Updated January 13, 2026
Language Discrimination at Work? Know Your Legal Rights in California
Language discrimination affects thousands of California workers every day, creating hostile work environments and limiting career opportunities for those who speak different languages or have accents. Despite California's strong worker protections, many employees still face unlawful restrictions on their language use, accent-based harassment, or unfair treatment based on their English proficiency.
Furthermore, California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) specifically prohibits workplace discrimination based on language as it relates to national origin. However, many workers remain unaware of their legal rights when facing English-only policies or accent discrimination. In fact, under California law, employers must meet strict requirements before implementing any language restrictions in the workplace.
This comprehensive guide explains your legal protections against language discrimination in California workplaces, including what constitutes illegal discrimination, when English-only policies are permissible, and how to recognize when your accent or English proficiency is being unlawfully used against you. Additionally, we'll cover the specific protections for undocumented workers and the legal remedies available if you've experienced language-based discrimination.
Understanding Language Discrimination in the Workplace
California workplaces are multilingual environments where employees often speak different languages or have various accents. Yet many face restrictions or adverse treatment based on these characteristics. Understanding what constitutes language discrimination is essential for workers to recognize and address unfair practices.
What counts as language discrimination
Language discrimination occurs when an employee experiences unfair treatment based solely on linguistic characteristics such as accent, vocabulary, syntax, or their ability to speak a particular language. This discrimination takes various forms in the workplace, ranging from subtle to overt practices.
Common examples include:
- Implementing unnecessary English-only policies
- Making employment decisions based on an employee's accent when it doesn't interfere with job performance
- Mocking or making derogatory comments about an accent or language
- Excluding employees from opportunities due to perceived language barriers
- Creating unfair performance evaluations based on language skills unrelated to job duties
- Terminating employees for speaking languages other than English during breaks
These discriminatory practices can manifest during hiring, promotions, assignments, training opportunities, or any aspect of employment conditions. Notably, discrimination may arise through employer actions, workplace harassment, or through implementation of discriminatory policies.
How it relates to national origin under California law
Language discrimination is considered a subset of national origin discrimination under California law. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) explicitly defines "national origin" to include "physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics associated with a national origin group" among other factors.
This connection exists because language is often inextricably linked to a person's country of origin, ancestry, or ethnic background. Courts and government agencies have consistently recognized that discrimination based on language is essentially discrimination based on national origin because primary language closely relates to where a person comes from.
Moreover, accent and national origin are "obviously intertwined," requiring a "very searching look" at employment decisions based on accent. Although language alone is not a national origin, speaking Spanish may indicate a person's Mexican or Chilean origin and is therefore protected.
This relationship becomes particularly relevant in California, where almost half of all residents speak a language other than English at home, and nearly one-third of the state's population (approximately 10 million people) is foreign-born [1].
Why language is protected under FEHA
FEHA provides comprehensive protections against language discrimination primarily because such restrictions disproportionately affect specific ethnic and national origin groups. The law recognizes that language restrictions can create divisive, alienating, and hostile work environments for non-native English speakers.
Since 2002, California has explicitly prohibited employers from adopting or enforcing policies that limit language use in any workplace unless specific conditions are met. This protection acknowledges the fundamental connection between language and cultural identity.
Additionally, FEHA provides stronger safeguards than federal law, offering broader protections against discrimination based on national origin, including language use. The regulations are purposely expansive to encompass the wide range of cultures, customs, relationships, and characteristics associated with an individual's actual or perceived ethnic origin.
Consequently, the law requires any language restriction to meet a stringent three-part test: it must be justified by business necessity, narrowly tailored, and accompanied by proper notice to employees. These requirements ensure that workplace language policies don't unfairly target or burden particular groups of employees.
California’s Legal Framework for Language Discrimination
California stands at the forefront of worker protections with a robust legal framework addressing language discrimination. The Golden State offers broader safeguards than federal regulations, giving employees comprehensive rights when facing language-based discrimination.
Overview of FEHA and EEOC protections
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) serves as the cornerstone of language discrimination protections in the state. While federal protections through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provide some safeguards, FEHA extends considerably stronger rights to California workers.
FEHA explicitly prohibits workplace discrimination based on language as an aspect of national origin. This includes protection against discrimination related to an employee's accent, language usage, and English proficiency. Accordingly, FEHA regulations state that language restrictions can only be implemented when they meet strict requirements.
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), now known as the Civil Rights Department (CRD), enforces these protections and investigates complaints. Meanwhile, EEOC guidelines at the federal level recognize that language-based discrimination often serves as a proxy for national origin discrimination but offer less extensive protections than California law.
Unlike the federal framework, FEHA includes specific provisions detailing when language restrictions are permissible. These guidelines create a clear standard for employers to follow and give employees concrete rights regarding language use in the workplace.
Who is protected under the law
FEHA provides exceptionally broad coverage, protecting employees from language discrimination regardless of their citizenship status or documentation. The law applies to:
- All employees working in California, regardless of their immigration status
- Job applicants
- Unpaid interns
- Volunteers
- Contractors (in many circumstances)
In contrast to more limited federal protections, California law extends these safeguards to virtually all workplace settings. The only exceptions are for religious organizations in certain circumstances and federal employers who may be subject to different regulations.
FEHA applies to all employers with five or more employees, encompassing most California businesses. This inclusive approach ensures that the vast majority of California workers receive protection from language discrimination, regardless of company size or industry.
How undocumented workers are also covered
One distinctive aspect of California's legal framework is its explicit protection of undocumented workers. Undocumented status does not diminish a worker's right to be free from language discrimination in the workplace.
In addition to general anti-discrimination protections, California law includes specific provisions that:
- Prohibit employers from using immigration status as a retaliatory tool
- Forbid threats to report immigration status when employees assert their rights
- Prevent employers from requiring more or different documents than federally required for work authorization
The California Immigrant Worker Protection Act further strengthens these protections by limiting employer cooperation with federal immigration enforcement actions in the workplace. This comprehensive approach ensures that all workers, regardless of immigration status, can assert their rights without fear of deportation or other immigration consequences.
Given these points, California's legal framework provides undocumented workers with meaningful protections against language discrimination. Even employees without work authorization can file complaints and seek remedies for discriminatory practices without exposing themselves to immigration enforcement.
Ultimately, California's legal framework recognizes that language discrimination affects workers from all backgrounds and statuses, creating a system where everyone has the right to a workplace free from linguistic discrimination.
English-Only Policies: What’s Legal and What’s Not
Many California employers mistakenly believe they can freely implement English-only workplace policies. The reality is far more complex, with California law setting strict guidelines on when language restrictions are permissible.
The three-part test: business necessity, narrow tailoring, notice
For an English-only policy to be legal in California, employers must satisfy all three requirements of a stringent test:
Business necessity – The restriction must fulfill an overriding legitimate business purpose such as:
- Ensuring effective communication with customers or coworkers who only speak English
- Enabling supervisors who only speak English to monitor employee performance
- Promoting safety in emergency situations where common language is essential
Narrow tailoring – The policy must be limited to:
- Specific times when the business necessity actually exists
- Particular locations where the justification applies
- Only those workers for whom the restriction is necessary
Notification – Before implementing any language restriction, employers must:
- Inform employees of the circumstances when speaking only in English is required
- Explain the consequences for violating the policy
- Provide reasonable time for employees to comply
Failing to meet even one of these three requirements renders an English-only policy unlawful, potentially exposing employers to significant liability for language discrimination.
When English-only rules are never allowed
Under California law, certain language restrictions are categorically prohibited, regardless of circumstances. Initially, employers cannot restrict language use:
- During lunch breaks, rest periods, or other non-work time
- In private conversations between employees
- When no business necessity exists
Additionally, blanket English-only policies that apply at all times throughout the workplace are presumptively unlawful. Importantly, an employer's desire for workplace "harmony" or customer preference alone never justifies language restrictions.
Examples of unlawful language restrictions
To illustrate where employers commonly cross legal boundaries, consider these examples of unlawful language discrimination:
- A restaurant prohibiting servers from speaking Spanish even when communicating with Spanish-speaking customers
- A retail store banning all non-English languages on the sales floor because some customers "might feel uncomfortable"
- A factory requiring English at all times, including during breaks and personal conversations
- An office implementing language restrictions without providing proper notice to employees
- A supervisor disciplining employees for occasional use of their native language when not interfering with work duties
Courts have consistently ruled against such policies when they fail to meet California's three-part test. Consequently, employers with language restrictions should carefully review their policies with legal counsel to ensure compliance.
For employees facing potential language discrimination, documenting when and how restrictions are applied provides valuable evidence should legal action become necessary.
Accent and English Proficiency Discrimination
Beyond language restrictions, many California workers face discrimination based on their accents or perceived English proficiency levels. These forms of discrimination often create significant barriers to employment opportunities.
When accent discrimination becomes illegal
Accent discrimination becomes illegal whenever an employee faces adverse treatment based solely on their accent. Firstly, courts recognize that accent and national origin are "intertwined," as accents typically reflect whether a person grew up speaking a language other than English or lived in another country.
Courts take a "very searching look" at employment decisions based on accent, requiring employers to provide actual evidence—not just unsupported claims—to justify such actions. Under California law, discrimination based on an employee's accent is only permissible when the employer proves the accent "materially interferes with job performance."
This strict standard means employers cannot make decisions based on:
- Assumptions about customer preferences
- Stereotypes about certain accents
- Subjective discomfort with an employee's speech patterns
- Mild communication difficulties that don't significantly impact job duties
Legal limits on English proficiency requirements
Similar restrictions apply to English proficiency requirements. Under California's FEHA regulations, discrimination based on an employee's English proficiency is unlawful unless justified by business necessity. Indeed, the employer must demonstrate that the specific level of English proficiency required is necessary for effectively fulfilling the job duties.
The Civil Rights Department explicitly states that employers may only impose English proficiency requirements when they can show the particular type and degree of proficiency is actually needed for the position. Subsequently, applying uniform fluency requirements across dissimilar positions, or requiring greater fluency than necessary, likely violates Title VII protections.
How to assess if a job truly requires English fluency
Determining whether a position legitimately requires English fluency involves case-by-case assessment of several factors. Fundamentally, employers must evaluate:
- The type of proficiency required (speaking, writing, reading, or listening)
- The degree of proficiency necessary
- The specific job duties requiring language skills
For instance, a research assistant position might require different English skills than a senior scientific writer position. Likewise, a factory worker operating machinery might need only basic comprehension of safety instructions, whereas a customer service representative might need more advanced communication abilities.
Employers must assess each position individually rather than imposing blanket requirements. Furthermore, even when English skills are necessary, the requirements must be tailored precisely to the job duties—no more, no less.
Retaliation and Immigration-Related Protections
Protecting workers who speak up against language discrimination requires strong anti-retaliation measures. California law offers robust safeguards against employer backlash, especially for immigrant workers who may fear immigration-related consequences.
What counts as retaliation under FEHA
Retaliation occurs whenever an employer takes adverse action against employees for exercising their legal rights. Under FEHA, protected activities include:
- Filing complaints about language discrimination
- Opposing workplace practices that restrict language use
- Testifying or participating in investigations
- Requesting accommodations related to language needs
Retaliatory actions aren't limited to termination. They may include demotion, negative performance reviews, unfavorable work assignments, or even subtle actions that collectively harm employment opportunities. Courts recognize that retaliation can manifest as "a series of subtle, yet damaging, injuries" instead of one dramatic action. Employers can be held liable even when retaliatory motives are just one substantial factor behind their decisions.
Threats involving immigration status
Especially concerning for immigrant workers are threats related to immigration status. California law explicitly prohibits employers from:
- Threatening to contact immigration authorities as intimidation
- Reporting workers to law enforcement based on immigration status
- Using immigration status as leverage to prevent complaints
These actions constitute unlawful retaliation under FEHA and Labor Code section 1019, which specifically addresses "unfair immigration-related practices." Importantly, workers have protection regardless of their documentation status, as California labor laws apply to all employees.
Updating personal documents without fear
Many immigrants update their personal information throughout their employment as their status changes. California law provides clear protection in these situations, prohibiting employers from:
- Taking adverse action against employees who update or attempt to update their names
- Retaliating when employees update social security numbers
- Penalizing workers who present new government-issued employment documents
This protection acknowledges the reality that many immigrants' documentation evolves over time and ensures they can maintain accurate records without risking their employment.
For workers experiencing language discrimination, these anti-retaliation protections are vital, allowing them to assert their rights without fear of reprisal or immigration consequences.
Conclusion
Language discrimination remains a significant challenge for California workers despite the state's comprehensive legal protections. Certainly, understanding your rights serves as the first step toward addressing unfair treatment in the workplace. FEHA provides substantially stronger safeguards than federal law, protecting all workers regardless of immigration status against language-based discrimination.
Remember that English-only policies must satisfy all three requirements—business necessity, narrow tailoring, and proper notice—to be lawful. Likewise, accent discrimination is only permissible when it genuinely interferes with essential job performance, not based on stereotypes or assumptions.
Though facing language discrimination can feel isolating, California law stands firmly on your side. Workers who experience such discrimination have multiple remedies available, including filing complaints with the Civil Rights Department or pursuing legal action. Additionally, strong anti-retaliation provisions protect employees who speak up about discriminatory practices.
The workplace should reflect California's rich linguistic diversity rather than suppress it through unnecessary restrictions. By recognizing discriminatory practices and understanding the legal framework designed to prevent them, you can better advocate for yourself and contribute to more inclusive work environments across the state. After all, language rights are civil rights, and every California worker deserves dignity and respect regardless of how they speak.
If you need workplace harassment litigation, please call Setyan Law at (213)-618-3655. Free consultation.
