Question: Study and review the Luz Long Case and respond to the following questions: I. The bank argued that the policy was implemented in response to
Study and review the Luz Long Case and respond to the following questions:
I. The bank argued that the policy was implemented in response to complaints made by fellow employees that the Spanish-speaking employees were creating a hostile environment by speaking Spanish among themselves in the presence of other employees. From an ethical perspective, is this sufficient reason to institute an English only policy?
II. Is it ever ethically justifiable for employers to deny bilingual employees the opportunity to speak their native language while on the job?
III. Might there be situations in which English only policies are necessary to promote worker health and safety?
IV. How valid are the five arguments made by the Plaintiffs as it pertained to the Disparate Treatment issue?
V. Why should or shouldn't the court consider the letter as powerful evidence of retaliation in the course of employment?
VII. Imagine you are
a) The attorney for Luz Long and her Spanish speaking co-workers,
b) The attorney for the non-Spanish speaking workers, and
c) The attorney for the employer. How would you respond differently being in these roles?
Assume you are a bank manager. Are there reasons besides a hostile work environment which might require an English only policy? (Assume managers only speak English at this branch)
Step by Step Solution
3.43 Rating (169 Votes )
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Luz Long Case It is interesting to note that the Spanish speaking specialists opted not to engage in a conversation and convey their ideas in English despite the fact that they were able to communicat... View full answer
Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts
Document Format (1 attachment)
1258-B-M-B-A-M(810).docx
120 KBs Word File
