Thread: CT: Spanish-Speaking Workers Challenge English-Only Policy

I hope they lose in court!! Every company has the right to make any darn policy they like, and if you don't like it, you don't have to work there!!

TexasGal


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312977,00.html

Spanish-Speaking Workers Challenge English-Only Policy at Sheet Metal Factory

Monday, November 26, 2007

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

After a sheet metal plant in Connecticut ordered its employees to speak only English on the job because of safety concerns, five Spanish-speaking workers decided to take the company to court.

The employees, who are legal immigrants, say the rule amounts to discrimination and actually makes the workplace more hazardous.

"I can think of no good reason for them to institute this policy," said Steven Jacobs, the lawyer for the workers who are suing GC Industries in Deep River, Conn. "It's offensive to people who speak Spanish and is potentially dangerous. It inhibits them from communicating in their native tongue in situations that could put people at risk."

According to the lawsuit, the plant's "Common Language Policy" was suddenly posted in fliers on the factory bulletin board on March 15, 2006.

The notice stated that "there be one language spoken during working time at all plants and facilities of GCI, and that language is English." It specified that the policy would be enforced when "any employee is 'on the clock,'" and said violations could lead to warnings and dismissal.

Court documents show that the announcement, which was also posted in Spanish, was signed by company president Thomas Arbella.

But Andres Moran, who speaks fluent English, said he and his four co-plaintiffs needed to communicate in Spanish in order to do their jobs.

"Not everybody over there is fluent in English," said Moran, 22. "How would I be able to talk to them? I wouldn't be able to communicate with them. That was my argument. ... I kept on speaking Spanish to whoever understood my language."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has discouraged such blanket English-only mandates at work, unless they are justified as a business necessity.

"A rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times on the job may violate Title VII, unless an employer shows it is necessary for conducting business," the EEOC says on its Web site. "If an employer believes the English-only rule is critical for business purposes, employees have to be told when they must speak English and the consequences for violating the rule."

A company must also specify why the use of another language hurts or interferes with productivity and efficiency, according to the EEOC.

Moran said that although the rest of the GCI employees "kind of shut their mouth and didn't speak at all," he and the other four continued to use Spanish with their coworkers who weren't well-versed in English.

The five plaintiffs received a second warning to stop speaking Spanish while at work — or face dismissal. Executives told the workers that they could institute any policy they liked because GCI is a private company.

"I felt like I was a slave, basically," said Moran. "I felt discriminated against, violated. I didn't know what to do."

Moran was later transferred from being a packer — which involves packaging sheets of metal — to the more strenuous and less desirable job of hanger, which requires workers to hang heavy sections of metal on racks on the assembly line.

Despite the fact that it was harder work, he said, he was paid the same $9 an hour.

When he persisted in speaking Spanish and asking for his old job back, Moran was laid off after about nine months with the company, he said.

"Richard [Gordon, GCI general manager] took me outside and said, 'We don't need you working anymore. We're not getting as much production,'" Moran remembered. "The next week, they hired somebody else."

A woman answering the phone at GCI declined to give her name or comment on the legal battle.

The five workers filed their discrimination lawsuit against GCI last week, and are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000 per employee, according to Jacobs. The civil suit could ultimately go before a jury.

Jacobs said he also filed a discrimination complaint on behalf of the men with the EEOC and the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights in late spring of 2006.

The plaintiffs contend that GCI hasn't demonstrated how speaking Spanish has had a negative impact on business. To the contrary, they argue, the common-language rule could actually hurt workflow, since so many employees have limited knowledge of English. Most of the GCI employees are of Hispanic origin, according to Jacobs.

"The company claims that the reason for the rule was to enhance the safety of the workplace," he said. "I find that excuse hard to accept when 75 to 80 percent of the workforce speaks Spanish."

He and his clients remain bewildered about what triggered the change in policy.

"I still don't know why they did it," Moran said. "Nobody complained. Nobody cared. ... They're still trying to tell people not to speak Spanish."

Just Drag your Goat Smelling A_s back across the Border and Take Bush's Goat Smelling A_s with you

There... you can speak Spanish or Spanglish until you wish to try and speak English... in and English Speaking country

I'm not sure I hope they loose - I kinda like the idea of seeing these 'wonderful, hardworking people that companies just can't do without' - turning on them.

I would like to see the courts full of illegals suing for this or that or something else - it might make these companies wake up and realize what they have taken into their company.

"You knew I was a snake when you put me in your pocket.'

But Andres Moran, who speaks fluent English, said he and his four co-plaintiffs needed to communicate in Spanish in order to do their jobs.

They choose not to speak our language. My co-worker speaks fluent English also but reverts to Spanish whenever she encounters another co-worker who also speaks Spanish. I complained to Human Resources saying it was rude and made me feel uncomfortable. She was spoken to and now speaks English in my presents. When she asked me why I felt uncomfortable I said " Just as its impolite to whisper in public its impolite not to speak my laugage when I'm sitting right next to you"

nntrixie wrote:

I'm not sure I hope they loose - I kinda like the idea of seeing these 'wonderful, hardworking people that companies just can't do without' - turning on them.

I would like to see the courts full of illegals suing for this or that or something else - it might make these companies wake up and realize what they have taken into their company.

I understand your desire to see punishment dealt to those employers that are probably hiring illegal alien labor. Heck, I'd like to see them get their just desserts too, but not in this way. There is much more at stake here than just the company paying for their hiring indiscretions. We have laws, though unenforced, that deal with that issue.

Now, let's assume for a minute these folks are legal immigrants. Yes, I know that is unlikely. However, if they are legal this situation circles back around to the assimilation issue. If legal, I see this as a blatant example of the plaintiff's refusing to assimilate. If the judge rules in their favor he would essentially be saying, that's okay, you don't have to assimilate. Basically the judge would be promoting the balkanization of our country.

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote:

I'm not sure I hope they loose - I kinda like the idea of seeing these 'wonderful, hardworking people that companies just can't do without' - turning on them.

I would like to see the courts full of illegals suing for this or that or something else - it might make these companies wake up and realize what they have taken into their company.

I understand your desire to see punishment dealt to those employers that are probably hiring illegal alien labor. Heck, I'd like to see them get their just desserts too, but not in this way. There is much more at stake here than just the company paying for their hiring indiscretions. We have laws, though unenforced, that deal with that issue.

Now, let's assume for a minute these folks are legal immigrants. Yes, I know that is unlikely. However, if they are legal this situation circles back around to the assimilation issue. If legal, I see this as a blatant example of the plaintiff's refusing to assimilate. If the judge rules in their favor he would essentially be saying, that's okay, you don't have to assimilate. Basically the judge would be promoting the balkanization of our country.

"MW" Isn't that already what everyone is telling these people? They don't have to assimilate and we can't force them as it is against their civil rights, legal or illegal.

Maybe if some of these companys get sued they will be alittle more wary when they hire someone, like hiring legals and English speaking employee's. English speech could be apart of the job discription, then they avoid a law suit later on.

SOSADFORUS wrote:

"MW" Isn't that already what everyone is telling these people? They don't have to assimilate and we can't force them as it is against their civil rights, legal or illegal.

Of course it is, that's my point. IMO, we don't need to reenforce it through the judical system.

Maybe if some of these companys get sued they will be alittle more wary when they hire someone, like hiring legals and English speaking employee's. English speech could be apart of the job discription, then they avoid a law suit later on.

Do you honestly believe being sued by illegal aliens is going to convince these employers to alter their hiring practices? Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see the company bend to the will of these folks and settle out of court with a cash settlement and the promise to rescind the English speaking rule. I'm sure that's what the lawyers are hoping for. IMO, cases like this are ridiculous because illegal immigrants shouldn't have the right to sue anyone in this country, regardless of the circumstances.

Illegal immigrants shouldn't be here, and they certainly shouldn't have the right to sue Americans through a judical system that is supported by American taxpayers. If these non-English speakers are legal, they should file their grievance with the EEOC, not burden our judicial system.

I'm sorry you don't agree, but this is the way I see it.

Actually, MW, I don't think it will. It might for a few - but I think when other employers see this happening, they would rather hire legal workers, than to be afraid they will end up in court.

The thing is, it isn't just language - that's just the first salvo. Hopefully, these employers realize that. If they continue to hire these people, they could spend all those delicious profits from hiring workers subsidized by taxpayers, defending themselves in court.

Just think - Cinco de Mayo made a company holiday - maybe even religious concessions (remember foot washing rooms for Muslims) - and mean the possibilities are endless.

It won't just be one thing.

These employers already realize in certain work places, communication is essential to well being. Just wait until some English speaking workers gets harmed - or worse - because Spanish was allowed to be spoken when it makes for a dangerous atmosphere? If you could get a lawyer to take it - that is - but the atmosphere is changing.

Right now, if an illegal gets hurt, it is usually the taxpayers burden - just wait - I can see lots and lots of workplace lawsuits - just lots - I can just imagine dollar signs floating in front of the eyes of lawyers just waiting to champion the poor illegals.

I'm can't be sad.