Do you speak American? Discrimination against accented workers is on the rise.

[pampango]

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/commerce/100315/outsourcing-strategy-american-accent

When a blond French management consultant, based in Chicago, meets with potential American clients, everything seems to be going well. She is a senior partner in a global consulting firm, with 15 years of experience in coaching business executives, and she has lived in the U.S. for a decade. Yet, after she begins speaking, some executives have decided on the spot not to hire her. “They come right out and say, it is my accent,” she said. “My accent has never been an asset here,” she said. “In the Midwest and Texas, those places, especially, a foreign accent is not welcome.”

"In some ways, displaying prejudice against a foreign accent is no different now than refusing to be served by a black retail clerk was in the 1960s, or refusing to buy a car from a saleswoman in the 1970s. Before the Civil Rights movement, many stores allowed blacks to work only in storerooms and back offices, not with the public because they feared white customers would complain or shop elsewhere. Car dealers often kept women confined to secretarial work because they thought male buyers would not listen to them.

It’s been more than 45 years since the Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination against workers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Accents are closely connected to national origin, and workers in the U.S. are protected by the law as long as their accents do not materially interfere with their work.

Her firm clearly does not object to her accent or it would not have made her a senior partner. In fact, global companies highly value multilingual employees. They are the jet-setting elite who enable businesses to operate worldwide. But catering to customers’ preferences for Americans could amount to discrimination if it limits the career opportunities, pay or promotions of the employees, according to Garry Mathiason, a senior partner with the employment law firm of Littler Mendelson in San Francisco.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting. If the American firm refused to hire her due to her race or gender, because on some projects their clients (at least in particular parts of the country) preferred a certain race or gender, we would quickly see that as a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Accents are more subjective in terms of whether they "materially interfere with their work". To what extent are companies free to hire workers who are most acceptable to their customers? Since discrimination based on national origin is illegal, and almost anyone who was born in another country will have an accent to American ears, how do you balance legal protections with the desire of customers to deal with American accents?

[Joey Kidd]

1. That's pretty disturbing.

I wonder how people react when she speak French with someone in a public place.:(

[notadmblnd]

2. She has a job, but complains that she can't get hired because of her accent?

I don't get what she's bitching about:shrug: I've seen multiple ads for French speaking people on job boards here in Michigan. If she has IT skills she can get a job at EDS, I know they're looking for bi-lingual French people to work for them.

[pampango]

3. So if someone has a job, violating the Civil Rights Act shouldn't matter?

Would you say the same if this woman was turned down for this job because she is black and the firm's customers prefer to deal with a white? Would your response be, "What are you bitching about? They're hiring blacks in Michigan?"

[notadmblnd]

12. because her statement was not true

she is a partner in a consulting firm, apparently she had no problem getting a job because of her accent. I am against people using the race or gender card when it does not apply to them. Now if she was unemployed, she might be able to use that excuse. Obviously, that is not the case.

[MajorChode]

14. That's not what the law says

If she were denied a promotion or other benefit due to her national origin she may have a case for illegal discrimination. The vast majority of complaints before the EEOC are from people who are already working for a company because it's much harder to prove a case of illegal discrimination when people apply for jobs. Most often, hiring decisions are made behind close doors and the applicant is never told why they didn't get the job.

[pampango]

15. If you're turned down for a job because of your race, gender, national origin, etc., it doesn't

matter whether you're already employed.

Sure this woman is already employed. Does that make it acceptable discriminate against her if she applies for a different position in the firm or for a job at another company? If so, using this logic, companies could refuse to promote Blacks, Hispanics, and women employees using the reasoning that they are already employed by the company so they can't be discriminated against. Likewise companies could freely decide not to hire women, minorities or people of other national origins who are already employed elsewhere, since they must have "had no problem getting a job because of" their gender, race or national origin with their current employer.

I am "against people using the race or gender card when it does not apply to them" too, but I have no problem with pointing out discrimination if it really exists.

[notadmblnd]

17. people discriminate all the time

during the hiring process a potential employer may discriminate against education, looks, attitude, marital status or simply because they don't like the person. Yes, many of these things are against the law but it still happens, but an employer doesn't have to give a reason for not hiring a person, so proving it is another matter.

I would suggest that if she is feeling discriminated against because of her accent (especially because in the world of multi-national corporations, most sectors of business are very diverse and have been for over 20 years), then perhaps she could organize a group of like minded people and start a political movement? I just don't think she is going to get a following, nor do I think it is true that she has been discriminated against for her accent.

[MineralMan]

4. Possibly true, but she does have a job.

Not true in the case of people with British or Australian accents in the TV news business, though. Tons of those around these days, it seems.

[pampango]

5. You're right. British and Australian accents are "good", while Hispanic or Asian (or French?)

accents are not so good. (I always thought French accents were pretty cool, but I guess I'm not a big time corporate client.) Maybe those of us with no accents (at least until we go abroad and people immediately recognize my American "accent"), can file a reverse discrimination lawsuit against those who hire minorities (those with "good" British and Australian accents.) :)

[Fumesucker]

6. I have a southern accent I can turn on and off at will..

When I go to NYC it's amusing to see how differently people react to me depending on whether I use the southern accent or the generic American one..

Accent bigotry, it's not just for foreigners..

[pampango]

10. Many parts of the US still have noticeable accents, though the movement of people around

the country has decreased accents since I was a kid. Boston and New York still strike me as having identifiable accents, in addition to the Deep South.

In terms of protections from the Civil Rights Act, only accents related to national origin would be potentially covered. (Now if the Civil War had turned out differently, fewer people would probably have moved there from other regions, accents would be probably have remained more pronounced, the South would be a separate country....... :) .)

[treestar]

7. Being able to understand a person can matter

If it is thick enough to impede communication, that could be a problem, even some American english accents might be hard to understand, or British accents.

But if what they say is clear, there should be no discrimination because the accent is foreign, or an American or British one, for that matter.

[Fumesucker]

9. I worked with a Scottish lad once here in the US..

It took weeks to months before I could understand more than a small percentage of what he said..

And he was a salesman talking on the phone all day to Americans.. :crazy:

[Liberal In Texas]

8. Probably depends on the accent. My wife is from England and

employers actually seem to want that over an American accent. This is in Texas.

There probably is a racist (anti-Hispanic/anti-African-American) and freeper anti-French bias with some people.

[Fumesucker]

11. Oh yes, a Received Pronunciation (old BBC) accent is fawned over by a great many Americans..

I have a cousin from the UK who has that upper class Brit accent and when she comes over here Americans fall all over themselves to let her know how much they like her accent.

It's really quite amusing.

[Liberal In Texas]

18. Believe me, she does not have an upper class accent.

LOL...
:-)

[MajorChode]

13. This is what's known as shaky legal ground.

Interesting. If the American firm refused to hire her due to her race or gender, because on some projects their clients (at least in particular parts of the country) preferred a certain race or gender, we would quickly see that as a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Accents are more subjective in terms of whether they "materially interfere with their work". To what extent are companies free to hire workers who are most acceptable to their customers? Since discrimination based on national origin is illegal, and almost anyone who was born in another country will have an accent to American ears, how do you balance legal protections with the desire of customers to deal with American accents?

A company most certainly can make great fluency in English a job requirement if the job demands it, just as they could easily make fluency in Spanish or any other language a requirement if the job demands it. Just as Americans have trouble pronouncing some words from other languages, foreigners often have trouble with some English words. If the problem were so great that the person couldn't communicate effectively enough to perform their job, I'd say the company shouldn't be required to hire them into that position. There is such a thing as legal discrimination. For example even with the ADA, airlines aren't required to hire blind pilots for obvious reasons. If a company has good legal counsel, they will be advised to be very careful about such situations because if challenged they would have to prove that such discrimination was legal and that may not be easy because the person has already cleared the first hurdle of being able to show they were excluded due to their national origin, so it's quite likely that if a complaint were to be filed, the EEOC would at least proceed to the investigation stage and an EEOC hearing at some point would be likely. Hearings cost money, even if you win due to the labor associated with preparing a case.

A company can't make such requirements arbitrary and capricious for all employees as such would amount to a discriminatory policy and would probably be illegal. For instance, a factory worker, a janitor, or a warehouse worker would probably have no need to be highly fluent in English so if a company who hired such employees required a high degree of English fluency for all employees, they would probably be guilty of having an illegal discrimination policy.

Hope this answers your question.

[pampango]

16. Thanks. That's a very clear explanation. n/t