[Bill Lan Lee, Clinton's EEOC, and, yet another Executive Order,
No. 13166. And, Shazam! New Law is made! Yet another protected
"right." The Clinton Administration.....forget the constitution,
forget the congress.......just remember, "Stroke of the pen, law
of the land. Kinda cool!"]
ELECTION 2000
Feds win 'landmark' English-only case
Decision reflects new Clinton Order on multilingualism
By Jon E. Dougherty � 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
In what the agency has deemed a "landmark" decision, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission has won a court case against a
private employer who banned employees from speaking any language
other than English while at work.
According to an EEOC statement, U.S. District Judge Judge Milton
Shadur ordered Watlow Batavia, Inc., a subsidiary of Watlow
Electric Manufacturing Co. of St. Louis, to pay $192,500 to
eight Hispanic former employees in the Assembly Department of a
plant in suburban Chicago. The plant manufactures aluminum
radiators and other components, the agency said.
According to the federal employment agency, Watlow Batavia was
found in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex or national origin.
Watlow company officials said they settled with EEOC to avoid
further costly litigation. The company, however, has maintained
they did nothing improper in imposing the English-only rules.
According to Watlow attorney Ed Jepson, the company imposed the
rule because fully one-third of its Chicago assembly plant
workforce was Hispanic, "and that the English-only rule had been
adopted to improve communication on the assembly line," Jepson
said. It never applied to any worker who was away from the line,
he added.
"The company was having trouble with productivity and quality
control because people weren't talking to each other," said
Jepson. "This is a company that values diversity and encourages
diversity."
"The Commission will continue to defend employees' civil rights
when rules are implemented that arbitrarily penalize a single
group based on their national origin," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida
L. Castro. "It is imperative for employers to be aware that
blanket English-only policies, those requiring workers to speak
English at all times with no exceptions, may be unlawful if they
are not clearly justified by business necessity."
=> The decision comes just three weeks after
=> President Clinton signed Executive Order 13166
=> mandating that federal programs must become
=> multilingual or risk being prosecuted for violations
=> of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Jim Boulet, Jr., executive director of English First, an activist
group tracking the implications and applications of the new
decree, claims that Executive Order 13166 has now made "language"
a protected civil right under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. Thus, he says, it may be construed retroactively to justify
efforts of governmental agencies -- like the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission -- to make language a protected civil
right under Title VII of that same law.
Clinton's order formally declared that Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act "creates a right to government services in the
language of one's choice," Boulet said.
=> Indeed, the order was interpreted by Deputy Attorney
=> General Bill Lann Lee, head of the Justice Department's
=> Civil Rights Division, to mean that "a federal aid
=> recipient's failure to assure that people who are not
=> proficient in English can effectively participate in and
=> benefit from programs and activities may constitute
=> national origin discrimination prohibited by Title VI."
Executive orders traditionally are aimed at executive branch
operations, Boulet noted, and are not supposed to be applied to
areas of public law traditionally reserved to Congress and the
courts.
"The truly frightening part of this radical redefinition of
national origin discrimination to include language choice is that
it may well apply to every other law which uses the term
'national origin,' especially Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act," Boulet said.
According to the Center for Equal Opportunity, as of August 30,
"national origin" appears 343 times in the U.S. Code and 922
times in the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition, many
state and local anti-discrimination laws mimic federal
terminology, said Boulet.
"Because Executive Order 13166 has now made 'language' a
protected civil right under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, it
has also retroactively justified efforts by the EEOC and other
government agencies to make language a protected civil right
under Title VII of that same law," Boulet said.
Overall, the impact of Executive Order 13166 is "a loaded gun
pointed at the head of every business owner, manager and
executive in the United States," Boulet noted. "The EEOC can be
expected to start using its new weapon with enthusiasm."
That is especially true, civil rights analysts say, if the Watlow
case becomes the EEOC's language-standard precedent.
According to the agency, besides paying monetary damages, Watlow
will also have to provide "comprehensive training to its
management personnel, post a notice at its plant detailing the
outcome of the litigation, and maintain certain employment
records for EEOC's review," said the agency's statement.
Also, the court order "requires that the company not discriminate
against its workforce based on national origin nor implement any
English-only rules," said EEOC.
"Cases involving language issues, accent discrimination, and
restrictive language policies or practices are a strategic
enforcement priority for the Commission," said EEOC General
Counsel C. Gregory Stewart. "The Commission will aggressively
prosecute such cases in order to remedy employment discrimination
and protect the public interest."
English First researchers verified Stewart's pledge by noting
that the agency has "more than tripled the number of
language/accent discrimination cases filed, from 77 in FY 1996 to
253 in FY 1999."
Additionally, the civil rights office of the Department of Health
and Human Services has also increased activity on the language
discrimination front. Last year, for example, the department won
a decision against Contra Costa County (Calif.) Department of
Social Services which required that "all county services and
programs [be] accessible to persons who are limited English
proficient."
Boulet noted the similarity of EEOC actions resulting from
language rights to what happened after the Americans With
Disabilities Act was passed in 1990.
"Most people thought the ADA would mean more wheelchair ramps,"
Boulet said. But, "the EEOC interpreted the ADA to mean that a
truck driver subject to epileptic seizures was discriminated
against for being fired for safety reasons.
"The driver had another seizure while driving for a different
firm and crashed," he said.
The EEOC statement supported Boulet's assertions that
prosecutions for alleged language rights violations are on the
rise.
"Since EEOC started separately tracking English-only charges in
1996, there has been an increasing trend in charge filings
alleging national origin discrimination based on such policies,"
said the agency's statement.
Settled on Friday, the Watlow suit was originally filed in March
1999.
"This settlement should send a strong message to employers in
Illinois and across the country about the illegality of
English-only rules," said John C. Hendrickson, Regional Attorney
of EEOC's Chicago District Office, which filed the lawsuit.
"This is an important step in our fight against discrimination on
the basis of national origin.
"We expect that companies will think long and hard about whether
to implement rules that discriminate against those who speak
languages other than English when those rules aren't necessary to
do the job," he added.
The agency said its policy on English-only rules is set out in
its Guidelines on Discrimination Because of National Origin, Part
29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1606.1.
"It is the Commission's position that rules requiring employees
to speak only English in the workplace have an adverse impact on
individuals whose primary language is not English or who are
limited in English proficiency," said the EEOC statement. "Such
English-only rules, when applied at all times, may violate Title
VII on the basis of national origin."
Boulet said that in the end, "all but one of the original eight
workers named as being wronged in the suit have left the
company."
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
