Bias complaints about this hiring requirement rise
May 6, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Assessing the right candidate, In This Week's E-Newsletter, Latest News & Views, Law
One common hiring practice is quickly creating legal trouble for a lot of companies:
Requiring all employees to be fluent English speakers.
In 2008, the EEOC received 204 complaints of national origin discrimination based on English-only policies. That’s up from 125 in 2006 — a 63% increase. Comparatively, national origin discrimination claims in general increased just 27% in that time.
More claims are being filed, but does that mean language policies are always discriminatory? No, it doesn’t. According to the EEOC, English-speaking requirements are fine if they’re based on a business necessity.
For example, a policy would be OK if:
- the employee frequently communicates with customers or co-workers who speak English
- the policy is needed so employees can work together safely, or
- it’s necessary to facilitate communication between managers and employees.
On the other hand, requiring employees to speak English during breaks or requiring English proficiency for employees without much need to communicate could get a company in trouble.
Tags: discrimination, EEOC, English-only rules, national origin
May 8th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Excuse me but I was under the impression that this was United States of America and our language of choice was English! All of our work instructions/procedures are in English, all of our customers regardless of where they are from communicate to us in English and you think we are offending someone by asking them to speak English in the work place. Most of these people left their own countries to have a better way of life, I don’t think learning our language is being to severe in a requirement to work.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Absolutely Peg.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:24 am
There isn’t a one answer fits all. Seriously, if they are unloading trucks or doing labor that doesn’t involve lengthy discussions they don’t need to be “fluent”. Offer classes to help them learn English or link them with something in the community. You will likely end up with a very loyal and dedicated employee.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I agree. If they are going to live and work in the United States, they should speak our language. If they want to talk to their co-workers in another language on their break or during lunch, that’s fine. Otherwise, they should be required to speak English.
May 15th, 2009 at 10:23 am
The United States of America, unfortunately, does not have a national language thanks to the people we placed in office. It we did we could have saved millions of dollars, in the public and private sector, by not have to have signage in both English and Spanish. We used to be a “melting pot” but are no longer since our flavors remain separate and distinct. As a first generation American I remember the stories of the challenges of learning English by my parents and grandparents but they did.
Communication is not only necessary with customers. What about teamwork building, brainstorming, coaching, giving directions or instructions?
May 15th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I think the main problem is EEOC – for saying it depends on business necessity??? Hello, that’s opening the doors for many to say I don’t need to speak it because everyone else speaks my language. The truth of the matter is that English is our official language and while people are free to speak as many languages they wish in their own time, when it comes to work, it should be a requirement period. Even if the person does not need to communicate with customers on a regular basis, how are they supposed to provide instruction/training about job requirements if they can’t speak English? They chose to live here, they need to learn to communicate IN ENGLISH.
May 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Funny, a few years back I actually called the dept of labor in CA to ask the question: Can we require applicants to speak English? The reason was that we are a small sheet metal company (about 30 employees) and everyone speaks English, although some are bilingual. There would be several persons who would walk in to our business looking for work who didn’t speak but a couple words of English and couldn’t complete the employment application.
In our business, safety is the #1 priority and communication is key. So, being concerned about turning these people away on a daily basis was my reason for the call. The answer was shocking and such a slap in the face. I was told that we could not make that a requirement for employment. The gal actually told me that I shouldn’t have a problem finding someone to hire that could translate for them. So I’m supposed to hire a translator now? I would have to allow additional time to say my message, then wait for the translator to explain it again in another language, then create some form of ackowledgement in that language just to protect the company from liability. What if there were an emergency? Give me a break.
There are so many Americans looking for work. Why in the world are we giving immigrants (legal or not) who refuse to learn our common language an avenue to this rediculous frivolous law suit? This is just insane.
May 16th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Wow! So many narrow-minded people out there. I work for a company in the Southwest and many of our very best associates don’t speak English. We are grateful for them and provide translation for them when necessary because they are a valuable part of our team. We believe in diversity and inclusion and I am proud to work for a company who respects and appreciates all of our associates who come from all over the world.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am
If I tried to get a job in another country where English is not a common language, do you suppose I would be required to speak the native language? Maybe they would bend over backward for me and change over to English just to suit me? This issue is beyond reasonable. If you want to work here, earn money here, send your numerous children to school here, get a drivers license here, you should have a basic working knowledge of English. That is simple common sense.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:36 am
My sentiments exactly… if we went to almost any other country in the world, we would have to pay extra to speak only English. Want to deal with only English speaking merchants? Okay, they’ll be the ones that charge a higher price than locals that don’t speak English. Want to send your children to English schools, you’ll have to find and pay for a private school. Why are we the only country that pays extra, in our own country, so that other people do not have to speak our native language?
May 18th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Terry A, I agree with you. So what do people who are learning to speak English do while they are learning? Get on Federal aid? Then all you English only proponents will complain they are lazy and come here and create higher taxes for the rest of us. Boy this site used to be interesting and people would talk about these issues from an HR point of view but now it’s seems a certain sort has taken over. I don’t think I’ll be coming back. This site is losing it’s usefulness.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Patricia… it is really dependent on the position. If it involves customer service and your customer base is only speaks primarily English how can you provide exceptional customer service if the service provider can’t understand the customer needs, answer questions, etc. This is not being bias or narrow-minded but having good common and business sense.
Because people don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are wrong. This is from an HR and business point of view. Can you imagine a call center where no one knew English and the majority of customers were English speaking? How long do you think they would remain in business?
Lilly…you can hire, depending on the position, only candidates who speak, write, and read in English…this is legal.
June 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Wow… I must have missed this the first time around. A reference I used while reading these is when I call a toll-free number for customer support (cell phone, computer, issue with my bank account, etc.) I so often get a person that does not always speak clear English. I am calling for support and I now have to try and figure out what the person is say that is supposed to be helping me. I find that frustrating and very unfair. Most businesses these days need people that can speak more than one language because our customer base is not all English. However, I beleive that I should have the right to require associates be able to speak and understand English. As a couple people stated above, if there is an emergency I may not have time for someone to translate. Nor should I be required to hire a translator because the person cannot speak English. I wouldn’t dream of moving to another country and expect a business to hire me when I could not speak and understand their native language enough to communicate. Of course, there is the real issue — what is enough? Anyway, as many of the automated phone messages state — “Press 1 for English”, oops didn’t press 1 quick enough, now I hear another language.