English Only Laws

In the article “Should English Be the Law?” the author Robert D. King tell us about several civilizations that were influenced by all different types of language. The point is there are countries out there that don’t want a singular language. Some countries such as India in their constitution nineteen different languages are recognized. But then other countries like America a bill was passed in 1996 making English the national language. Truth is every country is different some want a national language and some don’t I feel no one should be forced. The government should just do as the people request.

Even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Health and Human Services (HHS) are rallying support for those citizens who do not currently speak English well or at all. The EEOC is fighting

The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.

“A reasonable opportunity shall be given for the nomination of candidates and every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (... subject to reason- able qualifications uniformly imposed). If the union decides to adopt a rule that required all candidates for union office to be proficient in both Spanish and English this would be considered uniformly imposed so it would be legal. Since 48% of the union members only speak Spanish and the rest are English speakers this could be a problem and seem unreasonable. Current union officers act as the translators of the union. The adoption of the rule would make any member who wants to join the union office a versatile member, one who can speak and listen to all the union

no person has the right, enlightenment, or claim to have the government or any officials communicate, perform, or provide services or materials in a language other than English

The Supreme Court declared that the purpose of Title VII is to ensure equal employment opportunities by eliminating those practices and devices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender or national origin. After the defendant in this case alleges that in Title VII cases have generally been interpreted to color the word mean the same thing on the basis of race. But laws and case law repeatedly and explicitly refer to race and color. Remainder of this Court with no choice but to conclude, when Congress and the Supreme Court refer to the race and color in the same sentence, which means

Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1946 that is an important legislation which plays a significant role in defining the employment procedures in today’s workplace. Racial discrimination will continue to be prohibited by Title VII and it has sparked an increase in anti-discrimination awareness as it is designed to promote equal opportunities, equality, and promote fairness. As a federal law, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a prospective employee from being hired based on gender, race, national origin and religion.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal Law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the grounds of sex, race, color, national origin and religion (www.aauw.org). Thus far in our lectures we have discussed the strategies used by various minority groups who have been discriminated against in violation of Title VII. There has been land mark decisions made from the hard fought fights by, African Americans, Women, Mexicans and Jewish alike. Their challenges of non-compliance and enforcement of Title VII brought successes that didn’t come without sacrifice, division and in some cases physical harm.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids intentional discrimination based on several factors: religion, race, color, and sex or national origin. There are times, however, where discrimination can play a part in the decision-making process within businesses, especially within the public school system. The three-step procedures for Title VII challenges are very precise regarding the determination of intentional discrimination and are universal for all cases of alleged discrimination.

All individuals that are from other culture and proficient and predominately speak a language other than English would be hurt by English only rules. English only speaking rules create barriers in the workplace and can also encourage a hostile working environment. These policies also encourage a working environment of lowliness, segregation, and fear. English only rules prohibit employees whose primary language is anything other than

There are emotional and legal concerns surrounding whether immigrants should learn to speak English. Domenico Maceri (2009), an award-winning author and foreign language instructor at Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria California, states “I never met an immigrant in the United States who needed laws to be reminded that English is necessary to succeed” (par. 9).

Many corporate are now conducting training on cross-cultural communication for their workforce. In the US, opinions of cultural experts are invited before taking a judicial decision. In short, every person or organization can make small steps to minimize this

Who can argue against the fact that a successful government must be unified in, if nothing else, its communications? However, the debate over the official language spread deep. Remembering the previous paragraph, foreigners will be here no matter what. They are the majority in some communities. This means that there is a whole population of consumers speaking and understanding only a language other than English.

They must consider language differences especially whilst preparing training material. Some individuals may also require an interpreter to get messages across clearly (Noe, Raymond, 2002, p333). If an interpreter is used, it is important to conduct a practice session with the interpreter to evaluate pacing of the session and whether the amount of topics and material is appropriate (Noe, Raymond, 2002, p333). A needs assessment or analysis would be helpful for trainers to evaluate cultural dimensions and the characteristics of their employees whether it be language barriers, cultural status (Noe, Raymond, 2002, p334). By identifying the needs of cultural and ethnic minorities, trainers will be able to properly train and develop this minority to group to not only suit the individual themself but also the company.

In the English Law system, the effect of legislation remains statute in force until they are repealed. (R v Ducan, 1994). The application of legislation is ambiguous.