Bill would let employers limit workplace languages

Can an employer require workers to speak only in English?

Sometimes, says the government - as long as there's a work-related reason, such as communicating with clients or maintaining safety.

The issue flared up last year after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Salvation Army, which fired two Hispanic workers in Massachusetts for failing to learn English. That, the EEOC said, constituted discrimination "on the basis of their national origin."

The action against the religious charity incensed some politicians and touched off a campaign in Washington to give employers more freedom to adopt "English only" rules.

The latest bill in the House would permit employers "to require employees to speak English while engaged in work."

U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-4th District, is one of its most forceful supporters.

"I think it's more than fair to say to people: If you want to work for an employer, that employer ought to be able to ask you to learn English," he said. "There are all kinds of reasons. You might have a customer base that speaks English. Or what happens if you have an injury in the workplace and you can't communicate with the person who is injured?"

Alicia Fernandez-Bobulinski, an activist on immigration issues in Virginia Beach, worries that the bill would exacerbate anti-immigrant fervor.

"Some of the people in power are knee-jerking and not really thinking things through properly, because we are a land of immigrants," she said. "We, as Americans, need to stop being afraid and say, 'Hey, we can take this on. We're able to be multilingual.' "

The bill, she said, would discourage the hiring of immigrants at a time when businesses need more people fluent in languages.

Instead, Forbes said, the bill would make employers more comfortable hiring foreign workers. They would know they could require them to speak English without fear of litigation.

Forbes said his involvement was triggered mostly by pique at the Salvation Army case. But he's heard from local employers who think "we have the right to have employees speak or understand English," he said.

Representatives of three local businesses, as well as Bank of America Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said they did not have English-only policies. Most did not consider it a concern. A handful of other local companies did not respond to inquiries.

"Our folks, when they come for employment, know that's how we do our business," said Joe Thomas, regional vice president for the Geico insurance center in Virginia Beach. "We're an English-speaking company because that's what most of our customers are. It really is a nonissue."

At Daniels BigEye Seafood, a seafood market in Kill Devil Hills, N.C., "I just need good workers and people that show up," co-owner Patricia Lake said. Employees who deal with customers are expected to speak English, she said, but Daniels has no formal policy.

Forbes doesn't hide his ire with the EEOC. He noted that "English only" complaints filed with the agency grew sixfold since 1996.

But agency spokesman David Grinberg said the 190 "English only" filings last year constituted a fraction of 1 percent of the 83,000 complaints received on alleged workplace discrimination.

"It's just not something we see a lot of," he said.

Furthermore, he said, the EEOC filed only two suits challenging English-only policies last year.

Forbes said numbers matter less than principle.

"Just because something is wrong, you can't sit back and say, 'Let's not deal with it, because 200,000 people aren't involved,' " he said.

In the Salvation Army lawsuit, the agency challenged the firings of women from the Dominican Republic and El Salvador who worked as clothes sorters in a thrift store.

They "worked commendably and without incident for at least five years, rel ying on Spanish as their principal means of workplace communication," the EEOC said.

They were fired for not learning English, the suit said, though that "was unrelated to the job they had been performing."

The Salvation Army did not respond to an e-mail.

EEOC guidelines allow English-only policies for a "business necessity," such as "communications with customers" or "to promote safety."

The complaints the agency pursues, Grinberg said, tend to involve "blanket English-only policies. We've seen cases where employees were fired for speaking Spanish outside the building or saying 'good morning' in Spanish."

Lawyer Timothy McConville said he advises employers that English-only policies should be "job-related and consistent with business necessities," such as working in sales with English-speaking customers.

"A policy that prohibits employees from speaking any language other than English at all times is going to be problematic," said McConville, with Willcox & Savage in Norfolk.

Dean Buckius, with Vandeventer Black LLP in Norfolk, tells clients: "Think long and hard before you adopt such a rule. If it's challenged, you will have an uphill battle. Is it a matter of convenience or is there a real business reason for it?"

Most of the time, "they reach the conclusion that they could probably do without it and it's probably not worth the risk," Buckius said.

Forbes is among 109 co-sponsors of the bill, including Reps. Thelma Drake, R-2nd District, and Rob Wittman, R-1st District. Forbes acknowledged it faces long odds in the Democrat-led House.

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-3rd District, expressed skepticism of the bill "because it's unclear how it changes present law," he said. "Present law allows English-only requirements when there is a business rationale.

"To the extent that you allow English-only policies when there is no rationale, you open up the possibility of inappropriate discrimination based on national origin."

Of 10 people interviewed in Norfolk, all backed the bill.

"We are a melting pot, and we have a lot of different nationalities," said Roy Gooden, a nurse from Portsmouth. "But we need to have a commonality in what we speak, and English should be it."

Philip Walzer, (757) 222-3864, phil.walzer@pilotonline.com