EEOC takes aim on ‘English-only’ rules
December 4, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In This Week's E-Newsletter, Job screening tests, Latest News & Views, Law
Is it against the law to only hire applicants who speak fluent English?
In some cases, yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC recently settled a lawsuit against the Salvation Army over a company policy requiring all employees to speak English on the job. The company handbook listed “fluency in English; written and spoken” as a qualification for employment.
Due to that policy, two Spanish-speaking employees were fired after failing to learn the language while working for one of the employer’s stores.
Last week, the EEOC agreed to settle the case if the requirement was changed.
The new policy requires “an ability to speak and understand English in a manner that is sufficient for effective communication with supervisors, employees, beneficiaries and customers, based on the assumption that such individuals can only speak and understand English.”
Also, the new rule bars the company from rejecting applicants because they speak a language in addition to English.
In other words: Requiring fluency in one language is discriminatory. Hiring employees with the ability to communicate with customers, bosses and each other isn’t.
Tags: EEOC, English-only rules, Salvation Army
December 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
It appears that the new policy is just as vague as the old policy. The old policy was that an employee had to have “fluency in English; written and spoken” as a qualification for employment. The new policy is “an ability to speak and understand English in a manner that is sufficient for effective communication with supervisors, employees, beneficiaries and customers, based on the assumption that such individuals can only speak and understand English.”
The new policy is not as succinct and still does not define what would be “sufficient for effective communication.”
Beyond the basic level of communication, there are other “languages” not tied to nationality or ethnicity that may need to be written and spoken fluently, such as the language of architects, engineers, social workers, counselors, teachers, and other professionals. Each profession has developed its own language. The main difference between most professions is their language. The mathematics and problem solving skills are exactly the same. For instance, a doctor with credentials in Haiti, would have to demonstrate that they can perform the same skills and functions in the US using the American Medical Association “language” before they would be allowed to practice in the US.
I’m sure a new lawsuit is in the works somewhere. This won’t be settled until each job decription lays out specifically what the employee needs to understand and communicate by referencing specific definitions, terms, and dictionaries for each essential job function.
December 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
There shouldn’t be a problem with “requiring” the understanding of the English Language..When looking for employment for myself a few years back, I was “excluded” from so many available possitions whose advertized necessary jobs skills list “bi-lingual-or Spanish speaking only need apply!! That is discrimination!! They company obviously only catered to Spanish speaking organizations and clientele….What about THAT!!
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
So, Bi-Lingual or Bust- New to the working world?
Hiring is based on company needs and the qualifications the application base has to meet those needs.
When you don’t get hired because you can’t do something or don’t know something, it is not unlawful discrimination, it is what we do as HR professionals. Knowledge- skills – and abilities.
Hablas espanol, now, hombre?