Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bilingual issues---Hiring California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bilingual issues---Hiring California

    Hi guys,
    My mother works for a hospital and it is located in San Diego Ca. Basically what has happened twice now is my Mom has applied to 2 Jobs (same Hospital) and they immediately pull the posting and repost it as a requirement to be Bilingual. Is this legal? Are they breaking some sort of labor Law. Just seem pretty **** shady if you ask me.

  • #2
    There is nothing illegal about requiring someone to be bilingual, if that's your question.
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

    Comment


    • #3
      Any idea why they don't post the openings as bilingual with the original posting? I doubt it will change the answer, just curiousity on my part. Shameful in my opinion but my opinion isn't what counts.

      Comment


      • #4
        And in San Diego, it makes perfect sense to require bilingual employees, especially if the second language is Spanish. The reason it is not discriminatory is that anyone can learn another language.
        I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pattymd View Post
          And in San Diego, it makes perfect sense to require bilingual employees, especially if the second language is Spanish. The reason it is not discriminatory is that anyone can learn another language.
          Spanish yes, but have you ever tried learning an asian language such as Thai? That's much harder.
          Last edited by DSDEN; 06-29-2007, 06:11 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I believe the OP was referring to the employer changing the job description only after her mother applied for the positions. Not once but twice. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I
            am still curious as to why these positions were not posted as being offered only to bilingual applicants from the beginning. They seemed to have changed the requirements after the mother applied and I think that is what the OP is referring to.

            Comment


            • #7
              The subject heading is, Bilingual issues so that's what I responded to.

              But unless the mother has valid and supportable evidence that they changed the requirements, not only because they didn't want her in the position, but because they didn't want her into the position BECAUSE of her race, religion, national origin, and so forth, it's still legal.
              The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

              Comment


              • #8
                I understand your postition cbg. Hopefully the OP will return and clarify what her specific point of contention is and why.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi guys, Sorry for the long return. The issue is not the requirement to speak Spanish... it is the issue that she applies for the position (no Spanish Requirement) and then the posting is pulled and reposted as Bilingual only. I don't know if it is really illegal or not but it is just downright wrong in my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes, it's wrong but not illegal. (Read the posts in this thread.)


                    cbg said:

                    ...But unless the mother has valid and supportable evidence that they changed the requirements, not only because they didn't want her in the position, but because they didn't want her into the position BECAUSE of her race, religion, national origin, and so forth, it's still legal....
                    “Be not niggardly of what costs thee nothing, as courtesy, counsel, & countenance.”

                    --Benjamin Franklin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Crummy that they do that but as the others posted not illegal.
                      Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

                      Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Underhanded

                        So basically what you are saying that if a company posts a job. Someone in house who they do not want to have that job applys. They can repost the job changing the requirements so that the person is not eligable for the job.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Unless they do not want her in the job BECAUSE OF a protected characteristic, yes, they can.

                          Of course, rather than pulling the job and changing the requirements, they can also simply say, no, thank you, we'd rather leave you where you are. And that would also be legal.

                          So, what evidence does she have that they do not want her in the position BECAUSE OF her race, religion, national origin etc.?
                          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Why would they repost the job to attract candidates with skills they don't need and can't use just to thwart one employee? All they would have to do is say they weren't interested in her or they liked someone else better if all they wanted was to keep her from the job. She isn't entitled to it just because she meets the minimum requirements anyway. Recruiting bilingual candidates is much more difficult (I know, I used to do it for years). Why make life harder and decrease the applicant pool just to avoid hiring one person who you don't have to hire anyway?

                            It is much more likely they either goofed posting the ad or determined at some point these language skills were necessary. If yor mother is interested in moving into those jobs, perhaps taking some courses in another language would be helpful.
                            I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Agreed. The OP seems to be suggesting that absent the employer altering the job description the employer is required to hire a certain applicant. I know of no legal support for that position.

                              Past that, never under estimate the power of simple incompetence. Often times there is no great management conspiracy, rather just small decision makers scratching itches. A very long time I applied for a summer job. For whatever reason I was the only applicant. I was told that I had the job and to report to work the following Monday. I did, and was told that the Powers That Be decided to repost the job and get more applicants because failure to look at "x" number of applicants violated some internal rule (this was a very big University). No big conspiracy theory, just the left hand not knowing (or caring) what the right hand was doing.
                              "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                              Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X