## Facts

- Jose Pacheco, a bilingual Hispanic employee, sued New York Presbyterian Hospital alleging national-origin discrimination on behalf of himself and a putative class of Hispanic employees.
- The Hospital adopted a rule requiring employees to speak English while performing job duties within hearing distance of patients after patient complaints that staff speaking Spanish made them feel ridiculed or uncomfortable.
- The rule included an express exception permitting Spanish when a patient requested it or when patient care required it.
- Pacheco worked in an environment where not all supervisors spoke Spanish, making English the common language with certain supervisors.
- The Hospital did not discipline Pacheco for the instances when he spoke Spanish while performing his duties.
- Pacheco produced no record evidence of derogatory comments or other hostile conduct toward Hispanic employees.
- The Hospital moved for summary judgment; Pacheco did not submit a counterstatement disputing the Hospital’s statement of material facts.

## Issues

1. Whether the Hospital’s limited English-only rule constituted intentional national-origin discrimination under Title VII and analogous state and city laws.
2. Whether the rule caused an unlawful disparate impact on Hispanic employees.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact under Title VII, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.

## Decision

- The court granted the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and directed entry of judgment for the Hospital.
- The court treated the Hospital’s unopposed factual assertions as admitted only to the extent supported by record evidence.
- The court held the policy, as formulated and applied, did not support liability for disparate treatment or disparate impact discrimination.
- Because the underlying discrimination theories failed, the related Title VI and § 1981a theories and the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims also failed.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, a court may deem unopposed facts admitted only when supported by admissible record evidence; unsupported assertions must be disregarded.
- A workplace English-only rule is not automatically unlawful; its legality depends on scope, justification, and evidentiary proof of discrimination.
- Disparate treatment requires evidence permitting a finding of intentional discrimination; a facially neutral rule with a legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale is insufficient absent proof of pretext or selective enforcement.
- Disparate impact requires evidence (often statistical or outcome-based) showing the policy caused a significant adverse effect on a protected group in terms of employment conditions or results.
- Where federal discrimination claims fail on the record, parallel state and city discrimination claims based on the same conduct generally fail as well.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a narrowly framed English-only rule limited to patient-audible work settings and entered summary judgment for the Hospital because the plaintiff offered no evidence of discriminatory intent, selective enforcement, or measurable adverse impact on Hispanic employees.


Pacheco v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 593 F. Supp. 2d 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)