Probably not but it depends on why you’re implementing the policy. Explanation: Requiring or banning a particular language to be spoken in the workplace is a form of ethnicity/nationality discrimination banned by human rights laws. However, otherwise discriminatory policies are justifiable if you can show that they’re a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). Example: Requiring a job applicant to speak unaccented English is discriminatory on its face. However, it might be OK for a public facing receptionist. More obvious example: Refusing to hire a job applicant because he/she’s visually impaired is disability discrimination unless the job is driver or other position for which sight is a BFOR.
Keep in mind that proving a BFOR is extremely difficult. To do it, you must show: 1. The policy serves a compelling, non-discriminatory purpose like safety? 2. You adopted the policy in the good faith belief that it was necessary to accomplish that purpose. And, most difficult of all, 3. That the policy really is necessary to accomplish that purpose and there are no less discriminatory alternatives available.
So look at your situation and determine whether you meet all 3 of the BFOR requirements, which is hard to do. WHY are you requiring English only? Is there some compelling safety reason? Is the English-only policy necessary to achieve that safety objective? And are there alternatives that wouldn’t take away an employee’s language rights?
If you want to provide me more info about your situation, I’ll be happy to follow up and help you do the BFOR assessment. Glenn glennd@bongarde.com
