U.S. Sues American Co. For Requiring Workers to Speak English

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The Fed govt has gone loony.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/07/u-s-sues-american-co-requiring-workers-speak-english/

The United States government is actually suing a private American business for discriminating against Hispanic and Asian employees because they don’t speak English on the job.

It involves a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer that fired a group of Hmong and Hispanic workers over their English skills, “even though those skills were not needed to perform their jobs,” according to the feds. More importantly, forcing employees to speak English in the U.S. violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, says the Obama administration.

Here’s the twisted explanation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws; the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, according to this reasoning, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.

Requirements of English fluency and so-called English only rules are often implemented to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable, says the government attorney handling this case. “But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone,” he assures. “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.”

Under President Obama the EEOC has taken a number of unprecedented actions to protect foreigners in the workplace, including illegal immigrants. In 2009 the agency issued a controversial order making a workplace English rule illegal. The directive came after the EEOC bullied a national healthcare firm to pay nearly half a million dollars to settle a discrimination lawsuit in which the government alleged that Hispanic workers were punished for speaking Spanish.

The agency has been on a roll ever since, taking legal action against businesses across the country accusing them of everything from discriminating against minorities for running criminal background and credit checks to discriminating against Muslims for not allowing hijabs on the job. The criminal background and credit checks disproportionately exclude blacks from hire, according to EEOC lawsuits against several companies. Businesses that forbid Muslim women from wearing a hijab at work violate religious rights guaranteed under the nation’s civil rights laws even when all head coverings are banned for all employees, the EEOC asserts

Last fall an Obama-appointed federal judge handed the administration a major victory, ruling that a Muslim woman’s civil rights were indeed violated by an American clothing retailer that didn’t allow her to wear the head scarf as required by her religion. The EEOC had filed the lawsuit against retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch, accusing it of religious discrimination for firing 19-year-old Umme-Hani Khan for wearing a hijab at a northern California store. The company, which focuses on hip casual wear for consumers aged 18 to 22, has a policy against head covers of any kind for its employees.

[Jacque67 7,328]

I agree with Obama's actions in this case. Who needs English in such a job? Ridiculous .

Edited July 3, 2014 by Jacque67

[Jacque67 7,328]

Abercrombie and Fitch have proven to be very extremist in it's image even though the CEO is overweight to say the least. Self hate. Go figure.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I agree with Obama's actions in this case. Who needs English in such a job? Ridiculous .

Well, if I called ANY manufacturer in the US of A, hoping to get a quote on their product, but they spoke a foreign language that I did not understand, I'd certainly hang up and call someone else. English is a fairly important language for me. And since it's the most spoken language in the world by total number of people who can speak it, I reckon it's pretty important outside the US, too.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

What is wrong with being able to communicate in English so that everyone regardless of nationality could understand each other?

[Jacque67 7,328]

These non English speaking people are answering the phones??

Oh, yeah! Every time I call Chase Manhattan or Verizon I get people who can't string a sentence together but maybe they passed some dumb English proficiency test.

[Jacque67 7,328]

What is wrong with being able to communicate in English so that everyone regardless of nationality could understand each other?

Verizon has hooked me up to English speaking Romanians who don't understand anything that is being said to them but can provide rote learned answers in English. Is this communication! I think not.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

No, they practice speaking those scripts the same way folks study for the naturalization test. They know the questions, they memorize the answers. Same thing with foreigners answering the phones in a call center. Simple rote memorization of canned scripts. Usually when I get one like this, I last about 2 sentences before I ask to speak to their manager. And have sometimes had to go a level above that just to get credible results.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Verizon has hooked me up to English speaking Romanians who don't understand anything that is being said to them but can provide rote learned answers in English. Is this communication! I think not.

Outsourcing call centers to some countries that pride themselves of speaking "Business English".

I would normally hang up on them too.

[Jacque67 7,328]

So the point is factory workers don't need no education . Good for the US gov in this case.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Alas, what the op-ed failed to disclose is whether these employees were bi-lingual. Perhaps they chose to speak a language other than English among themselves.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, they practice speaking those scripts the same way folks study for the naturalization test. They know the questions, they memorize the answers. Same thing with foreigners answering the phones in a call center. Simple rote memorization of canned scripts. Usually when I get one like this, I last about 2 sentences before I ask to speak to their manager. And have sometimes had to go a level above that just to get credible results.

When I call direct TV I almost always get Mississippi or Kentucky. I love speaking to fellow southerners . I know this may sound wierd, but I got this girl in Mississippi the other day. She had the sweetest and sexiset voice I think I have ever heard. Youngster Black woman from the sound of it, but you could just tell from her voice she was a beautiful person inside and out. I almost hated for the call to be over. Very few voices have ever affected me over the phone like that. It was odd

Alas, what the op-ed failed to disclose is whether these employees were bi-lingual. Perhaps they chose to speak a language other than English among themselves.

I tell my wife and her friends all the time, English only please. They just laugh and go right back to making fun of us in their native tongues. I am so accustomed to going somewhere and people talking in another language I just tune it out mostly

[JohnR! 5,495]

I tell my wife and her friends all the time, English only please. They just laugh and go right back to making fun of us in their native tongues. I am so accustomed to going somewhere and people talking in another language I just tune it out mostly

I once had a lady in line suggest that my wife and I should go back to our country because we were speaking a foreign language. When I asked what country that would be she could not name it. I told her we would prefer to continue speaking in a foreign language because we were talking about her. She was none too happy...

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I once had a lady in line suggest that my wife and I should go back to our country because we were speaking a foreign language. When I asked what country that would be she could not name it. I told her we would prefer to continue speaking in a foreign language because we were talking about her. She was none too happy...

That's a good one

I read all kind of posts from friends on FB about, why do I have to press 1 for English, or complaing about bi-lingual signs etc in certain parts of Atlanta.

I think most just need to go out of country once or twice. Then they would appreciate why

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Fed govt has gone loony.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/07/u-s-sues-american-co-requiring-workers-speak-english/

The United States government is actually suing a private American business for discriminating against Hispanic and Asian employees because they don’t speak English on the job.

It involves a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer that fired a group of Hmong and Hispanic workers over their English skills, “even though those skills were not needed to perform their jobs,” according to the feds. More importantly, forcing employees to speak English in the U.S. violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, says the Obama administration.

Here’s the twisted explanation from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws; the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, according to this reasoning, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.

Requirements of English fluency and so-called English only rules are often implemented to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable, says the government attorney handling this case. “But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone,” he assures. “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.”

Under President Obama the EEOC has taken a number of unprecedented actions to protect foreigners in the workplace, including illegal immigrants. In 2009 the agency issued a controversial order making a workplace English rule illegal. The directive came after the EEOC bullied a national healthcare firm to pay nearly half a million dollars to settle a discrimination lawsuit in which the government alleged that Hispanic workers were punished for speaking Spanish.

The agency has been on a roll ever since, taking legal action against businesses across the country accusing them of everything from discriminating against minorities for running criminal background and credit checks to discriminating against Muslims for not allowing hijabs on the job. The criminal background and credit checks disproportionately exclude blacks from hire, according to EEOC lawsuits against several companies. Businesses that forbid Muslim women from wearing a hijab at work violate religious rights guaranteed under the nation’s civil rights laws even when all head coverings are banned for all employees, the EEOC asserts

Last fall an Obama-appointed federal judge handed the administration a major victory, ruling that a Muslim woman’s civil rights were indeed violated by an American clothing retailer that didn’t allow her to wear the head scarf as required by her religion. The EEOC had filed the lawsuit against retail giant Abercrombie & Fitch, accusing it of religious discrimination for firing 19-year-old Umme-Hani Khan for wearing a hijab at a northern California store. The company, which focuses on hip casual wear for consumers aged 18 to 22, has a policy against head covers of any kind for its employees.

What's the issue? You don't get to fire people willy-nilly for lacking skills that they 1) never had when you hired them, skills that you 2) quite obviously did not make a requirement for getting the job in the first place and 3) skills that are simply not required for the performance of the job they were hired for. That's like hiring a mute person for a job and then firing that person for not being able to speak even though that person can perform their job just fine without speaking. Or hiring a blind person and then firing that blind person for their inability to see even though that person can perform their job just fine not seeing. That's just wrong. Quite simple, really.