Law case analyze - Essay Example

The employees felt that they are being treated unjustifiably because of the imposition of this rule. The defendant of the case restricted the employees of his organization to make use of English only when working at the organization although he was aware that some of the employees of the company are unable to speak English fully. Some employees were also able to speak English but to a small extent. With the imposition of the rule, the employees were feeling problematic in their communication for various tasks.

According to 1964 Civil rights law, Title VII, discrimination of any kind is unlawful in any workplace. The employability of English only rule in a workplace is a clear evidence of creating discrimination among the employees. Those who are unable to speak English are unable to do a number of their tasks that are associated with communication as they are restricted to make use of one language only with which, they are not fully familiar. Therefore, English only rule breaks the law, Title VII, as discrimination is there because of applicability of English only rule.

The employer of Synchro-Start Products, Inc. was accused of making use of a rule that was intentional unlawful employment practice on the basis of the national origins of employees. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in accordance to the complains of a class of employees against intentional employability of English only rule that was a kind of discrimination as many employees were from different national origins filed a case against the employer of Synchro-Start Products, Inc. EEOC was of the opinion that the employer of Synchro-Start Products, Inc.

broke Title VII of Civil rights law. In addition, EEOC added that the employer has not informed the employees about the consequences of breaking the English only rule. Many of the employees working at Synchro-Start Products, Inc. are of Hispanic and Polish origins and they are not fully equipped with the