In a termination appeal, the employee, who was Chinese, did not show he was entitled to an interpreter, and management had just cause for his removal (insubordination and unsatisfactory work performance). Wei v. State Civil Service Cmsn., #521 C.D. 2008, 2008 Pa. Commw. Lexis 583.
     Federal court upholds an English-only workplace rule in a taxicab dispatch office. Gonzalo v. All Island Transp., 100 FEP Cases (BNA) 591, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13069 (E.D.N.Y.).
     Hispanic city employees win a lawsuit requiring them to speak English while at work. Maldonado v. City of Altus, #04-6062, 433 F.3d 1294, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 592, 97 FEP Cases (BNA) 257 (10th Cir. 2006). [2006 FP Apr]
    U.S. Dept. of Justice issues Guidance to avoid national origin discrimination, and warns that "English Only" laws offer no protection from liability. Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI: Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 66 (10) Federal Register 3833-3848 (Jan. 2001).   [2002 FP Apr]
     University pays $2.4 million to settle EEOC national origin suit brought on behalf of Spanish-speaking workers. EEOC v. Univ. of Incarnate Word, U.S. Dist. Ct. (W.D. Tex.). [2001 FP 101-2]
     Federal court awards over $700,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to 13 employees who claimed they were unlawfully disciplined for speaking Spanish on the job. Employer's policy had no exceptions for meal or break periods. EEOC v. Premier Operator Serv., #3:98-CV-198 (N.D. Tex. 2000); prior decis. at 75 F.Supp.2d 550, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20710. [2000 FP 168]
     President issues Executive Order 13166 entitled, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency." to assist them in accessing federal services. Attorney General's Civil Rights Division issues a Policy Guidance document, "National origin discrimination against persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP Guidance)." 65 (159) Fed. Reg. 50121-50125 (Aug. 16, 2000). [2000 FP 156]
     Chicago area employer settles EEOC lawsuit challenging its "English-only" workplace rule; four workers will split $55,000. EEOC v. SSPI, 29 F.Supp.2d 911, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 471, 78 FEP Cases (BNA) 1486 (N.D. Ill.). [2000 FP 24]
     Warden could forbid a Muslim corrections officer from speaking in Arabic to inmates, as improper "fraternization." Hafford v. Seidner, 167 F.3d 1074, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 2598 (6th Cir.). [1999 FP 71]
     Arizona Supreme Court strikes down its constitutional provision requiring state agencies to use English in its communications. Ruiz v. Hull, 957 P.2d 984, 1998 Ariz. Lexis 34. [1998 FP 85-6]
     As of 1998, states that have adopted English as the official language in their constitution; Ala. Amend. 509; Cal. Const. Art. III 6; Colo. Const. 30; Fla. Const. Art. II 9; Haw. Const. Art. XV 4; and Neb. Const. Art. 1 27.
     Note: As of 1998, states that have adopted English as the official language by statute: Ark. Stat. 1-4-117; Ga. Code 50-3-100; 5 Ill. Comp. Stat. 460/20; Ind. Code 1-2-10-1; Ky. Stat. 2.013; Miss. Code Ann. 3-3-31; Mont. Code 1-1-510; N.H. Stat. 3-C:1; N.C. Stat. 145-12; N.D. Code 54-02-13; S.C. Code 1-1-696; S.D. Laws 1-27-20; Tenn. Code 4-1-404; and Wyo. Stat. 8-6-101.
     Article: "EEOC English-only challenges rising," 66 Law Week (BNA) 2375. EEOC challenges rose from 8 per quarter in FY 96/7 to 14 filed between Oct/Dec 1997. Under the agency's guidelines, a worker establishes a prima facie disparate impact cause of action by showing the very existence of the policy; see 29 C.F.R. 1606.7(a),(b). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court strikes down "English-only" section in the Arizona Constitution; it violates the First Amendment. Yniguez v. Arizonans, 42 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1994); aff'd, 64 LW 2219 (En banc, 1995). [1995 FP 37]
     The Arlington VA Human Rights Commission has ruled that an employer policy that employees speak only English in the presence of members of the public discriminates against persons with ethnic origins in non English-speaking countries. The rule is enforceable only when the employee is speaking to the member of the public. Kim v. The Southland Corp., #93-161-E & 93-195-E, 1995 FEP Summary (BNA) 77 (AHRC 6/6/95). {N/R}
     Divided federal appeals court rules that bilingual employees can be required to speak only English in the workplace, but the rule might have a disparate impact on employees with no or little knowledge of English. U.S. Supreme Court denies review, with two dissenting justices. Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1993); cert. den., 114 S.Ct. 2726 (1994) [1994 FP 88-9]
     California Supreme Court rejects liability on the theory a general warning to the public was not printed in Spanish. Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 25 Cal.Rep.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167 (1993). [1994 FP 53-4]
     City could reject applicant who had a "heavy" foreign accent, if ability to communicate is an important job requirement. Fragante v. City & Co. of Honolulu, 699 F.Supp. 1429 (D. Hawaii 1987). Affirmed, 888 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1989).
     Federal appeals court strikes down English-only rule for on-duty public employees; no business necessity shown to justify rule, which discriminates against Hispanic employees. Gutierrez v. Municipal Court, 838 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1988).
     Federal court upholds "no Spanish rule" in Hartford Police Academy. Flores v. Hartford Police Dept., 25 FEP Cases 180 (D. Conn. 1981).