Workplace Language Rules and the EEOC’s Renewed Focus on Anti-American National Origin Discrimination

Thursday, October 8, 2026

When an employer implements a language-exclusivity rule, such as an English-only workplace rule for employees, it may implicate federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on national origin. This article highlights some of the legal considerations for employers in this scenario.

Quick Hits

• English-only workplace rules are generally impermissible but may be lawful in situations where they’re required for safe or efficient business operations.
• The EEOC recently released a video indicating an intent to increase its enforcement focus on national origin discrimination against Americans and English speakers.
• The EEOC has prioritized its efforts on protecting American workers from “anti-American national origin discrimination.”

Background

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from employment discrimination based on national origin. The scope of this protection includes employees born outside the United States, as well as U.S.-born workers and those with ancestors born in the United States. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) enforcement and litigation statistics, in fiscal year (FY) 2025, the agency received 7,856 charges alleging national origin discrimination (8.9 percent of all charges received in FY 2025) and had 1,250 merit resolutions involving national origin discrimination.

The EEOC considers an individual’s primary language “often an essential national origin characteristic.” While employers may require English in certain situations, such as when speaking only English is needed to ensure safe and efficient communication for specific tasks, an employer’s English-only rule must be justified by business necessity and enforced for nondiscriminatory reasons. In general, it’s unlawful for an employer to require workers to speak only English during rest breaks, meal breaks, or other off-duty times.

Pivot in Enforcement Priorities

On June 4, 2026, the EEOC approved a new National Enforcement Plan, signaling the agency’s pivot away from pursuing disparate-impact theories of discrimination in investigations. Five days later, on June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a concurrent opinion letter stating that the EEOC’s existing guidelines regarding disparate-impact liability were inconsistent with Title VII and unconstitutional. This policy posture aligned with EEOC plans to “increase[e] enforcement of employment antidiscrimination laws against employers that illegally prefer non-American workers.”

The agency has indicated a move away from its long-standing intention to advance disparate-impact claims (i.e., claims of liability based on facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately affect members of protected groups), including such claims related to language and national origin. Fourteen states, however, recently reaffirmed their commitment to enforcing civil rights laws under disparate-impact theories.

On September 14, 2026, the EEOC posted a video of EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas encouraging workers to contact the EEOC if they believed they had suffered discrimination based on speaking English or being American.

“Maybe you were laid off and told to train an H-1B or other guest worker visa holder who replaced you. Or maybe your manager or coworkers excluded you from conversations because you speak English or moved work discussions into another language or even onto a foreign messaging app,” Lucas said in the video. “Have you been harassed at work for speaking English or for being too American? Or has your employer preferred workers of one foreign national origin to serve customers with that same background?”

Next Steps

Going forward, the EEOC is likely to pursue more cases alleging national origin discrimination against American employees and English speakers.

If an employer wishes to adopt an English-only rule for nondiscriminatory reasons—for specific times, spaces, or job duties—it generally must inform its affected employees about when the rule applies and what the consequences will be for violating it. Documenting the business necessity for the rule may help to defend against discrimination claims. Customer preferences, manager preferences, and general workforce morale are typically not considered legitimate business reasons under Title VII.

Listen to this post here.