HR Hotline: Can We Require Employees To Be Proficient in English?

Q: We have an English proficiency requirement for our technicians. They must be able to read, speak, and write in English, because they communicate with customers in their homes, they work with chemicals that have detailed written instructions, and they’re required to document their work.

Is our proficiency requirement discriminatory against non-English speakers, or is it justified?

A: It sounds like your company has a good basis for requiring proficiency in English for these positions. Your instinct is right, however, to evaluate your policy carefully and to ensure that it’s not discriminatory. 

The law at issue here is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against applicants and employees based on their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, their opposition to unlawful practices, and their participation in Title VII proceedings. 

When an employer requires English proficiency, it exposes the company to a potential national origin discrimination claim, because linguistic and cultural characteristics are often specific to a person’s national origin group.

Business Use

As in your case, employers will often have legitimate business reasons for requiring English proficiency, and so will not run the risk of discriminating against certain groups. 

Generally speaking, such rules are permissible only if they are required for the effective performance of the job. 

So, for example, if an employee needs to be able to speak to English-speaking customers, or to document their work in English, or to read instructions in English, a proficiency rule for that position would make sense and would not be discriminatory. 

Generally speaking, such rules are permissible only if they are required for the effective performance of the job. 

It’s important for employers to keep in mind that they must evaluate each job individually. 

The EEOC notes that “because the degree of fluency that may be lawfully required varies from one position to the next, employers are advised to assess the level of fluency required for a job on a case-by-case basis. Applying uniform fluency requirements to a broad range of dissimilar positions or requiring a greater degree of fluency than is necessary for a position may result in a violation of Title VII.”  

Spoken Word

One final note—employers should not confuse legitimate English proficiency rules with “English only” rules. 

The latter group consists of policies that prohibit employees from speaking their native language in the workplace, whether during breaks or in casual conversation with co-workers. 

Such rules presumptively violate Title VII. You can find more information on that prohibition here.

---

HR problems or issues? Email or call CBIA’s Diane Mokriski at the HR Hotline (860.244.1900) | @HRHotline. The HR Hotline is a free service for CBIA member companies and is intended to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with legal professionals for specific guidance for your specific situation.