Employers considering imposing a rule requiring their employees to speak only English while at work should approach it as though it were any other facially-neutral rule and ask themselves this question. Is the rule justified by a business necessity as set forth in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance?
A lawsuit now pending against a California hospital charges that its’ English-only rule specifically targets Filipino workers and thus amounts to national origin discrimination.
EEOC guidance on English-only rules is quite clear. This is taken from findlaw.com:
An English-only rule is justified by ‘business necessity’ [and thus legal] if it is needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently.” According to the EEOC, business necessity would justify implementing an English-only rule under the following circumstances: “(a) For communication with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English; (b) In emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety; (c) For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency; and (d) To enable a supervisor, who speaks only English, to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with coworkers or customers.” This list is not exhaustive. So long as other circumstances satisfy the basic business necessity test, they would not be deemed discriminatory.
The AP reported yesterday that “The group of 52 nurses and medical staff filed a complaint accusing Delano Regional Medical Center of banning them from speaking Tagalog and other Filipino languages while letting other workers speak Spanish and Hindi.”
The plaintiffs are trying to join a complaint the EEOC filed against the hospital over the same rule in August.
The EEOC is also alleging that the hospital created a hostile work environment for Filipinos by singling them out for reprimands and encouraging other employees to report them for not speaking English.
Sounds like the hospital may have stepped over the legal line here and should find another way to meet its legitimate business needs.
Joe's HR and Benefits Blog 