Opinion ID: 4329560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: English-Only Policy

Text: Martinez and Lopez also argued that there was an unofficial workplace policy and culture of speaking English-only, at the exclusion of Spanish. The district court concluded that there is no genuine dispute of material fact because “the affidavits [submitted by Lakeshore and Price] consistently state that there is no policy regarding the language to be spoken at the Leonard Street McDonald’s, and that Spanish is regularly spoken.” Martinez and Lopez argue that they provided testimony that English-only was the unofficial policy, and thus, in giving greater weight to Lakeshore and Price’s evidence, the district court inappropriately engaged in a credibility determination. 8 No 18-1489, Martinez, et al v. Lakeshore Staffing, Inc., et al The district court reviewed numerous uncontested declarations from at least seven crew and managerial employees attesting that they regularly speak Spanish in the workplace, know of others who regularly speak Spanish in the workplace, and have never disciplined others for speaking Spanish. Human Resources Director Brophy also stated that Lakeshore does not have a policy or practice of prohibiting employees from speaking Spanish. We find that the district court correctly concluded that there does not appear to be a genuine factual dispute regarding the non-existence of an English-only policy. Again, it is not that the district court engaged in a credibility determination between the depositions of Martinez and Lopez and the declarations submitted by Lakeshore and Price; instead, when evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the district court had an obligation to determine if the record establishes that there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–88 (1986) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Taking the record as a whole, no reasonable finder of fact could find that Lakeshore had a policy and culture of requiring its employees to speak only English. Lakeshore and Price filed seven declarations demonstrating that the so-called English-only policy could not exist because employees attested that they speak Spanish in the workplace or know of employees who openly speak Spanish in the workplace without reprimand. Martinez and Lopez do not contest either the factual veracity or the legal significance of the declarations. Instead, in support of their argument, Martinez and Lopez cite to two instances where Martinez stated she was told to speak English and 9 No 18-1489, Martinez, et al v. Lakeshore Staffing, Inc., et al one instance where Lopez testified she was told to speak English.4 Martinez and Lopez cite no disciplinary records in which they were reprimanded because they were speaking Spanish. Even assuming that these incidents occurred, the isolated incidents over the course of Martinez and Lopez’s approximately eight-year employment with Lakeshore do not give us reason to believe there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether there is a practice of requiring employees to only speak English at the West Leonard Street restaurant.