EEOC -- Attacks The Salvation Army

GOPUSA ^ | April 25, 2007 | Paul M. Weyrich

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Just when you think you have heard it all, along comes a story that is almost too ridiculous to be true. But it is. The idiocy of federal bureaucracies apparently is never-ending. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which might easily be called the Department of Political Correctness, has decided to take on the Salvation Army. Yes, the Salvation Army, that phenomenally successful assistance organization which began in Great Britain over one hundred and forty-years ago. The Salvation Army, which has helped thousands of people in countries all over the world, is being sued by the EEOC.

As most people are aware, the Salvation Army is a Christian evangelical organization the mission of which is to help the downtrodden, blind, sick, addicted and anyone else in need. "Army" personnel stand on street corners during Christmastime, ringing a bell on behalf of the poor. One of their most important ways to raise money is through donations of old clothes and household goods, which they sell in their thrift stores. They also operate soup kitchens and hire people no one else would hire. Since 1865 the Salvation Army has lived by Christ's admonition that as we do unto the least of our people we do unto the Lord. Now the organization is in trouble for insisting its employees learn to speak English.

It all started in a thrift store in Framingham, Massachusetts. Two Hispanic employees were given one year to learn English in order to speak the language of the country in which they live and the language spoken by other employees. They failed to do so; in turn the employees were fired. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army claiming the employees had suffered "emotional pain, humiliation and embarrassment" as a result of the English-only policy.

First, the Salvation Army is a faith-based organization and is able to set rules for its employees that many public organization cannot. I am not a lawyer; however, I know that government should not be telling religious groups whom they can and cannot hire or fire. Specifically, when it comes to requiring English the courts have already ruled in the State of Massachusetts. In 2003 a federal judge in Boston upheld the Salvation Army policy requiring workers to "speak English to the best of their ability." The EEOC didn't like that ruling, so it is trying for one more favorable.

These are our tax dollars at work, yours and mine, paying the salaries of the EEOC lawyers who filed the lawsuit while the Salvation Army must use its own funds -- funds that might be better used helping the poor -- to hire attorneys to fight this case in court. What a waste of money on both accounts.

Then there is the EEOC itself, an organization which has spent the last 25 years or so filing lawsuits on behalf of real (and imagined) victims of every possible type of discrimination: sex, age, disability, race, etc. Often these lawsuits are against individuals and other times against large corporations or public agencies. A result has been thousands of hours spent by employers attempting to avoid litigation. I shudder to think of the amount of effort and money spent on lengthy seminars and briefings for human resource departments while American jobs have been disappearing overseas on almost a daily basis.

One of the latest EEOC "campaigns" is to end background checks by many employers because they might discriminate against people who have served prison terms. Now sometimes people do deserve a second chance when they have paid their debt to society but shouldn't the employer get to decide whether to hire someone with a criminal record? Imagine a future time when an employer could be fined for not hiring someone with a criminal record. I have no trouble believing that this is what the EEOC would like to see happen.

In the Boston case I wanted to know if the Hispanic employees were American citizens. Nobody could tell me. They most likely are not, but that does not matter to the EEOC, which probably did not bother to inquire. You need not be an American citizen to use a federal agency to file a lawsuit on your behalf. In what other country is there an agency that would help you sue yet another government agency or a private company if you weren't a citizen? And provide you with an interpreter to do so? Not one that I can think of.

This case would be entirely moot if we had an "English First" rule in our schools and required everyone to learn English for employment. I have given up on the idea that such common sense will again prevail in our society. Must our government work against us? Must it take American taxpayers' money to hire lawyers who sue on behalf of non-citizens who cannot be bothered to learn the language even "to the best of their ability?" And to sue one of our preeminent charitable organizations in the process? Apparently it can -- and it does.

---------

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

[Badeye]

Yep.

[Titan Magroyne]

I thought that having the ability to read and speak English had long been a requirement for becoming a naturalized citizen. No soup for you!

You're assuming the 2 plaintiffs have a desire to become contributing, naturalized American citizens as they enjoy the resources and benefits at their disposal in this country.

Get in back of the line, you silly, pompous American!

/s

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

So I can be denied a job if it requires me to be fluent in Spanish but the Salvation Army can’t deny a job to someone because they can’t speak English???

That's what I was thinking about when I read this gem:

In what other country is there an agency that would help you sue yet another government agency or a private company if you weren't a citizen? And provide you with an interpreter to do so?

You argue this case in court, you ask the EEOC lawyers how they communicated with the plaintiffs unless they have Spanish-speaking employees . . . and if that does not imply that being able to speak Spanish and English (how can you translate into English unless you know English??) would not a requirement for accomplishing this. Does that not translate into a requirement that the employee doing the translation be able to speak English?

OTOH the real answer to this nonsense is even simpler: ask the EEOC lawyer if he (or, perhaps more likely, she) could do her job without being able to speak English! Then turn to the justices of the Supreme Court and ask them if they could do their job without speaking English.

[MeanWestTexan]

No, a language can be an employment requirement, if necessary for the job. I would assume English is more-or-less necessary anywhere.

Language cannot be used as a pretext for firing, however (i.e., the real reason they don’t like you is your hispanic).

There’s something about “diproportionate impact,” but I’m not a lawyer.

[mdmathis6]

The president is the Chief Executive....he could tell the EEOC to stand down on this issue...or hold up their money pending emergency use in Iraq....

He needs to lead on this issue!

[Mr. Wright]

You know, everything, and I mean everything, that is right with America is under attack. It is indeed frightening.

[keepitreal]

I totally agree. These folks won’t be happy until our beloved country is totally destroyed, from the inside out.

[Marysecretary]

We like the Salvation Army and the Rescue Missions. We give at Christmas every year. Good people doing good work.

[Jacquerie]

Every government bureaucracy no matter how irrelevant, soon becomes something like a living organism bent on living and propagating. That the full force of the federal government can be unleashed on a whim on a great charity should make us shiver at what they have and will do against for profit corporations and individuals.

[A. Pole]

It all started in a thrift store in Framingham, Massachusetts. Two Hispanic employees were given one year to learn English in order to speak the language of the country in which they live and the language spoken by other employees. They failed to do so; in turn the employees were fired. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army claiming the employees had suffered "emotional pain, humiliation and embarrassment" as a result of the English-only policy.

But when people lose or are being denied job for NOT speaking Spanish is it OK?

[printhead]

I think Brazilian native language is Portuguese though.

[Elsiejay]

But, really, is it not true that the legal requirements for becoming a citizen through the naturalization process, and being allowed to exercise the privilige of voting, include demonstrating ability to read and understand the English language?
This is why I cannot understand printing voting ballots in foreign languages. I’m not sure about which nation our government bureaucrats, not to mention certain highly-placed elected officials, are striving to serve.

[Titan Magroyne]

In answer to your question, yes.

I can’t condone printing *any* gov’t paperwork in other languages. If private ventures choose to do so in order to cater to their market, that’s their overhead and the free market at work. Absent today’s political factor in that issue, I have no problem with private entities doing that. But it just keeps piling on in every sector of American life.

[mejohnny2]

Sorry, I knew people that has worked for them, they don’t treat their employee’s very well. And I tried to talked to
the main office, those people call their self christian’s, yea right.......

[Badeye]

Your the only person I’ve ever encountered with that viewpoint and/or story.