IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 277 

Rejecting and condemning the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 

position that English-only employment rules violate title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 as unjustified and unsupported by law, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2007 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. CULBERSON, and Mr. BURGESS) submitted the 

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Education and Labor 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Rejecting and condemning the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s position that English-only employment rules violate title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 as unjustified and unsupported by law, and for 

other purposes. 

Whereas the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) has filed suit against the Salvation Army claiming that the Salvation Army’s requirement that its employees speak only English on the job is a violation of 

title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 277 IH 

Whereas the EEOC has filed similar suits against other employers on similar grounds, but has rarely prevailed in 

court; 

Whereas Federal courts have held, with only a few exceptions, that the EEOC’s position has no support in title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 

Whereas Federal courts rejected the EEOC’s position twice, 

immediately after the EEOC declared its position, by 

finding the EEOC’s position to be ‘‘illegal’’, ‘‘ultra 

vires’’, and ‘‘wrong’’. 

Whereas title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 

employment discrimination on the basis of national origin 

and not on the basis of language; 

Whereas the fundamental error in the EEOC’s position is 

equating the language a person speaks with the person’s 

national origin; 

Whereas there may be rare circumstances in which an 

English-only employment rule is a pretext for intentional 

national origin discrimination, but in most cases such an 

employment rule has little or nothing to do with a person’s national origin; 

Whereas there is no prohibition in title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 against an employer’s decisions based 

on language choices; 

Whereas Federal courts have uniformly rejected equating language and national origin, noting that national origin is 

an immutable characteristic, while language is both mutable and not representative of a person’s national origin; 

Whereas the EEOC’s unjustified policy of challenging employers’ English-only employment rules causes significant 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 277 IH 

disruption in workplaces and denies an employer’s legitimate right to control its workplace; and 

Whereas the EEOC has rejected numerous informal attempts 

to control its behavior: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress— 

3 (1) rejects and condemns the Equal Employ4 ment Opportunity Commission’s position that 

5 English-only employment rules violate title VII of 

6 the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as unjustified and un7 supported by law; and 

8 (2) calls on the Equal Employment Opportunity 

9 Commission to suspend further activities to enforce 

10 such position. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS