English as a first language job requirement

[guberpl]

Hello-

I hope you can shed some light on what labor law has to say in the following situation:

I live in Utah and I recently applied (August 12, 2009) for a Technical Writer position with Liberty Medical Supply company in Florida. The major job requirements for the position include: “Fifth year college or university program certificate; and a minimum of two to four years related experience and/or training; or equivalent combination of education and experience; Writing experience; Keyboard and word processing efficiency. Speaks English as a first language.”

Considering that I have a B.A. in Journalism, four years of experience as a reporter and associate editor for a New York-based weekly English-language newspaper, over two years of experience as a technical writer for a major managed care organization, which amounts to over 10 years of combined related-experience/education, I thought that I may be a good candidate for the position. My only concern was the “speaks English as a first language” requirement because English is not my native language.

On August 13, 2009, just one day after I have filed my application, I received an email stating that after careful consideration my application has been rejected. As a result, I am now left wondering whether it was rejected because I do not fulfill the “speaks English as a first language” requirement or for some other carefully considered reasons.

Is it legal for an employer to require candidates to be native speakers of English? In my opinion, it’s not much different than requiring candidates to be white or protestant.

While I allow the thought that perhaps this is just a case of a very poorly worded requirement for English-language proficiency, I cannot help but think that my professional experience should at least get me an interview.

How would I go about finding out the exact reasons why my application was rejected?

Any thoughts?

 

[cbg]

The employer is not required to provide you with a reason why you were not selected.

I can't think of a bona fide business reason why an employer would need you to be a native English speaker. Proficient in English, yes; a native speaker no. However, while my first instinct was to say, national origin discrimination, that doesn't really fly either. As well as the US, English is spoken as a first language in Canada, the UK, Ireland, South Africa, some Caribbean islands, Australia, New Zealand, India, some African countries, and probably a few that I've missed. Additionally, anyone in any country who was raised bi-lingual, with one of the languages being English, would qualify as a native English speaker. So national origin doesn't work.

It makes me uncomfortable too and it probably wouldn't hurt to run it by the EEOC or an employment attorney, but off the top of my head I'm not finding a law that it violates.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Since that particular employer isn't far from me, I did check it out. Their employment ad does actually say that.

Now, since I spoke Spanish before I spoke English, but have been raised in an English speaking school, most folks would never know it. Gee - I'd be tempted to apply for that job just to see what they would say to me.

 

[You Are Guilty]

It is an odd requirement and there's a chance a disparate impact argument could be made against the company since I can't think of a single legitimate reason for that qualification.

Still, in this economy, why would one automatically assume that not speaking English as a first language was the reason for the denial? (In fact, unless voluntarily disclosed, how would the employer even know based on an application?)

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Since there is a large Hispanic and Creole population down here, I can see someone discriminating against anyone they would THINK didn't/ couldn't speak English as a native.

To think my German uncle TAUGHT English to native speakers. His English was absolutely impecable.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

They are skating on some pretty thin ice, IMO. Why not say something like "proven fluency in English"?

 

[pattytx]

However, applying for the job just so you can bring a disparate impact lawsuit is not going to be looked at kindly by either the EEOC or a judge. Even if it ever gets that far.

 

[guberpl]

(In fact, unless voluntarily disclosed, how would the employer even know based on an application?)

I too wondered that. My name spelled out in huge letters on the resume is Maciej Wro____ski - that's the only clue to my non-English background.

However, applying for the job just so you can bring a disparate impact lawsuit is not going to be looked at kindly by either the EEOC or a judge. Even if it ever gets that far.

I applied for the job because I am looking for one. However, I can say in all honesty that in my 17 years of living in United States this is the first time I've encountered something that resembles discrimination against my person.

I think it's weird how quick they were to reject my application. Usually, it takes a few weeks to get some kind of "no, thank you" response, if one comes at all.

Obviously, the company can say that my application was immediately rejected for reasons other than language, but they can't deny that the language requirement as it is worded in the job posting is discriminatory. The question remains whether it was their intent to consider only native-English speakers for the job, or whether this is just a case of some HR person with a poor vocabulary.

 

[pattytx]

OK, it didn't sound like you had applied in your original post.

Hey, you can always file a complaint with the EEOC or the state equivalent and see what they say. Do you have a copy of the ad as documentation?