Thread: Supercuts sued for ban on Spanish

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst ... uts12.html


Supercuts sued for ban on Spanish
August 12, 2005

BY NATASHA KORECKI Federal Courts Reporter

Some Chicago businesses post "Se Habla Espanol" signs to boast about their Spanish-speaking employees.

But two hair stylists said in a federal lawsuit Thursday that their former bosses at Supercuts posted a different sign:

"Speaking a language other than English is not only disrespectful, it's also prohibited."

Stylists say the notice was put up in 2003, directed at employees as Supercuts managers allegedly barred them from speaking Spanish anywhere at work -- including in the break room or other places outside the earshot of customers.

Supercuts says there is no such ban.

"We absolutely, vehemently deny the allegations and believe the evidence will show otherwise," attorney Davi Hirsch said Thursday.

EEOC on the case



The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which joined in the lawsuit, argues that such a ban is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin.

The EEOC, along with private attorney Kamran Memon, brought the lawsuit against Primps LLC and Management Advantage Group LLC, which own more than 20 Supercuts salons in the city and suburbs.

One of the stylists, Rosa Gonzalez, 54, of Chicago, said her bosses shot her dirty looks or would reprimand her if she spoke Spanish to co-workers while on break, or at other times, even when customers weren't around.

The ban was lifted, she said, only if a customer didn't know any English.

"I think it's not fair," said Gonzalez, who came to the United States 27 years ago from Guanajuato, Mexico. "Business[es] need to understand that we are free to speak our language."

No such rule, company says



Memon said Gonzalez and another stylist who filed the lawsuit, Blanca Sauceda, were reprimanded sometimes several times a week for speaking in Spanish on breaks. The two worked for the company at various locations for more than 10 years.

They ultimately quit at their Michigan Avenue location after they felt uncomfortable at work.

Memon said the two wouldn't challenge a policy that limits Spanish being spoken in front of English-speaking customers. But Memon said Gonzalez and Sauceda were told it was "ignorant" and "disrespectful" to speak Spanish at work.

EEOC trial attorney Ann Henry said the suit was brought after managers allegedly enforced a blanket ban at "more than one location."

But Hirsch, who represents the 20 Supercuts owned by Management Advantage Group, said no such ban exists and that the suggestion of one is ludicrous because Supercuts' work force is heavily Hispanic.

Hirsch said there is a written policy limiting language other than English.

"The goal of the policy was to speak essentially whatever language you chose in the lunchroom or on breaks, when you're not servicing customers," Hirsch said.

Hirsch questioned why the employees didn't raise concerns until after they left the company.

www.chicagotribune.com

Salons sued over alleged language ban

By Matt O'Connor
Tribune staff reporter
Published August 12, 2005


The operators of 22 Supercuts hair salons in the Chicago area barred Hispanic employees from speaking Spanish to one another even while on break, a federal lawsuit alleged Thursday.

The suit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accused the owners of the stores, Primps L.L.C. and Management Advantage Group Inc., of discriminating on the basis of national origin with their "English only" rule.

Managers at a Supercuts on South Michigan Avenue gave "dirty looks" and repeatedly reprimanded hairstylists for speaking Spanish in a break room or in the salon when clients weren't present, said Kamran Memon, an attorney for two hairstylists, Rosa Gonzalez and Blanca Sauceda. "Telling them they can't speak their own language sends the message that they are second-class citizens," Memon said.

The suit was filed on behalf of an undetermined number of Latino women who work or formerly worked at the Supercuts franchises owned by the two businesses.

The companies had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said the lawsuit was one of several filed by the agency in Chicago in recent years to address "English-only" rules in the workplace.

In September 2003, the manager of the Supercuts on South Michigan Avenue posted a notice saying: "Attention everyone: Speaking a language other than English is not only disrespectful, it is also prohibited," Memon said.

Gonzalez, who began working at the salon in 1995, and Sauceda, who became a full-time employee there in 2002, found the prohibition humiliating, Memon said. Both eventually quit because of the "uncomfortable working environment," he said.

The suit seeks undisclosed monetary damages.

Great! All the while Americans, in ever increasing numbers, are being denied jobs they are fully qualified to fill. Why? Because NOW many employers will only consider bi-lingual applicants!

I wonder how long it will be before my husband is sued for refusing to deal with the non-English speaking mexicans that come looking for car parts at his auto salvage business? While he is less concerned with the illegal immigration issue than I, he has ZERO tolerence for ANYONE living in this country that cannot ask for something they need...in English!

federal law

prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin. . . .

"Business[es] need to understand that we are free to speak our language."

it doesn't say whether they were "legal immigrants" or "illegal" -- that would determine whether they had a "right to sue" in federal court under Title VII


but they weren't discriminated against because of their "national origin" --- it was a JOB REQUIREMENT that they speak English in the United States -- we ARE NOT a bilingual country yet

and the lady needs to understand that a "business" can demand that employees "speak our language" -- if she wants to speak fluent Spanish, might I suggest that she relocate to "HER" country south of the border