"Speaking a language other than English is not only disrespectful, it’s also prohibited" allegedly read the sign posted at a Supercuts on Michigan Avenue in Chicago.
The stylists claim Supercuts managers prohibited foreign languages (Spanish) from being spoken by employees anywhere on the business property, including break rooms.
Is this prohibition of speaking foreign languages even in private conversations where customers can’t hear (in break rooms) a violation of the of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin? Probably yes. But, the Suprecuts franchisee (owner of 20 Supercuts) denies such a policy existed as alleged.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") joined the stylist in a civil law suit against the Supercuts franchisee.
The EEOC has already given direct guidance on this issue.
…an employer’s rule which require employees to speak English at all times, including during their work break and lunch time, is one example of an employment practice which discriminates against persons whose primary language is not English.
However, an employer may require employees to speak only English at certain times and this would not be discriminatory, if the employer shows that the rule is justified by business necessity. The employer must clearly inform its employees of the general circumstances under which they are required to speak only English and the consequences of violating the rule.
If the reported facts are accurate, the EEOC will probably win this one.
Whether the EEOC’s regulations goes too far in interferring with employer-employee relationships is a debate worth having.
Similar Posts:
- Behavior Around Disabled Employees
- Managing Staff, Help from Franchisors
- How Franchisors Communicate with Franchisees
- Franchisees: Give Your Stock to the Best Employees
- Paychecks via Debit Cards
Ryan is an attorney and valuation specialist residing in Chicago. He chronicles his thoughts and research on FranchisePundit.com. You may reach him by email ryanknoll@gmail.com or mobile telephone 312-715-8115.
I think the business owner was right in this case
I have been in many stores where the employee Spoke in a different lan
and I was very uncomfortable not knowing what they were saying. I think it is a business owners right to make sure that all of there employees and customers are nor uncomfortable.I will not go back to any company that has employee that can not speak English I thinks is very rude. If they come from another county to live and work here they need to speak english
This is an issue? Obviously, Supercuts found they were ALIENATING customers when barbers speak another language to each other what customers do not understand.
It is beyond rude to treat customers that way; and it wastes a lot of time pinning owners to a wall, as if they care about ethnic issues while the real issue is behavior that DRIVES OFF BUSINESS.
I don’t think the owner would have hired the barbers in the first place if they were looking to violate rights. In fact, the employer should have fired them for acting like idiots, if he found them chasing off business.
It’s real easy to play QB after the game. And your blog should reflect BUSINESS issues, not some horse shit sociological point of view you inherited from a professor you respected for never having to make a living in the REAL WORLD, where employees routinely find ways to FUCK UP a SIMPLE PLAN, even if it hits them in their tips!
Mel -
I love passionate readers
If what the employee alleges is true (a policy of English-only in private breakrooms where no customers can possibly hear), then the way the EEOC rules are set up, Supercuts is not in a good position. Now, should Supercuts have to pay out thousands in fines? I think that would be rediculous and Supercuts can probably negotiate a policy that is acceptable.
From articles I’ve read the EEOC have nearly bankrupted some businesses for discrimination issues. The EEOC often operates as an overzealous liberal advocacy group, in my opinion. My opinion is a private employer can impose any rules they want on employees for any reason. If the employee doesn’t like it, then find another job.
I edited the article because of your post. I wrote it quickly and probably didn’t intertwine my opinion accurately.
Just an update on this case. The EEOC did lose this case as the “facts” were incorrect. The only benefit that came out of this case is that it made a couple of attorney’s wealthy. Just a waste of time and negative media. Makes you not want to go into business.