What are an employer’s restrictions on requiring employees to speak only English while on the clock? We do business in English, and some employees are insulted when there are private conversations in other languages going on around them. It’s also a problem during breaks and lunch. — Matt P., HR Specialist in Sunnyvale
Job Descriptions in California: How To Tackle Tricky Drafting Hurdles
Job descriptions can be your best friend or your worst enemy from both a practical and a liability perspective. Our free White Paper, Job Descriptions in California: How To Tackle Tricky Drafting Hurdles, explains how to draft objective, legal, effective job descriptions.
Many employers are contending with this challenging problem. Using multiple languages in the workplace can raise several issues.
You mentioned one of them when you said some employees view it as insulting when co-workers converse privately in other languages. An extension of that is when employees feel that other employees are laughing at them or talking negatively about them in a different language. Additional issues can occur when members of the same workgroup do not fully understand a specific instruction given by their supervisor or other colleagues that might be important to get the job done. Another spin-off is that it can be hard to understand employees who try to speak English but have heavily accented speech.
For the most part, employers cannot have a rule requiring that only English be spoken in the workplace. This is especially true on what would be considered “employee free time,” such as lunch or breaks.
Obviously, when a second language or heavily accented, unintelligible English is used in the workplace, it can create difficulties. However, the law views it as problematic only in very narrow circumstances. One of those situations is customer interaction in which it is necessary for a user of a product or service to communicate clearly with the employee about a problem or to get information. In this situation, the employer can require that the employee speak English with sufficient clarity to be understood.
Safety or productivity issues in the workplace may also justify an English-speaking requirement—but only when there is a significant need for English to be used and understood. In cases stemming from Title VII antibias litigation, the requirement to speak English must meet the same threshold as exists for being a bona fide occupational qualification, and the rule must be applied consistently.
There have been numerous efforts to legislate this issue in many states, including California. Attempts to give employers the right to establish “English-only” rules in the workplace have failed.
Problems such as those outlined in the question may reflect issues other than just linguistic preferences, such as racial tension. Employee communication issues can best be dealt with by forthright discussion and identification of real problems. Practical and realistic diversity training, focused on helping employees more successfully and comfortably work cooperatively with those different than themselves can often be very helpful.
Other employers have found that encouraging employees to increase their English language fluency through career advancement or economic incentives or offering on-site English as a Second Language classes have been most helpful. Focusing on the positive enhancements rather than treating an employee’s choice to use his or her primary language at work as a negative can be very effective.
Rhoma Young is founder and head of the HR consulting firm Rhoma Young & Associates in Oakland.