Employers who consider requiring employees to speak only English in the workplace should proceed carefully. Without a clear, legitimate business-related reason for having an English-only rule in your workplace, your rule could be deemed a discriminatory practice.
If you are an employer subject to federal anti-discrimination laws, it's important to realize that English-only rules are presumed to be discriminatory by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The reasoning behind this presumption is that requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace may disadvantage workers on the basis of national origin and can create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation, and intimidation.
However, an English-only rule will be upheld only if the use of English is required by business necessity. This area of the law is unsettled, as some courts have rejected the EEOC's position. To protect yourself, make sure that you have a business necessity for requiring English.
Warning
Do not assume that this is an issue that you can ignore if you do not have English-only rules in place. Not having an English-only policy in place can cause trouble as well. For example, in one case an English-speaking worker sued her employer for providing a discriminatory work environment because her coworkers were isolating her by consistently speaking a foreign language she didn't understand.
Chances are, if you have only a few employees, problems necessitating English-only rules will not arise. But if you find yourself considering such a policy because employees are speaking another language at work, ask yourself these questions to see if having the rules would be justified.
- Do you really have a problem? As long as employees are not interfering with the business's efficiency or causing tensions with other employees, is there any harm in allowing certain employees to converse in another language? It may, in fact, be easier for employees to speak in their primary language. It can improve efficiency and may boost morale.
- Do employees need to be able to speak English? Do they need to communicate with customers or other employees at specific times?
- Are the reasons business related? Are the reasons for wanting to have employees speak English business related? There must be a business necessity to require that only English be spoken. Employees can properly be required to speak English while they are performing job duties that involve safety concerns, potentially dangerous substances, and equipment because it is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business.
Example
Benjamin owns a deli, and in his deli he has employees working in positions where they do not interact with customers but where they can be observed by customers who come into the deli. Benjamin can't require his employees to speak only English because he is concerned that customers would not like it that his employees were speaking another language in front of them.
The following example does illustrate legitimate business need.
Example
In the same situation, if Benjamin has employees who must interact with customers who speak English only, requiring the employees to speak English when interacting with the customer would be a business necessity.
There are alternatives to having an English-only policy. If you have a problem between specific employees that is causing disruption, you can try restricting the use of the second language during work-related conversations among those specific employees:
- Clarify that the directive is tailored to curtail conflicts among identified employees and is not directed at all employees or all conversations.
- Emphasize that it is not an English-only rule since not all languages are prohibited.
- Treat the problem as a disciplinary situation and follow your discipline policy.
By choosing to implement this kind of strategy, you can have the best of both worlds. Employees can communicate with each other effectively in English to get work done, but employees who speak foreign languages can converse with each other at work about nonwork topics, which can help improve morale.
The Department of Labor benefits from the substantial contributions of employees who are fluent in languages other than English. As an employer that promotes the benefits of a diverse workforce, DOL recognizes that employees who speak languages other than English may
wish to communicate in another language outside of performing their job duties, such as in casual conversations with coworkers or while engaged in personal matters. In most circumstances, employees' communications in languages other than English should not be limited to only those official functions for which they were hired. Employees' right to speak in languages other than English may only be curtailed in certain narrowly-defined situations. For example: OSHA
safeguards the rights of workers to safe and healthy working conditions by setting and enforcing standards, and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance. Fluent in a variety of languages, OSHA’s bilingual staff ensures that programs and services are effectively communicated to all workers and employers. WHD enforces federal labor laws, including laws concerning the minimum wage, overtime pay, child labor, and migrant workers. WHD strategic
initiatives focus on industries that employ vulnerable workers, including individuals with limited English proficiency. In order to meet the needs of these Americans, over 60 percent of WHD’s investigators are multilingual, speaking nearly 50 different languages. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(a) provides that a rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times in the workplace is a burdensome term and condition of employment. Such a rule is presumed to violate Title
VII. Therefore, a speak-English-only rule that applies to casual conversations between employees on break or not performing a job duty would be unlawful.
A workplace English-only rule that is applied only at certain times may be adopted only under very limited circumstances that are justified by business necessity. 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(b) Such a rule must be narrowly tailored to address the business necessity. Situations in which business necessity would justify an English-only rule include:
- For communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English
- In emergencies or other situations in which employees must speak a common language to promote safety
- For example, a rule requiring employees to speak only English in the event of an emergency and when performing their work in specific areas of the workplace that might contain flammable chemicals or other potentially dangerous equipment is narrowly tailored to safety requirements and does not violate Title VII.
- For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency
- For example, a rule requiring investigators (some of whom speak only English) to speak only English when working as a team to compile a report or prepare a case for litigation is narrowly tailored to promote business efficiency and therefore does not violate Title VII.
- To enable a supervisor who only speaks
English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication in English with coworkers or customers
- For example, a rule requiring employees to speak only English with English-speaking co-workers and customers when a supervisor is present to monitor their work performance would be narrowly tailored to promote efficiency of business operations. As long as the rule does not apply to casual conversations between employees when they are not performing job duties, it would not violate Title VII.
Notice
If an employer with a business necessity adopts an English-only rule to be applied at certain times, the employer must inform its affected employees of the general circumstances when speaking only in English is required and of the consequences of violating the rule. 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(c)
As with all workplace policies, an English-only rule must be adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons only.
- For example, an English-only rule would be unlawful if it were adopted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin. Likewise, a policy prohibiting some, but not all, of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace, such as a no-Spanish rule, would be unlawful.
Best Practices
- Evaluate: In evaluating whether to adopt an English-only rule, an employer should weigh the business justifications for the rule against any possible discriminatory effects.
- Consider Alternatives: Before adopting an English-only rule, the employer should consider whether there are any alternatives that would be equally effective in promoting safety or efficiency.
- Consult with EEO Manager: To ensure that the employer is proceeding properly, it is best to consult with the EEO Manager or the Civil Rights Center before implementing an English-only rule.