English-Only Rule at Huntington Park Court Deemed Illegal, Barred

An English-only rule for Municipal Court employees in the heavily Latino city of Huntington Park was barred Wednesday by a federal appeals court, which said it appeared to violate laws banning discrimination based on national origin.

By a 3-0 vote, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected justifications for the rule, including claims that it promoted racial harmony, kept the workplace from becoming a Tower of Babel, and was required by a 1986 initiative making English California’s “official language.”

There was evidence that the rule “has contributed to a workplace atmosphere that derogates Hispanics, encourages discriminatory behavior by non-Hispanic supervisory and non-supervisory employees, and heightens racial animosity,” said the opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt.

Injunction Upheld

The ruling upheld a 1985 injunction by U.S. District Judge Richard Gadbois blocking enforcement of the English-only rule. The appeals court also kept alive a damage suit against three Municipal Court judges by a bilingual court clerk.

The Municipal Court in the Southeast District of Los Angeles changed its personnel rules in 1984 to forbid employees to speak any language besides English on the job except when acting as translators. It was apparently prompted by another employee’s complaint that she believed co-workers were saying disparaging things about her in Spanish.

The rule was challenged by Alva Gutierrez, one of several bilingual deputy court clerks whose duties included translating for the non-English-speaking public. She said the rule unfairly hurt Latinos whose ethnic identity was linked to the use of Spanish.

In ruling that she was likely to succeed in her lawsuit, the court said rules aimed at bilinguals, people with accents, or non-English-speakers “may be mere pretexts for intentional national origin discrimination,” forbidden by the civil rights laws.

Although another federal appeals court upheld an English-only work rule in 1980, later that year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission passed guidelines saying such rules should be barred unless justified by “business necessity,” Reinhardt noted.

In rejecting the justification based on the employee’s complaint, Reinhardt said there was no evidence that Spanish was being used to conceal statements; on the other hand, there was evidence of increased racial hostility because “Hispanics feel belittled by the regulation.”

Even if some employees’ fears would be eased by the rule, Reinhardt said, “existing racial fears or prejudices and their effects cannot justify a racial classification.”

The local court’s Tower of Babel argument ignores the fact that the clerks were required to speak Spanish to the public as part of their jobs, Reinhardt said.

He also said the 1986 initiative declaring English to be California’s official language “appears to be primarily a symbolic statement concerning the importance of preserving, protecting and strengthening the English language” and did not require English-only workplace rules.

Reinhardt said the judges could be required to pay damages if Gutierrez could prove intentional discrimination. He said Judges Porter de Dubovay, John Bunnett and Russell Schooling, the three judges in the courthouse where the clerk worked, must answer pretrial questions about their motives for adopting the rule.

Gregory Petersen, a lawyer for the three judges, said the ruling appears to offer the judges some protection against damages.

He also said the judges never enforced the English-only rule and probably would not impose it even if the injunction were lifted because “the problem has stopped. . . . People have become sensitive to the fact that they can be causing those kinds of problems with other employees by talking about them.”