LPGA Requires English Fluency - - Should Employers Consider a Similar Rule?
Last week, a story by Martha Neil in ABAJournal.com reported that the LPGA’s rule requiring English fluency is likely to be tested in court (“Court Battle Likely Over LPGA’s New English-Fluency Rule”). Legal issues always seem to be more interesting when they involve well-known entertainment or sports organizations. But, the same issues are often important to not-so-well-known organizations as well.
Our reader/client base being small and growing businesses, the question arises for them: should they consider a similar rule? I believe the essence of the issue was expressed by ABA Journal’s quotation of attorney Steven Jacobs who represents plaintiffs in suits contesting English-only rules in workplaces:
While it is permissible to require workers to speak English for reasons of safety or efficiency, such a rule can also be used to discriminate on the basis of national origin.
An LPGA representative is also quoted and states that LPGA not trying to control what language the LPGA players speak to other players or their caddies. Rather, LPGA’s requirement is that players be able to give a victory speech in English and speak to their playing partners and the media in English. While LPGA’s position might be challenged in court, please note that they at least have a business-related reason for their rule.
Small business owners and managers do not need to involve their businesses in protracted and expensive lawsuits while also needlessly restricting their pool of potentially productive employees or contractors. English-fluency rules may very well make sense and be entirely defensible in some situations. The obvious example that comes to mind is telephone customer service - - it seems reasonable that English-speaking customers be able to reach someone who speaks their language.
I understand that there are people who feel strongly about both sides of the English-only issue and I don’t mean to challenge anyone’s convictions. However, if the goal is to implement management practices to avoid litigation, if possible, or effectively manage it if not, the “business reason” should be scrutinized closely before imposing a language requirement on employees and contractors.
Image: Green with two bunkers, taken by member or employee of U.S. Air Force, Wikipedia Commons.
