For a Limited Time receive a
FREE HR Report "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management." This comprehensive special report will give you the information you need to know about these current HR challenges and how to most effectively manage them in your workplace.
Download Now
The suit says the two corporations involved, Primps L.L.C. and Management Advantage Group Inc., discriminated on the basis of national origin with their "English only" rule, according to the Chicago Tribune.
The suit was filed on behalf of an undetermined number of Latino women who work or formerly worked at the Supercuts franchises owned by the two corporations. It seeks undisclosed monetary damages.
The corporations had no immediate comment on the lawsuit, the Tribune reported.
Kamran Memon, a lawyer for two of the hairstylists involved, said the managers at one Supercuts gave them "dirty looks" and repeatedly reprimanded hairstylists for speaking Spanish in a break room or in the salon when clients weren't present.
"Telling them they can't speak their own language sends the message that they are second-class citizens," Memon told the Tribune.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said the lawsuit was one of several filed by the agency in Chicago in recent years to address "English-only" rules in the workplace.
As explained in the National Origin Discrimination topic in HR.BLR.com's Regulatory Analysis, employers usually need to demonstrate a business necessity for imposing an English-only policy. Even then, a policy requiring that only English be spoken at lunch, on breaks, or outside the workplace will be considered unlawful. For more information, see the links below.
Links