[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               ENGLISH-ONLY RULER: UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION

                                 ______


                        HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD

                                of guam

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 28, 1994

  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in the United States, we pride ourselves 
on our freedom. We have the freedom to speak our minds and the freedom 
to pray as we wish. We have the freedom to assemble and the freedom to 
vote. And we have the freedom from unfair discrimination. But to this 
day we continue to define the contours of those freedoms in the 
country's courts and legislatures.
  That is why I must bring to my colleagues' attention a development 
that threatens to away many of our citizens' capacity to communicate. 
Bilingual Americans are being prevented from speaking in a language 
other than English while on the job, even if doing so will have no 
effect on their performance. Today, I am introducing a bill to correct 
this unfortunate situation.
  Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, in Garcia versus 
Spun Steak, that businesses can require their employees to speak only 
English on the job. In that case, bilingual Latino workers at a meat 
processing plant spoke to each other in Spanish. A Chinese-American 
employee and an African-American employee suspected that their Latino 
coworkers were making derogatory comments in Spanish. The employer 
responded by requiring all workers to speak English at all times while 
on the job. The Latino workers sued the employer, claiming that their 
rights under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been 
violated.
  The Spun Steak court held that title VII had not been violated by the 
employer's English-only rule. It pointed to guidelines issued by the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] in 1980. Those 
guidelines stated that English-only rules place a burden on employees 
and are only allowed if required by a business necessity. Business 
necessity would mean, for example, that a telephone operator should be 
able to speak English while on the job, but a painter's job does not 
have the same language requirements. The court reasoned that the EEOC 
guidelines were not supported by any statutory or regulatory authority 
and therefore should not bear upon the court's decision. The court 
therefore rejected the EEOC's guidelines.
  On appeal, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, which meant that 
throughout the ninth circuit, where one-third of the Nation's bilingual 
citizens live, businesses can establish English-only rules. But other 
circuits throughout the Nation have different interpretations of title 
VII, or have not yet addressed this issue.
  I believe Congress must clarify our stance on English-only rules once 
and for all. I believe we must overturn Spun Steak and establish that, 
for the purposes of title VII, English-only rules are unfairly 
discriminatory and should only be allowed when justified by a 
legitimate business purpose. In other words, Congress must give the 
EEOC statutory authority to establish regulations on this matter, such 
as the guidelines cited in Spun Steak.

  We are faced with a significant problem. In 1993, 14,394 complaints 
were filed with the EEOC for linguistic discrimination. This was a 30 
percent increase from 1989. As the number of bilingual Americans 
increases, we cannot afford to ignore this development. There is no 
proof that English-only rules increase business productivity. However, 
many scholars have concluded that such rules create an atmosphere of 
isolation and intimidation.
  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act forbids employment discrimination 
based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. English-only 
rules fall into the category of discrimination based on national 
origin. It is well established that, under title VII, discriminatory 
practices are those that cause a disparate impact on members of a group 
and cannot be justified by business necessity. The United States 
Solicitor General, in an amicus curae brief to the Supreme Court, 
stated:

       English-only rules * * * disproportionately burden national 
     origin minorities because they preclude many members of 
     national origin minority groups from speaking the language in 
     which they are best able to communicate, while rarely, if 
     ever, having that effect on non-minority employees.

  Thus, English-only rules are discriminatory because they put a burden 
on certain minority employees while leaving other employees unscathed. 
This is unfair. Congress can, and should, act to prevent it.
  My bill offers a simple solution to this problem. It simply states 
that, under title VII, an English-only rule creates an adverse and 
disparate effect on employees. By amending the law this way, Congress 
gives the EEOC authority to conclude, as it did way back in 1980, that 
English-only rules are inherently discriminatory and should only be 
allowed if required for business purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, it is late in the session and I have no illusions about 
this bill passing in the 103d Congress. I am not introducing it today 
with the intent of passage before October 7. Instead, I am introducing 
it in preparation for next Congress, when I will bring this measure 
forward again and, with my colleagues on the congressional Hispanic 
caucus and the Asian/Pacific Islander caucus, push for Congress to 
address this critical issue.

                          ____________________