Employment law attorney Robert P. Tinnin, Jr. tackles the tough question of whether an employer can implement an”English-only” policy.
Q A couple moved to Taos, New Mexico, from Abilene, Texas, last summer and purchased a deteriorating old motel, hoping to rehab it as they’ve done with several other properties. According to news stories, the husband, Larry Whitten, immediately ordered workers at the motel to stop speaking Spanish and to use Anglo versions of their Spanish first names at work. Whitton’s action, as might be expected, caused an immediate uproar in some local circles, leading to statewide and national attention. What’s up with this guy? Can he get away with this?
A Everything we know about the facts in this situation comes from media reports. Some reports indicate that the motel owner offered reasons for his request, which may make his actions legal, but there’s no doubt that the abrupt way he addressed the situation deeply offended the cultural sensitivities of some residents, and a different approach might have helped him avoid the subsequent outpouring of bad publicity. In any event, there are lessons to be learned from what happened at the Taos motel, both legally and from an HR standpoint.
English-Only Rules
According to some published reports, Whitten didn’t ban employees from speaking Spanish altogether. He claims that he noticed on his arrival that the workers seemed hostile to his management style, and he worried they might start talking about him in Spanish (and he wouldn’t be able to understand them since he isn’t bilingual). Therefore, he says he directed them to speak only English in his presence. Some employees were fired because they were hostile to him and insubordinate when he instituted the policy.
Policies that require employees to speak only English in the workplace have long been a touchy subject. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has always been skeptical of them, taking the position that a company can implement an English-only rule only if it’s necessary to promote the safe or efficient operation of the business. Without that type of justification, says the EEOC, an English-only policy constitutes national origin discrimination.
In this case, Whitten has articulated what might constitute a valid justification for his policy of requiring employees to speak English in his presence. That is, because of their demonstrated hostility toward him and his management style, he didn’t want them to be saying derogatory things about him in Spanish. If he can establish a reasonable basis for his assertions of open hostility, he may be able to show the English-only policy is legitimate, although it’s clear he would have been much better off to articulate the parameters of the policy in writing.
Anglo-Name-Only Rule
On the other hand, Whitten’s rule that employees with Hispanic first names go by an Anglicized version of their name doesn’t seem to be on as firm footing. It isn’t clear whether the policy applies at all times and in all circumstances or only to employees who work the front desk phones or deal directly with guests. If it was limited to employees during their communications with the public, the policy might be valid from a strictly legal standpoint. Again, however, it clearly would have been better if he had defined the parameters of the rule in writing.
Arguably, Whitten has articulated a sufficient business justification for his Anglo-name-only policy. A court might rule that the sufficiency of the business reason must be decided by a jury. Customer or employee preference isn’t a valid business reason for such a policy, however. That kind of justification is no more valid than arguments in the 1950s prohibiting blacks from working in hotels or in the 1970s barring men from becoming flight attendants.
Bottom Line
The adage “look before you leap” summarizes the lesson to be learned from the incidents at the Taos motel. Before you adopt any workplace policy dealing with something other than direct job requirements and performance, think first about whether it’s really necessary from a business standpoint. If it isn’t, don’t adopt it. If it is, carefully articulate its parameters, and make its application no broader than necessary to protect your legitimate business interests.
Robert P. Tinnin , Jr. is the editor of New Mexico Employment Law Letter. He may be reached at rtinnin@tinninlawfirm.com
The following is an email I sent to the good folks at the Paragon Inn regarding this matter:
Hello,
I reviewed your website and I do have a special request to ask about. If my name or the names of my family members appear to be hard to pronounce, will the names have be changed in order for us to stay at your establishment?
I highly doubt you would treat your customers with any less respect and dignity than what you currently extend to your employees, but I do want to make sure before taking any further action.
Gracias (that means “thank you” in Spanish) for getting back to me.
CB