Workplace language rules.

Some employers impose restrictions against the use of a language other than English in their workplaces. Reasons given for the restrictions include: The use of a foreign language in a workplace is inappropriate; English has been made the official language of their state and safety and public relations require that only English be spoken.

Can employers lawfully regulate language in the workplace? It is largely an unsettled issue. There are only a few court decisions on the matter. Guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicate that prohibiting employees from speaking a language other than English amounts to national origin bias under the Civil Rights Act. However, the guidelines permit language restrictions if they constitute a "business necessity." It should be noted that EEOC guidelines do not have the force of law but courts look to them for direction.

A case that followed EEOC guidelines held that a California meat packing company's requirement that employees speak only English on the plant floor violated the Civil Rights Act. Up to 60 percent of the company's employees spoke Spanish and English fluency was not required for hiring. But management issued an English-only requirement, maintaining the rule was necessary to avoid friction among employees, improve plant safety and increase productivity. The EEOC found that the company discriminated on the basis of national origin and retaliated against Spanish-speaking employees by establishing the rule.

A federal district court agreed with the EEOC, saying that there were less restrictive alternatives available to increase employee productivity and discipline. The court observed that a 1986 amendment to the California constitution declaring that English is the state's official language may have raised "employer consciousness" to the English-only rules and "emboldened them, improperly, to take those risks." It also observed that the state legislature did not pass any law to enforce the constitutional amendment. (Garcia vs. Spun Steak Co.,DC, N. Calif., No. C911949RHS)

Interestingly, another meat packing company in California is not uncomfortable with different languages being spoken in the workplace. At Clougherty Packing Co. in Los Angeles, it is not uncommon for bilingual supervisors to manage employees in their native language and employees are not required to have a knowledge of English.

"Restrictions against the use of a language other than English in the workplace have become very prevalent," says Kathryn Imahara, director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center's Language Rights Project in Southern California, which provides legal services and civil rights support to immigrants from Asia and the Pacific Islands. Acknowledging that English- only rules may be necessary in certain situations -- a hospital operating room or work involving dangerous equipment, for example -- Imahara contends that "bans against using a second language are oppressive and affect workers' fundamental civil rights."

Ejection of union official

Soon after a dispute between management and a union over alleged unsafe working conditions, a ladder fell on a supervisor and another supervisor's office was ransacked. Two employees interviewed during an investigation of the incidents were represented by a union official. During the interviews, the employees gave only vague answers to the investigator's questions, and the union official persistently voiced objections to the repetitive line of questions. Finally, the official was asked to leave. When he refused, management ejected him from the interview, called the police and had him arrested for trespassing.

The union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The Board said that a union representative does not have the right to prevent management from repeating questions during an investigatory interview. It pointed out that the employees' answers were not responsive to the questions and the union official's persistent interruptions were excessive. Precluding management from repeating questions would turn an interview into a "formalized adversarial forum" and "severely circumscribe" management's prerogative to investigate employee misconduct, the Board said. Holding that the union official forfeited his fight to remain on company property, the Board concluded that management lawfully had him arrested for trespassing when he refused to leave. (New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 141 LRRM 1017)

Violation of employee's duties

A mechanical engineer at a company worked on light-duty transaxles. He eventually became professionally dissatisfied and began working on a transaxle of his own. He contacted one of his employer's largest customers and showed engineering drawings to its representatives. Within a few months, the engineer told his employer that he planned to market his own transaxle and resigned. The employer sued him, claiming that he had violated his duties of loyalty and confidentiality. The employer pointed out that the engineer had signed an agreement stating that anything he made or invented while working for the employer, if related to his work, would become the property of the employer, and any unauthorized disclosure of"secret or confidential information" would be prohibited.

Finding that the engineers transaxle was a direct result of his employment, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the device was the property of his employer and that the employee could not go any further with his efforts to market it. The court noted that the engineer received all of his training in the area of transaxle design from the employer, and that the device he developed incorporated confidential items from drawings belonging to the employer. The court said that in addition to breaking his agreement with his employer, the engineer violated his common-law duties of loyalty and confidentiality. His duty of loyalty was violated when he solicited business from one of his employer's largest customers before resigning. His duty of confidentiality was violated when he revealed his employer's trade secrets by showing the customer drawings of his transaxle. (Eaton Corp. vs. Giere, CA-8, 7IER Cases 1077)

In A Nutshell

(1) The language needs of immigrants is a problem for some employers.

(2) It is not dear whether employers have the right to impose language restrictions in the workplace.