overview for kandoh

'The Bear' writer arrested on train after complaint from white woman in c/news@lemmy.world

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've rode the subway for over 20 years and have not once ever seen the cops called for anything less than a fist fight.

what's your take on employers banning the use of languages other than English between coworkers at the workplace? in c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago

In both Canada and the USA, employers are generally not allowed to arbitrarily restrict employees from speaking their preferred language at work, except where justified by business necessity or legal requirements. However, some differences exist based on region, industry, and recent legislative changes[1][2][3][4][5].

Canada: Official Languages and Provincial Differences

Canada recognizes English and French as official languages federally, and federal employees in bilingual regions have the right to work, receive services, and be supervised in their choice of English or French[3][6][7].
In the private sector, language is not explicitly protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but discrimination based on language can be challenged if it is linked to protected grounds like ethnicity, ancestry, or place of origin[1][8][9][10].
In most provinces, employers can require workplace proficiency in English or French if it is necessary for business operations. Prohibiting other languages (including during breaks) may be considered discriminatory unless a clear safety, communication, or business necessity exists[1][8][11].
Quebec has strict laws requiring the use of French in workplaces, but across the country, arbitrary "English-only" rules must be objectively justified rather than used to exclude or discriminate against employees[1][12].

United States: Civil Rights Protections

As of 2025, English has been designated the official language by executive order, but federal law does not force employers to adopt "English-only" rules for all circumstances[2][4].
Blanket policies that ban languages other than English in the workplace are presumed illegal under EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) guidelines and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. These laws protect employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes language[4][5][13][14][15][16].
Employers may only require English proficiency or impose English-only policies if there is a clear business necessity (for example, safety, effective business operations, or workplace cohesion). Any such rule must be limited in scope, justified, and consistently enforced[5][13][16].
Employees can generally speak their native language during breaks and non-work periods unless it interferes with business needs—targeting specific language groups or enforcing policies unequally is unlawful[4][5][14][17].

Practical Implications

In both countries, requiring employees to speak English (or French in Quebec/federal Canada) must be directly related to the job, such as for customer service or safety.
Businesses can set reasonable language requirements but must avoid blanket bans or policies that create a hostile work environment or discriminate against employees based on their cultural or national origin[1][4][5][8].
Employees who face language-related discrimination may have grounds to file complaints under human rights codes or federal civil rights law, especially if language ties to protected grounds like ethnicity[1][8][9][16].

For federal workplaces in Canada and sectors with specific language laws (like Quebec), rights to use an official language are robust[3][6][7]. In most workplaces elsewhere, business needs dictate reasonable language requirements, but arbitrary or discriminatory restrictions are unlawful in both Canada and the USA[4][5][8].