ENGLISH-ONLY RULES: TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER & ITS IMPACT ON THE WORKPLACE

On March 1, President Trump signed Executive Order 14224: Designating English as the Official Language of the United States with the intent to promote unity, cultivate a shared American culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement. Like with many of his recent executive orders, the decision to designate English as the official language of the United States has not been without controversy. While some see it as a long-overdue decision and a promise kept, others see it as a move towards potential discrimination against those who don’t speak English as their first language.

The executive order has stirred up a lot of discussion about English language requirements and English-only rules in the workplace. If the official language of the United States is English, can employers now require employees to speak only English at work? Can employers require employees to have a certain level of fluency in English as a condition of employment?

Legal Landscape of English-Only Policies in the Workplace

Despite the executive order, long-standing federal and state employment laws remain unchanged. As a result, employers are cautioned not to see the executive order as an excuse to create strict English-only rules.

Federal Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on National Origin

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) provides protections against discrimination in the workplace, including discrimination on the basis of national origin. Because a person’s primary language is often tied to where they are from or where their family is from, rules that unfairly disadvantage employees based on the language they speak are seen as national origin discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces federal discrimination laws, has long held that English-only rules can be discriminatory under Title VII, particularly when the rules require English to be spoken at all times in the workplace.

When Can Employers Enforce English-Only Rules?

Legitimate business needs, such as safety concerns, customer service requirements, or efficient teamwork, may justify limited English-only rules in the workplace. However, employers need to use caution. These rules need to be narrowly tailored to address the business necessity to avoid liability for discrimination.

Communication with Customers, Coworkers, or Supervisors: Rules that require speaking English when communicating with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English may be justified. If the primary customer base speaks English exclusively, requiring employees to speak English, the common language, promotes efficiency and good customer service.

In Emergencies and to Promote Safety: Rules that require English to be spoken in situations where communication is critical to promote safety — like in an emergency or when performing tasks in a hazardous environment — can be permissible.

Efficiency During Cooperative Work Assignments: Rules that require English to be spoken during a project that requires multiple employees to collaborate (some who only speak English) may be justified as necessary to promote business efficiency.

Conducive for Adequate Supervision: Rules that require English to be spoken to enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication in English can be permissible. As long as the rule is limited to when work is being performed and does not extend to casual conversations, it wouldn’t violate Title VII.

As all of the above circumstances make clear, an English-only rule must be necessary. If the rule is there just for convenience or preference, it doesn’t meet the legal standard. It also needs to be adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons. Finally, if there are less restrictive means to address the business need, the rule is not narrowly tailored and can open the company to claims of discrimination.

If an employer determines that there is a business necessity for an English-only rule, they have to inform all affected employees when speaking only in English is required and what the consequences are for violating the rule. Enforcing the rule without appropriate notice will be considered evidence of discrimination.

While businesses may have legitimate operational needs, they must ensure that their policies are justified, implemented fairly, and do not create a discriminatory or hostile work environment.

Other Language Requirements in the Workplace

Effective communication is crucial for workplace success. Employers often require a certain level of English fluency or proficiency to ensure clear understanding, collaboration, and professional interactions among coworkers and customers. However, as the labor force diversifies, the number of non-native English speakers has risen significantly, impacting workplace communication dynamics.

An English fluency or proficiency requirement is lawful only when it’s a genuine necessity for effective job performance. While English fluency can be crucial in certain roles, it’s less relevant in others. Therefore, employers must evaluate the required level of fluency for each position individually. Imposing a blanket fluency standard across diverse roles or demanding a higher level of fluency than needed can lead to Title VII violations.

Similarly, requiring fluency in a foreign language is only permissible when it’s essential for effective job performance. For example, a business serving a diverse clientele may assign tasks based on an employee’s language skills.

Title VII necessitates a case-by-case assessment of each position’s actual communication needs, avoiding overly broad or unnecessarily stringent standards. Both English and non-English language requirements must be demonstrably job-related to prevent discriminatory practices and ensure equitable employment opportunities.

Cultural and Ethical Considerations in Enforcing Language Requirements

Implementing rules that require only English needs careful thought about culture and ethics. This is important to avoid unwelcome discrimination and to support a welcoming workplace. It is crucial to know that language plays a big part in cultural identity. When workers feel they cannot speak their language, it can make them feel left out and not respected.

From an ethical point of view, employers should find a balance between business needs and creating a place where all workers feel appreciated and respected. Open conversations and training on sensitivity can help close cultural gaps. This can also build understanding among workers who speak different languages.

In the end, a great way to handle language rules goes beyond just a legal view. Being aware of cultural differences and encouraging open talks will help build an environment where workers feel safe and free to share their skills, no matter what language they speak.

Conclusion

While Trump’s executive order designating English as the official language of the United States has reignited discussions about language requirements in the workplace, it’s crucial to remember that existing laws remain the governing standard. Employers must resist the temptation to implement sweeping English-only rules based on the executive order. Instead, they must adhere to a nuanced approach, carefully justifying any language-based requirements with legitimate business necessities. This entails a case-by-case assessment of job-related communication needs, avoiding overly broad or discriminatory policies.

Ultimately, balancing operational needs with legal compliance and ethical responsibility is essential to creating a fair and productive workplace for all.

• Previous