1,163
9
Essay, 3 pages (650 words)

Employment law

Employment Law of English-Only Rules English-only rules refer to rules that employers pass which require employees to speak only English while at the place of work. The rules may apply to workers who converse while working or even to workers while on breaks such as their lunch break. Such rules serve to prohibit the use of other languages while at the workplace. There may be questions as to the legality of such rules as they appear to be discriminative in nature against the non-English speaking immigrants (Rutherglen, 2007). The rules may serve to bar such immigrants from employment opportunities due to the language barrier (Rassas, 2010). There exist instances when such rules may be acceptable without being discriminative.
An English-only rule may only apply under justification of business necessity. That means that the employer may only use such a rule in as far as the employee needs to communicate in English to operate efficiently and to ensure safety. According to the Equal employment opportunities Commission, EEOC, English-only rules are justifiable in limited instances. According to EEOC, some of these circumstances that warrant the application of such rules include; a paid speaking position where one is meant to continuously speak to and English speaking audience, when communicating with customers and fellow employees who only speak English, during emergencies where there is need for a common language to ensure safety, where a supervisor needs to monitor employee’s performance, and for cooperative assignments that require workers to speak a common language for efficiency (Rutherglen, 2007).
An employer may be allowed to prohibit employees from using any other language apart from English when speaking to customers who speak only English. That would be to enhance communication with clients and ensure flawless business transactions. Also, the employer may require employees to speak English when addressing their colleagues who speak only English or who may not understand the language that such employees may be comfortable using (Rutherglen, 2007). During emergencies, there is need for there to be a common language that can be understood by all. That is to ensure safety for everyone. That also includes those working on or operating machinery, chemicals or items that may cause harm if not handled with care. In such circumstances, the employer may apply English-only rules as they would help safeguard everyone’s safety. For cooperative duty that requires employees to work in teams, English-only rules may come into application especially if some members of the team can only speak English. That ensures efficiency in operation for such a team. Where a supervisor needs to monitor an employees’ performance, English-only rules may apply to enable supervisors that speak only English to monitor the employees. The employee may thus be required to speak English as he performs his or her duties.
On the other hand, English-only rules may amount to discrimination under various circumstances. One such circumstance is when such rules apply to casual conversations between employees (Rutherglen, 2007). That may be during lunch breaks or when the employees are not performing job related duties. A rule barring employees from using other languages at such times would be discriminatory and a violation of Title VII (Rutherglen, 2007). It is also discriminatory if an employer applies English-only rules without giving the employees notice to the rule and the consequences of violating such a rule. A dismissal culminating from such an instance would be discriminatory (Rassas, 2010). That is regardless of whether there is justification of business necessity for the rule. Also, when such a rule targets a particular group of employees, it is discriminatory. For example where those punished for violating the rule come from the same ethnic group such as Hispanics (Bell, 2011).
References
Bell, M. P. (2011). Diversity in Organizations. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Rassas, L. B. (2010). Employment Law: A Guide to Hiring, Managing and Firing for Employers and Employees. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Rutherglen, G. A. (2007). Employment Discrimination Law (Concepts and Insights). Eagan, Minnesota: Foundation Press.

Thank's for Your Vote!
Employment law. Page 1
Employment law. Page 2
Employment law. Page 3
Employment law. Page 4

This work, titled "Employment law" was written and willingly shared by a fellow student. This sample can be utilized as a research and reference resource to aid in the writing of your own work. Any use of the work that does not include an appropriate citation is banned.

If you are the owner of this work and don’t want it to be published on AssignBuster, request its removal.

Request Removal
Cite this Essay

References

AssignBuster. (2021) 'Employment law'. 15 November.

Reference

AssignBuster. (2021, November 15). Employment law. Retrieved from https://assignbuster.com/employment-law/

References

AssignBuster. 2021. "Employment law." November 15, 2021. https://assignbuster.com/employment-law/.

1. AssignBuster. "Employment law." November 15, 2021. https://assignbuster.com/employment-law/.


Bibliography


AssignBuster. "Employment law." November 15, 2021. https://assignbuster.com/employment-law/.

Work Cited

"Employment law." AssignBuster, 15 Nov. 2021, assignbuster.com/employment-law/.

Get in Touch

Please, let us know if you have any ideas on improving Employment law, or our service. We will be happy to hear what you think: [email protected]