During the past 50 years, the American workforce has changed drastically. One of the most noticeable changes has been the absorption of immigrants into the workforce who do not speak English as their first language.
In response to the increased linguistic diversity of the workforce, many employers have implemented policies that limit or completely prohibit their employees from speaking languages other than English while at work. These so called “English-only” polices may violate the national origin protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers that implement these policies are at risk of being sued not only by employees who feel wronged by the policy, but also by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Employers should be aware that for the past 10 years the EEOC has been targeting employers that implement English-only policies. In fact, the EEOC has made clear through numerous press releases and strategic litigation efforts that combating English-only policies is a priority.
You may be wondering why the EEOC would target policies that restrict employees from speaking a foreign language while at work because language is not specifically protected by Title VII. Although Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of language, the EEOC reasons that, because language is an “essential national origin characteristic,” English-only policies should be closely scrutinized for compliance with Title VII’s prohibitions against national origin discrimination. See 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7. The agency believes that an English-only policy that restricts employees from speaking in a language other than English at all times is a burdensome condition of employment, which violates Title VII. See id. If, on the other hand, the policy only restricts an employee from speaking a foreign language at certain times, the employer may justify the policy by showing that it was implemented out of a “business necessity.” See id. The EEOC’s English-only policy guidelines, however, do not indicate what “business necessity” means in this context.
Without significant deviations, the courts have followed the EEOC’s general guidance regarding English-only policies. Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F. 3d 116) (10th Cir. 2007), provides an excellent overview of how courts typically analyze English-only policies.
In Montes, the plaintiff was a Mexican housekeeper who worked at a hospital in Vail, Colorado. The plaintiff spoke fluent Spanish and a...
