<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=UTF-8 http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Forwarding this from another list.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>AF</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=Forty8STITCHES@aol.com
href="mailto:Forty8STITCHES@aol.com">Forty8STITCHES@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=edling@ccat.sas.upenn.edu
href="mailto:edling@ccat.sas.upenn.edu">edling@ccat.sas.upenn.edu</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 14, 2003 10:11 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> English-Only Rules</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thought that you'd find this interesting.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--Chris</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=articleText><FONT lang=0 face=Verdana size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><B>Is It Discrimination?</B><BR>Imagine being banned from speaking
your native language at work. That's exactly what an increasing number of
employees are charging. But do English-only rules have merit? Some say yes, and
the courts may fall more on their side. <BR><B>What Do You Think?</B> <A
title=aol://1223:92056/aol://5863:126/mB:538919
href="aol://1223:92056/aol://5863:126/mB:538919">Post Thoughts</A> | <A
title=aol://4344:3167.chatspec.21077219.718231515/
href="aol://4344:3167.chatspec.21077219.718231515/">Chat</A><BR></P>
<P class=articleText><FONT lang=0 face=Verdana size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="14"><B>When the Boss Says English Only</B></FONT><BR><IMG title=""
alt="" src="http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_providers/42_article_logo"><BR>
<DIV class=smallText id=grayText>By Catherine Valenti</DIV>
<P></P>
<P class=articleText><FONT class=articleText>Dec. 11 — While she was working at
cosmetics store Sephora in New York City's Rockefeller Center, Leydis Rodriguez
says she was prohibited from speaking Spanish at all times.</P>
<P class=articleText>"We were not allowed to speak our native language on the
floor … and on our lunch break," she says.</P>
<P class=articleText>Rodriguez and four other women all say they were told to
speak English on the job, including during their breaks, and that managers
frequently mimicked their speech and accents.</P>
<P class=articleText>"I would feel really bad, angry at them, and discriminated
[against]," says Mariela Del Rosario, one of the women filing the suit.</P><!-- /PARAGRAPH OBJECT -->
<P class=articleText>When the store closed in August of 2002, Rodriguez and two
of the women who spoke out about the English-only rule say they were not offered
positions anywhere else in the company, and lost their jobs.</P>
<P class=articleText>Now the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing
Sephora on behalf of the women for instituting an "English-only" rule, which the
commission says violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a rule that
prohibits discrimination against workers based on their national origin, among
other factors.</P>
<P class=articleText>"Hispanics in particular were targeted here," says Raechel
L. Adams, trial attorney for the EEOC. "People working in Sephora in Rockefeller
Center in particular who spoke other languages were allowed to speak their
language all day long."</P>
<P class=articleText>For its part, Sephora says it does not tolerate
discrimination of any kind and that it considers the allegations by the EEOC to
be groundless and it will defend itself vigorously.</P>
<P class=articleText>"Furthermore, we do not have, and never have had, an
'English-only' rule in our workplace," said a company statement. "In fact,
Sephora encourages employees to use their foreign language skills to facilitate
client service."</P>
<P class=articleText>The Sephora lawsuit is just one of many cases popping up
across the country alleging that employers are prohibiting workers from speaking
their native language on the job. And with a rising number of non-English
speakers working in the service sector, experts expect there to be more.</P>
<P class=articleText><B>Demographics Fuel English-Only Rules</B></P>
<P class=articleText>The EEOC tracked 228 charges of English-only type of
discrimination in the workplace for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2002.
That's up significantly from the 91 cases the commission saw when it first
started tracking English-only cases in 1996.</P>
<P class=articleText>According to the latest census data, nearly one in five
people, or 47 million U.S. residents age 5 and older, speak a language other
than English at home, an increase of 15 million people since 1990. That dramatic
jump means that more and more employers are going to be faced with the question
of dealing with workers who speak another language on the job.</P><!-- /PARAGRAPH OBJECT -->
<P class=articleText>With the growing number of non-English speakers in the work
force, experts say many employers worry about workers using another language to
insult or harass others. They want to know what's being said in the
workplace.</P>
<P class=articleText>"From the employer's perspective, the employer is saying,
'I'm under pressure to make sure I don't discriminate … but I'm going to have
problems with productivity and collegiality if these groups go off and speak
their own language,' " says Merrick Rossein, a law professor who specializes in
workplace discrimination at the City University of New York's School of Law in
Queens.</P>
<P class=articleText><B>No Navajo on the Job</B></P>
<P class=articleText>A case in Page, Ariz., involves RD's Drive-In, a
family-owned restaurant that employs and serves many Navajo Indians. In June
2000, the owners decided to implement an English-only policy except for when
workers were waiting on people who didn't speak English. The restaurant's
owners, the Kidman family, said some of the workers were using offensive
language in their native tongue on the job.</P>
<P class=articleText>Workers were asked to sign a policy that said, "The owner
of this business can speak and understand only English. While the owner is
paying you as an employee, you are required to use English at all times. The
only exception is when the customer cannot understand English. If you feel
unable to comply with this requirement, you may find another job," according to
the EEOC.</P>
<P class=articleText>Four women who refused to sign the agreement say they were
fired, according to the EEOC, which is currently suing the restaurant. A lawyer
for the Kidman family says the women left of their own accord.</P>
<P class=articleText>The case is still ongoing, but the Kidmans are standing
firm in their case, saying that the use of abusive language in their restaurant
has stopped.</P>
<P class=articleText>"They feel like implementing that policy solved the
problem," says Joe Becker, a lawyer for the Mountain States Legal Foundation,
which is representing the family. "They don't acknowledge or recognize that
they've done anything that violates any laws."</P>
<P class=articleText><B>‘Undeclared War’ on English?</B></P>
<P class=articleText>Indeed, the legality of English-only policies is a subject
of great debate. While the EEOC says it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, supporters of English-only policies say that is a loose
interpretation of the act.</P>
<P class=articleText>"We find that the EEOC tries to give short shrift to those
legitimate business and management reasons for trying to implement an
English-only policy on the job," says K.C. McAlpin, executive director of
ProEnglish, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit group that promotes the use of
English as the country's official language and is helping the Kidman family to
defend themselves.</P>
<P class=articleText>"We call it their 'undeclared war on English,' " he adds.
"We think it puts employers between a rock and a hard place and it's also bad
social policy for the country at large."</P><!-- /PARAGRAPH OBJECT -->
<P class=articleText>Law professor Rossein says courts have generally sided in
favor of employers who have English-only policies for workers while they're on
the job, rather than those that ask that they speak English on breaks or at
lunch.</P>
<P class=articleText>He says many courts look to a case called Garcia vs. Gloor,
in which a man named Hector Garcia was fired by a company called Gloor Lumber
and Supply in Brownsville, Texas, for speaking Spanish with another employee in
violation of the company's policy. The Supreme Court refused to review a lower
court ruling that upheld the company's firing of the employee.</P>
<P class=articleText>"The courts have been very conservative in this area and
have not adopted the EEOC's guidelines," says Rossein. "The majority of the
cases side with the employer."</P>
<P class=articleText>Still, lawyers and representatives for the EEOC say they
will continue to fight English-only policies, and expect to see more cases in
the coming years.</P>
<P class=articleText>"When it gets to the point of impinging on someone's civil
rights and when it becomes discrimination against someone's culture and who he
or she is, it's illegal," says the EEOC trial lawyer Adams.</P>
<P class=articleText><A title=http://abcnews.go.com/
href="http://abcnews.go.com/">More From ABCNews</A></P>
<P class=articleText>
<DIV class=smallText id=grayText><I>Copyright 2003 ABC News. All rights
reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.</DIV></I>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P>12-11-03</P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>