Dental Tribune U.S. Edition

Dental Tribune U.S. Edition | February 2012 XXXXXXX ” See EMERGENCY page A4 A4 Ad Dental Tribune U.S. Edition | January 2013 English-only workplace language policies Avoid significant liability by following proper implementation By Stuart J. Oberman, Esq. Asourcountryevolvesanditscitizenship becomes more diverse, questions regard- ing limitations on the language used in the workplace are becoming more common. In the past, English was so widely spoken that workplace language issues did not arise frequently. However, U.S. immigra- tion patterns have changed significantly, and the workplace is the primary environ- ment where members of different cultures come together to accomplish goals, requir- ing communication. Additionally, to main- tain employee morale, employees need to be comfortable at work. In attempting to create a successful and harmonious work- place, many dental practice owners have contemplated implementing workplace policies restricting the language spoken in the workplace to English. Laying the groundwork English-only policies are controversial and can lead practice owners to significant li- ability exposure if improperly implement- ed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines presume that English-only rules constitute discrimi- nation, making employees more likely to win complaints before the EEOC. A practice owner must show that the English-only rule is necessary to safe and efficient job performance. The EEOC presumes that English-only rules create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation and intimidation; however, there may be legitimate reasons for a practice owner to institute these rules. In fact, English-only rules may prevent a hostile work environment among English and non-English speaking employees. If an employee sues his or her employer, alleging that an English-only rule consti- tutes illegal discrimination, the employee must show that the rule adversely affects a protectedclass(peopleoftheirnationalori- gin, race, etc.). The owner of the dental prac- tice then has an opportunity to show that the rule is consistent with business neces- sity and is job related. Even if the practice owner shows a business necessity, the em- ployee may still prevail by showing that an alternative to the English-only rule could have accomplished the same goal with a less adverse impact on the protected class. English-only rules are not specifically ad- dressed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal workplace discrimina- tion code. However, there is a question as to whether one’s primary language can be treated as a characteristic of national ori- gin, triggering the protections of Title VII. In 1988, a federal court held that discrimi- nation based on linguistic characteristics of a national origin group could render a viable claim under Title VII. However, this ruling did not give much power to the lin- guistic protection allowed under the EEOC guideline because effective communica- tion is a requirement of most occupations. English-onlyrulesrelatedirectlytolinguis- tic characteristics; however, national origin does not necessarily relate to linguistic characteristics. Since the EEOC defined na- tional origin to include linguistic charac- teristics, claims of national origin discrimi- nation on the basis of an English-only rule can generally be brought under Title VII. DecidingwhethertheEnglish-onlyruleis essential to the operation of a dental prac- tice can be difficult. The need for English- STuaRT J. OBERMan, ESq., handles a wide range of legal issues for the dental profession, in- cluding practice sales, real estate transactions, lease agreements, non-com- pete agreements and pro- fessionalcorporations.For questions or comments regarding this article please call (770) 554-1400 or visit www.gadentalattorney.com. Contact him at www. facebook.com/pages/Oberman-Law/246795745395840 and www.linkedin.com/in/stuartobermanlaw.Followhisblogat oberman lawfirm.word press.com. PRACTICE MATTERS