3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Is it right for an American company to require its employees to speak and understand English to a reasonable degree? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, is suing a private American business for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees over their inability to speak English at work, claiming that the English-language requirement in a U.S. business constitutes “discrimination.” Judicial Watch reported Tuesday that the government is accusing Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “national origin.” The government argues this includes the “linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.” Irene Garcia, the blog editor and Spanish media liaison for Judicial Watch, called the EEOC’s accusation “ludicrous.” “That’s ludicrous and an overreaching of government,” Garcia told CNSNews.com. “If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak English.” According to a news release from the EEOC, Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson said the Green Bay-based company’s English requirement is based on “superficial” reasoning. Read more: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/federal-gov-t-sues-wisconsin-company-says-english-language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Bring back all discrimination. It made us tougher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 Bring back all discrimination. It made us tougher. Is it discrimination, and if so is it discrimination that is against the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I would think that having the ability to communicate with and understand supervisors and co-workers is a very important part of being able to do a job, but then again, what does the federal government know about being able to do a job. If I moved to Mexico, I'd speak Spanish.... If I moved to Germany, I'd speak German... what's the problem? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Is it discrimination, and if so is it discrimination that is against the law? If this ruling as discrimination stuck, we're way more !@#$ed than I thought we were. I get discrimination sucks for guys based on skin color. But if I don't hire you because you have sleeve tatoo's, that's not discrimination. I don't hire a gay guy because he dresses like a flamboyant weirdo, that's not discrimination. If I don't hire you because you're 400 pounds, and I need someone who can move and operate at high energy, that's not discrimination. This case is b.s. and absurd. I don't buy the "English isn't necessary for their jobs" defense either. At some point or another, I'm sure these guys had to communicate with their English speaking colleagues. Edited July 4, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I get discrimination sucks for guys based on skin color. But if I don't hire you because you have sleeve tatoo's, that's not discrimination. I don't hire a gay guy because he dresses like a flamboyant weirdo, that's not discrimination. If I don't hire you because you're 400 pounds, and I need someone who can move and operate at high energy, that's not discrimination. This case is b.s. and absurd. The company, however, is not being sued because it wouldn't hire non-English speaking workers. It's being sued because it fired them because the workers couldn't speak English, and therein lies the problem with the story. How many employees are we talking about, because if it's even a remotely significant number, the question has to be asked, "How did this company hire so many non-English speaking workers if they knew the job required some proficient English to be spoken?" Something's wrong with the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 The company, however, is not being sued because it wouldn't hire non-English speaking workers. It's being sued because it fired them because the workers couldn't speak English, and therein lies the problem with the story. How many employees are we talking about, because if it's even a remotely significant number, the question has to be asked, "How did this company hire so many non-English speaking workers if they knew the job required some proficient English to be spoken?" Something's wrong with the story. Maybe through a temp agency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The company, however, is not being sued because it wouldn't hire non-English speaking workers. It's being sued because it fired them because the workers couldn't speak English, and therein lies the problem with the story. How many employees are we talking about, because if it's even a remotely significant number, the question has to be asked, "How did this company hire so many non-English speaking workers if they knew the job required some proficient English to be spoken?" Something's wrong with the story. The company, however, is not being sued because it wouldn't hire non-English speaking workers. It's being sued because it fired them because the workers couldn't speak English, and therein lies the problem with the story. How many employees are we talking about, because if it's even a remotely significant number, the question has to be asked, "How did this company hire so many non-English speaking workers if they knew the job required some proficient English to be spoken?" Something's wrong with the story. "Our experience at the EEOC has been that so-called 'English only' rules and requirements of English fluency are often employed to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable," said EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson. "But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone. When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer's business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin -- and thus violates federal law." The bolded is important. Just because the employer one day decided he wanted his employees to all speak English in order to more successfully run his company, doesn't make this discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 "Our experience at the EEOC has been that so-called 'English only' rules and requirements of English fluency are often employed to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable," said EEOC Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson. "But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone. When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer's business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin -- and thus violates federal law." The bolded is important. Just because the employer one day decided he wanted his employees to all speak English in order to more successfully run his company, doesn't make this discrimination. It's also the crux of the suit. The EEOC is claiming that the people fired had sufficient English skills to do the work. The employer is claiming otherwise. This is being portrayed as much more extreme than it actually is (racist employer not wanting to hire Asians or Hispanics vs. EEOC saying the ability to communicate on the job isn't a job requirement." Hendrickson is just a moron, quite simply. The "successful operation of an employer's business" is virtually synonymous with the employee's "effective performance of a job." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 It's also the crux of the suit. The EEOC is claiming that the people fired had sufficient English skills to do the work. The employer is claiming otherwise. This is being portrayed as much more extreme than it actually is (racist employer not wanting to hire Asians or Hispanics vs. EEOC saying the ability to communicate on the job isn't a job requirement." Hendrickson is just a moron, quite simply. The "successful operation of an employer's business" is virtually synonymous with the employee's "effective performance of a job." Right. I still don't see how this can even be argued in court though. Can the employer be sure that they hear and understand his instructions? Can he be sure they can articulate a complicated problem? The answer can't be proven as a yes. So how could they ever prove that English isn't a requirement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 . Just because the employer one day decided he wanted his employees to all speak English in order to more successfully run his company... I hadn't thought of it as a policy change. That make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Right. I still don't see how this can even be argued in court though. Can the employer be sure that they hear and understand his instructions? Can he be sure they can articulate a complicated problem? The answer can't be proven as a yes. So how could they ever prove that English isn't a requirement? The other thing, too, is that the EEOC doesn't lose. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In this case, the employer would have to demonstrate not only that a certain level of English skills were necessary to the job, and that those weren't met, and that sufficient attempts were made to address the situation before termination occurred ("sufficient" being defined largely at the discretion of the EEOC - I imagine "not hiring a translator" demonstrates insufficiency of effort in this case.) I've only ever seen it for overt racial cases ("You fired me because I'm black!" "No, we fired you because you only came in three days a week, late, left early, never notified us when you weren't coming in, and browsed internet porn when you were here. Here's the HR records from the three months of your employment." EEOC: "Yeah...but he's black. Pay him $40k.") This case, where the EEOC's charging "soft" racism based on language skills...the employer's completely screwed, since there's no way they can prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The other thing, too, is that the EEOC doesn't lose. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In this case, the employer would have to demonstrate not only that a certain level of English skills were necessary to the job, and that those weren't met, and that sufficient attempts were made to address the situation before termination occurred ("sufficient" being defined largely at the discretion of the EEOC - I imagine "not hiring a translator" demonstrates insufficiency of effort in this case.) I've only ever seen it for overt racial cases ("You fired me because I'm black!" "No, we fired you because you only came in three days a week, late, left early, never notified us when you weren't coming in, and browsed internet porn when you were here. Here's the HR records from the three months of your employment." EEOC: "Yeah...but he's black. Pay him $40k.") This case, where the EEOC's charging "soft" racism based on language skills...the employer's completely screwed, since there's no way they can prove otherwise. Isn't the employer the one being taken to court? I thought he was the defendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Isn't the employer the one being taken to court? I thought he was the defendant. I meant defendant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Your a idiot. Now I'd like to fire some people who don't know the difference between then and than. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The company, however, is not being sued because it wouldn't hire non-English speaking workers. It's being sued because it fired them because the workers couldn't speak English, and therein lies the problem with the story. How many employees are we talking about, because if it's even a remotely significant number, the question has to be asked, "How did this company hire so many non-English speaking workers if they knew the job required some proficient English to be spoken?" Something's wrong with the story. My first thought as well. Something doesn't add up. That said, the EEOC are scumbags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 6, 2014 Share Posted July 6, 2014 (edited) it sounds to me like the EEOC is being consistent with this administration, it's policies, and the views of the president's supporters. after all, job performance doesn't factor into it. if you criticize the president for his poor performance, it's because you're a racist. Edited July 6, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 I meant defendant. Doesn't the plaintiff have to prove guilt? Not the defendant proving innocence? Reasonable doubt and all that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 Doesn't the plaintiff have to prove guilt? Not the defendant proving innocence? Reasonable doubt and all that right? For a regulatory violation? Generally, no. And specifically, not when dealing with the EEOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 There are a lot of Americans who can't speak fluent English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts