EEOC Watch:
Overview of EEOC Language Litigation
Overview:
The EEOC's language policy in its own words (pdf).
English First's analysis
"Catch-22 on Language": National Review Online (November 14, 2001).
"How to Defeat an English-Only Rule": Pick on someone who can't fight back," National Review Online (October 12, 2000).
English First internal memo (1995).
Cases:
Salvation Army (March, 2007).
Colorado Central Station Casino $1.5 million (July 18, 2003).
(excerpt)
The reason given for implementing the restrictive language policy was that a non-Spanish-speaking employee thought that other employees were talking about her in Spanish, and that CCSC needed the policy in defense for undefined "safety reasons."
Pursuant to the policy, management told the housekeeping staff that English was the official language of the casino and that Spanish could no longer be spoken.
According to the litigation, the Chief Engineer and Housekeeping Manager chastised employees for speaking Spanish at any time, saying, "English-English-English," or "English-only." Moreover, higher-level managers or other non-Hispanic employees would shout "English, English" at the Hispanic employees when encountering them in the halls, resulting in the Hispanic employees being embarrassed and suffering emotional distress.
Selena N. Solis, Staff Attorney for MALDEF, said:. "This monetary settlement sends out a clear message to employers: Workplace discrimination on the basis of language will not be tolerated in this day and age, especially when the current workforce population is increasingly comprised of multi-lingual workers."
RD's Drive In (September 30, 2002).
University of Incarnate Word $2.44 million (April 20, 2001).
Premier Operator Services $700,000 (September 19, 2000).
Watlow Batavia, Inc. $190,000 (September 1, 2000).
Spun Steak (June 22, 1994)
Excerpt from EEOC reaction:
The U.S. Supreme Court announced June 20 it will not hear
Garcia et al. v. Spun Steak Co. In doing so, the Court will let
stand a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that
allows Spun Steak to prevent employees from speaking their
native language at work.
Only Justices Harry Blackmun and Sandra Day O'Connor voted to hear Garcia.
At the invitation of the Supreme Court, the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Justice
Department filed an amicus curiae brief on June 1, arguing that the Court should hear the case because of errors in the decision of the 9th Circuit.
The appeals court reversed a district court's summary judgment holding that an English-only work rule, put in place by Spun Steak Co., had discriminatory impact on Hispanic employees, and that the rule was improper because the plaintiffs had proposed a number of less burdensome alternatives to the English-only rule.
The lower court had enjoined further use of the rule.
The 9th Circuit reversed the district court decision by a two-to-one vote, holding that plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The appeals court said that plaintiffs had failed to show a significant impact in light of the fact that the company's bilingual employees could comply with the rule.
Commission guidelines on discrimination because of national
origin, issued in 1980, interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as prohibiting rules requiring employees to speak only English at all times on the job, unless an employer shows it is necessary for conducting business. EEOC had urged the Supreme Court to consider Garcia to reaffirm this principle.
