## Facts

- Spun Steak Company, a meat and poultry processor, employed 33 workers, most of whom were Hispanic and Spanish-speaking.
- Two Hispanic production-line employees, Priscilla Garcia and Maricela Buitrago, were fully bilingual in Spanish and English; their union represented the bargaining unit.
- Spanish had been spoken freely at work until complaints alleged some bilingual employees used Spanish to harass co-workers, including alleged racist remarks about African-American and Chinese-American employees.
- The company adopted an English-only rule requiring English during work time, while permitting other languages during breaks, meal periods, and before/after work; it also adopted a separate policy banning offensive remarks.
- The employer stated the English-only rule would promote workplace harmony, improve safety around machinery, and improve product quality by enabling communication with an English-speaking USDA inspector.
- Garcia and Buitrago received warnings for speaking Spanish on the production line.
- After EEOC charges, plaintiffs sued under Title VII; the district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on a disparate-impact theory, and the employer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an English-only rule applied to fully bilingual employees establishes a prima facie disparate impact based on national origin under Title VII without proof of concrete adverse employment consequences.
2. Whether the EEOC’s guideline treating English-only rules as “inherently suspect” should be given controlling weight.
3. Whether the union could assert Title VII claims on behalf of affected employees.
4. Whether the English-only rule, as adopted or enforced, created a hostile work environment under Title VII.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for plaintiffs on the disparate-impact claim as applied to fully bilingual employees and remanded.
- The court held plaintiffs did not show the policy caused a significant, concrete adverse effect on fully bilingual employees (e.g., denial of employment opportunities, economic loss, or other material detriment).
- The court declined to treat the EEOC guideline as controlling and rejected a presumption that an English-only rule, by itself, establishes disparate impact.
- The court recognized the case could differ for employees with limited or no English proficiency and remanded for further proceedings concerning possible impacts on that subgroup.
- The court found the record insufficient to establish that the policy was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive work environment.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII disparate-impact claim challenging a term or condition of employment requires proof of a significant adverse effect on a protected group; a policy’s existence alone is insufficient.
- Language restrictions are not automatically equivalent to national-origin discrimination; for bilingual employees, an English-only rule may be enforceable absent proof of material harm.
- EEOC guidelines may be considered but are not binding where inconsistent with statutory text or unsupported by legislative history.
- An English-only rule may be actionable if it functionally excludes or materially burdens employees with limited English proficiency, depending on evidence of denied privileges or opportunities of employment.
- A hostile work environment requires conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment; an English-only rule, without evidence of abusive implementation, may not meet that standard.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that an English-only rule requiring English during work time did not violate Title VII on a disparate-impact theory as applied to fully bilingual Hispanic employees absent evidence of concrete adverse effects, rejected a categorical presumption of illegality based on EEOC guidance, and remanded to consider potential impacts on limited-English-proficiency employees and any remaining hostile-environment claims.


Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1993)