High Court Lets English-Only Job Rules Stand
The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for employers to enforce English-only rules for their bilingual workers.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices refused to hear an appeal of a ruling in a San Francisco case that said requiring workers to speak English on the job does not violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
Two weeks ago, lawyers for the Clinton Administration had urged the high court to reverse that decision, calling it “an issue of great national importance to national origin minorities.”
Since 1970, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has told companies that they may not enforce English-only rules, except in the rare case where it was judged to be a “business necessity.”
But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out that guideline. It concluded that where workers can speak both English and Spanish, requiring them to converse only in English at work may be an “inconvenience for some” but it “does not impose a burden significant enough to amount to the denial of equal opportunity.”
The appeals court referred only to bilingual workers. It would amount to discrimination, the court indicated, to impose an English-only requirement on employees who could not speak English.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether states can impose term limits on their members of Congress.
In the past, the court has allowed states to set term limits for the members of state legislatures. But some lower courts have ruled that the Constitution does not allow for such limits on members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
Increasing numbers of employers have sought to enforce rules requiring their workers to speak English, partly to improve communication on the job but also to reduce friction among workers. The owner of the San Francisco meat-processing plant whose case reached the high court said that he imposed the English-only rule after other workers complained that two Latino employees were insulting them in Spanish.
After the high court’s action Monday, English-only workplace rules are legal as a matter of federal law in California and in the eight other West Coast states. The law is less clear elsewhere. Since the court did not issue a formal ruling, its decision is not binding outside the region of the 9th Circuit.
EEOC attorney Jennifer S. Goldstein said, however, that her agency will continue to adhere to its guideline that frowns on English-only requirements.
“We think (the guideline) is still correct. We view this as a matter of discrimination,” she said.
The commission said it has 120 cases before it in which the agency is fighting English-only rules. If EEOC lawyers can win a ruling in another appeals court that rejects an employer’s English-only policy, the high court may be called on to revisit the issue later.
The legal dispute arises from an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law makes it illegal for employers “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
In its 1970 guideline, the EEOC said that an English-only rule discriminated against “national origin minority employees” because it took away a “condition or privilege of employment enjoyed by other employees: the right to converse in a familiar language with which they are most comfortable.”
Administration lawyers noted that this legal interpretation has been followed consistently since then in the lower courts and has won the implicit endorsement of Congress.
But recently, the Supreme Court and some conservative lower courts have rejected longstanding liberal interpretations of federal civil rights laws. In its 2-1 ruling last year, the 9th Circuit Court judges said that “nothing in the plain language of the (1964) law supports EEOC’s English-only rule.”
The case that reached the high court began in 1990 at a small meat-packing plant in South San Francisco. Kenneth Bertelson, the company president, had received complaints from a black and an Asian who said they had overheard racist insults spoken in Spanish by two Latino workers.
In response, Bertelson issued a new rule: “Only English will be spoken in connection with work. During lunch, breaks and employees’ own time, they are obviously free to speak Spanish if they wish.”
Priscilla Garcia, who had worked on the assembly line for 19 years, filed a suit contending that the new rule violated federal civil rights laws. Initially, a federal judge in San Francisco declared the rule illegal. However, last July, the 9th Circuit Court not only upheld the company’s rule but threw out the longstanding EEOC policy.
The justices’ vote left intact the decision in the case (Garcia vs. Spun Steak Co., 93-1222). Dissenting were Justices Harry A. Blackmun and Sandra Day O’Connor.
The term-limits case tests a popular reform that has swept through 15 states, including California, since 1990. But there has remained considerable doubt whether the Constitution allows the states to impose new restrictions on who can be elected to the House and Senate.
A new Arkansas law would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms, while members of the House would be limited to three two-year terms. But earlier this year, the Arkansas Supreme Court declared those limits unconstitutional.
The high court will hear the case (U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton, 93-1456), during the fall and issue a ruling next year.
In other actions, the court:
* Made it harder for some coal miners and longshoremen or their heirs to collect benefits for their disability or deaths. In deciding claims involving these workers where the evidence is equally balanced, the Labor Department has tilted toward the workers. But in a 6-3 vote (Director of OWCP vs. Greenwich Collieries, 93-744), the justices rejected this policy as a matter of federal law and said that workers must prove their cases.
* Ruled that the federal law protecting airline and railway workers does not prevent them from suing under state law if they are wrongfully fired. The 9-0 ruling in the case (Hawaiian Airlines vs. Norris, 92-2058), clears the way for a suit filed by an airline mechanic who contended that he was fired for refusing to cover up the fact that a plane was not ready to fly. The company had contended that the case had to go to arbitration.
* Refused to hear an appeal from the first man sentenced to death under the new federal law aimed at drug kingpins (Chandler vs. United States, 93-1033). In 1991, David R. Chandler, who ran a marijuana-selling ring, was convicted of paying $500 for the murder of a potential informer. He was sentenced to death under a 1988 federal law. Six others have since received federal death sentences. Since 1962, no person has been executed under federal law.
* COURT SAYS NO DICE: Indian casinos lose bid to use a video gaming machine. A3
* BETTER BUSINESS: Companies find benefits in employing workers who speak two or more languages. D1
