```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 277 Introduced in House (IH)]

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;
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 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
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) rejects and condemns 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
            (2) calls on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to 
        suspend further activities to enforce such position.
                                 <all>
```