Opinion ID: 560522
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Linguistic Discrimination

Text: 53 Ang contends that P & G discriminated against him because of his manner of speaking, in violation of Title VII. P & G's Company Norms brochure advised minorities to be aware that inability to speak the 'King's English' may be viewed by those in the majority culture as equating to intelligence (i.e. lack of). Yates also testified, and Ang's evaluations indicated, that Ang's written and oral command of the English language was weak and hampered his effectiveness. Because accent and national origin are inextricably intertwined, evaluating these claims presents a difficult task for the court. Fragante v. City & County of Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1811, 108 L.Ed.2d 942 (1990). 54 The EEOC recognizes linguistic discrimination as national origin discrimination and prohibits the denial of equal employment opportunity ... because an individual has the ... linguistic characteristics of a national group. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1606. The Sixth Circuit has also recognized that discrimination based on manner of speaking can be national origin discrimination. In Berke v. Ohio Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 628 F.2d 980, 981 (6th Cir.1980), the court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff by observing that the evidence supported the district court's finding that plaintiff was denied two positions within the Department because of her accent which flowed from her national origin. Unlawful discrimination does not occur, however, when a plaintiff's accent affects his ability to perform the job effectively. Fragante, 888 F.2d at 597. 55 P & G did not indicate that Ang was terminated because of language problems. The evidence cited by Ang comes mostly from the testimony of Yates in which he responded to questions from Ang's counsel specifically addressing Ang's communication abilities. Ang's evaluations mention communication problems, but they also note other weaknesses. Because Ang presented no evidence that he was terminated because of his accent, the lower court did not clearly err in refusing to find that Ang showed direct evidence of linguistic discrimination.