Answer: Depends

The () has stated that ‘’ rules for workplace employees violate the law unless they are “reasonably necessary to the operation of the business.� The EEOC further delineates caveats for employers:

• A rule requiring employees to speak only English in the workplace at all times, including breaks and lunch time, will rarely be justified.
• An English-only rule should be limited to the circumstances in which it is needed for the employer to operate safely or efficiently.
• Circumstances in which an English-only rule may be justified include: communications with customers or coworkers who only speak English; emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety; cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency.

They also note that even if there is a need for an English-only rule, “an employer may not take disciplinary action against an employee for violating the rule unless the employer has notified workers about the rule and the consequences of violating it.�

While English-only policies may only be warranted for “business necessity,� some courts and the EEOC take the position that such rules hinder national origin individuals from speaking the language that they are best able to communicate and employers should bear in mind that any English-only policy should not apply to non-work related casual conversation in addition to being uniformly applied regardless of race or country of origin.

The EEOC has filed national origin discrimination lawsuits against employers that have violated the law as in the case of EEOC v. Delano Regional Medical Center (). According to the EEOC, this hospital prohibited employees from speaking their native language while allowing non-Filipino employees to speak other languages such as Spanish. The EEOC further alleged that DRMC management created a for the Filipino employees by targeting them for reprimands in a company meeting that served as a reminder to the workers about the English-only policy, threatened them with audio surveillance to ensure compliance with the company’s English-only policy and encouraged other employees to report on them; all of which caused tension between the Filipino and non-Filipino staff members. In addition, the Commission also alleged that upper-level hospital management failed to investigate or take action against the alleged discrimination even after 115 Filipino employees signed a petition reporting the discrimination and harassment.

When pre-litigation settlement negotiations failed, the EEOC filed the lawsuit and sought compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction against future discrimination. The case was settled when the hospital agreed to a three-year consent decree that required DRMC to pay monetary relief, the development of strong protocols for handling discrimination and harassment complaints, the hiring of an monitor whose function would be to help the hospital revise policies, procedures as well as conduct and anti-harassment training for staff and additional training for supervisors.

This case should serve as a reminder to employers when devising English-only policies the law should be considered and that targeting employees on the basis of their national origin is illegal. It also should empower employees to report national origin discrimination and harassment to supervisors and/or management rather than accept discriminatory treatment.

If you believe that, you have suffered from arbitrarily applied English-only rules or National Origin Discrimination contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Are English-Only Rules in the Workplace Lawful? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a bill pending before Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees.  Religious organizations are provided an exception from this protection, similar to that found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Non-profit membership-only clubs, except labor unions, are also exempt.  ENDA has been introduced to every Congress except the 109^th since 1994 without passage.

ENDA defines gender identity as “gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birthâ€�.  Further, sexual orientation is defined under ENDA to include homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality.

In a survey of transgender and gender non-conforming people conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force found 90 percent of respondents experienced harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.  In comparison, a review of studies conducted by the Williams Institute in 2007 found that transgender people experienced employment discrimination at a rate 15 to 57 percent.
Generally, such cases of employment discrimination based on gender identity are rarely if ever reported to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  However, one such reported case may have widespread ramifications.

In , the complainant, a transgender woman, was employed as a police detective in Phoenix, Arizona. In December 2010, she decided to relocate to San Francisco for family reasons.  At the time she originally filed her Charge of Discrimination, she had not made the transition to being a female.

Complainant’s supervisor in Phoenix told her that there was an opening with the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) at its Walnut Creek crime laboratory for which she was qualified.  She is trained and certified as a National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) operator and a BrassTrax Ballistic investigator.  On March 29, 2011, she informed Aspen DC who was performing the background check that she was transitioning from male to female and she requested that Aspen inform the Director of the Walnut Creek laboratory of this change.  On April 3, 2011, Aspen informed her that the ATF was informed of her change in name and gender.  On April 8, 2011, she received an email from Aspen’s Director of Operations stating that, due to federal budgetary reductions, the position at Walnut Creek was no longer available.

On June 13, 2011, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC Agency and checked off ‘sex’ and the box “female,â€� then typed in “gender identityâ€� and “sex Stereotypingâ€� as the basis for her complaint.  On October 26, 2011, the EEOC Agency sent a Letter of Acceptance but indicated that “since claims of discrimination on the basis of gender identity stereotyping cannot be adjudicated before the EEOC Agency, your claims will be processed according to the Department of Justice policy.â€�  The letter provided that if she did not agree with how the EEOC Agency handled her claims, she should contact the EEOC within 15 days.  On November 8, 2011, she disagreed through her attorney with the handling of her claims by the EEOC Agency.  On December 6, 2011, she appealed the EEOC Agency’s handling of her claims to the EEOC’S Office of Field Operations the appeal was then assigned to the Commission.

The Commission found that the EEOC Agency mistakenly separated her complaints of discrimination: one described as discrimination based on “sexâ€� which the EEOC Agency accepted for processing under Title VII and the others that were alternatively described by her as “sex stereotyping,â€� “gender transition/change of sex’â€� and “gender identity.â€�  Each of the formulations of her claims of discrimination are “based on sex,â€� a claim cognizable under Title VII.

Despite these legislative initiatives discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity problems still persist.  Remember, although under Title VII claims of sexual orientation or gender identity are not cognizable you can still assert cognizable claims for “sexâ€� discrimination.  To file a “sexâ€� discrimination complaint with the , please call 800-669-4000.

The post Employment Non-Discrimination Act first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

It was enacted to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans to fully participate in elections and vote, an area where Blacks rights were consistently interfered with. Initially, the act lacked enforcement capability; however, Congress addressed these issues in subsequent years. Congress asserted its legislative power over the states to grant all US citizens the same privileges, and equal protection, as stated under the Fourteenth Amendment. Title IX of the Act made it easier for federal courts to establish jurisdiction over such cases due to jury bias, judicial misconduct where judges were segregationists and all- white juries.

Voting
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Blacks encountered great difficulties whenever they tried to vote Although Blacks had the legal right to vote most found it very difficult to exercise their rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to apply different registration requirements on voter applications for Blacks.

Racial Segregation in Schools

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 encouraged the ending of racial segregation in educational institutions. The Act also granted the Attorney General of the United States the power to file lawsuits against those who would infringe upon the rights protected by the Act.
Desegregation and Busing

Some lawmakers were concerned that the provisions in the Act would result in forced busing, in order to meet specified quotas for each race in US schools. Those in favor of the Act maintained that the bill would not contain any legislative language that authorized such actions; two amendments were written intended to ban forced busing. The author of the amendments, Hubert Humphrey, stated that busing would be an action that involved handling people and children based on their race, which would be unlawful. Despite these measures, school districts in the South began to utilize forced busingas soon as two years after the passage of the Act.

Federally Funded Agencies

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination on the part of governmental agencies that receive funding from the federal government. Agencies that engage in discriminatory actions run the risk of losing their federal funding.

Women’s Rights

The Act made it unlawful to discriminate against an individual based on their sex. One year earlier, Congress passed legislation that made it illegal to give higher or lower wages to individuals based on their sex.  With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, it became illegal to discriminate against women based on their sex.

Limitations

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on sex, race, color, or country of origin in business establishments such as restaurants, hotels, motels, and theaters; however, “privateâ€� clubs were exempted from the Act. The term “private,â€� though, was not defined in the act, leaving interpretation open.
• The Act’s ban on discrimination on the part of employers does not extend to employers who have less than fifteen employees.
• Employers are allowed to discriminate in certain situations, where a certain protected trait is a requirement that is an integral part of the job. These situations, however, were defined very narrowly, to prevent abuse.

The post The Civil Rights Act of 1964 first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship and the same rights enjoyed by White citizens to all male citizens in the United States “without distinction of race or color or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.� This piece of legislation was groundbreaking; it was the very first law ever enacted that sought to protect Blacks from discrimination.

President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill the first time it was enacted by the US Congress, in 1865. President Johnson vetoed the bill again when Congress passed it for the second time in 1866 however, a majority vote of over two thirds, in both the Senate and Congress, overcame Johnson’s veto. The bill became effective on April 9, 1866.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, anti-Black sentiment was still very strong in some states, especially in the defeated South. The bill hoped to establish and enforce the status of freed slaves as equal to Whites.

This statute proved crucial, and has since impacted generations; as a result of this statute, all individuals born in the United States have been granted citizenship; regardless of their ethnic background.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted freed slaves the ability to fully participate in many legal activities that they had previously been denied; after the enactment, Blacks were able to:

– file lawsuits
– make and enforce contracts
– own property
– inherit property
– lease or sell property
The Civil Acts Rights of 1866, in itself, proved inadequate; it was unable to provide sufficient protection for Blacks, due mostly to the actions of white supremacy groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Although the law was well-intentioned, it was quickly rendered ineffective by its incompleteness.

Blacks were still discriminated against, although many of these problems were subsequently addressed by the Enforcement Act of 1871. Discrimination in many forms still existed, for nearly a century, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned racial segregation in schools and workplaces, as well as many other forms of discrimination.

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was written with Blacks in mind, the law has since been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include all ethnic groups.

The post The Civil Rights Act of 1866 first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..