## Facts

- Manuel T. Fragante, a Filipino immigrant, applied for an entry-level Civil Service Clerk (SR-8) position with the City and County of Honolulu’s motor vehicle and licensing division.
- The position required routine public-facing services, including providing information at a counter and by telephone, interacting with a sometimes contentious public, and related clerical work.
- Fragante scored highest among 721 applicants on the written civil service examination and was initially ranked first on the eligibility list.
- The City conducted interviews that evaluated oral communication; interviewers reported that Fragante’s heavy Filipino accent made him difficult to understand.
- After the oral interview scoring, Fragante’s rank fell, and the City hired two other candidates assessed as having superior verbal communication skills.

## Issues

1. Whether declining to hire an applicant because a heavy accent affects comprehensibility constitutes unlawful national origin discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether the City’s stated need for clear oral communication with the public was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decision or a pretext for national origin bias.
3. What evidentiary showing is required to justify consideration of an accent in hiring when oral communication is part of the job.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the City after a bench trial dismissal of Fragante’s Title VII claim.
- The court held that clear and effective oral communication was a legitimate job-related requirement for the clerk position given the substantial public contact.
- The court concluded the City’s decision rested on accent-related communication difficulties that materially affected job performance, not on national origin as such.
- The court upheld the district court’s findings that Fragante failed to prove discriminatory intent or that the stated rationale was pretextual.

## Legal Principles

- Discrimination based on an accent may constitute national origin discrimination because accent and national origin are closely linked.
- An employer may consider an applicant’s accent only when it materially interferes with the ability to perform job duties that require effective spoken communication.
- Under Title VII’s burden-shifting framework, once an employer articulates a job-related, nondiscriminatory reason (such as effective oral communication), the plaintiff must prove the reason is a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
- Courts should closely examine accent-based explanations to ensure they reflect actual job performance requirements rather than stereotypes or masked bias.

## Conclusion

The court held that Title VII does not bar an employer from relying on accent-related comprehensibility in hiring when clear oral communication is essential to the job and the evidence supports that the accent materially impairs performance, with no showing that the justification is a pretext for national origin discrimination.


Fragante v. City & County of Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1989)