Does Requiring English in the Work Place Violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

When Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIIùthe first piece of federal legislation to ban employment discriminationùserved as the centerpiece. Title VII's impact on America cannot be overstated, and its benefits have extended far beyond the workplace. Title VII also has expanded during the last 35 years thanks to several amendments, most notably in 1972 when Congress enlarged the scope of the statute to include government employees.

Specifically, Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer ôto fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]ö Title VII al

. . .
example, Gloor justified its rule partly on the need for monolingual managers to adequately supervise their employees. This begs the question, however, that if the managers cannot understand Spanish, how do they supervise their employees when they are conversing with Spanish-speaking customers? Certainly that would seem to be a far more important time to be supervising employees then when they speak amongst themselves. The issue of English-only workplaces would have benefited from a full airing of the employer's justifications. Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corporation Jurado, the plaintiff, worked as a disc jockey at an English-language radio station in Los Angeles. One day his program director asked Jurado, who was bilingual, to spice up his show by using ôstreetö Spanish words and phrases to attract Hispanic listeners. After the plaintiff incorporated those changes into his show, a new program director took over. Market research indicated that Jurado's approach had not increased the ratings, neither among Hispanic listeners nor overall. The new program director instructed Jurado to stop using Spanish in his show. When Jurado refused, the program director fired him. Jurado sued, but the District Court granted the defendant's
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Title VII, Spun Steak, Court Appeals, Steak Company, EEOC Guidelines, Supreme Court, District Court, Alton Gloor, Power Company, Actually Reinhardt, disparate impact, title vii, spun steak, english-only rule, eeoc guidelines, business necessity, disparate treatment, english-only policy, supreme court, disparate impact analysis, impact analysis, spun steak company, ninth circuit court, legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, prima facie discrimination,
Approximate Word count = 7823
Approximate Pages = 31 (250 words per page)