Legal Question in Business Law in California
This may sound petty but in my chosen field(Culinary) I am a chef it has become a huge issue. I was laid off and I've been looking of work. I moved to California from Michigan and every job I've applied for says Spanish and English speaking only apply. This is so unfair to citizens of this Country and I can't find a job why should I be forced to learn Spanish. Which I would like to learn but I'm about to lose my unemployment benefits and can't find a job. I really want to bring a lawsuit against these businesses is there president one could follow to do such.
3 Answers from Attorneys
Apply anyway. This is probably so you will be able to communicate with the other kitchen workers who may speak poor English. If you can handle they communication there should be no problem. If you cannot, a complaint to the Labor Commissioner will have substance because you will have applied for and been denied employment.
There are many jobs that require you to be bilingual. It is not illegal. It is a reality of the culinary industry in California that you cannot do the job of chef in most restaurants and commercial kitchens if you are not bilingual in english and spanish. There is not and will never be a law that says someone has to hire you when you can't do the job.
The case of Kare v. Church is relevant. Church, a white male, worked as a sales rep for Kare Distribution.There were ten sales reps, eight of whom were bilingual. Kare�s customer base had many Spanish-speaking households.
Kare decided that all new sales reps had to be bilingual. Church turned down company-sponsored Spanish lessons. He was fired and sued. He claimed the bilingual requirement amounted to national origin discrimination.
The federal court held that Kare�s bilingual requirement was a legitimate business decision based on its customer base. It was reciprocal, in that native Spanish speakers had to speak English. The requirement wasn�t used as a subterfuge to discriminate, but was just a skill requirement for sales reps. (Church v. Kare Distribution, 5th Cir., 2006)
The flip of Kare is, that if you could show that employers were using the requirement as a subterfuge to slyly implement a form of discrimination -- e.g. bilingualism really wasn't relevant to the job, and they made no attempt to help enthusiastic people comply (as Kare did, but Church refused), and they hired lots of native Spanish speakers who didn't speak English etc. -- then you would have a better chance of making a claim.
Also, Under federal job discrimination law, performance-relatedness is crucial and if you could show that it really wasn't necessary, you would have a much better chance.
Related Questions & Answers
-
My ex-husband was awarded his truck in our divorce. He has since let it get... Asked 4/07/10, 10:33 am in United States California Business Law
-
Hi I am a small business owner, and a local newspaper, will not accept my... Asked 4/07/10, 9:46 am in United States California Business Law