Legal Question in Employment Law in California

Would it be considered discrimantion if management terminated someone saying it was part of cuts backs after management made commits about the person linguistics and them feeling he could not do certain parts of the job, mainly not answer the phones for customer support? Would it also be considered discrimination if a manager interviewed another person for a position in another office and come out saying man that was like talking with Cam you can't understand him. I don't think he can work here because he can not communicate on a corporate level again repeating because of the person linguistics he is not hireable for the postion. Cam was the person they terminated after 9 years then said they wanted to bring someone in next year that could communicate on a more corporate level. During this keeping a conslutant or new temp employee.

Would this be concidered discrimination? when I asked HR they said the managers can do what they feel is best fot the company when it comes to hirring and firing employees.


Asked on 3/21/11, 6:02 am

2 Answers from Attorneys

They are walking along the edge with what they did, but it doesn't sound to me like they crossed the line. I should clarify one point: it was discrimination, but not all discrimination is illegal. Employers are allowed to discriminate for a lot of reasons, or even no reason at all, without incurring legal liability. Discrimination only means treating one person or people with a particular trait differently or disfavorably compared to others. An employer certainly is entitled to discriminate in favor of hard working employees against those who just barely get the job done. They can also discriminate against people who wear red clothes if they feel like it. The law does not require employers to be fair or even sane. In this case the implication is that Cam is of some ethnic or national minority. Discrimination based on that is illegal. However, an employer can discriminate against people who have trouble doing a good job, in favor of those that do the job well and easily, and they can discriminate in hiring on that basis as well. If Cam's english language skills were a barrier to him being effective in his job, it is not illegal to discriminate against him on that basis. Now if they discriminated against someone from Cam's same ethnicity or nationality who spoke perfect english with no accent or little enough accent it did not affect his ability to communicate clearly and professionally, then it might be a different story.

Read more
Answered on 3/21/11, 9:24 am
David Sarnoff Sarnoff + Sarnoff

While I agree with Mr. McCormick that they are toeing the line, I question the company's decision to terminate Cam from his position after 9 years. What made his position and job skill different at this time than any time before during his 9 years of employment? The fact that they are using his lack of language skills to terminate him is not, as Mr. McCormick mentioned, per se illegal, so long as there is a legitimate business reason behind the need for Cam to be able to communicate properly. However, Cam's 9 years of employment raises some red flags.

Did Cam recently get a new supervisor? What ethnicity is Cam?

This situation may require further facts and information before Cam's rights can be fully assessed. My firm's website (www.sarnofflaw.com) has a confidential online case evaluation questionnaire that you can complete. That is the best and most efficient way to get the information necessary to provide you with a better understanding of your rights.

Read more
Answered on 3/21/11, 11:00 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Labor and Employment Law questions and answers in California