Anti-discrimination laws apply when workers are treated differently because of ethnicity, culture, accent or English proficiency. English-only polices in the workplace must be carefully scrutinized in light of their tendency to create hostile work environments. Employer policies under which workers can be disciplined for the practice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated that employers should caution against even limited English-only policies when not justified by legitimate business necessity.
Examples of harassment under this provision would include:
- Denied better jobs because lack of an “all-American” look.
- Taunting at work for having a heavy accent
- Discipline for toggling between English and their mother tongue known as “code-switching.”
- Lack of job advancement and pay
- Lack of public interaction based on the employee’s accent
Employers need to be careful in light of the significant lawsuit against retailer Abercrombie & Fitch.
The lawsuit charged that, in an effort to sell a “classic” or “all-American” look, Abercrombie refused to hire qualified minority applicants to work on the sales floor and discouraged applications from minorities. The suit also alleged that in the rare instances when such candidates were hired, they were given low-end, backroom jobs to keep them out of the public eye. The company agreed to a $40 million consent decree that required it to create policies and programs to promote diversity in its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender.
Reference:English-Only Rules at Work: Discrimination or Business Necessity? Wilkie, D. (11/14/2013) SHRM.org
