|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
EMPLOYER ALERT: Your English-Only Rule Could Cost You a Bundle! Court holds that English-Only Rule Constitutes Discrimination based upon National Origin. A former long distance operator service is forced to pay over $700,000 in damages! Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division), held defendant Premier Operators Services, Inc., a former long distance operator service, liable for discriminating on the basis of national origin. This ruling was based upon Premier's enforced ban on the speaking of any language other than English at all times in the workplace, including lunch and other break times. The Court held that such corporate policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as it applies to employers hiring 15 or more employees). The Court's ruling gives credence to the Guidelines adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While not legally binding, EEOC Guidelines provide employers with guidance on how the Agency might rule on a particular case in the future. With regard to English-Only policies, EEOC Guidelines state: TITLE 29--LABOR PART 1606--GUIDELINES ON DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF NATIONAL ORIGIN--Table of Contents Sec. 1606.7 Speak-English-only rules. (a) When applied at all times. A rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace is a burdensome term and condition of employment. The primary language of an individual is often an essential national origin characteristic. Prohibiting employees at all times, in the workplace, from speaking their primary language or the language they speak most comfortably, disadvantages an individual's employment opportunities on the basis of national origin. It may also create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and intimidation based on national origin which could result in a discriminatory working environment. Therefore, the Commission will presume that such a rule violates Title VII and will closely scrutinize it. According to the EEOC, these Hispanic plaintiffs were initially hired for their ability to speak Spanish, seen as a business benefit to Premier. However, they were also told not to speak anything but English except to non-English speaking customers. The company also required these employees to sign a restrictive language policy but the employees refused. Failure to sign this policy resulted in the employee's dismissal. Discrimination charges were then filed with the EEOC. An EEOC September 19, 2000 press release concludes that the Court ruled against the defendant employer for the following reasons. First, the Court relied on expert testimony from a linguist who testified that "code switching", an unconscious habit of bilingual individuals who switch from one language to another, makes it extremely difficult to suppress one's primary language. Second, the Court rejected the employer's argument that the policy was intended to promote employee harmony. Instead, the Court found that the policy produced the exact opposite in creating disruption in the workplace and feelings of alienation and inadequacy. Third, the company's restrictive language policy was posted on the employee entrance of the building alongside a warning that prohibited guns, knives or weapons of any kind. As noted in the EEOC release, the Court interpreted the employer conduct as 'implying a combined concern about the conduct of those persons who speak a language other than English and setting the scene for stigmatization'. The result for Premier was costly. Over $700,000 was awarded to 13 Hispanic plaintiffs in damages, including approximately $59,000 in lost wages and an additional $50,000 for compensatory and punitive damages (representing the maximum allowable recovery). According to the EEOC, this represents the largest monetary award ever obtained by the Agency in a lawsuit for English-only violations. While Premier represents the largest monetary award from a lawsuit, other companies have experienced losses due to out-of-court settlements. Just this month, the EEOC reached a $192,500 settlement in an English-only lawsuit against Illinois-based Watlow Batavia on behalf of eight Hispanic workers in its suburban Chicago plant. Last year the EEOC settled a $1.25 million lawsuit against American Seafoods Company for alleged discriminatory conditions imposed upon Vietnamese workers at sea. EEOC also reports that English-only charges are on the increase. Only 77 charges based on national origin discrimination were filed in Fiscal Year 1996. Over 365 charges have been brought since January, 2000 alone. (9/2000: Susan McComb) Online Resources on Discrimination based upon National Origin US EEOC: Facts about National Origin Discrimination US EEOC: Guidelines Regarding Discrimination based upon National Origin US EEOC Guidelines: English-Only Rules US EEOC: Court Speaks: English Only Rule Unlawful; Awards EEOC $700,000 for Hispanic Workers
Littler, Mendelson: National Origin Discrimination
Please note that the contents of this website do not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice, you will need to contact your attorney.
|
|
|
The Chamber provides this site on an 'as is' basis and does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the content contained herein nor its fitness for any particular purpose. Any information collected or maintained about users of the site will be treated according the the Privacy Policy of the Chamber with respect to its online services. | ||
