Researched Exploratory Essay – Phase Three

December 4, 2021 

Language Discrimination in U.S Workplaces 

Unfair treatment of an individual based on the language or manner they communicate is unlawful in the United States. This treatment refers to language discrimination. There are many ways workplaces display this type of discrimination, including harassment, differential treatment or payment within employees, and termination. Allowing workplace language discrimination is wrong and harmful since it might influence hiring decisions, promotion decisions, and how co-workers and management treat foreign employees. Although I have not experienced this kind of mistreatment personally, my father, who speaks imperfect English, has seen this mistreatment in his workplace. In one situation, one of his co-workers who speaks limited English as well was talking to him until another co-worker came in and told them to speak English or else, they will get smacked. Thankfully, my father did not just stand by; he reported it to the manager. Unfortunately, few workers are fortunate enough to have co-workers who stand by them or realize that this treatment is illegal. Therefore, it is essential to recognize this issue. Discrimination against workers because of their native language or language skills disparities should not be accepted or normalized. 

Language discrimination affects many workers differently. Workers experiencing this problem can negatively impact their psychological and mental state. Christine Ro’s article, “The Pervasive problem of ‘linguistic racism'” (2021), asserts that discriminating a worker for the way they speak may cause long-term effects in their performance for future jobs and self-esteem. Ro backs up their claim by providing reports and situations of other people experiencing the effects of language discrimination. Those discriminated against developed self-esteem issues and felt they were less educated. Families who speak both languages “report being fairly confident in their English-language skills in their home countries, then losing their confidence due to the way they’re treated in English-first countries” (Ro). In other words, people in their home countries are more secure speaking English in their native tongue than they are in nations like the United States, where they are more likely to be judged on how they speak. Not only do they feel uncomfortable speaking in their native tongue, but they are also getting their job opportunities taken away. Based on the article, a Puerto Rican was harassed in the open just because a customer did not like their accent, and a Pakistani worker got left out of work calls (Ro). Though it may seem that these situations do not affect workers, this might not always be the case. For some workers, getting left out of work calls can be hurtful in getting experience and can lead to losing other work opportunities. The same goes for workers who get harassed by customers; being in that situation can affect how they treat future customers due to their loss of confidence. 

The reports stated in Christine Ro’s article bring some similarities to those said in Amy Tan’s “Mother Tongue.” At “Mother Tongue,” Amy Tan described how her mother was treated horribly in the hospital when they informed her that they had misplaced her CAT scan results and refused to apologize. It was not until Amy went to see what was going on where the doctors changed their attitude and took action on the incident (605). Although both situations were placed in separate environments, the problem still exists.  

An employer may deny a non-fluent English speaker a job placement. These situations arise when workers’ employment demands them to communicate in English. In the organization, legal aid at work, they believe that a worker can get denied if “1) the job that person performs actually requires some English language skills (such as certain customer services positions), and 2) the person does not possess the particular type and level of English language skill required” (“Language Discrimination”). If the job requires customer service, individuals who speak English will be given a higher priority than those who do not. In the organization, Workplace Fairness, they believe that requiring applicants to be fluent in English violates the law. Though they state that “Whether or not it is illegal to discriminate against you will depend on your qualifications, the nature of the position, and whether your level of English proficiency would have a detrimental effect on your job performance” (“Workplace Fairness”). Furthermore, both sources demonstrate how an employer would be justified in declining a job offer to someone who does not speak English fluently. I cannot entirely agree with their statement since a person who speaks a little English can develop their English abilities by working in an atmosphere where the majority of the people speak English. 

Discrimination against workers based on their native language or differences in language ability should not be tolerated or accepted as usual. As seen in the sources, language discrimination can occur in many ways and seriously affect a person’s health and stability. In order to prevent this issue from ever-growing, we must set preventable measures in workplaces.   

Work cited: