Decision Won’t Speak to All Firms : Workplace: Impact of Supreme Court’s action on an English-only case is expected to be blunted.

Back in the late 1980s, Tony Wong got into a dispute with his bosses at a Los Angeles insurance firm because he liked to speak Cantonese with co-workers who also spoke the language.

The company eventually imposed an “English-only” rule in his department, Wong said, because management apparently was “paranoid” that employees speaking in foreign languages were talking about them.

Today, however, the foreign language skills Wong acquired while growing up in the San Francisco area are a major plus. He just started working for a job placement firm where he expects to recruit Cantonese-speaking engineers and computer scientists. He also uses his Cantonese frequently while working part time for a telemarketing firm serving customers with ties to China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

The business advantages of employing people who speak two or more languages are expected to blunt the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday that backs employers’ rights to impose English-only rules in the workplace. Particularly in immigrant-rich parts of the country, such as Southern California, the benefits are substantial in having employees who can train new hires or greet customers in their native language.

“When you’re serving the public, it’s really needed,” said Gail Jordan, a job placement specialist with the Verdugo Center for Jobs and Retraining in Burbank. She said Southern California employers are increasingly seeking bilingual workers, particularly those who speak Spanish, for jobs in areas such as personnel and customer service.

In California, there are also strong state legal restrictions on English-only rules--despite recent concerns about “immigrant bashing” and a ballot proposition that made English the official language of California in 1986. To impose English-only rules, employers under state law still must demonstrate that there is a “business necessity” for such action.

Irma Rodriguez, a lawyer in the language rights program of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, expressed concern that the Supreme Court’s decision might make employers feel that “now it’s OK” to adopt English-only rules. Still, she said, such requirements currently “aren’t on the increase in any sector” of the California economy.

But Monday’s decision could foster further discrimination in other states against workers who have limited English skills, warned Kathryn Imahara, director of the language rights project with the Asian Pacific American Legal Center in Los Angeles.

Even in California, Imahara said, many employers place too little value on knowledge of foreign languages. “The companies value the bilingual person only so long as it increases market share or has other marketing advantages,” she said.

At many of these companies, she said, “you can’t then turn around and speak Spanish to your co-workers.”

Still, in California, English-only rules have come mainly in such fields as manufacturing and health care.

Thomas R. Luevano, vice president of the 450-member California Assn. of Hospitals and Health Systems, said such policies are common at hospitals in urban areas with large numbers of immigrants.

He said the rules are mostly intended to protect the safety of patients and employees. He cited a hypothetical example of an ailing patient overhearing two nurses speaking an unfamiliar language.

“The patients’ anxiety level increases at a time when they don’t need that,” Luevano said.

He added that the use of foreign languages can also be a source of tension between hospital employees. “If morale is suffering and employees are looking to point fingers at the reason why . . . language often comes up as an issue,” he said.

For that reason, Luevano said, many of the hospitals in his organization discourage the use of languages other than English, even during employees’ break periods.

Yet Rodriguez contends that English-only rules tend to be imposed at workplaces where there are underlying racial tensions, and she said such problems “can be better addressed by other means.”

In any case, Luevano acknowledged that the ability to speak foreign languages is essential for many hospital admissions and emergency room employees, among others. In fact, hospitals are required under federal and state law to provide interpreters, when necessary, to communicate with patients.

* MAIN STORY: A1