Can company insist employees speak English on the job?

[Harold Schiffman]

Newsday.com
Can company insist employees speak English on the job?
Carrie Mason-Draffen

1:15 PM EST, November 16, 2007

DEAR CARRIE: My company recently instituted a policy requiring all new
hires to read and speak English. My question is this: Can the company
also insist that bilingual employees speak only English at work?

Those of us who aren't bilingual become frustrated because we have so
many bilingual co-workers who use Spanish on the job and we have no
idea what they are saying. Management says it can't insist on English
only. Most in my department, including the supervisor, speak Spanish,
with no regard for those of us sitting right next to him. The Spanish
speakers believe we must learn to speak their language to communicate
with them. But we feel they should make a greater effort to
communicate in the language of this country. Do not misunderstand me:
These are nice people, and I am friendly with many of them. I just
think it is horribly rude for them to speak Spanish among us. And I
think the company should put a stop to it. If the company won't do
anything, do we have any recourse? I'm sure I'm not the only person
with this question. English Please

DEAR ENGLISH: You're not the first person to delve into this area, but
your question stands out because the issue usually arises when a
supervisor demands that an employee speak only English on the job -- a
requirement that often lands a company in court. So the issue is a
tricky one for employers.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the federal statute that bans
discrimination on the basis of such things as race, gender and
national origin, permits English-only polices in limited
circumstances, says Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney in the New
York District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"As with any other workplace policy, an English-only rule must be
adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons," Grossman says.

For example, an English-only rule would be discriminatory and thus
unlawful, she says, if the company adopted it with the intent to
discriminate on the basis of national origin. Likewise, she says, such
a policy would be illegal if it permitted some foreign languages but
not others.

Even when a company has what appears to be a nondisciminatory policy,
its prohibition against foreign languages in the workplace must be
business-related, she says, adding that such a rule is justified by
"business necessity" if the company needs it to operate safely or
efficiently.

For example: A company could legally insist on an English-only rule
for communication with customers, co-workers or supervisors who speak
English only. Or it could insist on the policy in emergencies or other
situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote
safety. The policy would be legal if it enabled a supervisor who
speaks only English to monitor the performance of an employee whose
job duties require communication with co-workers or customers.

"In evaluating whether to adopt an English-only rule," Grossman says,
"an employer should weigh business justifications for the rule against
possible discriminatory effects of the rule."

That's why employers should keep in mind the English proficiency of
the affected workers. And before adopting such a policy, Grossman
says, a company should consider whether it has any alternatives that
would be "equally effective in promoting safety or efficiency."

I think you'll now understand why your company might not have acted on
your request to ban Spanish in the office. Unfortunately, it sounds as
if your employer didn't give you much of an explanation for its
reluctance to act.

Even though the company's hands may be tied, nothing should prevent
you from telling your co-workers how you feel when they speak only
Spanish around you. Tell them you feel self-conscious because you
don't know if they are gossiping about you. Perhaps they are simply
unaware of your concerns.

Copyright (c) 2007, Newsday
Inc.http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-bzdraffen1118,0,803803.column

**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************