California: Language Discrimination Bill Approved by Committee

[Harold Schiffman]

Language Discrimination Bill Approved by Committee

California Political Desk
March 31, 2009

SACRAMENTO – While speaking one´s native language is protected in
cases of employment and housing under state law, such protections are
not extended to consumers under the state´s civil rights act. The
Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination within business
establishments, usually to protect patrons from not receiving service.
Currently, the Act prohibits business establishments from
discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or
sexual orientation. The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved
(3-2) legislation authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San
Mateo) to add the use of any language to the list of protections under
the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The issue stems from a proposed policy announced last summer by the
Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) to suspend players who do
not speak English. The LPGA later rescinded the proposal after
objections from Senator Yee and over 50 civil rights organizations.
"No one should be discriminated against simply for speaking their
language," said Yee. "SB 242 will rightfully add language to the list
of protected classes within California´s civil rights act." In
September of 2008, Senator Yee led an effort to oppose a
discriminatory policy by the LPGA which would have required players on
Tour to be proficient in English starting this year. Despite there
being no relevance to the sport, the LPGA claimed that it was
important for players to be able to interact with American media and
event sponsors. Ironically, many of the sponsors are international
companies and a number of the tournaments are not held in the United
States. No other professional sports league in the United States has
such a mandate.

"It is quite disheartening that in the 21st century any organization
would think such a policy is acceptable," said Yee. "With the passage
of SB 242 such discriminatory mandates will not only be unfair, but
illegal." Under SB 242, it would be a violation of state law for an
entity to adopt or enforce a policy that limits or prohibits the use
of any language in a business establishment, unless the language
restriction is justified by a business necessity and notification has
been provided of the circumstances at the time when the language
restriction is required and of the consequences.

A business necessity would be defined as "an overriding legitimate
business purpose for which all of the following are true: the language
restriction is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the
business; the language restriction effectively fulfills the business
purpose it is supposed to serve; and an alternative practice to the
language restriction that would accomplish the business purpose
equally well with a lesser discriminatory impact does not exist." SB
242 will now be considered by the entire Senate.

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/96695
--
**************************************
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)
*******************************************