Edward E. Sanchez, Complainant, v. R. L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appeal No. 01A20555, AVDSF09903J0030, 370-00-X2239, July 18, 2003.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that the agency's requirement that the complainant speak only English while working was not a product of national origin discrimination, but was justified by business necessity.

The complainant, a quality assurance specialist at Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, California, alleged he was discriminated against on the bases of national origin (Hispanic, Native American) and reprisal for prior EEO activity when he was asked to limit his Spanish language conversations in the workplace. He further alleged he was discriminatorily reassigned, required to complete certain "tracking" forms and remove "biker/babe" picture/calendars from his work station.

An EEOC administrative judge issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination after determining the complainant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he did not show he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside his protected group. Further, the agency legitimately explained its actions. The agency implemented the administrative judge's decision.

The EEOC affirmed on appeal. However, it found that the complainant's claim he was asked to limit his Spanish language conversations in the workplace should have been analyzed with respect to the agency's business necessity. EEOC noted that an "English-only rule is justified by business necessity if it is needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently." It further noted "business necessity would justify an English-only rule: for communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English; in emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety; for cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency; and to enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with coworkers or customers."

In this case, the agency explained that the complainant worked with two female clerks. Neither spoke or understood Spanish. They indicated the complainant's Spanish conversations were lengthy and made them uncomfortable because he appeared to be ridiculing, criticizing and berating them in Spanish, as indicated by his tone and gestures. The agency determined the conversations in Spanish were having a negative impact on work, and told the complainant conversations in Spanish could be held during break periods when they wouldn't offend the rest of the work force and disrupt operations. The EEOC found no evidence this rule was motivated by discriminatory animus, because the agency did not have a "Speak English Only" policy in place.

With respect to complainant's reassignment, it was noted that complainant's and others' work assignments changed because of quality assurance concerns. Regarding complainant's biker/babe calendars, the agency had them removed from the work station because they were offensive and could pose liability for the agency. Regarding the requirement to complete "tracking" forms, the agency asserted that complainant's work area was chosen on a trial basis" to complete the forms because "it was the easiest shop to track and the most conducive to setting up a program like this." Further, the administrative judge noted that within a short time frame, all similarly situated employees were required to complete the tracking forms. In short, the complainant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency had discriminated against him.

Although English-only rules that apply at all times presumptively violate Title VII, an English-only rule is justified by business necessity, if it is needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently. As set forth in the Sanchez decision, the EEOC stated that business necessity would justify an English-only rule in the following situations: for communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English; in emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety; for cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency; and to enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with coworkers or customers.