Virtually everyone needs to communicate for their job, either with other employees, or supervisors, or with customers, and oftentimes with all of the above. Questions occasionally arise concerning the extent to which employers can weigh in on the way employees speak, such as by deeming certain words or topics “off limits” in the workplace in order to promote a safe and civil working environment for everyone. For instance, most people would probably not be surprised if their employers prohibited curse words in the workplace or speech that might violate state or federal anti-discrimination laws. But, what about a more generalized restriction on the basic way employees communicate regardless of topic, such as the language they use? Right now, this article is being written in English – so, for example, could an employer require their employees to only speak English in the workplace?
It is not terribly difficult to imagine a scenario where that type of requirement might prove beneficial. For instance, perhaps a group of employees work together in a hazardous working environment, and so there is a safety-related need for those specific individuals in that specific area to communicate using a common language in the event of an emergency.
Still, employers have to be mindful before implementing these types of restrictions in the workplace because an overbroad “English-only” requirement may be unlawful. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of national origin. This generally means that employers cannot treat employees and job applicants unfavorably simply because they happen to be from a different part of the world. But, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also considers an individual’s primary language “often an essential national origin characteristic.” (See 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(a).). EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(a) provides that a workplace rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times is a “burdensome term and condition of employment.” This type of rule is presumed to violate Title VII and, therefore, such a rule that applies to even casual conversations between employees on break or while not performing their job duties would likely be unlawful.
A workplace “English-only” rule that is applied only at certain times may be adopted under limited circumstances where the employer can show the rule is “justified by business necessity.” (See 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7(b)). The rule must still be narrowly tailored in order to address the business necessity. While employers may require English in certain employment situations, such as when speaking a common language is needed to ensure safe and efficient communication for specific tasks like in our example above, an “English-only” rule must be still be justified by business necessity and enacted for nondiscriminatory reasons. These situations will typically be specified, limited, and communicated to all employees in a language they understand.
Recent cases have shown how this aspect of Title VII could be enforced. For example, in 2024, the EEOC announced a settlement had been reached with a housekeeping company that allegedly required its employees to speak only English at all times. As part of the settlement, the employer agreed to pay money damages to the complaining party, who was a Spanish-speaking housekeeper working in a nursing home. The employer also agreed to provide its employees with training and to revise its employment policies to state clearly that it would not restrict languages spoken by employees who did not perform patient care and that employees had the right to speak their preferred languages in the workplace. The employer also agreed to issue its employment policies in Spanish, in English, and in any other language spoken by 5 percent or more of the employer’s workforce. The EEOC emphasized that “[c]lient relations and customer preference do not justify discriminatory [English-only] policies.”
Therefore, employers should be aware the EEOC may closely scrutinize “English-only” workplace rules and policies as potentially in violation of Title VII. Employers should likewise be aware that under Title VII, national origin discrimination is broader than it may first appear, and it includes discrimination based on an individual’s birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics closely associated with an ethnic group.
If you have questions, please contact Davenport Evans Lawyers at 605-336-2880 or [email protected].
Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is one of the state’s largest law firms. The firm’s attorneys provide business and litigation counsel to individuals and corporate clients in a variety of practice areas. For more information about Davenport Evans, visit www.dehs.com.