Author Topic: Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company, Says English-Language Requirement is 'Disc  (Read 1939 times)

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59616
  • It’s All Bullshit
This is how stupid this is getting...


(CNSNews.com) -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, is suing a private American business for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees over their inability to speak English at work, claiming that the English-language requirement in a U.S. business constitutes  “discrimination.”

Judicial Watch reported Tuesday that the government is accusing Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “national origin.” The government argues this includes the “linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.”

Irene Garcia, the blog editor and Spanish media liaison for Judicial Watch, called the EEOC’s accusation “ludicrous.”

“That’s ludicrous and an overreaching of government,” Garcia told CNSNews.com. “If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak English.”

According to a news release from the EEOC, Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson said the Green Bay-based company’s English requirement is based on “superficial” reasoning.
plastic

(AP Photo)

"Our experience at the EEOC has been that so-called 'English only' rules and requirements of English fluency are often employed to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable. But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone,” Hendrickson said in the release. “When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer’s business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin — and thus violates federal law.”

But Garcia said the ability to speak English is necessary for employees of Wisconsin Plastics, Inc., but that the employees in question “were not able to speak English at any kind of level that would be considered proficient.”

“In this case some English is necessary to communicate with supervisors and stuff like that, and the EEOC just went after this private company because some employees were being marked down for not having English skills. So that doesn’t really make sense,” she said.
Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company Over ‘Discriminating’ English-Language Requirement

(AP Photo)

Garcia added that the lawsuit, filed on June 9, is just the latest in a slew of attempts by the EEOC and the Obama administration to go after American businesses for so-called “discrimination.” She cited numerous cases in which the EEOC has accused businesses of discriminating by requiring workers to speak English, running background and criminal checks, and enforcing company-wide restrictions on head coverings, including those worn by some Muslim women.

“We’ve seen some decisions that are kind of radical that we haven’t seen in the past, under Republican or Democrat administrations,” she said, claiming the EEOC under the Obama administration is “on a roll.”

Many lawsuits brought by the EEOC subjectively twist the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include things it was never meant to cover, Garcia added.

“We’re seeing a lot of these kinds of law suits using his civil rights law to sue on behalf of all these different causes that I believe violate the spirit of the law,” Garcia explained.

“In terms of religious and language rights under the Civil Rights Act, that’s what the administration is using to offer and extend protects when really and truly there’s no place for them [in the law],” she said.

Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25736
  • GETBIG3.COM!
This is how stupid this is getting...


(CNSNews.com) -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, is suing a private American business for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees over their inability to speak English at work, claiming that the English-language requirement in a U.S. business constitutes  “discrimination.”

Judicial Watch reported Tuesday that the government is accusing Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “national origin.” The government argues this includes the “linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.”

Irene Garcia, the blog editor and Spanish media liaison for Judicial Watch, called the EEOC’s accusation “ludicrous.”

“That’s ludicrous and an overreaching of government,” Garcia told CNSNews.com. “If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak English.”

According to a news release from the EEOC, Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson said the Green Bay-based company’s English requirement is based on “superficial” reasoning.
plastic

(AP Photo)

"Our experience at the EEOC has been that so-called 'English only' rules and requirements of English fluency are often employed to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable. But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone,” Hendrickson said in the release. “When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer’s business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin — and thus violates federal law.”

But Garcia said the ability to speak English is necessary for employees of Wisconsin Plastics, Inc., but that the employees in question “were not able to speak English at any kind of level that would be considered proficient.”

“In this case some English is necessary to communicate with supervisors and stuff like that, and the EEOC just went after this private company because some employees were being marked down for not having English skills. So that doesn’t really make sense,” she said.
Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company Over ‘Discriminating’ English-Language Requirement

(AP Photo)

Garcia added that the lawsuit, filed on June 9, is just the latest in a slew of attempts by the EEOC and the Obama administration to go after American businesses for so-called “discrimination.” She cited numerous cases in which the EEOC has accused businesses of discriminating by requiring workers to speak English, running background and criminal checks, and enforcing company-wide restrictions on head coverings, including those worn by some Muslim women.

“We’ve seen some decisions that are kind of radical that we haven’t seen in the past, under Republican or Democrat administrations,” she said, claiming the EEOC under the Obama administration is “on a roll.”

Many lawsuits brought by the EEOC subjectively twist the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include things it was never meant to cover, Garcia added.

“We’re seeing a lot of these kinds of law suits using his civil rights law to sue on behalf of all these different causes that I believe violate the spirit of the law,” Garcia explained.

“In terms of religious and language rights under the Civil Rights Act, that’s what the administration is using to offer and extend protects when really and truly there’s no place for them [in the law],” she said.



No...that's good.  You can't just fire people all of a sudden for matters that weren't a factor at the time when you HIRED THEM.  We don't need employers dumping people into the unemployment benefit line for bullshit reason
A

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Federal -Language Requirement is 'Disc
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2014, 05:12:52 AM »
Should just no longer hire these people in the first place.  F em

Vince G, CSN MFT

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 25736
  • GETBIG3.COM!
Re: Federal -Language Requirement is 'Disc
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2014, 01:23:21 PM »
Should just no longer hire these people in the first place.  F em


Exactly...should not have hired them to begin with if they knew they couldn't speak good English.  So firing them for it is bullshit for the company actually
A

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Re: Federal -Language Requirement is 'Disc
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2014, 10:08:42 PM »

Exactly...should not have hired them to begin with if they knew they couldn't speak good English.  So firing them for it is bullshit for the company actually

There's all kinds of jobs where you don't really have to go through much of an interview, this is at a plastics company which they were probably working on the production line.  If they scraped by the interview with seemingly ok references/experience then there's not grounds to not hire them.  They could have easily been given a shot at the job when the company knew it might not work out.  They probably spoke enough English just to make it seem like the understood what was going on to get themselves in the door.  Once the actual job started then it probably became clear their speaking skills weren't adequate.  Nothing wrong with that.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Cant communicate effectively = terminated.

 If I was an employer and I had employees that couldnt speak English I certainly wouldnt keep them. Shouldnt have hired them in the 1st place but just because you hire someone doesnt mean youre obligated to keep them, especially if they can't talk to their team.

Who knows how they got hired, maybe they snuck through,  maybe they knew someone. Shouldnt mean they cant be let go if they can't talk to their other employees well enough to do the job

Emmortal

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
Cant communicate effectively = terminated.

 If I was an employer and I had employees that couldnt speak English I certainly wouldnt keep them. Shouldnt have hired them in the 1st place but just because you hire someone doesnt mean youre obligated to keep them, especially if they can't talk to their team.

Who knows how they got hired, maybe they snuck through,  maybe they knew someone. Shouldnt mean they cant be let go if they can't talk to their other employees well enough to do the job

I know plenty of native born Americans who can barely communicate effectively with team members.  The racist Holder is just looking to make a mountain out of a mole hill once again.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
I know plenty of native born Americans who can barely communicate effectively with team members.  The racist Holder is just looking to make a mountain out of a mole hill once again.
Exactly.. doesn't sound racist/discriminatory to me... you can't communicate effectively = you shouldn't be working with these people. That isn't really something that limited to a certain race or group.