Hmmm, good point- also- the law is clear that if they are singling out just hispanics on this issue- then there is an actionable offense.

True, but English only policies doesn't single out any single background. It eliminates all languages except English.

Yes- if you look in the examples provided in Nebraska's link, you will note that if the boss "selectively enforces" the language issue to spanish speakers only- ( but not, say, against the eastern european) then the offense is actionable.

Right, that is assuming there are people working there that are speaking German or French. That is not illustrated. This is where the band wagon jumpers are making this into a racism or discrimination issue. If there are people in that plant that speak Russian, French, Italian, German and Spanish and only those that are speaking Spanish are being forced to follow the policy, then yes, it is a violation. That is what many here would like you to believe, however, there is no evidence of this taking place. This policy is not discriminatory without twising the facts and adding assumptions.

I don't believe there is anything tricky about that. If they are in my building and I don't speak the language they prefer, I should have a right to know what they are saying.

Let's pretend they are speaking English and I only speak Spanish. I have signed confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure agreements with my customers. To protect my business, whatever my employees do on company premises is my business. I can monitor their emails, listen in on their phone conversations, and do whatever is necessary to protect my business interests. If they don't like it, they can choose to work somewhere less strict and/or less proprietary. I don't owe them a job and working for me is not a right.

Now, I'm not saying I would go to that level, but why can't I? Who are you (figuratively speaking of course) telling me what I can and can't do to protect my business? Those employees are not invited as guests in my building. They are there to perform job for me. Everything they do in that building is my business.

You know, when I do my taxes, I list a ton of deductions. I write off a lot of hardware. Do we start having the government decide for me what investments I make in terms of whether it's necessary to operate my business? I mean, why stop with language requirements?

Or how about this: although I don't need a job, I can't get an interview with many companies because I don't have a college education. Even though I've demonstrated I can do the job, have managed an engineering group full of college educated people, have years of experience, and have a track record a mile long, should I be able to cry foul because I was too poor to go to college? Hell no. If I really want to work there, I need to get a degree. They don't owe me a job.

The bottom line is, there is still nothing arbitrary about the decisions I make to protect my business. Hiring brown males between the ages of 23 and 27 would be completely arbitrary and should not be allowed. However, the language spoken in my building is not arbitrary. I have a right to know what is going on with my employees at all times.

Hmmm, though I do think you went a bit far down the slippery slope there DR- I do think you are on to something, in terms of confidential/corporate secrets issue.

How can I maintain corprorate security, if some new hire is speaking swahili on the phone, and I have no idea what he/she is saying-

I wonder if the EEOC has a scenario for this one- or if it falls under the guidelines already mentioned?

I believe that you would have some burden of proof that you actually DO have some risk of confidential info being leaked.

I think you would prevail in a court case where the company (you or I) are sued by a customer- in the medical industry- for loss of confidentiality, and had the neccesary controls in place, but an employee chose another language to leak the info- I believe you would be held harmless, and the employee would be subject to criminal penalties under HIPA.

As far as leaking corporate secrets- that is also highly illegal, and could cost the employee some time in jail when they do that particular number, and is pretty easy to investigate, no matter what language is spoke.

But you still make a good point as far as security of a security sensitive company wanting all language to be spoken- but then again- if this is an issue- why would an english speaking employee do the same damage from his own home, using his/her own phone? Would the leak be location sensitive?

I am not sure as far as the corporate security issue for sensitive materials- but I think you would be just fine on the confidentiality issue.

We have several nigerian and gambian co-workers here, that often speak thier native language to each other- and we have a very strong confidentiality policy, as strong as you can possibly imagine- and this has never been the issue of breach of confidentiality.

CR, you raise some good questions, but most major businesses have answers for it. For instance, in regards to going home and leaking information, when I worked for a credit card company, it was against policy to take customer information home. If you were caught with customer information in your possession as you left the building, termination would be immediate. I am sure if companies have confidentiality policies, this is (or should be) part of those policies.

I'm not sure how it's a slippery slope. My point is, it's not up to the government to tell me a person's right to speak a language I don't know in my place of business supersedes my right to protect my company. Again, I'm not saying I would do this, but why can't I?

And there is nothing to say this is malicious intent. For example, one customer I do work for has a very, very proprietary process behind a 12 foot wall, It is not patented because they would have to explain their process. Instead, they control all aspects of it on a need-to-know basis.

Well, I have a need to know and have to do work behind those walls. Given this, I have to send my employees behind those walls to do work as well.

Now, Fred - a loyal employee - comes back after a job happy with his success. He's out in the shop talking to his co-workers and not thinking it would cause any harm, tells employees I would rather not know anything all about this process everything he did, where he did it, and why he did it - nothing malicious.

If me or anybody hears that happen, we can take actions to take care of this incident. It may be as simple as a friendly warning, but needs corrective action.

However, if these employees are talking in a language someone in authority does not know, that incident goes un-noticed and unchecked. If a report comes back to me that one of my employees has violated an agreement and I did nothing about it, I lose all my business in a 2 minute phone call.

Can they do this after work? Probably. If they hang out together after work. But I shouldn't lose my right to minimize the risks associated with my business. And if corrective action is taken on the spot, it may be a warning to others not to do the same.

What people need to realize, is that when you start legislating business management, it affects everybody. It doesn't just affect that Super Walmart in downtown Miami. It affects my company in English speaking flyover country.

The only thing i see that is racist are policies that allow those who are not white to continue to wallow at the low end of e\the economic food chain...

do we make policies for europeans? no, what about asians? no, they are forced to integrate and in doing so are afforded more opportunities.

those of you who think that english only is wrong, you , are the racist ones you hurt those who do not speak the primary tongue and for them to stay in poverty.


Just like a Dem to say they are trying to pull you up by stabbing you in the back ...


and before anyone calls me names, I am married to a foreign national and i am bilingual, I understand learning english is hard but in the US english is the language of opportunity.

And, I am only guessing here, I don't think you would find yourself on the wrong end of the EEOC on this one- I believe thier examples gives room for this scenario- I will have to ask someone I know that is an expert in labor law and discrimination issues next time I have lunch with him- he is a union business agent.

He made a very good point to me one time he said "dude, some folks think we go out looking for someone to make an example of, or go out looking for discrimination cases- couldn't be less true- I NEVER took a case that wasn't a total slam-dunk, guys practically had sheets and hoods on- I never had the resources to go after marginal cases".

If you can explain to the EEOC a legitimate need for a certain business practise, it appears to me they give plenty of wiggle room here.

There are alot more "white immigrants" these days, that don't speak english, or speak english well. Some are hispanic, some are eastern european.

It will remain to be seen if the language is the issue - or the race is the issue, as we get more and more former eastern bloc immigrants.

I took chemistry from a polish immigrant, and many dropped the class because he was so hard to understand. Took me ten minutes to understand he was saying "Atom" in the first class- closet i can spell it out is said 'agum" with the "ah" sound. I thought he was talking about some compound I had not read about in the book or something.

If you are educated, and needed in a field- good ol' capitalism will come to play- they will hire you, and will try to retain you. If you have minimal education, adn work in a job that requires little education- you will always be in flux, because they may wish to fire you, because a new employee simply costs less.

the unit Director (MD) on my unit at my hospital is Iranian (she likes to be called "persian")- has a terrible accent, and her writing can be difficult to follow sometimes, as she writes just like she speaks- but, everyone recognizes she is a great doctor, and gets results. But her accent is terrible. They could easily fire her, because, in the field of psychology, knowing english well could be seen as a very, very good thing.

But, her job performance is such, and she makes such strides to make herself understood- it would be stupid to fire her.

Again, when you start legislating company rules, the "wiggle room" goes away. There have been several solid examples of how language barriers adversely affect a company. How many other examples do you think there are? Of the countless industries that exist that none of us know anything about, there are countless reasons these companies need to eliminate language barriers.

The bottom line, is requiring employees to speak a common language at all times while on company property is not arbitrary or discriminatory. An employer in Brownsville, Texas should have the right to hire spanish speaking employees only if he/she chooses.

And this is coming from the guy where "your opinion (my own view) to be purely racist and based on false premises". And hell, that was an apology!

I believe, as a business owner myself, that we have ALOT of common ground in this issue DR, and no, I don't believe that your comments are even CLOSE to racist

That being said- I am not against anti-discrimination laws based purely on race or sex or religion either- and there is some balance that needs to be struck in cases like this.

So I did some research- and though we have explored LOTS of scenarios here- I can not, for the life of me, find one that strikes too hard on the side of the employee vs the employer.

It appears to me that the EEOC is actually doing thier job quite well, and if anything, sides with the employer more often than not.

I believe they balance the needs of the employer (funny you should mention brownsville, as my dad's side of the family is from there ) - for instance, if we need all spanish speakers in order for the business to function, as long as I don't discriminate based on race or whatever, and use language as a smokescreen, then it appears that you will not run afoul of anti-discrimination legislation.

It looks like they give the employer PLENTY of wiggle room here for business needs, but not really any wiggle room if it is really race related.

I CAN say "I need all spanish speakers at my business for my business to succeed" but I CAN'T say " I want all WHITE spanish speakers for my business to succeed"

If you can find an example, that stuck even after appeal, that falls under either of our scenarioes- please do post it, because I wasn't able to find one, and Your point will be very well made if it is as straightjacket language discrimination as either of us have feared in some business model scenarios.

And that has been my point. The debate question is: "Should it be legal to have an 'English Only' policy in a work place?" and I think that is a loooooong way from "White People Only".

I think it should be legal for any company to have a "English Only" policy, "Spanish Only" policy. or "Pig Latin Only" policy if that's what the employer chooses. There is no barrier between color, gender, or age and limitations there (in most cases) would be arbitrary. However, language can be a barrier just like the reading,writing, spelling, grammar, math, and social skills required to do a cost-effective job.

I'm trying to figure out how people think this is racist or discriminatory. Even though the point was poorly made, it does seem more damaging to me to promote anti-assimilation behavior by trying to sue your way into acceptance. If I want to survive in Brownsville, Texas or any other heavily bilingual area, I better start learning spanish. Right or wrong, that's the reality. The burden is on me to level the playing field - not the government.

Actually- we are in agreement, but perhaps misunderstanding each other anyway? - yes, I believe a business CAN demand a certain language be used at all times on the job, as long as it fits into a reasonable business model and IS NOT obviously a back-door way to discriminate against a certain race or creed (for instance, we want pig latin to be spoken all day, no matter what race the person happens to be)- I believe it would meet the test by EEOC, as long as it is part of the business model.

On breaks and lunch or whatnot- depending on company policy, typically, the staff is "not on the clock"- so technically- this is not a time the company can regulate the language- because the employee off the clock is off duty- and this is NOT a company resource- but rather, the employees personal time, to perform personal duties. Just as when an employee is on break, you can't say "no bathroom breaks on your own time"- you really can't regulate what they are doing on thier own time.


However- if the company provides NO breaks, and the employee is considered on duty at all times while on the premises, that might be a time when you can enforce the policy.

But typically, labor law, and I believe righfully so, consider what an employee does off duty,(with some conduct exceptions, say, can't commit a felony on break ) as the employees business, and the employer has no right to regulate that behavior at that time.

Why is it that when people say english only they assume that only white people speak english ?

and where did we get the 33% of the US speaks spanish number from? only 14% of the US is hispanic....

When I was in germany I was forced to learn the language... did i think it was a racist thing ? no it only made semse to learn the language.

why is it that if someone has more melanin than I that anything I do that they dont like is because I hate them for the shade of their skin?

that is utter nonsense.

Can we please stop playing the race card with Immagration? PLEASE? I am all for immagration LEGAL immagration so we know who you are.

we dont allow europeans or asains to come here by the MILLIONS undocumented, do we? we need to know who these people are that are coming into the country, for the sake of those already here.

Maybe we should ask ourselves why they feel right in coming here and telling us how we should live our lives,

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=4935

As has apparently been discussed, there are too many extenuating circumstances to warrant the government dictating workplace policy on this issue.

Personally, whenever I go to a foreign county, I study the native language first so that I will not be completely at a loss even if everyone there also speaks English. I do this if I am planning on visiting even if only for a week.

I am astounded that so many people would come here assuming that they will be given more consideration than I would expect while visiting France.

If I ran a business that employed a number of people, I would expect them to speak English... or no job. I might even go so far as to offer on the job tutoring for those willing to learn. I would not allow the government to force me to make any accomodations, and I'd bet they'd lose the case.

Not only should it be legal to have an 'English only' workplace, but I believe there should be some 'bare proficiency' with English requirement to work anywhere in the US.

So will you provide us with the reason why it should be English, and not Spanish?

1/3 of the U.S population is speaking spanish/of lating descent.
Entire areas in the U.S are spanish speaking. Why is The U.S suddenly a English speaking country?
U.S prids itself in being a multicultural society, the biggest none-white group is latin-american.


Canada seem to have no problems with French/English. They are bi-lingual. Why is United States a English speaking country all of a sudden? (asked for the third time now).

Sorry- as far as the original news item- the spanish speakers lawsuit- it may very well be based in racism, not safety, not business model. In that case, the EEOC will probably ferret that one out- it is pretty likely- that in this case, if the issue is really exclusion based on race- it will be settled one way or the other.

But that is not the larger question here- the question is, through a knee jerk reaction to ACTUAL racism, are we hobbling business through over-regulation as to what language MUST be spoken on the site.

I object to "English only" as a requirement to MY business because it may preclude me doing business in Russian, the language I need on the job.

The EEOC examples given explains this- if you need X language for safety or security, and can adequately express this in your policies and procedures- you can enforce that langauge.

Notice it didn't say "English only"- English only is allowed as a policy as long as the company can adequately explain as a safety procedure- indeed, it gives an example of this, clearly.

It doesn't SPECIFICALLY call out DR's example- but I am betting that his model would allow the very thing he is talking about- everyone must speak the same language at all times to prevent security lapses, just through human error- that can be considered unsafe to the business itself.

So, I think DRs point and mine are the same- it is not for language rules to discriminate by race, but allow the leeway a business needs, without overtaxing regulations, to meet the needs it wants to survive.

Fluency in a language- any language- can be a requirement of the job- as noted in the above examples, so nicely provided by Nebraska

A common language can be dictated for safety and security. Doesn't have to be english- that is up to the employer to decide- could be spanglish, as long as the company is legitmately using it as part of thier business.

BTW- I ain't raisin' no dumb babies for me and mine- my kids speak 4 languages each, even though thier papa speaks 1 well, and two others badly.

You have said this a couple of times in this thread, but it is not true. Your facts are wrong. According to the 2000 census, Hispanic population was around 12%. It's probably closer to 15%, but that's just "Hispanic" and doesn't take into account that most assimilated "Hispanics" speak English. One-half of Spanish speakers also speak English well. So you have around 7% of the population who speak Spanish better than English.


The motto of the United States is e pluribus unum. From many, one. "Multicultural" is the opposite of that.


No problems in Canada? Are you serious? Never mind how impossibly difficult their language laws make it to do business there, they have a freaking secessionist movement. Have you not heard of the bloc quebecois? They have lost a lot of power given the rise of the Conservatives, but just 12 years ago, the referendum on Quebec sovereignty was a closer vote than Bush v Gore in 2000.

Not that any of this has anything to do with whether the government should be stepping into workplace language rules. It should not. Employers should be able to require Pashto in the workplace if needed, and the government should stay out of the way. I speak Spanish when my customers prefer it. I would be against any law that regulated this, other than laws which require legal filings and such to be in a common language.

While the ability to speak English can be a requirement for hiring, this thread is about an "English only" policy for those already employed. It's not about if you can speak English. It's about whether or not it is discrimination for the company to require you to speak only English while at work.

Are you referring to a policy change while employed? I don't see anything wrong with changing policies from not having an English only policy to having one. What is wrong with that if it has been deterimined that for business reasons it is necessary?

I seriously hope you understand the irony in quoting a latin phrase in favour of english.... right?

And once again, why english? Because you speak it? And is this hostility towards a 'foreign' language not clear sign of racism and insecurity? The Topic which we are debating about is, as facto already been pointed out, because of the managements lack of selfesteem, a racist agenda from their side, that was clear, and i assumed all on the thread agreed to this.


Now it seems we are talking about something not related to the topic at hand... Non? Qué Eller?

And i wish to point out a sicentific fact that of people whom speak more then one language, not only improves his own language (mother tongue), also evolves more as a person and intellect. There have been studies on this. And dont you think that americans need this, being very uneducated compared to the rest of the western world? Normally finishing last?

Im just pointing out what would be good, no insult. I just see this as something positive, something americans need. Something that is good for them.

Whether or not learning a second or third language would be good for Americans is up to those Americans. I have noticed a lot of claims from you, JamesEarl that aren't supported by resources and facts. Frankly, much of what you post in your debate are opinions. Read below for examples.


Not to mention the English language is built from many languages, including latin. Source!



Not sure how English only policy is considered racism, do you have a source for that claim, besides your opinion? Again, you claim that management has a lack of selfesteem and a racist agenda. So far, not too many people here at has agreed to this as you suggest.



What is being discussed that isn't related to the thread? There is a report button at the bottom of each post if you feel a post is inappropriate that you are welcome to use if you feel it is necessary.


Here is a great opportunity for you to use a source. You claim a scientific fact, but no source. I would be interested in seeing these scientific studies, if you can find them.

It was a semi-interesting debate with you because I couldn't understand your logic and thought maybe digging a little deeper would expose some logic you were using.

Obviously, I over-estimated your ability to further your argument because basically, you're trolling. There is no way-no how anybody could have come to your conclusion in this debate, so there is no way you are attempting intellectual debate.



Are you freaking kidding me? You don't even understand the topic - let alone have the ability to interpret other's position on the topic and/or judge somebody's racist tendencies.

You're trolling - please find somewhere else to do that so we can debate without you sidetracking us.

No, I was responding to this gem of yours - "U.S [sic] prids [sic] itself in [sic] being a multicultural society."

And I wasn't "in favour of" English; I explicitly stated that the government should not be regulating workplace language rules. Is that clear? I don't care if those rules mandate swahili. It's not the government's business.


Maybe you've never been to the US, but we speak English here. So, that's probably why they chose English. I doubt that it stems from "selfesteem" and, for the life of me, I can't understand why language would have anything to do with racism. In America, black people and Asians speak English too.


What are you trying to say here ... in ... French? Spanish? French for "which is it" is quel est-il and "Qué" means "what" in Spanish, but I can't think of a spanish verb "eller." Please, do tell, so that I can improve my mother tongue, and evolve more as a person and intellect...


Well, the uneducated American whom you are debating posted 3 things, and you objected to one of them, using it to launch more anti-American invective, without source or fact. After you go find some links to substantiate what you are saying, perhaps you can explain your "one-third of Americans speak Spanish" or defend your cavalier dismissal of the problems caused by Canada's bilingual policies. If not, perhaps you shouldn't be so hasty to insult others' intelligence.

My child is in a language immersion program- so I completely understand the fact that having a second language typically increases IQ by an average 10 points, I understand the value of being multi-lingual. I believe that "English only laws" as far as the goverment forcing this langauge, or making English an "official language"- well, I believe that is stupid as well, won't get any argument from me- if anything, in public school, I believe that every child should be required to be immersed in a second languge until 6th grade.

But ya know what? NONE of that is relevent to this debate- what we are talking about is a PRIVATE BUSINESS, under the auspices of safety (the court case will have the final say if this is true or not- for sake of argument- lets say it is) and the requirment by policy of a business to have only one language spoken on premises- NOT whether or not to require mono-lingual studies in school or goverment.

I suggest you catch up with the debate, and recognize what this debate is about, and what it is NOT about.

IT is not neccesarily about "english only"- except that the company, that is making the claim for safety- requires a single language spoken on premises- in this case, it happens to be requiring english- but it just as could have easily been swahili- and as long is it didn't specify that a certain race to speak swahili, and allowed anyone that was fluent in swahili the opportunity to work, then the requirment is just fine-

are you following me here?

It has nothing to do with "hostility to a language other than english" in this particular debate-

that being said- there IS some xenophobia and hostility towards non-english speaking poeple in America- but that has NOTHING to do with this debate.

Yes, I think it is a severe handicap not to require all American students to have at least two languages- but once again- it has NOTHING to do with this debate.

the debate is, to clarify and boil it down for you- "Can a business require one language to be spoken at all times"

It has been shown that the EEOC condones "english" or any other language under certain circumstances to be part of employment.




EXACTLY there bro

I would say, no, it is not discrimination, as per the EEOC guideline if certain conditions are met- and they seem common sense and rational in thier examples.

Your post goes on to say "this is about racism", etc.

Who really knows. The problem is that this case allows Spanish to be spoken on breaks and lunch. English had to be spoken on company time.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I DO speak Spanish, and do business with Telcel in Mexico city. While I'm there, hablo espanol y nunca ingles. Porque? Porque estamos en Mexico y no los Estados Unidos.

Ironically, it ends up being Spanglish, but if we spoke just in English there would most likely be issues in translation and work would slow or be done improperly.

Get it? If I'm doing business in a country that speaks English, which the US does (that 1/3 stat is just plain bogus}, I should speak English. Personal time is a different thing altogether. This is particularly true in manufacturing where not only efficiency but safety is a concern.

I'll have a side note rant. I used to work for a company who's main warehouse was in Dallas (actually Farmer's Branch before they got bought out). The warehouse was about 1/2 Mexican decent and 1/2 American. They used to bark out things on the intercom in Spanish all the time because the whse mgr was from El Paso and fluent. I was there a couple days/week to pick things up, etc and it drove me nuts. We ended up getting that stopped, mostly and explicitly for safety and efficiency concerns. people needed to know that the cherry picker was on aisle 9, or that a shipment of widgets was coming in at noon. Everyone in the US SHOULD LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH AT LEAST PROFESSIONALLY. Do you have to speak it at the house? Of course not. To friends? Nope. At work when applicable? Undoubtedly yes. I don't believe that a DMV or a hospital or a police officer from America (where school is taught in English) should have to learn to speak Spanish. If they chose to do so to make their lives easier (as I did), great. Speaking another language shouldn't be a requirement unless they deal predominantly with Spanish speaking citizens or customers.

Depending on the situation, I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. However, I'm reading posts that deal with hiring people who are able to speak English when that isn't the relevant issue in the thread.

How far can we go whilst debating only minutiae?

Generally, (and I might be wrong) most of us seem to be in favor of an english law, but only during working hours, and only if the company deems it necessary. Adversely, the majority seems to agree that should this hypothetical law be extended to off-hours and breaks, it is unlawful, and borderline unconstitutional.

But how do we know which one it is?

The article is unclear; we have no idea which men were forced to speak english, when, and in which circumstances. were the factory managers wrong? or right? It all depends on the situation, and the situation is completely unknown to us.

Just my roundabout way of asking; aevans, you got any more articles detailing the incident? Because debate springs from fact---and right now, I feel like i'm fighting unarmed.

edit; for daytonrocker's following post, (because i'm too lazy to write a new one, and too frightened of Jaime to post a one-liner)

only during working hours, and only if the company deems it necessary

Bolded and underlined for emphasis!

Where has anybody suggested English only? I've not seen anybody suggest that. However, I have seen statements that regardless of the language, the employer should have a right to require that language be spoken while on company time.

Secondly, reasons have been shown that show an employee should speak whatever language it is while on company property - regardless of on the clock or not. Review those examples and show me how requiring a specific behavior is required while on company property is unlawful and/or unconstitutional.

But if the goal of the EEOC is to prevent racial discrimination, then any company policy, in theory, can serve as a pretext for that. That to me does not constitute reasonable grounds for second-guessing every employee policy decision a company makes. The onus should not be on the company to prove to the EEOC that every policy it institutes is for a "legitimate" reason. Rather, the burden should be on the EEOC to prove that the company's policy was intended for racial discrimination.

You are subscribing some "mission statement" that doesn't really exist as far as I can tell, the EEOC is created, and has to follow law and guidelines, and the law appears to allow exactly what we are talking about- per the regulations/policies listed by Nebraska.

As a lawyer- shouldn't you know better?

I mean "to prevent racial discrimination" is a bit broad- that is why that ideal is defined by the laws and legalese that follow, don't ya think?

If I am not mistaken, that is why we have to hire lawyers too- to you know, be able to define the words that define the law that define the intent yadda yadda

As far as I can tell, no one is "guilty until proven innocent" in EEOC cases, I haven't heard of a no-due process EEOC ruling, that they normally go to court and get remedy or made whole or whatever lawyers are calling it these days

so, yes, the burden is ALREADY on the EEOC and the person signing the complaint, and all court rules apply- in other words, the person bringing the complaint (EEOC or individual) has to testify first, and the rule of evidence is the preponderance of proof, just like with all civil cases.

I thought you knew that?

I should remind you that the debate question asks how things should be, not how they are. The way they should be (providing we're accepting the idea of having an EEOC at all) would be that the EEOC should have to prove that an employee policy was intended for racial discrimination, not merely that the EEOC isn't satisfied that it's there for a good reason.

Even if the company merely wanted to promote the English language out of some sense of civic duty, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's being racist in any way.