Brief discuss the legality of “English Only” rules in the workplace.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Employees who speak a language other than English claim that such rules are not related to the ability to do a job and have a harsh impact on them because of their national origin. In its enforcement guidance on national origin discrimination (EEOC, 2016d), the EEOC emphasizes that blanket English-only rules that lack business justification amount to unlawful national-origin discrimination. Many courts agree. Employers should be careful when instituting such a rule. Doing so because of bias against employees of a particular national origin clearly violates Title VII. While it is not necessarily illegal to make fluency in English a job requirement or to discipline an employee for violating an “English-only” rule, an employer must be able to show there is a legitimate business need for it. For example, it’s a safety issue when medical workers or firefighters do not understand or cannot make themselves understood (Bell, 2017). The legality of a restrictive language policy that is not applied at all times and in all areas of the workplace will depend on whether the employer can show the policy is job related and consistent with business necessity. There must be more justification for the policy than that it promotes business convenience (EEOC, 2016d). Inform employees in advance of the circumstances where speaking only in English is required and of the consequences of violating the rule.