The courts have stated that “[t]here is nothing improper about an
employer making an honest assessment of the oral communications skills
of a candidate for a job when such skills are reasonably related to job
performance” (Fragante 1989). Matsuda calls this the doctrinal puzzle of
accent and antidiscrimination law: Title VII disallows discrimination on
the basis of accent when it correlates to national origin, but it allows
employers to discriminate on the basis of job ability. Employers claim that
“accent” impedes communication, and thereby poses a valid basis for
rejection; the courts are especially receptive to this argument (Matsuda
1991:1348 ff.).
In an interesting twist to Fragante’s story, he eventually did take a job as
a statistician with the State of Hawai’i after he lost the Title VII case.
Ironically his job involved conducting telephone interviews, further giving
credence to the argument that the city misjudged the degree to which his
accent would interfere with his performance (ibid.).
Akouri v. State of Florida Department of
Transportation
George Akouri, a licensed engineer with many qualifications and years of
experience, applied for and received a job as a maintenance contract
engineer with the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). During his
six years with DOT, Akouri applied for three promotions to supervisory
positions, and was turned down three times. In 2000 he filed a charge of
discrimination on the basis of national origin with the EEOC. In 2001, he
was fired.
Direct evidence of discrimination is increasingly rare as managers
become more aware of how Title VII works. In this case, however, the
administrators seemed to be completely unaware of Title VII, because
when Akouri asked why he had not been promoted, the supervisor
answered candidly. He explained that the position involved supervising a
crew of men who were Anglo, and that white men would not take orders
from him, a foreigner, particularly as he had an accent.
The jury found that Akouri had been discriminated against and awarded
him back pay and damages. DOT filed an appeal with the district court and
lost – Akouri’s claim of discrimination stood fast. However, the court then