Page, Arizona: English only (cont'd)

[Harold Schiffman]

English only here
Page, Ariz., restaurant sued for enacting 'no Navajo' language policy

By John Christian Hopkins
Diné Bureau

PAGE, Ariz. — Employees at RD's Drive-In restaurant are free to walk in
beauty — as long as they don't talk in Navajo while on the clock. Five years
ago, the Mom and Pop diner enacted a "No Navajo" policy after complaints
from some workers that other employees were degrading them in Navajo. Some
Navajo customers were also upset at hearing their language being misused,
said RD's Manager Steven Kidman. He runs the diner, which was started by his
parents — Richard and Shauna Kidman — more than two decades ago. Kidman
posted the new policy, believing it met guidelines set forth by the federal
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "I went online and researched it
myself," Kidman said.

By the Phoenix office of the EEOC took a different view and sued the Kidmans
for discriminating against Navajo-speaking employees. The restaurant's
policy singled out Navajo, said EEOC Attorney Patrick Lopez. Clumsy wording The
Kidmans are breathing a sigh of relief, believing the legal wrangling is
over, Kidman said. "It's not quite that simple," said EEOC Acting Regional
Attorney Mary Jo O'Neill. The original policy has since been rescinded, and
a new one has been submitted to the EEOC for review, Kidman said. The EEOC
was supposed to respond within five days, but "it's been weeks," Kidman
said.

He admitted that his original policy was poorly worded. The new policy is
better worded, having been drafted by professionals, Kidman noted. The EEOC
is still reviewing the new policy, Lopez said. The policy isn't the only
thing at issue — there's a question of whether the Kidman's agreed to a
settlement or not. The four employees who were plaintiffs in the case —
Roxanne Cahoon, Doretta Benally, Elva Begay, and Freda Douglas — accepted a
monetary settlement from RD's, Lopez said. "To our understanding, the money
has not been paid yet," he added. His family has no hard feelings against
the four women, Kidman said.
"They believe they were unfairly treated, and they had the right to
complain," Kidman said. "But the EEOC, they're crazy." One of the four women
involved in the suit doesn't even speak Navajo, Kidman said. "They were
looking all over for people to put in the case," he said.

Hot-button issue
"We believe this case was unique and important," Lopez said.

The Kidman's saw the EEOC's actions as heavy-handed — and possibly forcing
RD's out of business.

Arizona has long been at the forefront of nationwide efforts to make English
the country's official language. This case quickly garnered national
attention — with a New York Times editorial siding with the Navajo, while
other national publications supported the Kidmans.

ProEnglish, one of the nation's leading advocates for official English,
threw its support squarely behind the Kidmans, even helping to solicit
donations to pay the family's mounting legal bills.

Proponents of "English only" laws jumped on the case, misusing it for their
own political aims, Lopez said.

"Usually they target Spanish-speaking people, but this case had nothing to
do with Spanish," Lopez said.

The restaurant's goal was to serve up good manners while promoting a
pleasant dining environment, Kidman said.

There was nothing malicious, no anti-Navajo motives behind the policy, he
said.

Over the years, about 90 percent of RD's employees have been Navajo, as are
many of its customers, Kidman said.

The family has only respect for Navajo language and culture, but this was
simply a business decision, Kidman insisted.
Employees can still speak Navajo on their lunch breaks, or if customers
prefer it, Kidman said.

The issue is about small businesses "with common sense policies on language
in the workplace," according to ProEnglish's Executive Director K. C.
McAlpin.

The EEOC lawsuit sought $200,000 in punitive damages as well as back pay for
four RD's employees.

ProEnglish became involved in the case when it stepped in to help the
Kidmans pay their attorney's fees.

Settle or meddle?
The case bogged down over whether or not the Kidmans had agreed to a
settlement with the EEOC, Lopez said.

"Our position was that they did agree to a settlement," Lopez explained.
"They said they didn't, and appealed the court's decision."

U.S. District Judge Steven McNamee ruled the Kidmans had agreed to rescind
their policy during settlement negotiations with the EEOC. The Kidmans
strongly disputed that and appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But
a court panel turned them down in a 2-1 decision.

In the summer of 2000, some of RD's Navajo employees complained that other
employees were insulting and degrading them in the Navajo language. Some
quit their jobs because of it, the Kidmans said.

Customers also complained about overhearing profanity and vulgar terms
expressed in Navajo, according to the Kidmans.

To try and curb these abuses, the Kidmans decided to adopt a policy
requiring their employees to speak English on the job.

He tried to make sure everything was legal, Kidman said.
The EEOC sued Richard, Shauna and Steven Kidman, charging that the RD's
workplace language rule illegally discriminated against Navajo-speaking
employees on the basis of national origin.

It said the four women were fired after they refused to sign the new
English-only policy.
http://www.gallupindependent.com/2007/november/112707jch_englishonly.html

-- 
**************************************
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/20071129/3d7fe971/attachment.htm>