[lg policy] English-Only Rules in the Workplace Can Be a Legal Minefield

Sat Apr 22 14:32:19 UTC 2017

 English-Only Rules in the Workplace Can Be a Legal Minefield

By June Bell Apr 21, 2017

A clothing retailer accused of forbidding three San Francisco workers from
speaking Spanish at work and then allegedly retaliating when they
complained is being sued for civil rights violations and discrimination.

Filed by California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing on behalf
of three employees of Forever 21's Union Square store, the lawsuit claims
the company's HR department "was dismissive and indifferent" to the
workers' concerns, repeatedly ignoring workers' calls and voicemail
messages and "failing or refusing to take corrective action."

The two cashiers and a maintenance worker were threatened with termination,
disciplined and subjected to extreme scrutiny, the lawsuit said.

Los Angeles-based Forever 21 denied having an English-only policy in its
stores, telling The San Francisco Chronicle
<http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Forever-21-accused-of-illegally-implementing-11037889.php>
that it supports inclusion and diversity.

[*SHRM members-only HR Q&A: **Can a California employer have a policy that
requires employees to speak only English while at work?*
<https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiacananemployerhaveapolicythatrequiresemployeestospeakonlyenglishwhileatwork.aspx>
]

Business Necessity

Language diversity is a hallmark of the Golden State, which has the
country's highest percentage of residents who speak only Spanish—13.7
percent, or about 4.3 million people, according to U.S. Census figures
<http://www.statisticbrain.com/spanish-speaking-state-statistics/>.

California law
<http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12940.>,
however, does allow employers to limit or prohibit the use of any language
on the job, provided the restriction is justified by "business necessity."

An employer must be able to show that its language policy fulfills "an
overriding legitimate business purpose," such as being "necessary to the
safe and efficient operation of the business."

State law also mandates that employers inform workers when the restriction
is in effect and then let them know the consequences for violating it.

Employers that want to implement a language policy must be able to show
that it stems from more than a mere preference for English in the
workplace, said John Zaimes, an attorney with Mayer Brown in Los Angeles.

For example, in workplaces such as construction sites and emergency
rooms—where safety and communication are critical—business leadership could
make a compelling argument about the necessity of having employees
communicate in a single language.

Little Guidance

California law, Zaimes said, "leaves a lot of room for argument about
whether a particular restriction is necessary for the safe and efficient
operation of the business." And courts offer scant guidance for
interpreting which conditions constitute a business necessity for mandating
an English-only policy.

In a 2011 decision
<http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020110324070/BUENVIAJE%20v.%20PACIFIC%20BELL%20DIRECTORY>,
the California Court of Appeal sided with Pacific Bell Directory, which had
fired a Filipino employee who spoke Tagalog on the job.

The worker sued, claiming she was fired for not speaking English. However,
Pacific Bell Directory said she was terminated for violating
anti-harassment policies because she bullied co-workers—in Tagalog.

The business said its English-only policy was necessary so that
English-speaking managers could understand workers' conversations and
prevent such harassment.

"To me, that's a pretty low standard," Zaimes said. "Because any employer
can say, 'Yeah, we need people to speak English so we can properly
supervise them.' "

'Proceed with Caution'

"At least in California, the wind is blowing against having an English-only
policy," said Tyler Paetkau of law firm Hartnett, Smith & Paetkau of
Redwood City. "Generally, the advice is to proceed with caution."

If businesses are determined to institute a language policy, the terms
should be put in writing, reviewed with managers and supervisors, and
crafted to be "very limited in terms of prohibiting other languages,"
Paetkau said. Businesses that implement English-only policies should
include employee training with mandated sexual harassment-education
programs.

Businesses keen on adopting English-only policies might be best served by
finding a practical middle ground, such as requiring retail employees to
speak English on the sales floor unless customers initiate conversation in
another language or ask for help from someone who speaks their native
language.

HR professionals should consider whether there's a clear-cut business
necessity for requiring workers to use English on breaks when making
personal calls, as one of the Forever 21 employees claimed in the lawsuit
that he was required to do.

Zaimes advises HR professionals to "consider being a little bit of a
devil's advocate" if their employer has adopted a broad language policy by
pointing out that it can make the business vulnerable to allegations of
discrimination and retaliation if workers who speak a language other than
English are disciplined, demoted or terminated.

Even if the charges are ultimately unfounded, the exoneration can come with
negative publicity, legal defense costs and aggravation.

"I just don't think many employers want to tangle with this at all because
it's such a minefield," he said. "There are no hard and fast rules here.
It's still an evolving area of the law."

*June D. Bell, a regular contributor to SHRM, covers legal issues for a
variety of publications.*

*Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and
other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample
policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member
community and much more. **Join/Renew Now*
<https://membership.shrm.org/?PRODUCT_DISCOUNT_ID=MART>* and let SHRM help
you work smarter.*

*https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/english-only-rules-in-the-workplace-can-be-a-minefield.aspx
<https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/english-only-rules-in-the-workplace-can-be-a-minefield.aspx>*

-- 
**************************************
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, and to write
directly to the original sender of any offensive message.  A copy of this
may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman, Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20170422/dfa375cf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list