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??? Un-be-flipping-lievable! Let’s hope and help the Salvation Army win the lawsuit and set a precedent where the English requirement is upheld legally.
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.
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.