EEOC To Collaborate With Mexican Consulate To Assist Mexican Nationals

The EEOC’s Denver and Detroit Field Offices have announced that they have entered into Memoranda of Understanding with the Consulate of Mexico to assist Mexican workers in the US in the area of employment discrimination.

 

These “MOU’s” will establish a collaboration that will involve the EEOC providing the Consulate and Mexican nationals with Spanish-language materials explaining the federal anti-discrimination laws, information regarding workplace discrimination on Spanish-language radio stations, and information, guidance, and access to resources on the prevention of discrimination in the workplace regardless of immigration status.


The Mexican Consulate serves to preserve the rights of Mexican nationals residing in the US. 
 

 

English-Only Policy And Ensuing Harassment Results In A Whopping $975,000 Settlement

A class of approximately 70 Filipino-American hospital workers (represented by the EEOC) just settled with a California acute care hospital for $975,000 -- what may be the largest settlement in the healthcare industry based upon claims of language discrimination.


The core claim was that the employees were threatened for years not to speak anything but English. The employees claim to have been harassed, humiliated, subject to undue scrutiny, surveillance, discipline and offensive conduct simply because they spoke the Filipino languages, Tagalog or Ilocano, or spoke with a Filipino accent.
 

This all began in 2006, the employees claim, when the CEO met just with Filipino-American staff and threatened them about not complying with the English-only language policy, which allegedly mandated that they speak only in English except when speaking to a patient with other language needs or during break time. The CEO also threatened to install surveillance equipment to monitor their conversations, and supervisors, staff, and volunteers constantly yelled at them, mocked their accents and even threatened to have them arrested. One co-worker even went as far as to spray air freshener on a plaintiff’s lunch because the co-worker had a self-professed hatred of Filipino food.
 

One plaintiff was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that "They were always telling us, 'Ssshhh. English only. English only. I felt embarrassed, ashamed. I was so angry we were being followed by housekeepers and security guards. I asked the guard why he did that and he said, 'We were told to watch you and report you.'"
 

The EEOC General Counsel stated that “Employees should never be targeted because of their national origin or language.”

 

US Sues NJ Staffing Company For Discrimination Under the Immigration and Nationality Act

We seldom write about discrimination law if it is not related to statutes such as Title VII, the ADEA or the ADA, for no other reason than that’s where most claims and lawsuits arise, and that’s where the cutting edge of discrimination law seems to be found. But not always.


There are anti-discrimination provisions found in other statutes, and last week the US Justice Department announced that it had filed an anti-discrimination suit against a staffing company in Jersey City, N.J. which specializes in information technology, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The suit alleges that the company fired its receptionist/recruiter after she opposed the company’s alleged practice of recruiting and preferring noncitizens with temporary work visas over Americans citizens and lawful permanent residents.


The relevant provision of the INA prohibits “citizenship status discrimination” and “national origin discrimination” against citizens (and certain others), and as with Title VII and other such laws, prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose a practice that is illegal under the INA, or who attempt to assert rights under that statute. The Civil Right’s Division of the Justice Department, through its Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, is charged with enforcing these provisions of the INA

Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, stated that “Employers cannot punish employees who try to do the right thing and take reasonable measures to shed light on a practice they believe may be discriminatory. Employers must ensure that their practices conform to the anti-discrimination provision of the INA, and retaliation will not be tolerated.”
 

 

Welcome to Our Fox Rothschild Colleagues to the World of Blogging: Check out the New Immigration View

Several of our colleagues at Fox Rothschild have created a blog to address immigration issues.  Although we have not previously blogged about discrimination against non-citizens, the Immigration Reform and Control Act does contain an anti-discrimination provision which prohibits discrimination on the basis of immigration status. 

 

While we may post about that provision in future blogs, you can get information on that and other immigration issues directly from our colleagues.  Check out the new Immigration View.