religion. This protection extends to associations, which means simply this:
You cannot refuse to hire Asians, nor can you refuse to hire someone who
is married or otherwise interacts with Asians.
Title VII also acknowledges those characteristics or traits that are
inextricably linked to protected categories. For example, an employer
cannot fire an employee for wearing a head covering that is required by his
or her religion. This would apply to a Muslim female who wears a hijab,
or a Jewish male who wears a yarmulke.^1 Nor can an employer
discriminate against an employee or applicant on the basis of stereotypes
and assumptions, even if they are not factually true.
In the case of racial discrimination,^2 “It is clearly forbidden by Title VII
to refuse on racial grounds to hire someone because your customers or
clients do not like his race” (Matsuda 1991: 1376).^3 Similarly, a qualified
person may not be rejected on the basis of linguistic traits linked to a
protected category. In contrast to racial discrimination, however, an
employer has some latitude in matters of language: “[a]n adverse
employment decision may be predicated upon an individual’s accent when
- but only when – it interferes materially with job performance” (Civil
Rights Act of 1964, §701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e et seq.). The
problem, as we’ll see, is the lack of parameters. For example, what does
“materially” mean in this context?
The EEOC released updated Compliance Manual for national origin
discrimination in 2002, which addresses the issue of accent directly:
Linguistic characteristics are closely related to national origin, and
basing employment decisions on a qualified individual’s foreign
accent or limited ability to speak English may constitute national
origin discrimination. Not all employment decisions based on
linguistic characteristics will violate Title VII, however. The EEOC
guidelines state, for example, that a business with a diverse clientele
may lawfully assign work based on an employee’s ability to speak a
foreign language. In addition, an employment decision based on a
foreign accent will not violate Title VII if the individual’s accent
materially interferes with his or her ability to perform a job. For
example, if effective communication in English is required to
perform a job and an individual’s accent materially interferes with the