English-Only Rules in the Workplace
Training for Supervisors
Updated 12/08
Introduction
Many employers receive complaints that their employees talk
among themselves in a language other than English. These
employers are tempted to establish a restrictive policy requiring
employees to speak only English in the workplace. Such a
policy may violate guidelines from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) pertaining to discrimination
based on national origin. Any policy pertaining to employees
speaking a language other than English while at work must be
carefully designed, based on business necessity, and applied
solely for the intended purpose of facilitating communications
with customers, vendors and co-workers.
This sample presentation is designed to be presented to
supervisors and others who manage employees. It is designed
to be presented by an individual familiar with Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), EEOC guidelines and the
employer’s own policies and practices.
©SHRM 2008
2
Objectives
At the close of this session, you will be able to:
• Describe Title VII’s non-discrimination restrictions that pertain to
English-only policies in the workplace.
• State the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
position.
• Explain the difference between an unacceptable and an
acceptable policy.
• Describe the EEOC’s position on English fluency.
• Identify alternative tools for managing language disparities.
©SHRM 2008
3
Title VII’s Non-Discrimination Restrictions That Pertain to
English-Only Rules in the Workplace
•
Title VII is a law that prohibits employment discrimination based
on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. It also is
unlawful under the Act for an employer to take retaliatory action
against any individual for opposing employment practices made
unlawful by Title VII or for filing a discrimination charge or for
testifying, assisting or participating in an investigation,
proceeding or hearing.
©SHRM 2008
4
Title VII’s Non-Discrimination Restrictions That Pertain to
English-Only Rules in the Workplace (cont’d)
•
According to 29CFR1606.7, English-only rules could be
considered discrimination based on national origin.
>
•
“Prohibiting employees at all times, in the workplace, from speaking
their primary language or the language they speak most
comfortably, disadvantages an individual's employment
opportunities on the basis of national origin. It may also result in a
discriminatory working environment. …the Commission will
presume that such a rule violates title VII.”
However, according to 29CFR1606.7, under certain
circumstances, employers have some authority to require
English-only.
>
“An employer may have a rule requiring that employees speak only
in English at certain times where the employer can show that the
rule is justified by business necessity.”
©SHRM 2008
5
Title VII’s Non-Discrimination Restrictions That Pertain to
English-Only Rules in the Workplace (cont’d)
•
•
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has
reported a surge in discrimination charges stemming from
English-only policies during the last decade, from 30 in 1996 to
more than 120 in 2006.
Employers have faced lawsuits for enforcing English-only
policies. In April 2007, Flushing Manor Geriatric Center agreed
to pay $900,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit based in part on the
company's English-only policy.
©SHRM 2008
6
Questions? Comments?
©SHRM 2008
7
EEOC’s Position on English-Only Rules
•
Title VII permits employers to adopt English-only rules under
certain circumstances. As with any other workplace policy, an
English-only rule must be adopted for nondiscriminatory
reasons. An English-only rule would be unlawful if it were
adopted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national
origin. Likewise, a policy that prohibits some but not all of the
foreign languages spoken in a workplace, such as a no-Navajo
rule, would be unlawful.
©SHRM 2008
8
EEOC’s Position on English-Only Rules (cont’d)
•
Even where an English-only rule has been adopted for
nondiscriminatory reasons, the employer's use of the rule
should relate to specific circumstances in its workplace. An
English-only rule is justified by "business necessity" if it is
needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently.
©SHRM 2008
9
EEOC’s Position on English-Only Rules (cont’d)
• Therefore, an employer must assess the business
necessity for requiring employees to speak only English
in the workplace. If it can justify such a requirement, it
may have such a policy. If the employer cannot justify
such policy, it risks unlawful discrimination.
•
“Therefore, if an employer believes it has a business necessity for a speakEnglish-only rule at certain times, the employer should inform its employees of the
general circumstances when speaking only in English is required and of the
consequences of violating the rule. If an employer fails to effectively notify its
employees of the rule and makes an adverse employment decision against an
individual based on a violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the
employer's application of the rule as evidence of discrimination on the basis of
national origin.” Source 29CFR1606.7.
©SHRM 2008
10
EEOC’s Position on English-Only Rules (cont’d)
•
The following are some situations in which business necessity
would justify an English-only rule:
For communications with customers, co-workers or supervisors
who only speak English.
> In emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a
common language to promote safety.
> For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is
needed to promote efficiency.
> To enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the
performance of an employee whose job duties require
communication with co-workers or customers.
>
©SHRM 2008
11
Policy Statements on English-Only Rules
•
The following is a sample of an unacceptable policy that
would constitute intentional discrimination based on
national origin:
 XYZ Textile Corp. requires employees to speak only English while in the
workplace, including when speaking to co-workers during breaks or
when making personal telephone calls. XYZ places workers whose
primary language is not English under close scrutiny to ensure
compliance and replaces workers who violate the rule with workers
whose primary language is English.
©SHRM 2008
12
Policy Statements on English-Only Rules (cont’d)
•
In contrast to the previous unacceptable policy, the EEOC
Guidance provides this example for when English-only policy
can be acceptable:
>
•
XYZ Petroleum Corp. operates an oil refinery and has a rule
requiring all employees to speak only English during an emergency.
The rule also requires that employees speak in English while
performing job duties in laboratories and processing areas where
there is the danger of fire or explosion. The rule does not apply to
casual conversations between employees in the laboratory or
processing areas when they are not performing a job duty.
The English-only rule does not violate Title VII because it is
narrowly tailored based on business necessity (safety
requirements).
©SHRM 2008
13
EEOC Guidance on English Fluency
•
According to EEOC Guidance, a fluency requirement is
permissible only if required for the effective performance of the
position for which it is imposed. Because the degree of fluency
that may be lawfully required varies from one position to the
next, employers should avoid fluency requirements that apply
uniformly to a broad range of dissimilar positions.
©SHRM 2008
14
EEOC Guidance on English Fluency (cont’d)
•
•
For example, according to the EEOC, an individual who is
sufficiently proficient in spoken English to qualify as a cashier at
a fast-food restaurant may lack the written language skills to
perform a managerial position at the same restaurant requiring
the completion of copious paperwork in English.
Therefore, employers should be careful not to require a greater
degree of fluency in English than is necessary for the specific
position.
©SHRM 2008
15
EEOC Guidance on English Fluency (cont’d)
•
The following is an example of a permissible English
fluency requirement:
>
Jorge, a Dominican national, applies for a sales position with XYZ
Appliances, a small retailer of home appliances in a non-bilingual,
English-speaking community. Jorge has very limited skill with
spoken English. XYZ notifies him that he is not qualified for a sales
position because his ability to effectively assist customers is limited.
However, XYZ offers to consider him for a position in the stock
room. Under these circumstances, XYZ's decision to exclude Jorge
from the sales position does not violate Title VII.
©SHRM 2008
16
Questions? Comments?
©SHRM 2008
17
Alternatives for Managing Language Disparities
•
First, determine whether you need an English-only Policy at all.
Ask:
>
>
>
>
>
If I don’t have an English-only policy, will that jeopardize safety or
health?
Will customers be served well without a policy?
Will employees be able to fulfill their job duties without a policy?
Am I making the rule just to put some employees at ease?
Is effective communication compromised unless I have such a
policy?
©SHRM 2008
18
Alternatives for Managing Language Disparities (cont’d)
•
•
•
If you determine you need a policy, it will need to be based on
business necessity and for safety/health purposes or for certain
positions or at certain times.
For those reasons, the policy must be carefully crafted and
judiciously enforced.
However, there may be alternatives to an English-only policy.
©SHRM 2008
19
Alternatives for Managing Language Disparities (cont’d)
•
Employers can consider using other policies to correct behavior.
>
•
For example, if John and Sue are speaking in Spanish negatively
about co-workers, the company doesn’t need an English-only policy
to address this. The company may use its professional conduct
policy to address these negative conversations.
Employers can consider using other tools for improving
communication.
>
For example, if Mary speaks French, Erica speaks German and
they appear to communicate poorly with each other, it may or may
not be due to a language barrier. Either way, their employer doesn’t
necessarily need an English-only policy for all employees, but it
could explore the need for team building.
©SHRM 2008
20
Alternatives for Managing Language Disparities (cont’d)
•
The following is an EEOC example of a non-discriminatory
alternative to an English-only policy:
>
At a management meeting of XYZ Electronics Co., a supervisor
proposes that the company adopt an English-only policy to
decrease tensions among its ethnically diverse workforce. He
reports that two of the employees he supervises, Ann and Vinh,
made derogatory comments in Vietnamese about their co-workers.
Because such examples of misconduct are isolated and thus can
be addressed effectively under the company's discipline policy, XYZ
decides that the circumstances do not justify adoption of a facilitywide English-only rule. To reduce the likelihood of future incidents,
XYZ supervisors are instructed to counsel line employees about
appropriate workplace conduct.
©SHRM 2008
21
Questions? Comments?
©SHRM 2008
22
Quiz
•
True or False:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Title VII requires employers to create English-only policies.
The EEOC is the enforcing agency for Title VII in the private sector.
It is unlawful to discriminate based on national origin.
Lawsuits and discrimination charges against employers for
enforcing English-only policies has remained steady over the last
decade.
Hispanic employees are annoying non-Hispanic employees by
speaking Spanish among themselves. For that reason alone, the
employer has the right to require them to speak English only at
work.
Employers may under some circumstances require English-only
policies across the board.
It is lawful to discriminate based on fluency in English.
©SHRM 2008
23
Summary
•
•
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national
origin. English-only policies may constitute discrimination
based on national origin.
Title VII permits employers to adopt English-only rules under
certain circumstances. As with any other workplace policy, an
English-only rule must be adopted for nondiscriminatory
reasons.
©SHRM 2008
24
Summary (cont’d)
•
•
According to EEOC guidance, a fluency requirement is
permissible only if required for the effective performance of the
position for which it is imposed. Because the degree of fluency
that may be lawfully required varies from one position to the
next, employers should avoid fluency requirements that apply
uniformly to a broad range of dissimilar positions.
There are alternatives to an English-only policy, such as
policies pertaining to professional conduct and using teambuilding activities to improve communication among employees.
©SHRM 2008
25
Course Evaluation
Please be sure to complete and leave the evaluation sheet you
received with your handouts.
Thank you for your attention and interest!
©SHRM 2008
26