Ladies Golf: English Only, Baby

The validity of requiring that only English be spoken in the workplace has long been a controversial subject.  So far, the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t resolved this issue, and until it does, the controversy will continue.  Recently, this controversy found its way into the golf world.  The Ladies Professional Golf Association has promulgated a rule requiring its players to be conversant in English.  If the resulting hoopla doesn’t provide employment lessons, it at least provides food for thought on English-only rules generally.

The criticism of the LPGA’s drive into the English-only bunker has centered on employment law.  Some commentators have noted that courts which have considered workplace English-only rules have found justification for such rules in two situations:  where safety was a valid concern (air-traffic controller, for example) and where English-only impacts efficiency (telephone customer service, for example).  Otherwise, an English-only rule can run afoul of Title VII’s prohibition against national origin discrimination.

So, let’s see.  Would being able to yell “FORE” in English be enough for a safety concern?  Would being able to talk with a tour official about a score card problem or some other question in the middle of a round meet the efficiency standard?

We may be missing the point entirely.  The LPGA players aren’t employees of the LPGA.  It doesn’t seem to me that employment law comes into play at all.  An employer can’t exclude women from the workplace, but Augusta National Golf Club (home of the Masters) excludes women from membership.  Even if it was clear that employers can’t impose an English-only rule on its employees, the LPGA could require its players to speak English, because the LPGA isn’t the players’ employer.

Moreover, the LPGA isn’t saying that players can’t speak in their native languages to their caddies, other players and even tour officials.  It’s simply saying that a player must be able to converse in English with their partners and the media.  In particular, the winner of an LPGA event must be able to give her victory speech in English.  Those requirements are minor.  The fact that some American players have previously complained that Asian-born players who don’t speak English are hurting the LPGA players’ reputation for being accessible and fan-friendly seems irrelevant.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court may end up saying about English-only rules in the workplace, it seems likely that employers will be able to require English under certain circumstances.  And it’s unlikely that safety and efficiency will be the only circumstances.  In fact, if the Court should frown on broad English-only rules, it’s still likely that employers will be able to use their business judgement in deciding when English should be spoken.  It’s also likely that consideration will have to be given to how burdensome the specifics of the English-only rule are on employees.  If the rule is no more burdensome than the LPGA’s rule, it’s hard to imagine the Court finding the rule to constitue national origin discrimination.