English-Only Rules

[Forty8STITCHES at AOL.COM]

Thought that you'd find this interesting.

--Chris

Is It Discrimination?
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. 
What Do You Think? Post Thoughts | Chat

When the Boss Says English Only


By Catherine Valenti
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.
"We were not allowed to speak our native language on the floor … and on our 
lunch break," she says.
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.
"I would feel really bad, angry at them, and discriminated [against]," says 
Mariela Del Rosario, one of the women filing the suit.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
Demographics Fuel English-Only Rules
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.
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.
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.
"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.
No Navajo on the Job
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.
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.
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.
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.
"They feel like implementing that policy solved the problem," says Joe Be
cker, 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."
‘Undeclared War’ on English?
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.
"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.
"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."
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.
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.
"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."
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.
"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.
More From ABCNews
Copyright 2003 ABC News.  All rights reserved. This material may not be 
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
12-11-03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/edling/attachments/20031214/c0b7b98b/attachment.htm>