Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama EEOC Sues Wisconsin Company for English Requirement
Gateway Pundit ^ | July 2, 2014 | Jim Hoft

Posted on 07/02/2014 8:55:04 PM PDT by Hojczyk

It’s an Obama world. The Obama EEOC is suing a private American company for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees for their inability to speak English at work. CNS News reported:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, is suing a private American business for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees over their inability to speak English at work, claiming that the English-language requirement in a U.S. business constitutes “discrimination.”

Judicial Watch reported Tuesday that the government is accusing Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on “national origin.” The government argues this includes the “linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.”

Irene Garcia, the blog editor and Spanish media liaison for Judicial Watch, called the EEOC’s accusation “ludicrous.”

“That’s ludicrous and an overreaching of government,” Garcia told CNSNews.com. “If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak English.”

According to a news release from the EEOC, Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson said the Green Bay-based company’s English requirement is based on “superficial” reasoning.

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 07/02/2014 8:55:04 PM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

In January, I was seated in the exit row of a Latin America airline. When the flight attendant asked the required questions, she asked me if I could speak Spanish? I allowed as how I spoke some. She put me in an alternate, non-exit-row seat. I didn’t feel discriminated against and neither should the workers in this thread. If someone yells “Fire!” are they going to react immediately or are they going to have to think about the meaning of the word?


2 posted on 07/02/2014 8:59:17 PM PDT by Rembrandt (Part of the 51% who pay Federal taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Fire all of the Eeoc “folks”.


3 posted on 07/02/2014 8:59:51 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Haloo, dis iss Peggy. You wan’ plastex? Pliss howld.


4 posted on 07/02/2014 9:00:49 PM PDT by Veto! (OpInions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Wait until the Kenyan grants amnesty to 50 million illegal alien invaders. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet! Lawyers and their ‘RAT massas will have all of the money in the country.


5 posted on 07/02/2014 9:01:33 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (The future must not belong to those who slander bacon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

How is an employee suppose to do his job if he can not speak English?
America has been turned upside down.


6 posted on 07/02/2014 9:01:46 PM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

American should file a class action lawsuit against Obama for multiple counts of malfeasance causing much more suffering than this one incident.
What an idiot.


7 posted on 07/02/2014 9:03:25 PM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk; Tennessee Nana; Liz; TADSLOS; EXCH54FE; GeronL; Travis McGee; jimbo123; ...
RE:”It’s an Obama world. The Obama EEOC is suing a private American company for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees for their inability to speak English at work. CNS News reported:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency tasked with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, is suing a private American business for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees over their inability to speak English at work, claiming that the English-language requirement in a U.S. business constitutes “discrimination.”

Yep, next they will sue them for requiring proof of legal status to work.

8 posted on 07/02/2014 9:04:27 PM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

You can be sure Obama Admin does nothing when businesses discriminate against White Anglo’s if a business refuses to hire if they do not speak Spanish...even though most Americans were brought up and taught in US public schools in English


9 posted on 07/02/2014 9:07:23 PM PDT by DisorderOnBorder (Hollywood...Washington DC for pretty people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Βίδα Ομπάμα
10 posted on 07/02/2014 9:07:58 PM PDT by RedMDer (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
The Obama EEOC is suing a private American company for firing a group of Hispanic and Asian employees for their inability to speak English at work.

Romney was a mushy candidate, weak in so many ways. But those conservatives (me included) who sat out the 2012 general election, well, we are partly to blame for all of this.

Don't worry you insane lefties, we'll probably do it again in 2016.

11 posted on 07/02/2014 9:08:15 PM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

If you are an American citizen, then speak English.


12 posted on 07/02/2014 9:09:10 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

How can this be? Obummer is better than Romney would have been?


13 posted on 07/02/2014 9:16:12 PM PDT by entropy12 (Obummer = worst president ever, Jimmy Carter is happy he is no longer the worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Obama Mentiroso


14 posted on 07/02/2014 9:17:52 PM PDT by hapnHal (hapnHal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Who hired them in the first place?


15 posted on 07/02/2014 9:20:04 PM PDT by PatrioticRose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Hussein continues his war against America.


16 posted on 07/02/2014 9:23:43 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Wonder what Ron Johnson is going to do.

We're watching you, Ron (Does the "Meet the Fockers" thingy)

17 posted on 07/02/2014 9:23:51 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticRose

That’s what I was wondering. But a business will be in trouble either way. I went on EEOC website and they are suing a lot of businesses for not hiring minorities and women.


18 posted on 07/02/2014 9:25:00 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

How does the government have standing to sue this company?

How was the government injured by this company, and what remedy could a court provide in order to resolve any such “injury”?


19 posted on 07/02/2014 9:26:10 PM PDT by chris37 (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Gee, how does Orwell's saying go if I recall correctly; some animals are more equal than others.

Quick, with out looking it up on a search engine, which branch of the United States Government, never does anything other than ENGLISH ......Mmmmmm.... SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States).

Inmates can submit a "hand written brief," but that's about the only change from the "United States Supreme Court Rules," one can deviate, other wise it's ALL Brief(s) submitted, Typed per a scale determined by the court (I think either 13 or 14 Font size) and a page size determined by the court,{something strange like 7" in. X 10" in.} a page limit {which I forget, possibly like 45 - 50 pages MAX.} and like 50 copies but otherwise it's English only. All decisions rendered English only.

20 posted on 07/02/2014 9:26:41 PM PDT by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

Well, then there’s no alternative. EEOC has to sue SCOTUS.


21 posted on 07/02/2014 9:39:36 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Looks like the Marxists are checking all the boxes, now. He's dropping this stuff on an almost daily basis, trying to cause as much chaos as possible.
22 posted on 07/02/2014 9:39:41 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason ("Journalism is dead. All news is suspect." - Noamie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Couldn't speaking and understanding a common language be a work place safety issue? Ones place of origin does not preclude their ability to speak English.

CC

23 posted on 07/02/2014 9:54:28 PM PDT by Captain Compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

The administration has lots more work to do then... starting with the FAA, I see all kinds of offensive hiring practices!

Minimum Requirements
To be an Air Traffic Control Specialist, you must:
Be a United States citizen
Start at the FAA Academy no later than your 31st birthday
Pass a medical examination
Pass a security investigation
Have three years of progressively responsible work experience, or a Bachelor’s degree, or a combination of post-secondary education and work experience that totals three years.
Pass the FAA air traffic pre-employment tests
Speak English clearly enough to be understood over communications equipment


24 posted on 07/02/2014 10:01:06 PM PDT by leakinInTheBlueSea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Compassion

Of course it is a safety issue.


25 posted on 07/02/2014 10:03:25 PM PDT by Girlene (Hey NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Every progressive politician including Obama should have to hire a non-english speaking press secretary.

To do otherwise is discrimination.


26 posted on 07/02/2014 10:13:12 PM PDT by bobo1 (progressives=commies/fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Is there no English requirement to be an American citizen?


27 posted on 07/02/2014 10:20:42 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

I’m curious why this private company hired them in the first place if they couldn’t speak english, only to sack them later


28 posted on 07/02/2014 10:22:28 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Bookmark


29 posted on 07/02/2014 10:23:39 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

How did these people get hired in the first place? Were they direct hire? Or temp-to-hire? Did these workers display that they could speak and understand english when they were hired?


30 posted on 07/02/2014 10:43:26 PM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Have the hearing in Swahili.


31 posted on 07/02/2014 10:53:28 PM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk
Absurdities such as this prohibition of employers requiring English fluency inevitably proceed from a false premise. The false premise: diversity is our strength.

History teaches the contrary. An examination of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or of India to name just two should end the debate. The idea that a multilingual nation is stronger than any nation with a common tongue is fatuous. Even Switzerland has problems in this regard, Canada certainly does to name to Western democracies without considering problems in countries such as India or China.

So we see the triumph of ideology over reality. The Obama administration if nothing else is the prisoner of its own ideology. But the false assumptions which underlie this ideology are frightening: Discriminating on the basis of language fluency is the equivalent of unlawfully discriminating based on race or ethnicity. But language fluency is not a product of DNA, race is. Concededly there is overlap between language fluency and race but language fluency is an accident of culture not genes. The speaker has the power to change his language but not his skin color. Nevertheless, the Obama ideology says that government has the right to deny employers the liberty to manage their business in order to advance the ideological goal of language diversity.

Make no mistake about it, to deny anyone the right to discriminate is to deny that person liberty. We have concluded as a society that discriminating on the basis of race or gender is so harmful that he cannot be tolerated. In other words, an employer may think it rational but we prohibit discrimination based on sex, age, religion, ethnicity and race.

The rationale for these laws is that the discrimination is irrational as well as harmful. It is irrational because it assumes that every member of a class always behaves in a manner consistent with the stereotype of that class. Thus, if we fail to hire members of a given race because we think those people are shiftless, feckless, or dangerous, we might be right in our judgment as far as a statistical majority of that race is concerned. But the stereotype will never apply to 100% of the individuals in the race. There will always be individuals who break free of the stereotype, just as I intend someday to prove on the dance floor.

So from a sociologist's or a statistician's point of view, discrimination based on race is irrational. But it might not be irrational from a business point of view. If, for example, an employer believes that one race that is statistically more prone to crime than another, an easy way to eliminate a source of employee crime is to avoid hiring individuals of that race. It's a very cheap screening process which, although not perfect, reduces risk at no apparent cost to the employer except perhaps a need in missed opportunity costs because he passed over a superior individual who performs counter to the stereotype. There may be other very rational reasons for employers to commit racial discrimination such as customer acceptance, and co-employee acceptance, to name a couple. But the law prohibits this kind of discrimination.

The law prohibits it ostensibly because politicians have calculated that the harm done to the individuals so stereotyped, whether rightly or wrongly, far outweighs any advantage devolving to employers who practice discrimination. This is a judgment call, a value call, made by politicians and imposed on society. The politicians have said: we arrogate unto ourselves the sole right to make this judgment and forbid you from making this very same judgment on penalty of criminal sanctions. We do not care whether your business sense tells you it is rational for you to discriminate based on race, we tell you that the societal cost is too high; our value trumps your value; nor do we care that we are depriving you of liberty when we deprive you of the right or power to discriminate; as a matter of fact, politicians will routinely say that there is no liberty to discriminate based on race because the act is so heinous. Again, this is a value judgment. When the emotion is wrung out of the issue, we must concede that the liberty of the employer is sacrificed to accommodate a more favored value.

So the ideology of the Obama administration says that it is entitled to deprive business owners of the liberty to discriminate in hires on the basis of an ability to speak English. This assumes that this fluency somehow equates to sex, age, religion, ethnicity or race. Even assuming overlap, this proposition is preposterous.

More, the businessman who discriminate on the basis of language fluency can claim that he is doing so for a compelling business purpose. People who do not speak English simply cannot function where English fluency is necessary to job performance. This is not a haphazard outcome but a certain outcome. There is a perfectly rational business purpose in this discrimination. Indeed, real physical danger on many job sites can result from language misunderstandings and employees can be maimed or even kill if instructions are misunderstood.

Finally, prohibiting language discrimination is wrong because it advances an illegitimate goal: a polyglot society. It is not within the purview of government to deprive an individual of liberty to achieve this goal. There is an insufficient relationship between language fluency and a legitimate governmental interest connected to race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference and therefore the government lacks the power to deprive us of liberty.

In fact, it has been historically true that our government has from time immemorial advanced English fluency, that is why we spend billions and billions of dollars from kindergarten through postgraduate studies to advance our ability to communicate in that language. Clearly, facility in English is a desirable and commonly accepted public policy goal and not incidentally a constitutionally permissible goal.

The Obama administration's regulation is not the product of representative government but of bureaucratic government and as such it is undemocratic as well is irrational. Because it is unconstitutional, irrational and undemocratic it is tyrannical. Because every individual has the power to change his language, the imposition is unnecessary as well as tyrannical.


32 posted on 07/02/2014 11:01:40 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Yes, but not for a Green Card.


33 posted on 07/02/2014 11:33:11 PM PDT by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

Another Obama loser court case.

On the other hand, non-english speaking U.S air traffic controllers oughta have rights too.

How about the Military? Will they hire non-english speaking recruits?


34 posted on 07/02/2014 11:45:20 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) needs to be dissolved.


35 posted on 07/02/2014 11:48:41 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

“If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak English.”

If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak Klingon.


36 posted on 07/03/2014 12:08:56 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve

...and Ebonics.....with an option for Austrian


37 posted on 07/03/2014 12:45:23 AM PDT by spokeshave (OMG.......Schadenfreude overload is not covered under Obamacare :-()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

Sadly, the characteristics that are necessary for a good candidate are different that those needed to be a good executive.
Romney would have been a good President but was a terrible candidate. Not only would he have handle most issues in a substantially better manner he would have surrounded himself with a much more capable team.
Conservatives would do well to take the lesson of the election and support electable Republican candidates rather than sit home waiting for the perfect candidate.


38 posted on 07/03/2014 4:28:55 AM PDT by ozdragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ozdragon

Perhaps we should all sue blacks for their inability to speak English.

For example:

“I’m gonna axe you a question”

“I’d like to “conversate” witch you” (Look it up, the explanation will get you laughing)

Well, you get the point.............


39 posted on 07/03/2014 4:45:57 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

The mexicans down here in South Texas speak Spanish (really Tex-Mex) for the express reason that “Gringo’s” can’t understand what they are saying.

It comes with their absolute desire to “Mexicanize” all of us because they have absolutely no intention in assimilating into our society.

Now, look at the new crop of criminals flooding into our country thanks to Obama.

I live in a town that is on highway 281, about 90 miles north of McAllen and only God knows how many new “residents” we already have in my town which is over 85% Mexicans anyway.

Just to show how corrupt they are, the city council just hired a new city manager and only after they hired him they found out he was fired from his former jobs as a city manager for fraud and embezzlement.

Guess what nationality our mayor is? Guess what nationality the new city manager is?

BINGO! You got it right!

Corruption and crime (welfare fraud) is a way of life for them and we see it every day.


40 posted on 07/03/2014 5:01:41 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

But those conservatives (me included) who sat out the 2012 general election, well, we are partly to blame for all of this.


If Romney had been elected we would have exactly the same result as if Obama had been elected.

It would have come a little later but as sure as the sun rises in the morning, Romney and his “go along to get along” corporate butt kissers would have been wimpy enough to let the Democrats do anything they wanted....just like they do now.

Never forget: The REPUBLICANS ALLOWED all of this to happen and are still doing it now!

We are going on 6 years of complete lawless rule and all that they have done is make a lot of noise and threats. So far...................NOTHING HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DONE!

So, don’t blame yourself for a wasted vote is a wasted vote and the sad fact is there was no one to vote for.


41 posted on 07/03/2014 5:07:52 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

This goes to show how infantile this administration is. How do you work with somebody who cannot speak and understand english?


42 posted on 07/03/2014 5:22:08 AM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Asians were Hmong, at least with the Mexicans there were a few common words, but how the heck is an American to be expected to communicate with Hmong?

This government is officially insane.


43 posted on 07/03/2014 5:33:22 AM PDT by Gunpowder green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Gunpowder green

Maybe the EOEC will now require all Americans to learn Hmong!


44 posted on 07/03/2014 5:35:35 AM PDT by Gunpowder green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: leakinInTheBlueSea

Don’t worry about it. They’re no doubt working on it NOW.


45 posted on 07/03/2014 5:53:45 AM PDT by kitkat (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

“Indeed, real physical danger on many job sites can result from language misunderstandings and employees can be maimed or even kill if instructions are misunderstood.”

Just to repeat part of your opinion. Well said, all of it.


46 posted on 07/03/2014 6:07:38 AM PDT by kitkat (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ozdragon

“Romney would have been a good President but was a terrible candidate”

I don’t know if Romney would have been a good President, but I DO KNOW that Reince Priebus, Republican chairman was responsible for selecting Romney. Get rid of Reince Priebus. There is no way I believe there wasn’t and still isn’t a better candidate than Romney.


47 posted on 07/03/2014 6:23:50 AM PDT by kitkat (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kitkat

Thanks


48 posted on 07/03/2014 6:56:01 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

The FAA requires you to speak English to fly an aircraft in the USA. In fact, English is used in all commercial aviation world wide. Do you want your pilot to not understand vectors, clearances, warnings etc. Perhaps he would get to fly Air Force One.


49 posted on 07/03/2014 7:16:34 AM PDT by cpdiii (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson