OUTRAGE: Employers CANNOT Require Workers To Speak ENGLISH, Due To NEW Obama Discrimination Law!

OUTRAGE: Employers CANNOT Require Workers To Speak ENGLISH, Due To NEW Obama Discrimination Law!

Obama laid the groundwork for this atrocious ruling two years ago. Now, an employer can require an employee to speak a foreign language and that is not discriminatory… but requiring an employee to speak English is. That’s absolutely backwards. Obama just issued a sweeping order to crack down on “national origin discrimination” in the workplace. This means that if you refuse to hire someone because they don’t speak English, you could be sued into oblivion.

In essence, this gives the ultimate preference in the workforce to foreigners and not Americans. I hope President-elect Trump reverses this fast. It just should not be allowed. Two years ago, the administration sued a private American business for discriminating against Hispanic and Asian employees because they didn’t speak English on the job. The case involved a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer that fired a group of Hmong and Hispanic workers over their English skills. Forcing employees to speak English in the US violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC claimed in its lawsuit. That’s because the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, the EEOC argued, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.

english1

From Judicial Watch:

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

Requiring employees in the United States to speak a foreign language is not discriminatory but forcing them to speak English violates federal law under a sweeping order issued by the Obama administration to crack down on “national origin discrimination” in the workplace. The government’s new enforcement guidelines state that bilingual requirements don’t meet discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act but English-only rules do because they’re restrictive language policies.

The administration asserts that the new rules, which cover a broad range of scenarios that could get employers in trouble, were created because the American workforce is “increasingly ethnically diverse.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws, made them public a few days ago. “The increased cultural diversity of today’s workplaces presents new and evolving issues with respect to Title VII’s protection against national origin discrimination,” the agency writes in the lengthy document. “This enforcement guidance will assist EEOC staff in their investigation of national origin discrimination charges and provide information for applicants, employees, and employers to understand their respective rights and responsibilities under Title VII.”

Federal rules are now being implemented to force this language mandate on employers as well as other forms of defined discrimination having to do with race, color and religion. In fact, examples used by the government specifically mention Muslims. One example is an Egyptian named Thomas who alleges he was harassed by his coworkers about his Arab ethnicity and Islam. “Thomas’ charge should assert national origin, race and religious discrimination,” the EEOC writes, referring to its new “multiple protected bases” category. The agency reassures that it will protect Middle Easterners, stating that “Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on the perception that someone is from the Middle East or is of Arab ethnicity, regardless of how she identifies herself or whether she is, in fact, from one or more Middle Eastern countries or ethnically Arab.” It’s complex and confusing on purpose, and it is definitely protectionist.

Employers that use Social Security numbers to review applicants are now being warned as well that they may be charged with discrimination because it disproportionately eliminates individuals of a certain national origin and has a disparate impact based on national origin. That makes Social Security screens “unlawful under Title VII unless the employer establishes that the policy or practice is job related and consistent with business necessity.” What Obama has done here is make private businesses accept uber political correctness as a legal standard. Not hiring someone under these rules, could get you in even hotter water than firing someone.

english1

Avatar

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is an editor and writer for Right Wing News. She owns and blogs at NoisyRoom.net. She is a Constitutional Conservative and NoisyRoom focuses on political and national issues of interest to the American public. Terresa is the editor at Trevor Loudon's site, New Zeal - trevorloudon.com. She also does research at KeyWiki.org. You can email Terresa here. NoisyRoom can be found on Facebook and on Twitter.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!