Bilinguals In The Workplace Case Study

ENGLISH ONLY COURT CASES INVOLVING THE U.S. WORKPLACE: THE MYTHS OF LANGUAGE USE AND THE HOMOGENIZATION OF BILINGUAL WORKERS’ IDENTITIES
Kari Gibson
University of Hawai‘i

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, religion and national origin. However when the judicial system has examined English Only workplace policies in light of Title VII, it has generally determined that such policies are not discriminatory if an employee is able to speak English. Although plaintiffs have argued that language is inextricably linked to national origin and cultural identity, the courts have stated that the use of a language other than English is detrimental to the morale of
Court cases provide us the most revealing records of the struggle between bilingual workers and their monolingual employers and illustrate that, while other language groups have been affected by English Only policies, the policies have predominantly affected Spanish speaking communities. Court cases show that the linguistic practices of the workplace community of practice have been dictated successfully by the employers, not the members themselves. This disempowerment has been upheld by the judicial system, which believes that language is not a component of ethnic identity, especially in instances where the employee has the ability to speak the majority language. As long as the employer makes a statement of business necessity, no matter how weak or spurious the argument, the courts have agreed that English Only policies are not discriminatory. By identifying English as the only appropriate language between workers, the employer is attempting to mandate a uniform identity (that of English speaking worker) while
Currently, Spanish speakers are the latest wave of immigrants to threaten the security of White America, prompting Zentella (1997) to coin the phrase “Hispanophobia.” (The irony is not lost on Castellanos (1992) who documents the exploration of America by Spanish Europeans long before White Europeans.) Present day migration is seen as an “aberrant form of human behavior” (Blommaert & Verschueren, 1998, p. 118), and confronted with neighbors who do not sound or look like them, these Americans call for their integration, if not their return from whence they came. As Susan Tulley, a southern California resident and President of the Citizen’s Committee on Immigration Policy states, “Your heart goes out to people who are just seeking a better way of life. We do have an obligation to help Mexico develop. I’d rather do that than say all you people come here and become my problem. I’m willing to give money to my church to build houses in Mexico. But I’m sick to death of my own children competing in the classroom for a decent education” (in Maharidge, 1996, p. 163). Tulley believes Mexican children are receiving an unfair share of the decent (apparently finite) education earmarked for her children, and that their parents are a burden she must shoulder. It would be much easier to send money through