When an employer requires that an employee for labor
certification speak a language other than English, it is generally
considered by the Department of Labor as unduly restrictive. Such a
requirement must be justified as a "business necessity" if certification
is to be considered.
Two Prong Test
There is a two prong test for labor certification
involving a foreign language requirement. The first prong looks to the
employer's business, including clients, work force, or suppliers who
speak a foreign language. One way to establish this prong is to show
that a significant amount of the employer's business is conducted in a
foreign language; however, there is no bright-line test on what is
considered" significant."
The second prong requires that the employee's duties
will necessitate the employee to communicate or read in that foreign
language. The employer will need to show that the need for foreign
language skills cannot be met by some other method, e.g., translation or
interpreter service, etc.
Past Decisions of The Board of Alien Labor Certification
Appeals (BALCA)
The BALCA has held that business necessity for a
foreign language requirement was established when almost all of an
employer-restaurant’s clients spoke Chinese and many did not speak
English at all. The foreign language requirement was essential for
the employee to perform his duties as a buyer for the employer. Keep
in mind, however, that it is not enough that the employer’s
customer’s speak a foreign language but that these customers do not
speak English.
The BALCA has also held that a foreign language
requirement maybe justified when the foreign language is preferred
by a significant portion of the employer’s clientele. However, it
was required that the employer establish that the foreign language
requirement was related to the employer's competitive position
vis-a-vis other businesses offering foreign language services to the
same market.
In Matter of Lucky Horse Fashion, Inc., 1997-INA-182
(2000), the employer required two years of experience in the job
offered and the ability to speak three Chinese dialects. The
employer asserted that all of its workers spoke a dialect of
Chinese, and that nearly all its workers spoke very limited English.
The BALCA first looked to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
(DOT) to see whether a foreign language requirement is listed as a
common requirement for the job (the use of a foreign language is
specifically supported for many occupational titles listed in the
DOT). If the DOT description of the occupation does not include a
foreign language, the employer must establish that, nevertheless,
the use of a foreign language bears a reasonable relationship to the
occupation (a difficult burden to prove). The BALCA held that both
prongs of the business necessity test will generally not be met when
the only business necessity for the foreign language requirement is
that the foreign language is required in order to communicate with
co-workers. The BALCA’s reasoning is that, to permit this type of
practice, is to create a "self-perpetuating foreign labor force
that, as a practical matter, excludes all but a few U.S.
workers...."
Nevertheless, an employer could still try to make a
good faith argument that the reason that the employer’s workforce
consists of non-English speaking workers is due to legitimate market
forces and not due to any manipulation by the employer. Such an
argument has been successful in such cases as Matter of Young's
Cleaners,88-INA-361 (1989), Matter of Spanish Broadcasting System
Co.,88-INA-374 (1989), Matter of Golden City Chinese
Restaurant,89-INA-176 (1990), Matter of Hollytron, 88-INA-316
(1989).
The BALCA has also held that a foreign language
requirement was a business necessity when the principal language of
the employer’s suppliers was a foreign language.
In summary, the requirement that an employee speak a
language other than English will be considered presumptively unduly
restrictive. The burden will be on the employer to prove the business
necessity of such a requirement. This is often a difficult burden to
prove but it can be done.