Salvation Army Responds to Complaint from EEOC on English Only Policy

Sat May 19 14:53:17 UTC 2007

  <<Back <javascript: goBack()>    *Salvation Army Responds to Complaint
from EEOC on English Only Policy*

May 18, 2007 04:03 PM EDT

May 18, 2007 -- Salvation Army attorney Kevin Hensley has responded to the
complaint filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
against the Salvation Army.  In a complaint filed at the end of March the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says two Hispanic workers, one's
national original is the Dominican Republic, and the other's is El
Salvador) were subjected to discrimination by the Salvation Army "on the
basis of their national origin (Hispanic) by requiring them to comply with
Defendant's English-only rule, and terminating them because they failed to
comply with its proficiency requirement, spoke Spanish in the workplace and
were not fluent in speaking or understanding English."

The complaint says Dolores Escorbor and Maria Del Carmen Perdomo "both began
work at Defendant's thrift store in Framingham, Massachusetts in 1999.
Spanish is their native language and they both speak very little English."

In responding to the complaint Hensley denies the action is authorized and
instituted pursuant to sections of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991.
The response denies "that the EEOC is authorized to bring this action by
Title VII" of the United States Code.  Basically the answer by the
philanthropic agency is "The complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief can be granted," and says "The defendant claims a trial by jury."
The answer basically denies any "unlawful employment practices."

Regarding specific charges alleged in the EEOC complaint, the answers in the
court document filed Friday, May 18, 2007 are as follows:

   - Concerning the complaints statement that "At all relevant times,
   Defendant was an employer of Dolores Escorbor and Maria Del Carmen Perdomo,"
   the filing says  "The defendant can neither admit nor deny the allegations
   in this paragraph, because in the context of these allegations, the phrase
   'all relevant times' is too vague to permit a response."

   - Regarding a statement that "All conditions precedent to the
   institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled," the Salvation Army
   answers, "The defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to
   form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence."

   - The answer says the Salvation Army doesn't have knowledge or
   information "sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations"
   in a paragraph that discusses the national origin of the two workers.

   - The answer admits the workers began work at a thrift store in
   Framingham, Massachusetts in 1999 but takes issue with the statement,
   "Spanish is their native language and they both speak very little English,"
   from the complaint.  Hensely responds, "The defendant can neither admit nor
   deny the allegation in the second sentence because the phrase "very little
   English" is vague and undefined, except that the defendant admits that
   Spanish is the native language of both Escorbor and Perdomo."
   - Regarding the commendable work of the workers cited in the EEOC
   complaint - ""They both worked commendably and without incident for at least
   five years, relying on Spanish as their principal means of workplace
   communication in their jobs as clothes sorters," the answer from the
   charitable organization says, "The defendant can neither admit nor deny the
   allegation that Perdomo and Escorbar worked "commendably" because that term
   is vague and undefined. The defendant admits that there are no reported
   incidents in the employment files of Perdomo and Escorbar for the first five
   years of their employment, and admits that Perdomo and Escorbar relied on
   Spanish as their principal means of communication. The defendant denies that
   Perdomo and Escorbar worked exclusively as clothes sorters during the term
   of their employment."

   - *Regarding the question of the English language policy raised as
   follows in the EEOC filing - "In 2004, Defendant decided to enforce a
   written English language policy at the Framingham store, which it had not
   previously enforced while Escorbor and Perdomo had been employed.  It
   delayed enforcement of the policy for at least a year.  During this year,
   employees who could not speak English adequately were told they needed to
   learn English, even though learning English was not a part of the written
   English language policy and was unrelated to the jobs they had been
   performing since 1999," the answer responds as follows:*

 *"The first sentence and the second sentence are admitted.  The third
sentence is denied, except that the defendant admits that employees who
could not communicate in English were told that they needed to learn English
in order to obtain at least a working knowledge of spoken English, and that
all employees were given more than a year to demonstrate progress in
learning English, and that requiring employees to demonstrate progress in
learning English is not explicitly a part of its written English language
policy."*

   - The answer "denies as stated," the accusation that "On or about
   December 21, 2005, Defendant terminated both Escorbor and Perdomo for
   failing to learn English and for speaking Spanish. "

   - *The answer says "Denied as stated. The defendant terminated
   Escorbar and Perdomo on or about December 21, 2005, for violating the
   English language policy contained in the defendant's employee handbook, and
   for their failure to make a good-faith effort to acquire a better working
   knowledge of English."
   *

   - As to depriving the workers of equal employment opportunities stated
   as follows by the EEOC - "The effect of the practices complained of above
   has been to deprive Escorbor and Perdomo of equal employment opportunities
   and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their
   national origin, and to inflict emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment
   of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and inconvenience upon Escorbor and
   Perdomo,"  the Salvation Army simply states "Denied."

   - The EEOC stated, "The unlawful employment practices complained of
   above were intentional."  The Salvation Army answer says simply, "The
   defendant denies that there were any unlawful employment practices, and
   therefore denies the allegations in this paragraph."

   - The EEOC complaint went on to further say, "The unlawful employment
   practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless
   indifference to Escorbor's and Perdomo's federally protected rights."
   Hensley answers, ". The defendant denies that there were any unlawful
   employment practices, and therefore denies the allegations in this
   paragraph."

EEOC Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman had no comment regarding the
filing of Friday's answer.  The Salvation Army's attorney Kevin Hensley said
because the litigation is pending he was not able to comment beyond what was
filed in the answer.

Reported by:  Helen Hammons <hhammons at wsfa.com>
        <http://www.worldnow.com/>   All content (c) Copyright 2000 - 2007
WorldNow and WSFA, a Raycom Media Station <http://www.raycommedia.com/>.
All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy
Policy <http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?s=18990> and Terms of
Service<http://www.wsfa.com/global/story.asp?s=18991>
.

-- 
**************************************
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)
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20070519/7f622728/attachment.htm>