The article by Stephanie Armour published in USA Today in 2007, reports the problem of employers who enforce an “English Only” policy at workplace and have to face lawsuits from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
According to the employers who enforce such policies, they are justified because the policy can be legally adopted if the employer can show that such a policy is a business necessity or necessary from a safety point in emergency situations. However, employees argue that the policy is extended to lunch breaks and even to bathrooms, where the necessity for any such policy cannot exist.
Irrespective of the side whose argument is correct, the policy is proving to be extremely costly for the employers. Flushing Motor Geriatric Center had to pay $900,000 to settle a lawsuit. With the number of US residents who are not fluent in English increasing, the chances of more such lawsuits are increasing.
The strict insistence on the “English Only” policy also affects the efficiency of the employees since when employees are bothered by such trivial issues they spend more time discussing these at work and less time on the work.
Another adverse effect of such a policy is that it adversely affects employee morale. Considering the huge numbers of employees who are not fluent in English and those for whom English is not their first language, such a policy can put fear in employees and bring about instability in an organization.
Considering these adverse effects of the strict insistence on English Only policy by employers, it is safe to say that the policy is economically unviable. The adverse effects on efficiency and economy of the English Only policy on organizations far outweigh its benefits.