By BLR Founder and CEO Bob Brady
Yes, Virginia (well, Massachusetts in this case), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says that the red kettle brigade is guilty of violating Title VII. The Issue: Speaking English-Only.
Few organizations have the moral stature of the Salvation Army, yet the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently sued the Army for discrimination. Why?
The Framingham, Massachusetts, branch discharged two low-level employees who refused to comply with an English-only policy. The Army has defended the action, saying it was necessary for workplace discipline and productivity.
After the charge became public, EEOC was criticized for “picking” on the Army, whose commitment to mission and charitable accomplishments is hard to challenge.
It is hard to know exactly what happened, but it appears that Anglo supervisors at the facility felt undermined by the two Spanish speakers, who would go on at length, in Spanish, in the presence of the supervisors, despite a rule against this.
Near-Revolt in Our Warehouse
Here in quiet, historic Old Saybrook, Connecticut, we’ve faced similar dilemmas. We once had a near- revolt in our warehouse when a solid, dependable, but somewhat “rigid” supervisor lost her patience with two employees whom she knew spoke English competently, but who would go into Spanish, even as she was conducting a meeting. She assumed they were talking about her.
Frustrated, she wagged her finger at them, and said, sternly, “We speak English here.” The two complained up the ladder, and when it reached my office, it was pretty clear that the real problem wasn’t an English-only rule, but the anger and the “publicness” of the rebuke, coupled with the fact that the dispute was anchored in ethnic/nationality issues.
As we looked at it, everyone shared some blame. The two employees were looking for trouble, but the supervisor had lost her moral authority. Her response would have been OK for most offenses, but on an ethnic issue, she had to adhere to a higher standard of conduct. No one was happy when we told the supervisor she was out of line, and when we told the employees they were, too.
What to do
Most people would rather speak their first language. Yet, no one likes to feel that they are being talked about, so managers easily get upset. Maintaining an atmosphere of respect quickly becomes a challenge.
EEOC has rules on the subject. They discourage English-only policies and take the position that they are discriminatory. (See EEOC’s website for more.) There is argument about whether the rules are a correct interpretation of the law, but most employers should try to comply. Why take the risk?
That’s not to say that I don’t have mixed feelings. In the hands of an autocratic supervisor, English-only rules can become a camouflage for discrimination, and the melting pot has been great for America. Conversely, other cultures in which groups try to coexist side by side while maintaining their separate languages have seen considerable strife, and encouraging assimilation into a single dominant language has served America well over the last several centuries. These considerations ought to be balanced against the need to prohibit discrimination.
Unless there is something I don’t know about the case, I hope the Salvation Army prevails in this dispute.
That’s my E-pinion; I’d love to hear yours. Use the Share Your Comments button or email me at Rbrady@blr.com.
I am unclear why people feel they must speak in a language unknown to some? My thoughts would be the same as the supervisor, they are talking about you. They are likely making negative comments they don’t want you to understand. Speaking the native language of the country you live in will bring better employement opportunities. Check out where the non-english speaking people work, and their rate of pay.
Negative comments or not, the practice of speaking in a language unknown to the others in the room is downright rude. As youngsters we were taught that whispering so that others could not hear was unacceptable, this is no different. From another angle, English is our language and it seems that those who choose not to learn it are putting themselves in a less than advantageous position when it comes to acceptance from others and ability to perform on the job. I see it as a general unwillingness to assimilate into our country. I respect the desire to maintain our cultures. Language does not equal culture.
I am a Training Manager here in Orlando and I am a Hispanic. I do Orientations, I do tell all of my classes that when they are in company time that they must speak English, and that this applies to everyone…Spanish speakers, haitians, french, etc. , but let’s say they are at lunch, then they can speak the language they want. I do say that it is rude to speak another language in front of someone that do not speak it and I tell them that once someone enters the room that do not speak your language, that they should change back to english.
The other side of that is that, yes, we decide to move to the states, we should learn the language, but if you do not speak the language that two individuals are speaking, you should not get assume that they are speaking about you. People need to realize that if English is not their first language, most people, when they are talking about a subject that they are very passionate about, their native language is going to come out; This is nataural. I would dare to say that 98% of the time when two people are speaking in their natural tongue, they are not talking about anyone in that room.
I currently work (and have worked in the past) in offices where there are people from a number of differrent countries. They all speak English and most of them were educated here, but they also speak their native language. While there is this push for current staff to learn Spanish, I think this is a short-sighted and detrimental policy. What will happen when the next large population group starts coming? Are you going to require current staff learn that language too?
I am certainly for learning another language, but I did think this was the US and that our official language was English. I may be wrong, but that was what I was brought up to believe.
If I’m conducting a meeting and anyone (no matter what language they speak) is whispering or chatting while the meeting is going on (i.e. they are not sharing their comments), I would probably ask if they wanted to add something? When staff talk in their native language (not English), it does appear to be even more rude as there are only a few people who understand what they are saying.
There are many opportunities to learn English. Opportunities my family several generations ago did not have. They learned English just by living here.
If workers continue to speak in a non-English language most of the time, they will certainly miss out on educational opportunities, promotions and more.
I do have a daughter who is almost fluent in … French, not Spanish. That is the language she’s chosen to learn in school.
As a native Spanish speaker, I can tell you that I am upset with both sides.
One the one hand, my suggestion to the Supervisor is “to get over it;” they are not talking about you (at least not all the time!). There is a comfort level and a very important connection that people find when they have a common language, in this case Spanish.
On the other hand, I agree that it is rude to speak another language during meetings or work while someone that does not speak the language is present. I agree that during breaks or while there are no individuals present that do not speak the language, then it is ok.
Language is an extremely important component of one’s culture, which is why it is difficult for many individuals to learn a new one. If it is not that important, why are we even having this issue? Having said that, language alone cannot define an individual; our morals, ethics and the traditions passed from generation to generation also play an important role. But, assimilation to someone else’s culture does not imply “to strip or get rid of” one’s own culture and traditions. And this is where I believe the main issue lies for many immigrants coming to this country and why situations, like the one that took place at the Salvation Army and in many other organizations everyday, take place.
English is an “international business” language; requiring it in American workplaces, where English is the predominant language, is not discriminatory – it’s simply good business sense.
English-only speakers: Be grateful you’re not struggling to learn a 2nd language; honor the efforts of your co-workers who are struggling to do so. Work to include, not exclude, those who have chosen to pursue the “American Dream”.
English-as-a-2nd-Language speakers: Your ability to speak two (or more) languages is something to be proud of. Use your language skills to build a better workplace, not to exclude those who speak only one language.
Government representatives, business leaders, HR professionals: It’s time to shift our focus from “diversity” to “unity”. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do…” need a common language to keep us unified.
That’s not discriminatory – it’s sensible and in the long run, benefits everyone.
One of these days, and I don’t think that it will be to long off; we are going to regret this double standard policy. It is not wrong to speak a second language. However, I think it is entertaining trouble to allow a group to speak their own separate language in the workplace. I have personally witnessed outright disrespect particularly in meeting where individuals speak among themselves loudly in their native language since they feel that no one understands what they’re saying it is okay!
Would it be acceptable for a group to whisper among themselves while others were is in the room? If you can speak English and your remarks are relevant or related to the job, why aren’t speaking in English? What are you hiding? I once worked with a group that literally plotted on the job to get me terminated because they had problems with my sexuality based on their religion. I tried bringing this to my manager’s attention after someone who spoke their language overheard them planning but my manager hands were tied because of discrimination policies. Therefore, I feel that when these groups speak in their own language they are blatantly being allowed to practice discrimination. They have been given permission to exclude other at the same time they are being included as well as protected under the law. This makes me angry especially in light of all the changes that have occurred in the workplace since 911. As in American all I see is that these changes have affected Americans. Illegal immigrants are everywhere and they are given ever benefit but Americans scrutinize every step of the way, every moment of the day and who do we have to thank for it? At 44, I have to explain in English something that happened over 25 years ago when I was a totally different person; before I gave up drinking, before I had earned two undergraduate degrees, two graduate degrees and a terminal degree.
Well, I feel if I went to this length to work, learning English and speaking it on the job is the least that these groups could do to show appreciation for the opportunities we offer in this country. American employers have become more and more selective in the hiring process; one would think that this is what employers are addressing in just about every job description that states, high school diploma required, excellent verbal and written skills, ability to work in a team, continuing education a must.
I have never understood the legal “logic” of taking the position that speaking in the USA a language other than English can be discriminatory.
Yes, it is true we are a nation of many nationalities. However, “when in Kansas (or any other of the 49 states) do as the people in Kansas do.”
It is simply silly to make life in the workplace more difficult than it already can be without having different languages spoken that only add to the problems. I am not biased, I am not racist, or whatever.
I am just simple-minded.
English is the language of the USA. As such it prevails and those who want to live and work here should either learn it or go somewhere where their native tongues are understood. To me, to do otherwise is being hypocritical, not to mention ungrateful and a few other adjectives I could use…. but I won’t.
I thought all my 65 years on earth that I was and am living in the USA. I do not mind sharing the good life but those wanting to come here for the good life must leave what they had, otherwise why leave it? This is America and we speak ENGLISH.
Even though we do live in the United States, you need to understand that whether you like it or not, there are many people from different countries that live here and that are going to speak their own language.
Being Mexican myself, speaking Spanish comes naturally to me. I agree that it may be necessary to speak English only in some situations, however I believe that an “English-only” policy is discriminatory.
Regarding comments that other people have posted regarding illegal immigrants, many have the jobs they do because you won’t do them yourself! GET OVER IT. Spanish is only one language out of many that are spoken in the US. If anything, there are just many more languages that are going to be spoken in the future and if you can’t comprehend that then YOU should move. Where? I have no clue since anywhere you go, there is bound to be another language spoken other than English.
Note to Readers: In addition to the above postings, Bob Brady received such interesting emails on this column that we decided to post their text verbatim, with identifying information removed. These emailed comments are below:
I am always amazed at our country and its reluctance to stand up for the American culture..
In Montreal and the surrounding region, French is the first language and you are rebuked for not speaking French. There is no thought or idea that it is discriminatory if you are required to speak French. We go overboard in trying to defend some of the freedoms this country has to offer. English is the language in the job market. If one wants to speak another language they can do so when they are not at work.
We seem to be so absorbed in trying to please all ethnic groups we forget our own fundamental basic moral standards, and one of those is manners.
I doesn’t matter what cultural background, what colour your skin is, what does matter is that you should speak the language of the majority of the people in the workplace, particularly in an open forum or meeting not for discrimination or policy purposes but because it does make people feel uncomfortable.
the majority of people are willing to accept and adjust to ethnic/nationality issues but we also need to keep in sight our own.
I hope that the Salvation Army prevails.
I think that if there is a language barrier I can understand why two employees would be speaking in their native language. It’s a comfort to know that there is someone else you can communicate with. If they both speak English they should not be speaking their own language when someone else that does not understand is present. I can understand why the third party would feel uncomfortable. I think it’s simply rude, and it shows a lack of respect. If we went to France wouldn’t we have to learn French? The same rule should apply in the United States.
I agree with the supervisor, I too would have thought they were talking about me. But having an HR background I know that the supervisor was out of line, but I do commend her, because not everyone would have spoken up. The employees were down right rude and needed to be shut up.
Many people in other countries feel America is the land of opportunity, that they will have a better life here. However, they know how it works here and they know that we as Americans will walk on egg shells around them so we do not become discriminatory. And the smallest comment or word and they scream discrimination. I find this to be an awful way to live. It is time we take back our country, we are all Americans no matter where you were born. Now act like it!
I want to know how someone can move to America to become American and then not be American?
I work in a temporary holding facility(jail), where after arrest – we process inmates for court within 48 hours. We have a high number of undocumented aliens here and to my amazement and sometime anger, some enter our doors and tell us that we have to speak to them in their native language. We are not the arresting party, the charging party nor the court and it is physically impossible to honor that demand, not request, demand!
I grew up in the Salvation Army church and organization. My grandparents were Salvationist’s. My father worked at Christmas donating his time for the Christmas baskets to be delivered, and I rang Christmas kettle bells. I have my Grandmother’s bonnet, and tambourine she used for collecting monies as she went through the bars, taverns, and down main streets of the towns on weekends and evenings to further the cause of providing for those in need. I totally agree in the universal language of English when communication is to create a unity and pulling everyone together. If the need arises where an interpreter is needed it should be the responsibility of the commanding officer to insure everyone has the same opportunity. Also, teaching English is important to allow those desiring to learn the opportunity, any other conversations that violate the Army’s code and requirements is disobedience. The Salvation Army has done so much good for our world we need to support their cause.
I agree with you; I hope the Salvation Army prevails.
One language = one people.
If a non-technical person wandered into an engineering meeting, would the engineers be “forced” to speak in non-technical terms? No, that would be silly waste of time and money. Do the publishers of sheet music place little pictures of keyboards or guitar frets in their product? No. And this is a much bigger group: the workforce of America.
One of the services of [my company] is the development of, and subsequent training on standard operating procedures. Over the years, the audience has separated into 2 distinctly different groups: for example, basic operation tasks, which must be written at a 6th grade reading level; and Software Testing procedures, which we can write at the assumption that the readers are (almost!) as bright as we are!
And believe it or not, it is much easier to write procedures in an environment where one can use multi-syllable words and mathematical equations.
“DO NOT ENTER”, “TESTING IN PROGRESS”, MEN”, “WOMEN”, “PUSH RED BUTTON BEFORE EXITING OR ALARM WILL SOUND”, “ENSURE PRESSURE READING IS ZERO BEFORE OPENING CABINET DOOR. CONTENTS UNDER EXTREME PRESSURE” – These are signs that, if ignored, can have an extremely negative effect on the day’s productivity, including severe bodily injury or death. Non-compliance will have the same disastrous effect, whether due to carelessness or ignorance of the language.
“…but on an ethnic issue, she had to adhere to a higher standard of conduct.” Why? What makes “ethnic issues” higher than, for example, a safety issue? Would the resulting inevitable lawsuit be any different if the supervisor had done the same thing during a fire drill meeting? If anything, these sorts of lawsuits will only hinder the hiring of non-English-as-a-first-language workers.
To insist that ALL signs, EVERYWHERE, be printed in 2 languages is not realistic. ALL American workers must learn to read and write English, for their safety, the safety of the workplace and the ability to positively affect the revenue producing function. That is why for-profit businesses exist.
Choosing to do business with clients and providers that speak the same language is simply human nature. For the government to encourage “victims” to file lawsuits and cry out “Discrimination” is obscene, but it is the nature of government to attempt to define and even legislate morality; that is, what is discrimination, what is “unsafe”, what is not “good” for the populace, and vice-versa.
It’s hard enough to find competent workers to learn the basics; to add the burden of teaching English along the way does NOT increase output. It angers, irritates, and/or annoys everyone involved.
When only “healthful” foods are offered at the local fast-food drive through, it won’t matter if the anonymous voice speaks English or not!
While most complaints seem to be about lower level Spanish speakers, in our office, several managers speak Chinese among themselves in the presence of others. They forget that their dialog often contains enough “Lish” for anyone paying attention to get the gist of the conversation. We know it isn’t all personal conversations. A good bit is gossip about events in the office.
Sometimes they make an effort to be polite and will switch back to English while discussing insignificant topics in the lunch room. Generally, they go back to Chinese if it is business and they do not want to include anyone outside the clique. As a fellow manager, I am both annoyed, and worried.
Managers have a right to have private conversations, but when conversations change suddenly, according to who walks in the room, anyone would wonder why. It’s rude, and does not foster a good atmosphere. My staff has grumbled about it as long as I can remember.
Several years ago, when the warehouse people often spoke little or no English. there was a memo that only English was to be spoken. Now that the warehouse staff is all bilingual Spanish/English, the “rule” is gone. The group speaking Chinese denies it ever existed.
If anyone were to file any sort of discrimination claim, I would hate to be called to testify. it would be impossible to be honest and not make the boss look bad. Is there an effective, yet diplomatic way to address the issue? HR manager is not Chinese, but she sets bad examples in other areas and has made several sensitive issues turn ugly. She can be counted on to make a bad situation worse.
I can’t just stay out of the lunch room and pretend it doesn’t happen. Any suggestions?
This is a touchy subject, to say the least. I too, have mixed feelings. I am American, and speak only English (high school French and Spanish aside).
People who speak other languages come from another country (or English would be their native language). That means, that they left their country for some reason, and came here because they think “here” is better. America has benefited from the inflow of immigrants from around the world, such as my great-grandparents. And the immigrants have benefited from our economy, school systems, etc. The difference is, my ancestors strove to learn English and teach their children to learn English. I know someone whose grandparents were Italian and wouldn’t teach her Italian because “we are in America now, and we speak English.” Perhaps, an error, but it is a different viewpoint. There are immigrants who have been in America years and years and years and have not made any effort to learn English. There are those who speak English, but are, of course, more comfortable speaking in their native language. But the viewpoint is different now than it was.
Personally, I think the EEOC has gone too far on the “English only rules.” Employers should be permitted to make English only rules for working times and working spaces. We are trying to create cohesive work forces and an air of cooperation and team-work. ANYTHING that fosters an “us and them” attitude among employees, in my opinion, is counter productive . . . including allowing foreign-speakers to speak in their native language during working time, in working places, and making others feel excluded. I think it is a form of harassment . . . it makes the non-foreign-language speakers feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. We are not denying people the right to speak their native language at all, or on break time, or in the parking lot. Also, I believe that “English only rules” came about because the foreign-speakers WERE abusing the use of a foreign language, and WERE making comments (inappropriate) about managers, or management policy, or otherwise that they never would have made in English for others to hear. If they have something to say, say it in English, don’t say it at all, or say it to their friends outside of work. And then, there are those managers who are bigots. But, for the most part, I believe America has moved beyond that. Discrimination is down. I think that the EEOC is trying to justify its existence because it has done a good job of educating the public and people do not discriminate. American businesses now work to being inclusive. The EEOC is trying to find things to do, and attacking “English-only policies” is something to do. (Don’t get me started on “unintentional discrimination.”)
It is not a simple situation with a simple solution. The best solution would be one that recognizes the rights of employers to create cohesive, cooperative workplaces, and recognizes the rights of employees to communicate in their own languages, and the rights of managers not to feel excluded or jeered or maligned by foreign-born works, and ensures that any actions taken are not discriminatory . . . in other words, that they are not being taken because someone thinks that the foreign-speaker is less capable, or less of a person, or less able to do the job. Let’s keep in mind the evil the discrimination laws were attempting to prevent . . when Black men were called “boys,” and all women secretaries were the “girls.” They were considered something less than the white men in charge. What evil, then, is trying to be prevented by saying employers cannot implement “English Only Rules.” That the foreign speakers are “being treated differently”? But everyone is being treated the same . . everyone must speak English. But this prevents foreign speakers from speaking in their “native language.” So? What is the evil here? What is the wrong? I think there is a lot to think about.
OK Here is a thought….Why not just have the supervisors learn Spanish? Or would that be just to difficult for the “high level” employees? Oh no,you don’t suppose that there exists others who are not only more self-confident with themselves but are already bi-lingual and fully capable of assuming the position of the “employee” who has to go home each afternoon wondering how many others are talking about him/her in another language. Me thinks its less a matter of language and more about “communication and civility”. A good manager will not be hampered by the “language issue” when they cultivate their “mutual respect issue”.
What a crock of total nonsense! You can just bet those Arabs in the work place are not going to be told that they must refrain from speaking their native language. Oh no,that would not be politically correct….. The insecurities of the supervisor is not the fault of any employee…it is not within the domain of the supervisor to attempt to censor the speech of any employees conversations that does not interfere with the workplace that does not threaten or harass anyone. Given that the company knew fully well that some employees do speak conversationally their native language amongst themselves, prior to employment, but still hired them,it is quite obvious that to punish them for doing that which is expected is quite contradictory and appears a biased response based on the low self-esteem of the supervisor. Employers in the United States have historically had to adjust to to the bi-lingual bi-cultural nature of some of its employees. GET OVER IT! It might be better if the employers assist with English as a second language classes and cultivate a less hostile working enviroment. Yes, that was LESS HOSTILE!
I have to agree with you on this. I am a college professor who does everything possible to promote multiculturalism and tolerance but there have to be some boundaries. We all work better together when we can communicate with each other and language is the primary means for that. Speaking in a different language acts as a barrier and only causes disunity.
Perhaps the focus should be put on whether having personal conversations on the job at that particular time is appropriate rather than what language is being spoken. If personal conversation is being allowed, the language does not matter. Work conversation should be in the language that is understood by all present.
Sounds to me like the supervisor who wagged her finger has a problem. Too late now, but it would have been better had she noted they were disruptive during a meeting versus, speaking in a language she cannot understand….sounds also like she has more of a problem then those who were speaking other than English.
Diversity in the workplace should not mean that other than English be allowed to be spoken; however, where I work you must be able to understand and read English because our policies, procedures and posters are all in English; even though we have many bi-lingual folks. We allow people to speak any language they know
After reading the above article twice to get the full implications of it, I see that EEOC takes a heavy handed stance with regards to English-only requirements in business. Since English is the official language of the United States of America, asking employees to conduct their business discussions in English is not an act of discrimination. If the business has a minority of English speaking employees, then I would say the majority rules. I personally think the government goes too far, esp. the EEOC, in dictating the rules of business in the workplace. Usually these rules come about by analysis of the most efficient way for employees to communicate to get to the common goal, that of providing a product or service of that the company. After all, we have the right to set dress codes, restrict use of offensive language, and conduct. Adherence to company rules as set forth in employment policies, which the employee agrees to accept as a condition of employment and the consequences for failure to do so, is not discrimination if applied to all employees equally!. These rules apply to everyone, not just the few who insist on using a foreign language as a means to have private discussions and overt challenges to authority of supervisors or employers. If the EEOC calls this discrimination, I’m not sure how broad the parameters are for the application and meaning of the word “discrimination”. Discrimination is the singling out of someone solely due to their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, or sexual orientation, etc. in the practice of doing business which includes hiring and dismissal.
If the supervisor in the case of the Salvation Army took the appropriate steps with the employees involved, and they continued to defy his/her authority, then the company had every right to dismiss these employees. After all, by setting this example, every employee who disagreed with the supervisor would be able to defy the authority with anticipation of immunity to consequences, which in this case was dismissal. The supervisor’s mistake was to repremand the employees publically, probably out of frustration, but still was the wrong approach. It will be very interesting to see the outcome of this case, and I will certainly be watching for the decision.
In California, we are a “employee at will” State, so as long as the employee has been at the job less than two years, they can be dismissed without a reason or fault, and notice. Which law prevails over the other here?
My grandparents immigrated here legally and became citizens. My parents were born here, but raised speaking only their native language at home. When they went to school, no extra exceptions were made for them……they simply had to learn the English language. If they wanted to work, the same applied there, speak English. Signs, voting ballots, driver’s licensing tests, etc. were all written in English only. My family made every effort to assimilate into the culture and language of the United States, and it happened rather quickly. The old sink or swim approach really worked. Now everything must be translated into Spanish, Russian, Farsi, French, Chinese, and there is no reason for these peoples to even try to assimilate. So, by only translating and allowing a few languages, are we not practicing discrimination on all other languages of the world??? Where does it end? If an American moves to France or China, do you think the employers of these countries would want us to speak their language, or refuse to do so, speaking only English. I’m sure you know the answer to that question as well as I do.
I agree with you–it’s a challenge to draw the lines and everyone is usually wrong in these instances (as in your example) and upset that there is no winner. That’s the nature of human competitiveness–for every incident, there needs to be a winner.
But the problem is not just a language issue. I think that this issue has more to do with the volume of a conversation. It is common courtesy not to talk aloud when someone is speaking. If there must be side (hopefully, not snide) comments made, they are in hushed tones so no one would understand them if they were in a common language or not. Typically, when workers speak in a non-common language, they don’t hush (and sometimes turn up the volume louder than usual) because they figure no one knows what they are saying and that is rude!
I have a friend who is of mixed heritage (Vietnamese and African-American) who shopped in a Vietnamese food store in order to prepare a traditional dinner for her in-laws. She stated that, as she wandered through the store deciding what to get, the two women talked about her in Vietnamese … loudly … because they did not think she understood. And that was the bigger affront to her–not that they talked about her, but that they did so loudly so that she could hear it!
Many of the employee relations issues which arise today have less to do with business items than they do with today’s lack of common courtesy and respect for co-worker’s roles. You don’t have to like each other–just work well enough together to get the job done!
I am a minority person and as such, against discrimination. I don’t understand why we can’t insist on English being spoken in work places where that is the predominant language. A person can hardly get a job in Florida if you don’t speak Spanish. I think this ruling promotes a non-cohesive work environment.
While an English Only policy may sound discriminatory and I do not approve of extreme measures, I believe it is extremely disrespectful for employees to speak another language in front of their superiors (who do not understand the language) but for whatever reason, anybody with any sense of good work ethics should know that is unacceptable. Additionally, understandably Spanish speaking employees sometimes do feel more at ease speaking their native language when conversing with each other but making another employee who does not speak the language uncomfortable is extremely inconsiderate, unprofessional and in a sense looking to cause trouble…and above all not in a meeting.
I am Hispanic and love to speak Spanish with my Spanish-speaking fellow employees, especially the new-comers who speak it so beautifully however I am always careful not to offend my English-only fellow employees. Granted, knowing more than one language is awesome and knowing Spanish has been very helpful in my career field, but I do respect those who choose not to learn another language other than English. As a matter of fact, I have a lot of respect for new Americans who make a special effort to learn English, since that is the predominate language in this country.
I recently spent some time in South Texas where the higher percentage of the population is Hispanic and the language mostly spoken is Spanish. Most of the people that I worked with had great work ethics and very professional. However, in group gatherings and meetings, they are very respectful of employees who did not speak Spanish and all meetings were conducted in English. I was fascinated with the respect these people have for each other and their superiors. Racism is bad anyway you look at it. Believe me, as a Hispanic I have encountered plenty of that in my live and being a Hispanic female, very much so in my career. Speaking about someone in their presence in a language they do not understand, or at the very least, making them feel this way is not cool and in a sense a form of reverse racism.
In the case of the Salvation Army issue, perhaps the supervisor was out of line, but so were the trouble-making employees.
Recognizing that I only have the basics of the case in question, I offer this comment.
Let me quickly point out that the moral stature of the Salvation Army and its fine charitable work are not at issue here.
The basic issue is: 1. Did the Salvation Army violate Title V 11 when it fired two Spanish speaking employees for violating the organizations rule on English only?
An English only rule that is directed at the business necessity of the organization might be found to be acceptable as a organizational policy.
In this case, the Army felt that its policy was a business necessity in order to maintain, “discipline and productivity.” I believe that the organization would be hard pressed to demonstrate that this policy actually maintained or enhanced either discipline or productivity. Additionally, the Army would be hard pressed to provide any case history or research to support this claim.
The fact that management felt that they were being talked about is not a defense. There was no evidence shown that the two individuals were talking about anybody. To conclude that they were talking about the supervisor is an emotional and illogical conclusion.
To use as an argument the “assimilation and culturalization” of its employees is also not a defense for two reasons; one, the Salvation Army is not in the business of assimilating and culturalizing people and secondly, it is not a condition of employment.
And finally, individual first Amendment rights are not left at their employer’s door.
The Salvation Army is a great organization, it may be, however, that some of the people in it may be misled.
They were both out of line. As a child I was taught not to whisper to a friend in the presence of a third party because the other person would feel left out. For adults to do it is just plain rude… the supervisor could rightly feel she was being ridiculed behind her back, yet right to her face.
So it is not an ethnic or discriminatory stance but one of plain courtesy to require all parties to speak a language common to the group, while speaking any language preferred when all present can understand should be acceptable. The two employees were being rude and that is what the manager should have stated rather than make it an issue of language preference. Yet the offense was public, so a public rebuke was appropriate.
I feel this is an example of bad behavior that is tolerated because to do otherwise would be politically incorrect. It should not be wrong to require common courtesy of all citizens, regardless of language, culture, or national origin. In the quest for individual rights and freedoms crudity and rude behavior are now commonplace.
I believe the Salvation Army is within their rights to require the 2 employees to LEARN english to keep their positions. It is a function of their job. From what I understand, they had positions where they had to converse and communicate with the public as well as their coworkers. Speaking spanish only is NOT a disability under ADA. Some might think so by the way the EEOC has handled it. These employees were given 1. Two full years to learn 2. Opportunity to take English as a Second Language Courses at no cost to them. 3. Supervisorory and Organizational support. If they cannot meet the requirement of their position, then they should be terminated. Would we put up with someone who refused to complete a training course? Would we put up with someone who refused to take care of our customers?
I think there are two points of view with those that speak english as a second language. They can either view it as a disadvantage or an advantage. I have worked with and supervised hispanic contract workers. Most of them have no problem with making the effort to learn english. They even help with translating between those that know little or no english and those of us that know little or no spanish. I take that person as looking for the advantage in the situation. Those employees that would make no effort to learn english you will find, will make very little effort to do their tasks either. Case in point, we had hispanic orchard workers who refused to listen to how the fruit was picked. They were not careful in the handling of the peaches and the majority of the fruit was bruised and unsellable. Each time they were told not to bruise the fruit, they spoke no english. I prepared a flyer for each in SPANISH that explained if they bruised the fruit and we were unable to sell it, then their wage would be docked for the damaged fruit. It was their JOB to handle the fruit appropriately. We had 7 bins (100 bushel) that were damaged at the end of their week. They were all paid by the bushel, minus the 700 bushel that were lost. Imagine my surprise when ALL 10 employees started to SPEAK FLUENT ENGLISH when discussing their docked pay!
In response to your editorial regarding English speaking policies, I think you are on point. I have also written on this very timely subject.
I previously enforced the EEO and AA laws for the US Dept. of Labor/Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and served as their Louisville Office Area Director for several years during my federal tenure. It is based upon my tenure enforcing the EEO laws that I have come to believe we can easily balance workplace needs and the EEO laws. The need to speak your native tongue can rationally be balanced with the need to be respectful and able to understand one another. At no time should a supervisor or manager become emotionally enraged during any employee conflict situation. As a past federal management official, I fully realize this is more easily said than done. Beyond that, the supervisor in the Salvation Army case, could have easily justified requiring the individuals present in the meeting to speak English in order for everyone to be involved in the discussion. The same supervisor would not be able to require English be spoken throughout the day…just because she prefers it. In previous EEO cases, the EEOC has allowed restrictions on language, i.e., when it is necessary for safety reasons or when dealing with customers who speak only English.
This is excerpted from the EEOC Press Release re: the $190K settlement against Watlow Batavia, Inc., a subsidiary of Watlow Electric Manufacturing Co. of St. Louis, for requiring English only throughout the workday:
José J. Behar, the Supervisory Trial Attorney responsible for prosecuting the case, said: “We are pleased with this outcome. Companies are finally learning a lesson as to what they can and cannot do with respect to requiring workers to speak only English.”
He added: “In this case, EEOC believed that Watlow’s implementation of an English-only rule constituted disparate treatment of its Hispanic workers. While English-only rules may be justified for certain safety-sensitive positions, there is no legitimate rationale for prohibiting employees from speaking their native language during lunch time, on breaks, or in casual conversation to friends and co-workers.”
Key words to focus on are “…legitimate rationale for prohibiting…” If there is a legitimate reason for requiring English (or any other language) to be spoken, then it would not be an act of illegal discrimination. The EEOC has provided specific guidance to this subject in Directive 915-003 (dated 2002), also found at: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/national-origin.html
I hope this helps with further clarification for your readers.
Wishing you a respectful working environment.
Carol Baker Dawson
President
EEO GUIDANCE, Inc.
http://www.eeoguidance.com