HBA-JLV, SEP C.S.H.B. 243 77(R)BILL ANALYSIS


Office of House Bill AnalysisC.S.H.B. 243
By: Oliveira
Economic Development
4/17/2001
Committee Report (Substituted)



BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 

As Texas' population of non-English speakers increases with immigration,
more people who do not speak English as their first language are entering
the workforce.  As a result, there are increasing concerns regarding
employer discrimination and retaliation based on workers not speaking
English on the job.  C.S.H.B. 243 requires employers who impose a policy
requiring the use of a single language to notify workers of the situations
in which that language is required for business purposes. 

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the opinion of the Office of House Bill Analysis that this bill does
not expressly delegate any additional rulemaking authority to a state
officer, department, agency, or institution. 

ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 243 amends the Labor Code to provide that an employer commits an
unlawful employment practice if the employer requires an employee to speak
only the English language or only another language in the workplace.  The
bill provides that an employer does not commit an offense if an employer
requires an employee to speak only the English language or only another
language at certain times in the workplace when the requirement is
justified by business necessity.  A language requirement of an employer
that requires an employee, if possible, to speak the language spoken by a
customer when the employee is speaking to or in front of the customer is
justified by business necessity.  Employers must give notice to employees
of the general circumstances in which an employee must speak only the
English language or only another language in the workplace and the
consequences for violating the language requirement.  The bill sets forth
that an employer's language requirement for an employee is evidence of
discrimination on the basis of national origin if the employer does not
provide the required notice and makes an adverse employment decision
against the employee based on the employee's violation of the language
requirement.     
EFFECTIVE DATE

 September 1, 2001.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

C.S.H.B. 243 modifies the original to specify that an employer commits an
unlawful employment practice if the employer requires an employee to speak
only English or only another language, rather than just English, in the
workplace.  The substitute also provides that a language requirement of an
employer that requires an employee, if possible, to speak the language
spoken by a customer when the employee is speaking to or in front of the
customer is justified by business necessity.