Seyfarth Synopsis: Court denied employer’s motion for summary judgment in EEOC race and/or national origin discrimination case involving the termination of non-English speaking employees.
In EEOC v. Wisconsin Plastics, Inc., No. 14-C-663 (E.D. Wis. May 5, 2016), the EEOC brought an action alleging discrimination in the workplace based on race and/or national origin after Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. (“WPI”) laid off a number of non-English speaking Hmong and Hispanics employees. WPI moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither the EEOC nor the individually aggrieved intervening Plaintiffs provided any evidence of prohibited discrimination. Judge Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied WPI’s motion, finding that the mass termination of mostly non-English speaking employees, coupled with the subsequent hiring of primarily English-speaking Caucasian employees, precluded the employer from obtaining summary judgment.
For employers considering terminating non-English speaking employees, this ruling illustrates that even where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, courts will consider other contextual factors when assessing potential illegal discrimination claims.
Between October 2012 and January 2013, WPI laid off 38 of its 114 production operators. Of the 114 production operators working for WPI as of September 2012, some 85, or about 75%, were of Asian descent and 6 (5%) were Hispanic. Twenty-eight of the fired employees, or about 74%, were of Asian descent, and 3 of them (8%) were Hispanic. The EEOC subsequently brought an action alleging discrimination in the workplace based on race and/or national origin. Thereafter, the aggrieved individuals were granted permission to intervene in the Commission’s lawsuit. Id. at 1.
WPI initially conceded the prima facie factors required to show a case of illegal discrimination, including (1) the employees were members of a protected class (Hispanic or Hmong); (2) the employees were terminated; and (3) the employees were living up to the employer’s expectations. Specifically, WPI also conceded that the job of production operator may be performed adequately by people who do not speak or read English. WPI asserted that its legitimate reason for selecting these individuals for termination, i.e., their inability to speak English, was the “but for” cause of their termination. Id. at 3. Despite conceding that English was not required to perform the job, WPI viewed the inability to speak English as a negative factor and used that factor to dictate the termination decision. Thus, WPI moved for summary judgement, among other motions.
The Court’s Decision
The Court denied WPI’s motion for summary judgement. Initially, the Court discussed how “[i]n some cases the lack of English language proficiency might not be a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination, but that is essentially a question of fact that will turn on the particular circumstances of every case.” Id. Further, the Court opined that all things being equal, an employee who speaks fluent English is more valuable than one who does not because that employee has the potential to provide added value to the corporation in other capacities such as productivity and morale. In other words, although the specific job at issue might not have required English proficiency, an employer’s preference for such a proficiency could be a legitimate consideration. Nonetheless, Judge Griesbach noted this “does not mean a court can conclude, as a matter of law, that the ability to speak English is necessarily a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” to terminate an employee. Id.
While WPI cited English speaking as its legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the terminations, the Court found that WPI did not provide a substantial justification for that reason, which was not surprising given WPI’s concession that English was not required to perform the job adequately. Id. at 3-4. WPI argued that because an inability to speak English was not the legal analog to race or national origin, the EEOC’s case must be dismissed. The Court rejected this argument, noting that while it is “true that language ability per se is not the legal equivalent to a protected class like race or national origin, language can sometimes serve as a proxy, or stalking horse, for discrimination against a protected class.” Id. at 5.
The Court further noted that “[o]n top of the unusual fact that the employer’s stated reason is conceded to be irrelevant to the employees’ job performance, the Plaintiffs point to the fact that during the same period the employer was hiring people — 88 people, of whom 62 were Caucasian.” Id. The Court found that the net effect of the firings and hiring resulted in a flip of the ethnic profile of the workplace, where Asians, who had been a significant majority of the assembly workforce, now constituted only a plurality. Accordingly, the Court held that “[a] reasonable jury, faced with this evidence, might draw the conclusion that the company was reconstituting itself by race or national origin — particularly if that jury heard that language ability (WPI’s stated reason) did not affect job performance.” Id.
Further, the Court took issue with WPI providing different reasons for the terminations at various times. Id. at 6. Early on, WPI suggested that employee performance was the problem, citing flunked performance improvement plans. Later, WPI told the EEOC that the firings were done for economic reasons, despite the fact that WPI hired a substantial number of new assemblers during the same period, which happened to be its best sales years. Finally, many WPI witnesses denied that language was a factor in the terminations, but during litigation, WPI seized on language as the reason for all of the terminations.
Finally, the intervening Plaintiffs argued that the WPI’s admissions were tantamount to direct evidence of discrimination, since language is closely linked to national origin. Id. at 8. WPI argued that Plaintiffs did not identify any memo, document, or oral testimony that suggested the reason for the firings was discriminatory on the basis of race or national origin. Id. at 6. While the Court noted the truth in WPI’s assertion, it nonetheless opined “[s]eldom is there a ‘gotcha’ moment (at least in cases that get this far) where an employer admits that race (for example) was the true reason for the termination. Human resources staff are savvy enough to avoid putting things like that in writing, and so the mere fact that there isn’t direct (or even circumstantial) evidence of discrimination is merely to say that this is a case, like most, that relies on the indirect method established in McDonnell Douglass.” Id. Accordingly, the Court denied WPI’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at 9.
Implications For Employers
While this ruling does not necessarily preclude employers from preferring English speaking employees, it does illustrate how courts will look at other factual circumstances when assessing whether terminations of non-English speaking employees could have amounted to discrimination. Employers considering terminating such employees must be cognizant that other factors, such as the national origin and/or race of employees hired after the terminations, will be considered. Accordingly, employers should exercise caution and thoroughly evaluate surrounding circumstances when considering a large scale termination of non-English speaking employees.