
“a business generally functions more efficiency with a single language in use and that multiple languages can impede actions taken in emergency situations like workplace accidents.”
Agree for some types of business. In any manufacturing company, there can be serious safety issues when employees don’t understand how to properly use and maintain equipment. Is OSHA now going to require that all safety signage be written in Mandarin, Spanish, and every other language of immigrants?
I see no problem in having to speak English fluently enough to do the job and for emergencies. I once had a math teacher in college whose English was so bad we never understood him. Luckily his assignments were on the board and in the syllabus.
When Obama gets all of his illegals in here, he wants to make companies hire them.
First, I work in a position within the USG where fluency in English is an absolute must–it would be impossible to perform the work done by myself or any of my colleagues without that skill. So, I’m hoping no one is arguing that English fluency cannot be used as factor in hiring or firing people. Secondly, is there any objective evidence (local media reports?) that the company is letting people go for reasons that have nothing to do with their inability to do their jobs well due to poor fluency in English? Because, y’know, the current administration has zero credibility with me.
The lesson from the Tower of Babble (sic) was that inabilities to clearly communicate would lessen efficiencies and lead to massive tort litigation.
My guess here is that the above effort is probably more of a witch hunt or should I say discrimination hunt.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Why did the company hire these people if they didn’t have sufficient English speaking skills? I am taking a guess that someone has a burr under his/her saddle because some employees are speaking Spanish or other languages to keep the supervisors from knowing what they are saying. Just a guess from my experience.
Nick,
The job of the EEOC is to tell the private business when they have crossed the line. The EEOC policy listed by Prof. Turley seems reasonable.
Regardless of what rights an American citizen or resident may feel they have, if they cannot speak English in an English speaking workplace then they cannot function it this workplace and therefore have no right to work there. However, as these persons were working there and therefore must have been able to function in English, the problem appears to stem from their speaking a language they are more comfortable with, i.e. their native tongue, amongst themselves, either on break or chatting, or even regarding work.
This is a difficult situation as it may appear rude to some to be excluded from open conversation. A supervisor may feel remarks are being made but he or she cannot understand. The bottom line and the one that has been crossed, if indeed this is about using another language and not relying on another language, is that if a person can do a job they have a right to that job, what they speak in private should be their business. Courtesy and consideration could be taught in mandatory meetings on inter worker relations.
I find it rude when in a group two or more individuals break out by going on in their language. However, it may simply be two people working on understanding the just of the conversation taking place in English. Firing people or refusing people based on this is wrong. The most that should be done is to explain to them that it does create tension.
I am not sure they are requiring that English only be spoken during work or they must have a level of fluency in English. The former could be viewed as discrimination but a good argument could be made for work place efficiency and harmony. Companies can require an uniform. That would be discrimination to cultures that like sandals. The latter should be a no brainer for safety reasons alone. Fluency creeps in other ways. Increased costs during workers compensation injuries. The injured worker is entitled to an interpreter at all office visits. ($125 per hour with two hour minimum.) I wonder if there would have been a difference if the discrimination was during the hiring process and not the termination.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
In an English-speaking country, in the middle of the Midwest (most people say we speak English here), Obama thinks it should be illegal be require one’s employees to be able to speak English.
There is no valid reason for everyone to speak English at all times, including breaks. However, there is a valid reason (safety) for some key words/phrases to be understood by all. Also, a worker needs to understand his/her foreman/trainer, at least as to certain aspects involving safety. A while back, we were able to show in a litigation matter that a Spanish-speaking laborer whose work led to the construction damage/injury could not read the training manual nor could he understand the foreman. This led to a settlement of the matter since the opposition couldn’t defend defective work that was done in that manner due to the worker’s lack of understanding of the proper process. But I reiterate that this has to do with understanding the job, not interpersonal communication on break.
JT’s on a roll today. Fireworks must be good for the (blogging) soul.
I live in a state where Spanish-speaking people are ubiquitous. Many, many job ads include a requirement for the candidate to be bilingual (let’s ignore the fact that bilingual simply means that someone speaks two languages, not that he speaks Spanish), I will not be considered for any of these positions, so there is de facto discrimination being applied to me. And many of these job ads are for government positions, mostly local, but the EEOC never seems to find the time to investigate.
I came to the states for the first time when I was 18, so I have lived for many years in countries where I was either not completely fluent or not even particularly proficient in the local language.
It gets tiresome having to explain something to somebody who does not speak a language well. It gets expensive (cumulatively) when you are paying somebody by the hour and interactions take longer than with a proficient language speaker.
(Interactions with a non fluent speaker are by definition simplified – dumbed down – to a level that conveys what the person can understand – not necessarily what he needs to know. The potential for confusion and misunderstanding is high.)
It is incumbent on the “foreigner” to learn the language of the country where he has chosen to reside – courtesy, ambition, and intellectual curiosity alone would impel somebody to learn the local language.
I have experienced the frustration of half understanding – the situation where you “almost” get it, but have questions/doubts about the task. I was never as confident or competent in performing in that situation.
And then there is the issue of property rights. Our society is rightly against discrimination, so we guard against it.
But our society is also for property rights. When do we allow the government to trump our property rights in the name of fighting discrimination?
I need much more information. Obviously, this company hired these people. So, they had some knowledge of their language skills. I sense it was causing a rift. People can use speaking a foreign language as a wedge. I know enough Italian to understand snide comments about Americans in Italy. My son’s girlfriend is fluent in Spanish, and she has picked up on petty comments made in Spanish w/ the people not knowing she was fluent. Besides the possible safety and efficiency issues, people using foreign language to ridicule people w/ a sneer, knowing the victim doesn’t understand, can cause morale problems.
The macro issue here is this is the mindset of the Obama administration. Telling private business how to conduct their business. It is a direct result of this administration having the lowest % of people form the private sector. I am noticing them going to the private sector now that their tit is in a wringer on so many fronts. They hired the guy from P&G to fix the VA travesty. Too little, too late.
What do you think?
Emergency situations alone mandate common language. The hobbling of efficiency is a valid point and undue burden on the company.
Clearly, the Admin is the bully here as well as with the overreaching EPA decisions with ramifications ruining American farmers.