Language in the Workplace
A recent 10th Circuit decision from Oklahoma, Maldonado v. City of Altus, 433 F. 3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2006), has created a split in the federal circuit courts over whether workplace policies which require employees to speak only English in the workplace violate prohibitions on race or national origin discrimination. Altus, Oklahoma, had a policy requiring municipal employees to speak only English. A group of Hispanic employees in Altus charged that the policy created a hostile work environment, violating Titles VI and VII as well as 42 USC 1983. The facts in the case, as developed, reveal that each plaintiff was bi-lingual.
Previous cases considered an English-only policy such as the one in Altus as one which, if violated, indicated the employee’s disregard of an employer’s order (insubordination, a disciplinary offense). In other words, the cases were viewed from a ”labor and employment law” perspective. The Maldonado court held that the presence of the policy alone could create or contribute to a hostile work environment. By doing so it recognized a legal theory in which Courts could view these policies from a Title VII perspective, rather than an employment perspective.
The questions the Court considered are these: Is there a legitimate purpose to require Hispanics to refrain from speaking Spanish? Or could the policy be construed as an expression of hostility against Hispanics? In considering the rationale posited by employers, the Court said “the less the apparent justification for mandating English, the more reasonable it is to infer hostility toward employees whose ethnic group or nationality favors another langauge.” Because this case was heard by the 10th Circuit on an appeal by Maldonado and others from a summary judgment granted in favor of the City of Altus, this decision is not the end of the litigation. Summary judgment (which the United States District Court granted in favor of Altus and its English-only policy) is granted only when a Court finds that there is no dispute as to any material fact and that the movant (in this case, Altus) is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The 10th Circuit, in reversing the summary judgment order, found that there were questions of law and fact which were unresolved and thus summary judgment was inappropriate.
Specifically, the 10th Circuit remanded to the United States District Court for a consideration facts and the fleshing out of law as it relates to the facts with emphasis on (1) disparate impact and disparate treatment under Title VII; (2) intentional discrimination under 42 USC 1981; and (3) denial of equal protection under 42 USC 1983. But sending the case back to the United States District Court for further consideration will not necessarily end the litigation. One of the few circumstances that will cause the United States Supreme Court to consider an appeal by writ of certiorari is when there is a split in the circuits on a particular legal question.
This is not the end of English-only policy debates which center around Title VI claims. It merely heralds the beginnings.