Gutierrez v. Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District
838 F.2d 1031, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 971, 90 A.L.R. Fed. 763 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's English-only workplace rule creates a disparate impact based on national origin and presumptively violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless the employer can prove the rule is justified by a compelling business necessity.
Facts:
- Alva Gutierrez, a Hispanic-American, was employed as a bilingual deputy court clerk for the Southeast Judicial District of the Los Angeles Municipal Court.
- As part of their duties, Gutierrez and other bilingual clerks translated for non-English speaking members of the public.
- In March 1984, the Municipal Court enacted a new personnel rule forbidding employees from speaking any language other than English, except when acting as translators.
- In December 1984, the court amended the rule to permit the use of other languages during lunch hours or work breaks.
- The rule remained in effect for all other conversations conducted at work during working hours.
- Gutierrez and other Hispanic-American employees felt the rule created an atmosphere of inferiority and intimidation.
Procedural Posture:
- Alva Gutierrez filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December 1984.
- In March 1985, Gutierrez filed suit in the U.S. District Court against several Municipal Court judges and the Southeast Judicial District.
- The district court granted Gutierrez's motion for a preliminary injunction, which prohibited the defendants from enforcing the English-only rule.
- The defendant judges moved for summary judgment on Gutierrez's non-Title VII claims, asserting defenses of absolute and qualified immunity.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The defendant judges, as appellants, appealed the district court's order granting the preliminary injunction and its order denying their motion for summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a workplace rule requiring bilingual employees to speak only English, except when translating for the public or during breaks, violate Title VII by creating a disparate impact on the basis of national origin?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt
Yes, a workplace rule requiring bilingual employees to speak only English, except under limited circumstances, likely violates Title VII. The court adopted the EEOC's guideline that English-only rules generally have an adverse impact on protected groups because language is an essential characteristic of national origin. Such rules are permissible only if the employer can prove they are justified by a 'business necessity.' The court held that this 'business necessity' test requires the employer to show a justification that is 'sufficiently compelling to override the discriminatory impact' and that the rule is essential to the business purpose. Here, the court rejected the employer's proffered justifications, including promoting racial harmony, preventing a 'Tower of Babel,' allowing monolingual supervisors to monitor conversations, and complying with a California constitutional provision making English the official language. None of these reasons were compelling enough to constitute a business necessity, so Gutierrez demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of her disparate impact claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the use of the EEOC's 'business necessity' test for English-only workplace rules within the Ninth Circuit, making it significantly more difficult for employers to justify such policies. The court explicitly rejects a focus on a bilingual employee's ability to comply, instead emphasizing the link between language and cultural identity as protected under Title VII's national origin provisions. This ruling establishes a high bar for employers, requiring them to demonstrate a compelling and essential purpose for language restrictions, thereby strengthening protections for bilingual employees against rules that may create a hostile or discriminatory work environment.
