18 oct 2024 2:42 pm est ( gmt - 5 ) :
how to modify 'speak english only'-law to become 'speak english-language and-or-or (malay/indonesian)-language only'-law ?
pay lobbyist-lawyer / government-relation-lawyer / government-affair-lawyer to request 'speak english only'-law-modification to
maybe senator which represent favorite-state and donate to that senator-reelection-campaign .
example lobbyist-lawyer :
(1)cgagroup.com ( customer is boeing.com , maybe bias-toward-usa-republican-politic-group ) [source : 'john-Keast has long-standing ties to the committee’s chairman, GOP Sen. Roger-Wicker of Mississippi. He previously served as roger-Wicker’s chief of staff' in cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/boeing-capitol-hill-lobbying/index.html from google ( boeing lobby senator ) result 5 ]
(2)cassidy.com which seems bias-toward-usa-democrat-politic-group [source : 'Democratic-serving lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying ]
(3)squirepattonboggs.com which seems bias-toward-usa-republican-politic-group , has experience having foreign-customer [source : (1)'Law firms: Several law firms, including Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight, had sizable departments devoted to so-called "government relations"' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying (2)'saudi' , 'takata' , 'turkey' , 'palestinia' , 'myanmar' , 'venezuela' , 'Squire Patton Boggs were donors to Trump hardliner Paul Gosar, the congressman from Arizona, who tweeted "Fight for Trump!"' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squire_Patton_Boggs ]
maybe request law-introduction like
find 'several bills D.C. statehood bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress . However, only 1 of these bills, with the endorsement of
President Bill Clinton, made it to the floor of the House, where it was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153' in below article
to that senator .
[addition 18 oct 2024 3:38 pm est]
why hire lobbyist-lawyer / government-relation-lawyer / government-affair-lawyer ? why customer not talk directly to senator ?
(1) maybe customer-english-language-speaking-skill is lacking
(2) maybe customer is dmca-law-violator like having lots of mp3 and that senator is inside same politic-group like attorney-general/top-prosecutor
so that senator maybe whistle-blow customer-law-violation to attorney-general .
[/addition 18 oct 2024 3:38 pm est]
[addition 20 oct 2024 5:3 pm est]
(3)maybe usa-constitution only valid for usa-citizen . lobby has meaning 'petition' in find 'First Amendment, U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition government for a redress of grievances.
In other words: freedom of association and right to advocate on public policy, including legislative lobbying.' .
so permanent-resident ideally does not lobby .
(4)maybe only lobbyist-lawyer know how much money need to be donated to senator-re-election-campaign to make that senator read
some-email-request-for-law-modification-vote . i think senator get some hundred email per day and senator-secretary-clerk forward email which
mention already donate some usd to re-election-campaign to senator-private-email .
(5)maybe lawyer choose better word than customer , for communicating with senator .
[/addition 20 oct 2024 5:3 pm est]
============================================================================================================================================================================================================
---https://www.thoughtco.com/us-statehood-process-3322311 from google ( requirement to become a state ) result 3
By Robert Longley
Robert Longley
History and Government Expert
B.S., Texas A&M University
Robert Longley is a U.S. government and history expert with over 30 years of experience in municipal government and urban planning.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Updated on December 01, 2022
The process by which U.S. territories attain full statehood is, at best, an inexact art. While Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress to grant statehood, the process for doing so is not specified.
Key Takeaways: U.S. Statehood Process
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to grant statehood but does not establish the process for doing so. Congress is free to determine the conditions of statehood on a case-by-case basis.
According to the Constitution, a new state cannot be created by splitting or merging existing states unless both the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of the states involved approve.
In most past cases, Congress has required that the people of the territory seeking statehood vote in a free referendum election, then petition the U.S. government for statehood.
The Constitution merely declares that new states cannot be created by merging or splitting existing states without the approval of both the U.S. Congress and the states' legislatures.
Otherwise, Congress is given the authority to determine the conditions for statehood.
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging
to the United States…"
— U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2.
Congress typically requires the territory applying for statehood to have a certain minimum population. In addition, Congress requires
the territory to provide evidence that a majority of its residents favor statehood.
Congress is under no constitutional obligation, however, to grant statehood, even in those territories whose population expresses a desire for statehood.
The Typical Process
Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood :
The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people's desire for or against statehood.
Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Congress—both House and Senate—pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.
The President of the United States signs the joint resolution and the territory is acknowledged as a U.S. state.
The process of attaining statehood can literally take decades. For example, consider the case of Puerto Rico and its attempt to become the 51st state.
Puerto Rico Statehood Process
Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory in 1898 and people born in Puerto Rico have automatically been granted full U.S. citizenship since 1917 by
an act of Congress.
In 1950, the U.S. Congress authorized Puerto Rico to draft a local constitution. In 1951, a constitutional convention was held in Puerto Rico
to draft the constitution.
In 1952, Puerto Rico ratified its territorial constitution establishing a republican form of government, which was approved by the U.S. Congress
as being “not repugnant” to the U.S. Constitution and the functional equivalent of a valid state constitution.
Then things like the Cold War, Vietnam, September 11, 2001, the Wars on Terror, the great recession and lots of politics put Puerto Rico’s
statehood petition on Congress’ back burner for over 60 years.
Brief History of Territorial Voting Rights
When Puerto Rico was ruled by Spain, its residents commonly lived under dictatorial rule, only occasionally enjoying political freedom.
During 19-th century, Puerto Ricans experienced brief periods of representation, at some points electing representatives to Spanish parliament.
Puerto Rican political parties first formed in the late 1800s, some favoring an alliance with United States and some favoring total independence.
Capitol Hill
Read More
DC's Quest for Statehood: A Unique Journey
By Rachel Cooper
After Spanish-American War of 1898 , United States gained territories including Philippines , Guam , Cuba , Puerto Rico.
After a brief military rule and temporary government, Puerto Rico’s Commissioner Luis Muñoz Rivera demanded independence from U.S. Congress in 1916.
On March 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed Jones-Shafroth Act. This law gave Puerto Ricans U.S. citizenship.
The Jones Act separated the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Puerto Rican government provided civil rights
to individuals and created a locally elected bicameral legislature. In 1952, the United States allowed the territory to enact its own constitution.
On 30 June 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 5278: PROMESA. The law established a financial oversight board over
Puerto Rican government, a process for restructuring debt, and expedited procedures for approving critical infrastructure projects
to combat the Puerto Rican debt crisis. This board has a significant degree of federal control involved in its establishment and operations.
In particular, the authority to establish the control board derives from the federal government's constitutional power to "make all needful rules
and regulations" regarding U.S. territories. The President of the United States appoints all seven voting members of the board, and
the board has broad sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by Puerto Rico's legislature, governor, and other public authorities.
Puerto Rico held its statehood referendum during the November 3, 2020, general elections. The ballot asked a single question :
“Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?” The results showed that 52% of Puerto Rico’s voters answered “yes.”
On November 6, 2012, the territorial government of Puerto Rico held a two-question public referendum vote on petitioning for U.S. statehood. The first question asked voters whether Puerto Rico should continue to be a U.S. territory. The second question asked voters to choose from among the three possible alternatives to territorial status—statehood, independence, and nationhood in free association with the United States. In the vote count, 61% of the voters chose statehood, while only 54% voted to retain territorial status.
In August 2013, a U.S. Senate committee heard testimony on Puerto Rico’s 2012 statehood referendum vote and acknowledged that the majority of the Puerto Rican people had “expressed their opposition to continuing the current territorial status.”
On February 4, 2015, Puerto Rico’s Resident Commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives Pedro Pierluisi, introduced the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act (H.R. 727). The bill authorizes Puerto Rico’s State Elections Commission to hold a vote on Puerto Rico's admission into the Union as a state within one year after the Act's enactment. If a majority of the votes cast are for Puerto Rico's admission as a state, the bill requires the president of the United States to issue a proclamation to begin the transition process that will result in Puerto Rico's admission as a state effective January 1, 2021.
On June 11, 2017, the people of Puerto Rico voted for U.S. statehood in a nonbinding referendum. Preliminary results showed that almost 500,000 ballots were cast for statehood, more than 7,600 for free association-independence, and almost 6,700 for retaining the current territorial status. Only about 23% of the island’s approximately 2.26 million registered voters cast ballots, leading to statehood opponents to doubt the validity of the result. The vote, however, did not appear to be divided along party lines.
Note: While Puerto Rico’s resident commissioners to the House are allowed to introduce legislation and take part in debates and committee hearings, they are not allowed to actually vote on legislation. Similarly, nonvoting resident commissioners from the other U.S territories of American Samoa, the District of Columbia (a federal district), Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands also serve in the House.
So if the U.S. legislative process eventually smiles on the Puerto Rico Statehood Admission Process Act, the entire process of transition
from U.S. territory to U.S. state will have taken the Puerto Rican people over 71 years.
While some territories have significantly delayed petitioning for statehood, including Alaska (92 years) and Oklahoma (104 years),
no valid petition for statehood has ever been denied by U.S. Congress.
Powers and Duties of All US States
Once a territory has been granted statehood, it has all the rights, powers and duties established by the U.S. Constitution.
The new state is required to elect delegates to the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.
The new state has the right to adopt a state constitution.
The new state is required to form legislative, executive, and state judicial branches as necessary to effectively govern the state.
The new state is granted all of those governmental powers not reserved to the federal government under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Hawaii and Alaska Statehood
By 1959, nearly a half-century had passed since Arizona became the 47th state of the United States on February 14, 1912.
However, within just 1 year, the so-called “Great 48” states became the “Nifty 50” states as Alaska and Hawaii formally attained statehood.
Alaska
It took Alaska almost a century to achieve statehood. The United States government purchased Alaska Territory from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million,
or about 2 cents an acre. First known as “Russian America,” the land was managed as the Department of Alaska until 1884; and as
District of Alaska until becoming an incorporated territory of the United States in 1912; and finally, being officially admitted as
49-th state on January 3, 1959.
The use of the Alaska Territory as the site of key military bases during World War II led to an influx of Americans, many of whom chose to remain
after the war. During the decade after the war ended in 1945, Congress rejected several bills to make Alaska the 49th state of the Union.
Opponents objected to the territory’s remoteness and sparse population. However, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, recognizing Alaska’s vast
natural resources and strategic proximity to the Soviet Union, signed the Alaska Statehood Act on July 7, 1958.
Hawaii
Hawaii’s journey to statehood was more complicated. Hawaii became a territory of the United States in 1898 over objections of hawai-island kingdom’s
deposed but still influential Queen Lili’uokalani.
As Hawaii entered 20-th century, over 90% of Native Hawaiians and non-white Hawaiian residents favored statehood.
However, as a territory, Hawaii was allowed only 1 nonvoting member in House of Representatives. Wealthy American landowners and
growers in Hawaii took advantage of this fact to keep labor cheap and trade tariffs low.
In 1937, a congressional committee voted in favor of Hawaiian statehood. However, the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941,
delayed negotiations as loyalty of Hawaii’s Japanese population came under suspicion by U.S. government.
After the end of World War 2 , Hawaii’s territorial delegate in Congress revived the battle for statehood.
While the House debated and passed several Hawaii statehood bills, the Senate failed to consider them.
Letters endorsing statehood poured in from Hawaiian activist groups, students, and politicians. In March 1959, both the House and Senate
finally passed a Hawaii statehood resolution. In June, the citizens of Hawaii voted to accept the statehood bill, and on August 21, 1959,
President Eisenhower signed the official proclamation admitting Hawaii as the 50th state.
District of Columbia Statehood Movement
District of Columbia, also called Washington, D.C., holds the distinction of being the only U.S. territory specifically provided for in
U.S. Constitution. Article 1 , Section 8 , of Constitution, called for establishment of a federal District “not to exceed 10-square-miles”
in area to house the seat of U.S. government. On July 16, 1790, President George Washington signed the Residence Act establishing
District of Columbia on Potomac River land he had selected to be donated by the states of Maryland and Virginia.
Today, like U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands,
the District of Columbia is allowed to elect 1 non-voting delegate to U.S. House of Representatives.
The enactment of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 gave citizens of the District of Columbia the right to vote in presidential elections,
which they did for the first time on November 3, 1964.
While the lack of voting representation in Congress and its inherent complaints of “taxation without representation” have driven
the movement for D.C. statehood since the civil rights era of the 1950s—1970s, serious consideration of statehood began in the 1980s.
In 1980, D.C. voters approved a ballot initiative calling for the drafting of a state constitution, a step toward statehood typically taken by
U.S. territories before their admission as states. In 1982, D.C. voters ratified the proposed constitution forming a new state to be called
“New Columbia.” Between January 1993 and October 1984, several bills D.C. statehood bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress.
However, only 1 of these bills, with the endorsement of President Bill Clinton, made it to the floor of the House, where it was defeated by
a vote of 277 to 153.
In 2014, President Barack Obama endorse statehood for the District of Columbia. “Folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else,” he noted.
“They contribute to overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented like everybody else.”
In 2014, IRS data showed that D.C. residents paid more in taxes than residents of 22 states.
H.R. 51—D.C. Admission Act
In a November 8, 2016 referendum, an overwhelming 86% of District of Columbia voters voted in favor of statehood.
In March 2017, the District's congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton first introduced H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act
in the U.S. House of Representatives.
On June 26, 2020, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed the Washington, D.C. Admission Act by a vote 232–180 largely
along party lines. However, the bill died in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
On January 4, 2021, Delegate Norton reintroduced H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, with a record 202 co-sponsors.
The bill would create the State of “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” a reference to abolitionist Frederick Douglass.
As a state, the Douglass Commonwealth would get 2 Senators and a number of seats in the House of Representatives based on the state’s population,
currently one.
On January 26, 2021, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware introduced a similar bill, S. 51, A bill to provide for the admission of
the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union,” in the Senate. By April 17 Caper’s bill had accumulated a record 45 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
On April 22, 2021, the House passed H.R. 51, to make the District of Columbia the nation’s 51st state. Before the 216-208 party-line vote,
Delegate Norton told her colleagues that they had a “moral obligation” to pass the bill. “This Congress, with Democrats controlling the House,
the Senate, and the White House, D.C. statehood is within reach for the first time in history,” she said.
The bill must now be considered in Senate, where its passage remains far from certain, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York)
pledged that “we will try to work a path to get [statehood] done.” In a policy statement issued the same day, President Biden asked the Senate
to pass the bill as quickly as possible.
The Politics of DC Statehood
Democrats have long supported D.C. statehood, seeing it as a way to gain momentum for the party’s voting rights platform.
Republicans oppose statehood, arguing that a constitutional amendment would be required for the district to become a state.
To address this objection, H.R. 51, the D.C. statehood bill would carve out a smaller federal district to be called “the Capital,”
which would consist of White House, U.S. Capitol, other federal buildings, National Mall, and its monuments.
Congressional Republicans have also characterised that D.C. statehood bill as an “unconstitutional power grab to gain 2 progressive Senate seats.”
Calling D.C. statehood “full bore socialism,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell promised to object to any statehood push in the Senate.
If admitted to the Union, the Douglass Commonwealth would be the first state with a plurality of Black residents.
With Democrats now controlling the White House and the Senate, the effort to make D.C. the 51st state has more support than ever before.
However, Senate Republican leaders have threatened to mount a filibuster to block the passage of the statehood bill.
It remains unclear whether the bill even has the backing of all 50 Democratic senators, let alone the 60 needed to break a filibuster and pass it.
==========================
---https://study.com/academy/lesson/statehood-definition-lesson-quiz.html from google ( state minimum population ) result 2 ->
ppl also ask -> What is the minimum population for a state?
Statehood in America | Definition, Process & Requirements
What do we mean by statehood?
Statehood is the condition of being a state of the United States. Statehood means representation in Congress and the Senate.
and the protection of the federal government.
What is the population requirement for statehood?
Constitution does not specify any population requirements for statehood. Constitution gives authority to create states to Congress and
leaves the how-to to that body.
Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set a population requirement of 60,000 free adult males before a territory could become a state.
This has been a general number followed by Congress.
What is required for statehood?
Generally speaking, the requirements for statehood are:
1. Creation of a constitution with a republican form of government. No monarchist states.
2. Population of sufficient size to be able to financially support the operations of a state government and to provide support for
the operation of the federal government.
What are the benefits of statehood?
Territories of the United States have a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. The delegate may participate in discussions of
issues but doesn't have any say in whether a bill passes or not. Territories are not represented in the U.S. Senate.
The benefit of statehood is political representation in Congress, as well as being placed on an equal footing with all other states,
something that territories do not share.
==================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 2:52 pm est :
1)speak english only policy in usa : when there is business necessity
[source : 'An employer may have a rule requiring that employees speak only in English at certain times where the employer can show that
the rule is justified by business necessity.' in law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1606.7 from google (labor law english only policies) page 2 result 1 ]
[obsolete 6 nov 2024 7:26 pm est]
2)speak english only policy in new zealand : valid reason, health and safety reason
[source : 'But the policy could be appropriate if an employer has a valid reason for it – health and safety reasons would be the most likely'
in https://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints/faqs/english-language-only-workplace/ from google (australia speak english only policies) result 4 ]
3)speak english only policy in uk : business reason, health and safety reason
[source : 'non-discriminatory business reason for imposing an English-only speaking rule on staff. Health and safety is one of the most common reasons'
in http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2016/01/22/requiring-staff-to-only-speak-english-at-work-can-be-lawful.aspx
from google (co.uk speak english only policies) result 4 ]
[reason]
i can not find uk-government-web-page saying that english-language is official-language .
apparently new-zealand not-yet make english-language become official-language .
[source : 'Language is on the agenda for the new government, with a promise to legislate to give English official status.
This is in addition to the requirement all public service departments have their primary name in English, except for those specifically related to Māori, and communicate primarily in English - again, except for those specifically related to Māori, as part of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First.
Te reo Māori was made an official language in 1987, followed by New Zealand Sign Language in 2006. For many, it will be news English doesn't also have special status under the law.
In 2018, NZ First MP Clayton Mitchell lodged a member's bill to add English to the list. He said the bill would "rectify a long-standing issue".'
in https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/what-you-need-to-know/504722/nz-s-official-languages-what-you-need-to-know from google ( new zealand official language law ) result 3 ]
[/reason]
[addition 6 nov 2024 7:47 pm est] end 8:5 pm est
find 'there is no uk-government-web-site saying english-language is official-language'
[/addition 6 nov 2024 7:47 pm est]
[/obsolete 6 nov 2024 7:26 pm est]
==================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 2:59 pm est :
1-usd-paper-money contain latin-language-word 'annuit coeptis' which has meaning 'approved undertaking' which is maybe has meaning 'approved promise' .
[source : (1)'annuit' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-dollar_bill from en.wikipedia.org->search-auto-complete ( usa dollar )
(2)'Adnuit coeptis' in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adnuo#Latin ]
i know 1-usd-paper-money contain latin-language-word 'annuit-coeptis' during trying to know meaning of symbol on 1-usd-paper-money
because that symbol is conversation-topic in movie 'national treasure' whose actor is jon-voight , nicolas-cage :
---scriptslug.com/assets/scripts/national-treasure-2004.pdf from google ( movie transcript national-treasures ) result 2
( John pulls out 1-usd-paper-money and press 1-usd-paper-money on his TV tray ) .
john : because she'll be marked with these .
( camera show-close-up-view-of 1-usd-paper-money . john's finger point to unfinished-pyramid and all-seeing-eye on the back-of 1-usd-paper-money ) .
john : the unfinished pyramid and the all-seeing eye ; the marks of the knights of the templar .
( ben study that 1-usd-paper-money with newfound curious awe ) .
john : our founding fathers , the freemasons , designed our nation's great-seal and left us all the clues ; these symbols are telling us something ;
i just don't know what .
so that latin-language-word 'annuit coeptis' on 1-usd-paper-money is maybe causing foreigner to think usa allow latin-language or
language similar to latin-language like spanish-language . and that is entrapment which can become defensive-method against
'speak english only'-law-suit .
---biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2027&version=CEV
8 don't forget to scribe a copy of these laws on stone slabs that you are going to set up . Make sure that that writing is easy to read .
moses recommend using word which is easy to read for writing moses-law .
english-language is not easy to read , english-language-writing-pattern is not consistent with pronunciation .
and english-language contain many homophone : wortel.ucoz.com/homophone-no-ref.htm
==================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 3:19 pm est :
maybe school-kid , factory-worker , agriculture-worker , atc/air-traffic-controller , pilot , construction-worker
will think lobbyist-lawyer , their customer , who request 'speak english only'-law-modification-vote to senator , that senator , like hero .
politically-neutral c-span.org-tv will show 'speak english only'-law-modification-vote like historic-revolutionary-moment
for school-kid , factory-worker , agriculture-worker , atc/air-traffic-controller , pilot .
==================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 3:31 pm est :
(1)#add# , atc/air-traffic-controller , pilot ,
(2)#add# , atc/air-traffic-controller , pilot
==================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 3:35 pm est :
#add# cassidy.com which seems bias-toward-democrat [source : 'Democratic-serving lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States ]
==================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 3:39 pm est :
(1)#add# [addition 18 oct 2024 3:38 pm est]
(2)#add# squirepattonboggs.com [source : 'Law firms: Several law firms, including Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight, had sizable departments devoted to so-called "government relations"' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying ]
(3)#reword# cassidy.com which seems bias-toward-democrat [source : 'Democratic-serving lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States ]
#to# cassidy.com which seems bias-toward-democrat [source : 'Democratic-serving lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying ]
==================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 3:45 pm est :
#reword# cassidy.com which seems bias-toward-democrat [source : 'Democratic-serving lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying ]
#to# cassidy.com which seems bias-toward-usa-democrat-politic-group [source : 'Democratic-serving lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying ]
========================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 3:47 pm est :
#reword# squirepattonboggs.com [source : 'Law firms: Several law firms, including Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight, had sizable departments devoted to so-called "government relations"' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying ]
#to# squirepattonboggs.com which seems bias-toward-usa-republican-politic-group , has experience having foreign-customer [source : (1)'Law firms: Several law firms, including Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight, had sizable departments devoted to so-called "government relations"' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying (2)'saudi' , 'takata' , 'turkey' , 'palestinia' , 'myanmar' , 'venezuela' , 'Squire Patton Boggs were donors to Trump hardliner Paul Gosar, the congressman from Arizona, who tweeted "Fight for Trump!"' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squire_Patton_Boggs ]
=========================================================================================================================================================
18 oct 2024 3:59 pm est :
there is this english-language-as-official-language-law-introduction 6 feb 2019 , sponsor/supporter is all usa-republican-senator :
---https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/997/text from google ( speak english only law senator ) result 1
ext: H.R.997 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
All Information (Except Text)
There is one version of the bill.
Text available as:
XML/HTML (17KB)XML/HTML (new window) (13KB)TXT (8KB)PDF (278KB) (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?
Introduced in usa-legislature-house 6 feb 2019
[source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature#21_mar_2022_2_6_am_edt from 'legislature' in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate#21_mar_2022_2_4_am_edt
from 'senate' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_House#21_mar_2022_2_4_am_edt ]
116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 997
To declare English-language as official language of United-States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalisation,
and to avoid misconstructions of English-language texts of laws of United-States, pursuant to Congress’ powers to provide for
general welfare of United-States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalisation under article I, section 8, of Constitution.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
primary-sponsor : iowa->republican-senator Mr. steve-King
underling-sponsor : 27 , all republican-senator :
Rick Allen (R-Ga.) , Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) , Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) , Scott Perry (R-Pa.) , Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) ,
Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) , Jeffrey Duncan (R-S.C.) , Randy Weber (R-Texas) , Bill Posey (R-Fla.) , Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) ,
Brian Babin (R-Texas) , Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) , Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) , Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) , Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) ,
Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) , Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) , Steven J. Chabot (R-Ohio) , James Baird (R-Ind.) , James Comer (R-Ky.)
Sam Graves (R-Mo.) , Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) , Jody Hice (R-Ga.) , Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) , Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) , Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) ,
Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) .
[source : https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/116/hr997 from google ( English Language Unity Act of 2019 senator perry ) result 3]
introduced following bill;
which was referred to Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to Committee on Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
jurisdiction of committee concerned
A BILL
To declare English as official language of United-States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalisation,
and to avoid misconstructions of English-language texts of the laws of United-States, pursuant to Congress’ powers to provide for
general welfare of United-States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalisation under article I, section 8, of Constitution.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “English Language Unity Act of 2019”.
SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) United-States is composed of individuals from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, and continues to benefit from
this rich diversity.
(2) Throughout history of United-States, the common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been English-language.
(3) Among powers reserved to the States respectively is the power to establish English-language as official language of the respective States,
and otherwise to promote English-language within respective States, subject to prohibitions enumerated in Constitution of United-States and
in laws of the respective States.
SEC. 3. English as official language of the United States.
(a) In general.—Title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:
“CHAPTER 6—OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
Ҥ 161. Official language of United-States
“The official language of the United States is English.
Ҥ 162. Preserving and enhancing the role of official language
“Representatives of Federal Government shall have an affirmative obligation to preserve and enhance the role of English as
official language of Federal Government. Such obligation shall include encouraging greater opportunities for individuals to learn English language.
Ҥ 163. Official functions of Government to be conducted in English
“(a) Official functions.—The official functions of the Government of the United States shall be conducted in English.
“(b) Scope.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ means the several States and the District of Columbia, and
the term ‘official’ refers to any function that (i) binds the Government, (ii) is required by law, or (iii) is otherwise subject
to scrutiny by either the press or the public.
“(c) Practical effect.—This section shall apply to all laws, public proceedings, regulations, publications, orders, actions, programs, and
policies, but does not apply to—
“(1) teaching of languages;
“(2) requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;
“(3) actions, documents, or policies necessary for national security, international relations, trade, tourism, or commerce;
“(4) actions or documents that protect the public health and safety;
“(5) actions or documents that facilitate the activities of the Bureau of the Census in compiling any census of population;
“(6) actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants; or
“(7) using terms of art or phrases from languages other than English.
Ҥ 164. Uniform English language rule for naturalization
“(a) Uniform language testing standard.—All citizens should be able to read and understand generally English-language text of
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and laws of United-States made in pursuance of Constitution.
“(b) Ceremonies.—All naturalisation ceremonies shall be conducted in English.
Ҥ 165. Rules of construction
“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed—
“(1) to prohibit a Member of Congress or any officer or agent of Federal Government, while performing official functions,
from communicating unofficially through any medium with another person in a language other than English (as long as
official functions are performed in English);
“(2) to limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskan or Native American languages (as defined in the Native American Languages Act);
“(3) to disparage any language or to discourage any person from learning or using a language; or
“(4) to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Ҥ 166. Standing
“A person injured by a violation of this chapter may in a civil action (including an action under chapter 151 of title 28) obtain appropriate relief.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of chapters at the beginning of title 4, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to chapter 5 the following new item:
“Chapter 6. Official Language”.
SEC. 4. General rules of construction for English language texts of the laws of the United States.
(a) In general.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
Ҥ 9. General rules of construction for laws of the United States
“(a) English language requirements and workplace policies, whether in public or private sector, shall be presumptively consistent
with laws of United-States.
“(b) Any ambiguity in English-language text of the laws of the United States shall be resolved, in accordance with the last 2 articles of
Bill of Rights, not to deny or disparage rights retained by the people, and to reserve powers to the States respectively, or to the people.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1 is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 8 the following new item:
“9. General rules of construction for laws of United-States.”.
SEC. 5. Implementing regulations.
Secretary of Homeland Security shall, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, issue for public notice and
comment a proposed rule for uniform testing of English language ability of candidates for naturalization, based upon the principles that—
(1) all citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence,
Constitution, and the laws of the United States which are made in pursuance thereof; and
(2) any exceptions to this standard should be limited to extraordinary circumstances, such as asylum.
SEC. 6. Effective date.
The amendments made by sections 3 and 4 shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
====================================================================================================================
20 oct 2024 4:59 pm est :
---https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/boeing-capitol-hill-lobbying/index.html from google ( boeing lobby senator ) result 5
Boeing a major lobbying player on Capitol Hill
Fredreka Schouten Lauren Fox
By Fredreka Schouten, Ted Barrett and Lauren Fox, CNN
4 minute read
Updated 10:50 AM EDT, Wed March 13, 2019
Washington CNN —
Boeing, 1 of world’s largest aircraft manufacturers, also is 1 of biggest players in Washington influence game – spending millions
to lobby Congress and executive branch every year.
Last year, Boeing’s spending on lobbying topped $15.1 million, federal record show. boeing-company ranks Number 10 in lobbying activity
in Washington since 1998, according to a tally by nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That fall way behind big trade groups
such as usa Chamber of Commerce and American Hospital Association, but ahead of some of its competitors for government’s lucrative
defense business, such as Lockheed Martin .
Boeing has also deployed dozens lobbyists, many working for outside firms, to help shape government policy.
04 Donald Trump LEAD IMAGE
Related article Trump speaks to Boeing CEO following tweets on airline technology
Lobbying ties
Further cementing boeing-company’s Capitol Hill ties, a former Boeing lobbyist now serve as staff director on Senate’s Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee/cstc . cstc on Tuesday announced it would hold a hearing at a future date about aviation safety,
following Sunday’s deadly crash of a Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft on a flight from Ethiopia to Kenya.
John-Keast , a former principal at Cornerstone Government Affairs cgagroup.com [source : google ( Cornerstone Government Affairs ) result 1 ]
, lobbied House and Senate last year on Boeing’s behalf , according to lobbying reports filed with Senate.
Boeing spent $200,000 last year with Cornerstone, a tiny fraction of its overall lobbying bill.
john-Keast has long-standing ties to cstc’s chairman, GOP Sen. Roger-Wicker of Mississippi.
He previously served as roger-Wicker’s chief of staff in usa House of Representatives and managed
roger-Wicker’s first successful House campaign, in 1994.
roger-Wicker’s aides indicated that john-Keast would work on aviation safety issues for the panel because his advocacy on behalf of Boeing focused
narrowly on defense matters.
“While at Cornerstone Government Affairs, John-Keast lobbied for a variety of clients including Boeing on defense issues only,”
roger-Wicker spokeswoman Brianna-Manzelli said in a statement to CNN.
She said Wicker “has personally been actively engaged” with the leadership of Federal Aviation Administration and
National Transportation Safety Board on Sunday’s accident.
More than 2 dozen airlines around the globe have grounded the 737 MAX 8 since Sunday’s accident, the second crash of the model in 6 months.
Federal authorities have not ordered the planes grounded in usa . In a conversation on Tuesday with President Donald Trump,
Boeing CEO Dennis-Muilenburg “reiterated” to the President the company’s position that the aircraft is safe, a Boeing spokesman said.
Speaking to CNN on Tuesday, Wicker said he “absolutely” would fly on the MAX 8.
When asked whether Congress should weigh in on whether the planes should be grounded, he said: “We have professionals tasked with that job,
and I wouldn’t interfere with that.”
Millions in contributions
Boeing’s political action committee and its employees also donate millions to federal candidates in each election cycle.
More than $4.5 million went to congressional candidates and other political committees in year 2018 midterms alone, according to the center’s data.
Boeing divided its political giving to candidates roughly evenly between Democrats and Republicans.
Senator Maria-Cantwell, D-Washington, was biggest recipient of money that Boeing’s PAC and its employees directed to a candidate,
totaling a little more than $54,000 in the midterms, according to the center’s data.
maria-Cantwell, who was elected to 4-th term last November, serves as top Democrat on Senate’s commerce and transportation panel.
Boeing has roots and operations in Seattle.
roger-Wicker received $10,000 from Boeing’s PAC in the midterms, records show.
boeing-company’s political action committee also donated maximum $10,000 to Senator Dianne-Feinstein in midterms,
Federal Election Commission data show. This week, California Democrat called on Boeing to ground all of its 737 MAX 8 aircraft
until an investigation into Sunday’s crash is complete.
In year 2016 presidential election, Boeing employees donated more heavily to Democrat Hillary-Clinton than to Trump, who largely financed
his first political campaign with small-dollar contributions and his own money.
But boeing made up for the gap after the election with a $1 million donation to Trump’s inaugural committee.
Federal law bar corporations from donating directly to candidates, but they can give to inaugural committees and face no legal limits
on the amount they can contribute to support festivities surrounding presidential swearing-in.
Boeing had donated $300,000 to the committee tied to President Barack Obama’s second inauguration. Obama chose to not accept corporate money
for his first inauguration in 2009.
CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to more fully reflect how long Boeing has been the No. 10 lobbyist according to the Center
for Responsive Politics.
====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
20 oct 2024 5 pm est :
#reword# cgagroup.com ( whose customer is boeing.com ) [source : cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/boeing-capitol-hill-lobbying/index.html from google ( boeing lobby senator ) result 5 ]
#to# cgagroup.com ( customer is boeing.com , maybe bias-toward-usa-republican-politic-group ) [source : 'john-Keast has long-standing ties to the committee’s chairman, GOP Sen. Roger-Wicker of Mississippi. He previously served as roger-Wicker’s chief of staff' in cnn.com/2019/03/12/politics/boeing-capitol-hill-lobbying/index.html from google ( boeing lobby senator ) result 5 ]
====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
20 oct 2024 5:2 pm est :
====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
---https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/federal-law-protects-nonprofit-advocacy-lobbying from google ( non profit lobby limit ) result 1
Federal Law Protects Nonprofit Advocacy & Lobbying
Print this page
federal government, including Congress and Internal Revenue Service, supports broad advocacy , legislative lobbying by 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofits.
First Amendment, U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition government for a redress of grievances.
In other words: freedom of association and right to advocate on public policy, including legislative lobbying.
U.S. Congress says it’s legal for nonprofits to lobby
In 1934 :Congress enacted a statute allowing charitable nonprofits “organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable … or
educational purposes” to be exempt from federal income taxes, provided that, among other things, “no substantial part of the activities of”
the nonprofit organization is for “carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation….” 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).
By setting a limit (no “substantial part”) rather than imposing an outright ban, Congress recognized the rights of nonprofits to do some lobbying.
In 1976:
Congress enacted statutes clarifying beyond all doubt that § 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofits may lobby, establishing generous limits,
providing clear guidelines, and creating other benefits:
→ 26 U.S.C. § 501(h), which allows charitable nonprofits the option to elect to use the bright-line “expenditure” test rather than
the vague “no substantial part of activities” test; and
→ 26 U.S.C. § 4911, which – just for those nonprofits electing to use the expenditure test by filing easy form known as the
“501(h) election” – set generous dollar limits on amounts those nonprofits can spend on lobbying (a sliding scale that starts
with 20 % of nonprofit’s first $500,000 in expenditures), provides clear definitions, and exempts certain activities
from consideration as “lobbying.” As IRS grid below shows, very few charitable nonprofits will ever come close to hitting these limits.
i = If amount of exempt purpose expenditures is :
L = Lobbying nontaxable amount is :
i L
≤ $500,000 20% of the exempt purpose expenditures
>$500,00 but ≤ $1,000,000 $100,000 plus 15% of the excess of exempt purpose expenditures over $500,000
> $1,000,000 but ≤ $1,500,000 $175,000 plus 10% of the excess of exempt purpose expenditures over $1,000,000
>$1,500,000 $225,000 plus 5% of the exempt purpose expenditures over $1,500,000
Source: IRS Website
The IRS says it’s legal for nonprofits to lobby
IRS logo
IRS has material on its website reassuring nonprofits that legislative lobbying is legal. There are pages about legislative lobbying
clearly state that charitable nonprofit “organizations may engage in some lobbying” and “involve themselves in issues of public policy
without the activity being considered as lobbying.”
There is an IRS form – Form 5768 (which is free and less than a page long) – that nonprofits can file that gives them the opportunity
to safely engage in lobbying activities as long as the money spent on lobbying (both grassroots and direct) falls under an established threshold.
Read more about this process, referred to as filing the “501(h) election.”
Many nonprofits and their funders prefer to hear the words from the authority itself. To make it as plain as day, in 2000 the Center for Lobbying
in the Public Interest asked the IRS to answer basic questions about charitable nonprofits engaging in legislative lobbying.
IRS, in its official response letter, provided lots of assurance, including:
Q: Is lobbying by section 501 (c)(3) organizations permissible under federal tax laws?
A: Yes (except for private foundations under most circumstances)
==================================================================================================================================
20 oct 2024 5:10 pm est : #add# [addition 20 oct 2024 5:3 pm est]
==================================================================================================================================
20 oct 2024 5:20 pm est : #add# construction-worker
==================================================================================================================================
6 nov 2024 2:47 pm est :
i realise usa-state can have state-language-law , in addition to having 'speak english only'-federal-law
( Electronic Code of Federal Regulations ( ecfr.gov ) -> Title 29—Labor -> Subtitle B—Regulations Relating to Labor ->
CHAPTER 14—EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION -> PART 1606—GUIDELINES ON DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF NATIONAL ORIGIN ->
§ 1606.7 Speak-English-only rules. )
[addition 6 nov 2024 6:23 pm est]
usa->virginia-state have 'speak english only'-federal-law and state-language-law saying english-language is official-language :
[/addition 6 nov 2024 6:23 pm est]
---https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title1/chapter5/section1-511/ from google ( English designated the official language of the Commonwealth. English shall be designated as the official language of the Commonwealth of Virginia ) result 1 from Official English Laws -- Virginia www.languagepolicy.net › archives §7.1-42. English designated the official language of the Commonwealth. English shall be designated as the official language of the Commonwealth of Virginia. from google ( virginia law english language ) result-preview 2
simplified-text :
Code of Virginia
Table of Contents » Title 1. General Provisions » Chapter 5. Emblems » Article 2. Emblems, Designations, and Honors »
§ 1-511. English designated the official language of the Commonwealth
English shall be designated as official language of this Commonwealth . Except as provided by law , no state agency or local government
shall be required to provide and no state agency or local government shall be prohibited from providing any documents , information ,
literature or other written materials in language other than English.
1996, c. 829, § 7.1-42; 2005, c. 839.
The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of
such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired.
=======================================================================================================================================
---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-only_movement
usa-state which does not have state-language-law saying english-language is official-language :
ct , de , la , me , md , mi , ne , nj , ny , oh , or , pa , ri , tx , vt , wa , wi , dc
usa-state which have state-language-law saying english-language is official-language :
al , ak , az , ar , ca , co , fl , ga , hi , id , il , in , ia , ks , ky , ma , ms , mo , mt , ne , nh , nc , sc , nd , sd , ok , tn ,
ut , va , wv , wy , usa-samoa , guam , north-mariana-islands , puerto-rico , usa-virgin-islands
==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================
6 nov 2024 3:4 pm est :
---https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/678/text from google ( minnesota state law english official language law ) result 4
simplified-text :
117th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 678
To declare English as official language of usa , to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of
English language texts of the laws of usa , pursuant to Congress’ powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish
a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 10, 2021
Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Rounds, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Marshall, and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
A BILL
To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress’ powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “English Language Unity Act of 2021”.
SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) The United States is comprised of individuals from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, and continues to benefit from this rich diversity.
(2) Throughout the history of the United States, the common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been the English language.
(3) Among the powers reserved to the States respectively is the power to establish the English language as the official language of the respective States, and otherwise to promote the English language within the respective States, subject to the prohibitions enumerated in the Constitution of the United States and in laws of the respective States.
SEC. 3. English as official language of the United States.
(a) In general.—Title 4, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“CHAPTER 6—OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
Ҥ 161. Official language of the United States
“The official language of the United States is English.
Ҥ 162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the official language
“Representatives of the Federal Government shall have an affirmative obligation to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language of the Federal Government. Such obligation shall include encouraging greater opportunities for individuals to learn the English language.
Ҥ 163. Official functions of Government to be conducted in English
“(a) Scope.—For the purposes of this section—
“(1) the term ‘official’ refers to any function that—
“(A) binds the Government;
“(B) is required by law; or
“(C) is otherwise subject to scrutiny by either the press or the public; and
“(2) the term ‘United States’ means the several States and the District of Columbia.
“(b) Official functions.—The official functions of the Government of the United States shall be conducted in English.
“(c) Practical effect.—This section—
“(1) shall apply to all laws, public proceedings, regulations, publications, orders, actions, programs, and policies; and
“(2) shall not apply to—
“(A) teaching of languages;
“(B) requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.);
“(C) actions, documents, or policies necessary for national security, international relations, trade, tourism, or commerce;
“(D) actions or documents that protect the public health and safety;
“(E) actions or documents that facilitate the activities of the Bureau of the Census in compiling any census of population;
“(F) actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants; or
“(G) using terms of art or phrases from languages other than English.
Ҥ 164. Uniform English language rule for naturalization
“(a) Uniform language testing standard.—All citizens of the United States should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States.
“(b) Ceremonies.—All naturalization ceremonies shall be conducted in English.
Ҥ 165. Rules of construction
“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed—
“(1) to prohibit a Member of Congress or any officer or agent of the Federal Government, while performing official functions under section 163, from communicating unofficially through any medium with another person in a language other than English (as long as official functions are performed in English);
“(2) to limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskan or Native American languages (as defined in the Native American Languages Act (25 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.));
“(3) to disparage any language or to discourage any person from learning or using a language; or
“(4) to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Ҥ 166. Standing
“A person injured by a violation of this chapter may in a civil action (including an action under chapter 151 of title 28) obtain appropriate relief.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of chapters at the beginning of title 4, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 5 the following:
“Chapter 6. Official language”.
SEC. 4. General rules of construction for English language texts of the laws of the United States.
(a) In general.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Ҥ 9. General rules of construction for laws of the United States
“(a) English language requirements and workplace policies, whether in the public or private sector, shall be presumptively consistent with the laws of the United States.
“(b) Any ambiguity in the English language text of the laws of the United States shall be resolved, in accordance with the last two articles of the Bill of Rights, not to deny or disparage rights retained by the people, and to reserve powers to the States respectively, or to the people.”.
(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 8 the following:
“9. General rules of construction for laws of the United States.”.
SEC. 5. Implementing regulations.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue for public notice and comment a proposed rule for uniform testing English language ability of candidates for naturalization, which shall be based upon the principles that—
(1) all citizens of the United States should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the United States which are made in pursuance thereof; and
(2) any exceptions to the standard described in paragraph (1) should be limited to extraordinary circumstances, such as asylum.
SEC. 6. Effective date.
The amendments made by sections 3 and 4 shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================
---https://www.startribune.com/english-only-debate-revs-up-again/116963093 from google ( minnesota state law english official language law ) page 2 number 2
publish-date : 26 feb 2011 at 12:47 AM
scriber : Allie-Shah
English-only debate revs up again
Bills in the Legislature would make English the state's official language. Would such a law unite or divide us?
At a class for immigrants learning English in St. Paul, this week's lesson was all about Minnesota symbols.
The official state bird: the loon.
The state flower: the lady slipper.
Minnesota's official language : to be determined.
Efforts to declare English the official language of Minnesota are getting the most serious attention in years at the State Capitol
as part of a movement sweeping the country. If bills now working through the Minnesota House and Senate pass, such a law would stop
most government information from being translated into different languages.
Would it bring people together under a common language, as supporters say? Or would it do more to divide us, as opponents argue?
"It is definitely immersion on a much bigger level," said James Bernard, who teaches English as a second language to immigrants
from around the world through Neighborhood House in St. Paul.
If the law passes, government information would no longer be translated, with exceptions for health and public safety concerns, among others.
Most Read
Live
Live: Minnesota general election results 2024
Elections
How Minnesota voted for president, precinct by precinct
Elections
Minnesota House could be evenly split, but close races will go to recounts
Elections
What’s next for Gov. Tim Walz after failed vice presidential bid?
Voter's instructions and ballots, for example, would be printed only in English. The written tests for those applying for driver's licenses
would be taken in 1 language, instead of 6 .
Already, 31 other states have some form of English-only law on the books. Oklahoma became the most recent one , after voters endorsed
a proposal last November to make English the state language. Since January, legislators in Texas, Wisconsin and Washington state have introduced
similar bills.
Last summer, Lino Lakes became the first city in the state to ban the use of city money to translate city documents or public meetings
into another language.
'We're 1 state'
The chief author of the Minnesota House bill, Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, said his bill accomplishes three things:
1) It would cut costs of translating and printing materials in multiple languages at a time when the state is facing a $6.2 billion deficit.
2) It would help new immigrants learn English.
3) It would unite people.
"I look it as a unifying law," he said. "We're one state. We're one country. This is America. This is Minnesota.
We welcome all kinds of people to come here, legally, of course. And when they do, we welcome them here and welcome them to learn the language,
to join the culture, to join the American dream and to be successful."
Learning English is key to success here, say those who work with immigrants. But they say the law could actually make it harder for
non-English speakers to become self-sufficient by making it more difficult for them to access services.
"The difference would be people in the real world aren't always trained to communicate to different audiences effectively," said Bernard,
the English language teacher. "That's the thing our students run up against in the real world."
At Neighborhood House, a non-profit agency that has helped resettle new immigrants and refugees for more than 100 years, daily English classes
are filled with immigrants eager to learn.
Kara Schommer, who oversees the English classes there, sees the bill as a departure from Minnesota's long tradition of tolerance for other languages
and cultures.
"It seems just unwelcoming," Schommer said. "You can tell by our demographics and our increasing refugee and immigrant population that we have been
a welcoming community. I think we'd definitely lose something if that no longer was something we celebrated."
Translations go way back
Translations are not new. In the 1920s, Minnesota printed voting instructions in English, Swedish, French, Polish, Finnish, Norwegian, Russian,
Bohemian and German.
Today, voting instructions are translated into Hmong, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese and Somali, reflecting Minnesota's largest immigrant groups now.
Studies show that immigrants who arrive in the United States when they are young are much more likely to pick up English, said Katherine Fennelly,
an immigration expert from the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs.
Time also plays a huge role in getting people fluent. A 2007 report by the Pew Foundation found that the percentage of Latinos who spoke English
very well rose from 23 percent for the first generation to 88 percent for their adult children speaking English very well, and to 94 %
for their children's children.
English 101
Little by little, Leydi Nieves is picking up enough English words to know that there's a debate going on.
In 2008, she left her native Mexico and came to Minnesota to join her husband.
She is one of 15 adults enrolled in an advanced English language class at Neighborhood House.
"The part that is hard for me is when I have to speak. It's hard for me to make questions," Nieves said.
Of the proposed English-only law, she said: "That has a good part and a bad part. We want to succeed in English, it's good for us.
But what if we don't understand? When that law is done, we [will] have too much trouble with our children and our life because
we're not prepared to speak fluent English."
Last week, she and her classmates in the English language class took turns presenting objects representing their native countries.
Nieves presented a doll dressed in black velvet, with a sombrero and long plaited hair.
Touching the doll's plaits, she searched her mind for the correct word.
"Ribbons," suggested one of her classmates.
She shook her head and touched her own hair.
"Braids!" offered another student.
She nodded. "Yes, braids!"
Later, the class practiced reading aloud from a book on fun facts about Minnesota.
State motto, one student read, pausing at the unfamiliar words that followed.
"L'Etoile du Nord," a classroom volunteer explained. "It's French for 'The Star of the North.' "
Allie Shah • 612-673-4488
Leydi Nieves talked about her daughter's Mariachi doll from Mexico at Neighborhood House in St. Paul.
English language students were asked to bring in something that represents their country of origin and share it with the class.
Leydi Nieves, a Mexican, talked about her daughter’s doll at Neighborhood House in St. Paul. Students were asked to bring in something
that represents their homelands to share with the class. (Dml - Star Tribune/The Minnesota Star Tribune)
===================================================================================================
6 nov 2024 3:19 pm est :
'speak english only'-law in usa-federal-government-web-site :
---https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/part-1606 , simplified-text :
1606.7 speak-english-only rules
When applied at all times. A rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times in workplace is burdensome term and
condition of employment. primary language of an individual is often an essential national origin characteristic.
Prohibiting employees at all times , in workplace , from speaking their primary language or the language they speak most comfortably ,
disadvantages an individual's employment opportunities on basis of national origin . It may also create an atmosphere of inferiority ,
isolation and intimidation based on national origin which could result in a discriminatory working environment .[7]
Therefore , Commission will presume that such a rule violate title 7 and will closely scrutinise it.
(b) When applied only at certain times . An employer may have a rule requiring that employees speak only in English at certain times
where employer can show that that rule is justified by business necessity.
(c) Notice of that rule. It is common for individuals whose primary language is not English to inadvertently change from speaking English
to speaking their primary language. Therefore , if an employer believe it have a business necessity for a speak-English-only rule at certain times ,
that employer should inform its employees of the general circumstances when speaking only in English is required and of
the consequences of violating that rule . If an employer fail to effectively notify its employee of the rule and makes an adverse employment
decision against an individual based on a violation of the rule , Commission will consider that employer's application of the rule as
evidence of discrimination on the basis of national origin.
=======================================================================================================================================
6 nov 2024 3:27 pm est :
maybe it is possible to lobby usa-president to create executive-order to add new police-language .
but executive-order is dictatorship-method , does not need popularity-vote .
---https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients-details?cycle=2020&id=N00001669
from google ( lobbying president biden ) result 1
a = lobbyist , b = from-lobbyist from family-member , c = from lobbyist + family
a b c d
Anne Pence $9,400 $0 $9,400
Stuart E Eizenstat $8,400 $0 $8,400
O Thomas Jr Johnson $7,600 $0 $7,600
Don Smith $7,312 $0 $7,312
Jennifer Richter $6,936 $0 $6,936
Reginald Turner $6,600 $0 $6,600
Jim Blanchard $6,600 $3,820 $10,420
Lee Godown $6,100 $0 $6,100
Robert D Kyle $5,600 $0 $5,600
Paul C Rosenthal $5,600 $0 $5,600
Peter Friedmann $5,600 $0 $5,600
Cal Dooley $5,600 $0 $5,600
Reid Peyton Chambers $5,600 $5,050 $10,650
Jeffrey Blum $5,600 $0 $5,600
Janine Smith $5,600 $5,600 $11,200
Andrew J Pincus $5,600 $0 $5,600
Kurt A Wimmer $5,600 $0 $5,600
Jacqueline S Glassman $5,600 $0 $5,600
Claude G B Fontheim $5,600 $0 $5,600
Matthew Hennessy $5,600 $0 $5,600
Ankit Desai $5,599 $0 $5,599
Alexander Mcdonough $5,435 $0 $5,435
Thomas Saunders $5,124 $0 $5,124
David C Crane $5,050 $0 $5,050
Richard Weiner $5,049 $214 $5,263
====================================================================
---https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/its-a-gold-rush-for-lobbying-firms-with-biden-ties-527635 from google ( lobbying president biden ) result 2
publish-date : 01/21/2022 06:26 PM EST
scriber : Caitlin-Oprysko
Biden-tied lobbying firms raked in the dough during his first year
Shops that employed former aides to the current president saw massive increases in clients and fees in 2021.
K Street
Lobbying disclosures that a phalanx of former Biden Senate aides and lobbyists with ties to Biden administration have experienced
a significant surge of revenues. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo
Washington’s top lobbying firms reported record lobbying revenues in 2021, and perhaps no one benefited more than lobbying shops
with ties to President Joe Biden and his administration.
At Putala Strategies, a firm run by Chris Putala, a former aide to Biden from his time on Senate Judiciary Committee,
annual lobbying revenues soared from $1.3 million in 2020 to $4 million in 2021 — an increase of more than 200 % — according
to a review of lobbying disclosures.
Putala signed more than a dozen new clients in 2021, including powerful drug lobby Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America and
company behind KeystoneXL pipeline, both of which were fighting unfavorable policy proposals from Biden.
That’s nearly as many as the one-man firm signed in the entire decade prior. (Putala signed no new clients between 2016 and 2020,
when his former boss was no longer in office, according to lobbying disclosures.)
Lobbying disclosures show that throughout the year, Putala lobbied White House or Executive Office of President on behalf of
several prominent corporate clients including T-Mobile and Comcast. Putala also lobbied White House on behalf of several tech trade associations,
Entertainment Software Association and NCTA — Internet & Television Association, as well as U.S. subsidiary of Dutch chipmaker ASML.
Putala did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Jeff Ricchetti, brother of top Biden adviser Steve-Ricchetti, saw lobbying revenues continue to climb for his firm Ricchetti Inc.,
a trend that began in 2020 when Biden became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
Ricchetti’s firm brought in $3.2 million in lobbying fees in 2021, up from $1.3 million in 2020 — a 150 % increase.
Ricchetti did not report lobbying the White House for any of his clients last quarter, having formally sworn off lobbying the West Wing
amid backlash over a growing contingent of family members joining the Biden administration.
Still, he reported lobbying the House and Senate for a number of blue chip companies including Amazon and General Motors,
the pharmaceutical companies Horizon Therapeutics and GlaxoSmithKline and Finseca, a trade group representing life insurers and
financial planners, all on key parts of Biden’s legislative agenda. Ricchetti did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
At TheGROUP D.C., where Sudafi Henry, Biden’s former vice presidential director of legislative affairs, is a partner, annual lobbying revenues
more than doubled from $3.6 million in 2020 to $7.5 million in 2021. The firm also employs Kwabena Nsiah, who served as chief of staff to
Biden’s top Hill liaison Cedric Richmond during Richmond’s time in the House. Nsiah was also a congressional aide to former Rep. Xavier Becerra,
now Biden’s Health and Human Services secretary.
Like other firms with ties to Biden or his aides, TheGROUP boasts a growing roster of major corporate clients, from Pfizer to Lyft to
Facebook parent company Meta.
According to disclosures, Henry, Nsiah and their firm lobbied the White House on behalf of several of those clients over the past year,
including Abbott Labs (1 of major manufacturers of Covid tests), the American Health Care Association, the U.S. Black Chambers Inc.,
Charter Communications, Dell and Pfizer. It was the first time the firm has ever reported lobbying the White House.
TheGROUP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Putala, Richetti and TheGROUP weren’t the only firms reaping the benefits of the handover from Republican to Democratic control of
Washington last year. K Street shattered lobbying fee records they set only a year prior, as a new administration and
an all-Democratic Washington worked to enact trillions of dollars in new spending while cracking down on an array of sectors from
tech industry to fossil fuels and pharmaceuticals.
The passage of yet another coronavirus relief package in the spring and the bipartisan infrastructure bill in the fall, along with
on-again-off-again negotiations on another $1 trillion-plus social spending and climate package, drove new clients from new industries
into lobbyists’ arms.
The new White House even lured one of K Street’s biggest names back into the influence game. Tony Podesta, the Democratic super lobbyist
whose eponymous firm The Podesta Group collapsed after it came under scrutiny from special counsel Robert Mueller, reemerged on the lobbying scene
this year, bringing in $1 million from the blacklisted Chinese telecom giant Huawei in just six months of work, lobbying disclosures show.
MOST READ
trump-rally-95018.jpg
A Trump Field Director Was Fired for Being a White Nationalist
POLITICO’s hour-by-hour guide for watching election returns
Here’s how Donald Trump can win
‘I Think We’re in Trouble’: Is There a Future for MAGA After Trump?
Here’s Harris’ path to winning
Filed under: White House, Joe Biden, Lobbyists, Pharma
==========================================================
6 nov 2024 6:24 pm est : #add# [addition 6 nov 2024 6:23 pm est]
==========================================================
6 nov 2024 7:26 pm est : #add# [obsolete 6 nov 2024 7:26 pm est]
==========================================================
6 nov 2024 7:38 pm est :
usa->iowa-state have 'speak english only'-federal-law and state-language-law saying english-language is official-language :
---https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/2024/1.pdf from https://www.legis.iowa.gov/law/iowaCode/chapters?title=I&year=2024 -> 'pdf' in 'Chapter 1 - SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION OF THE STATE' from https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/1.18.pdf from google ( iowa official language law ) result 1 and from google ( england official language law ) page 3 number 10
simplified-text :
2. In order to encourage every citizen of this state to become more proficient in English language , thereby facilitating participation in
economic , political , cultural activities of this state and of usa , English language is hereby declared to be official
language of state of Iowa.
3. Except as otherwise provided for in subsections 5 and 6 , English language
shall be language of government in Iowa . All official documents , regulations , orders , transactions , proceedings , programs , meetings ,
publications , or actions taken or issued , which are conducted or regulated by , or on behalf of , or representing the state and all of its
political subdivisions shall be in English language .
==========================================================
6 nov 2024 7:45 pm est : #add# [addition 6 nov 2024 7:47 pm est]
there is no uk-government-web-site saying english-language is official-language , but some-time uk-employer tell uk-employee
to not speak their native-language then uk-employee retaliate with method starting race-discrimination-law-suit against that uk-employee .
that race-discrimination-law-suit some-time successfull , some-time fail :
---https://www.lawson-west.co.uk/for-business/services/employment-and-hr-services/articles/can-i-stop-my-employees-from-speaking-their-native-language-in-the-office
from google ( uk england non-discriminatory business reason for imposing an English-only speaking rule on staff. Health and safety is one of the most common reasons ) result 2 -> ppl also ask -> Are you allowed to speak another language at work in the UK?
29-11-2023
"Can I stop my employees from speaking their native language in the office?"
How language links with race discrimination
Language is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, due to the fact that language is directly linked to nationality. Race discrimination in the workplace is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, and race is defined to include color, ethnic or national origins and nationality. Language, therefore, being a key characteristic of an individual’s national identity, falls within the protected characteristic spectrum.
It is also important to note that protection from race discrimination in the workplace covers not only employees, but also job applicants and even some self-employed people. Unlike unfair dismissal, an employee does not need two years of service in order to bring a claim for race discrimination.
Legal position of prohibiting foreign languages in the workplace
Since language is a fundamental element of nationality, it is clear that it also directly links to race. The issue for concern here is whether an employer can prohibit employees from speaking their native language in the workplace. The legal position is that in most instances, employers are not able to prohibit employees from speaking their native language at work, however, there are exceptions to this.
Prohibiting employees from speaking their native language may be considered direct discrimination if it disproportionately affects individuals of a particular national or ethnic origin, or it may be considered indirect discrimination if it puts certain groups at a disadvantage and cannot be objectively justified.
On the other hand, if an employer has a policy that employees must only speak English at work, even though this policy would apply equally to all employees, it may disadvantage an employee of a particular race, which would be considered indirect discrimination.
It is also worth noting that, in cases of direct discrimination, an employer would have to prove that their decision to prohibit employees of speaking their native language is completely unrelated to their race.
There is surprisingly little case law of discrimination cases involving language, however, in Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd,
a Polish employee was having a conversation with another colleague at work in Polish. She was then told that she couldn’t speak Polish at work
and that another colleague in the office had complained. The treatment of the Polish employee was considered to be direct race discrimination and
this claim was successful.
Defenses for Employers
There is, however, a defense for employees, shown in the case of Kelly v Covance Laboratories Ltd, which was an animal testing laboratory which had regular assaults on its employees by animal rights activists as well as undercover activists. The Claimant in this case was speaking Russian often at work and on the phone, causing managers to become concern that she was an undercover animal rights activist. The Employer then implemented an English speaking policy at work, and this was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, as there was a good reason for the policy, which was to protect the security of the laboratory and the staff within it.
Final Remarks
It is also important to note that blanket bans on speaking native languages may be unnecessary and can contribute to a less inclusive environment and can lead an employer open for a discrimination claim. Therefore, employers should always seek legal advice to ensure that any language policies comply with the Equality Act 2010.
If an employer is looking to restrict the use of foreign languages in the workplace, they must have a justification to do so, such as:
Safety Issues
It is causing bullying and harassment.
Customer communication is being impacted.
Even though there may be some exceptions where employers could prohibit employees from speaking their native language at work, more issues may arise from this, rather than benefits. The potential for a discrimination claim against an employer who puts these policies in place is high. To avoid this risk, should avoid considering policies that could affect employees under the protected characteristics of race, unless they can definitely demonstrate that the reason for this policy is not related to race at all.
If you feel that you have been discriminated against because of your race or using your native language at work, or if you are a business and are considering implementing a language policy, then please contact us on 0116 212 1000
joao madeira
======================================================================================================
6 nov 2024 7:54 pm est :
---https://app.croneri.co.uk/law-and-guidance/case-reports/dziedziak-v-future-electronics-ltd-2012-ukeat027011
from google ( Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd ) result 1
Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd [2012] UKEAT/0270/11
Printable version
Keywords: discrimination — burden of proof; comparators
Summary
A finding of race discrimination could be made where an employee was told to not speak in her own language.
This occurred in a cosmopolitan office, the other workers being (generally) of other nationalities, but no-one else was instructed in this way.
A tribunal was entitled to find that this was so potentially inherently and directly discriminatory as to cause the burden of proof to shift.
It followed that, in the absence of an explanation from the employer, the tribunal was entitled to find that discrimination had been legally established.
The Facts
The claimant, who is Polish, was employed as an asset manager in a business selling electronic components manufactured by others.
She complained that she had been unfairly selected for redundancy, and one suggested explanation was that she had taken extra days off
when her son was unwell and in hospital (she being a single mother) and she had then stopped working overtime.
She also complained of race discrimination on the basis of an incident in which she had been having a work related conversation at work
with a colleague in Polish. She was called to a meeting shortly afterwards with her line manager. He reprimanded her for speaking Polish as
a colleague in the office had complained that it was distracting to her.
The Decision: Employment Tribunal
The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair because of a failure to provide the claimant with full information as to the criteria used in selecting for redundancy, but awarded no compensation on the basis that the dismissal would have taken place in any event.
The tribunal rejected the sex discrimination complaint as it was not satisfied, on the evidence, that lateness was a factor in the scoring of the criteria for selection.
The tribunal found that the claimant was instructed not to speak in her own language and had thereby established facts from which the tribunal could conclude she had been subjected to discrimination on grounds of her Polish nationality. The respondent had not provided an adequate explanation and so the tribunal upheld the complaint of race discrimination.
The Decision: Employment Appeal Tribunal
Appeals were rejected in respect of the finding as to unfair dismissal and the award of no compensation for the unfair dismissal.
In relation to the issue of sex discrimination, the EAT described the argument of the employee that there should have been a reversal of the burden of proof as “somewhat unreal”. The matters that would have to be established before there could be any reversal of the burden of proof would be the following. First, that there was a provision, criterion or practice. Second, that it disadvantaged women generally. Third, that what was a disadvantage to the general created a particular disadvantage to the individual who was claiming. Only then would the employer be required to justify the provision, criterion or practice, in that a burden is on the employer to provide both explanation and justification.
Dealing with this particular case, it was plain that the tribunal never got, nor could ever have got, to the stage of reversing the burden of proof. It was not shown on balance that lateness was a factor, as there was (on balance) no sufficient evidence that the claimant had suffered the disadvantage — that she would have had to be shown to have suffered as an actual disadvantage — if she was to be found to have been discriminated against on the grounds of sex. Accordingly, the EAT dismissed that part of the appeal.
In relation to the finding of race discrimination, the EAT was satisfied that the fact that the claimant was told not to speak her own language was capable of amounting to a detriment, and so, implicitly, the tribunal had found that it amounted to a detriment.
Given the evidence that no other person had been so directed, there was evidence of an actual comparator in the workplace. There could have been an explanation that might have satisfied the tribunal that this was not on racial grounds, but there was not. Given a difference in treatment linked to race to the detriment of an individual, the burden of proof was capable of passing, and the EAT saw nothing inherently wrong in law in the tribunal concluding that the respondent was required to provide an explanation, and, because the respondent did not do so, the respondent had discriminated against the claimant on this basis.
Comment
The appellant employer had put forward submissions that language was not the same as nationality. However, in the context of this case, that argument was rejected by the EAT on the basis that the use of the words “own language” showed a link, which is an intrinsic link, with nationality.
Last reviewed 20 November 2012
========================================================================================================================================================================================================
---https://employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/content/kelly-v-covance-laboratories-ltd-ukeat-0186-15-la.570bc837f5a141a5bd982ab11bad4e11.htm from google ( Kelly v Covance Laboratories Ltd ) result 1
Kelly v Covance Laboratories Ltd UKEAT/0186/15/LA
Appeal against the dismissal of the claimant's claims of race and sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Appeal dismissed.
claimant , a Russian national , was told to not speak Russian at work. She claimed that this amounted to race and sex discrimination,
harassment and victimisation. She lost her claims at the ET, the ET saying that the respondent would have given the same instruction in respect of
any other employee where those concerns arose. Considering the allegation of unlawful harassment, the ET allowed that the instruction was
unwanted conduct, but it was not satisfied that it related to the claimant's nationality. The claimant appppealed.
The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET had come to a permissible conclusion that the treatment of the claimant was not connected with her nationality.
______________
Appeal No. UKEAT/0186/15/LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 20 October 2015
Before
HER HONOUR JUDGE EADY QC
(SITTING ALONE)
KELLY (APPELLANT)
COVANCE LABORATORIES LIMITED (RESPONDENT)
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
**APPEARANCES**
For the Appellant
MRS KELLY (The Appellant in Person)
For the Respondent
MR MARTIN PALMER (of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Walker Morris Solicitors
Kings Court
12 King Street
Leeds
LS1 2HL
**SUMMARY**
RACE DISCRIMINATION - Direct
HARASSMENT - Conduct
HARASSMENT - Purpose
Equality Act 2010 sections 13(1), 23 and 26
In circumstances in which the Claimant had been instructed not to speak Russian in the workplace, had the Employment Tribunal erred in dismissing her claims of direct race (national origins) discrimination and/or harassment related to her race (national origins)?
Held:
Dismissing the appeal. The ET had correctly proceeded on the basis that it was possible for such an instruction (where linked to an employee's race/national origins) to amount to an act of direct race discrimination/harassment (applying Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd. It had, however, found that (i) the same instruction had been given to the Claimant's named comparators (even if not actually passed on) and (ii) would have been given to "some other employee speaking some language other than English in circumstances that gave [the employer] cause for concern". The ET had thus reached permissible conclusions on the case whether take to be one of actual comparison (as put by the Claimant) or on the basis of a correctly constructed hypothetical comparator.
In any event, the "intrinsic link" in Dziedziak only went to shift the burden of proof; the EAT had allowed that there might be an explanation other than race. In the present case, the ET had accepted there was such an explanation. It had concluded that any difference in treatment was not because of race, a permissible conclusion given its findings of fact that (i) the employer considered it important that conversations within the workplace should be capable of being understood by English-speaking managers (paragraph 11), (ii) this was to be seen in the context of the Respondent's involvement in animal testing which had previously made it the subject of attention from animal rights activists, including violent assaults on its employees (paragraph 3), and (iii) given the unusual behaviour displayed by the Claimant as an employee embarking upon a new career, which had led the Respondent to wonder whether her behaviour was explicable by the fact that she was an animal rights infiltrator (paragraphs 10 to 11).
Turning to the harassment case, the reason for the instruction (the conduct the Claimant contended amounted to harassment) was not because the Claimant was a Russian national but because of the suspicions the Respondent reasonably had about her behaviour and the context in which it operated (paragraph 56). In any event, the ET made the alternative, permissible finding that there was no evidence that the instruction had the relevant purpose or effect.
**HER HONOUR JUDGE EADY QC****Introduction**
I refer to the parties as the Claimant and the Respondent, as below. This is the Claimant's appeal against a Reserved Judgment of the Leeds Employment Tribunal (Employment Judge Burton, sitting with members on 24-27 February 2015; "the ET"), sent to the parties on 13 March 2015, by which the Claimant's claims of race and sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation were dismissed. Representation below was as before me.
Considering the matter on the papers, Lewis J permitted the appeal to proceed on two bases: whether the ET correctly addressed the questions of (1) direct discrimination because of Russian nationality, and/or (2) harassment, in relation to the prohibition on the Claimant speaking Russian in the workplace. The Respondent resists the appeal.
**The Background Facts**
The Respondent (part of a large multinational company) operates a testing laboratory in Harrogate, North Yorkshire. It employed the Claimant, who is of Russian national origin, as a contract analyst from 3 February 2014, subject to an initial six-month probationary period. From early on, however, concerns arose relating to the Claimant's conduct and performance.
It is relevant to record (as the ET did, see paragraph 3), that part of the work undertaken by the Respondent involves the use of animals for testing products. As a consequence, it has been the subject of attention by those involved in the animal rights movement, which has included violent assaults on some of its employees. During the early weeks of her employment with the Respondent the Claimant's conduct was sufficiently unusual for a new employee in her position that her line manager, Mr Simpson, began to wonder whether she was in fact an animal rights activist who had infiltrated the Respondent. He was aware of previous incidents where this had happened, with activists obtaining employment with the Respondent to obtain information to use in furtherance of their campaign. In the Claimant's case, the behaviour in question included often using her mobile 'phone at work, disappearing into the bathroom with her 'phone for excessive periods and speaking on her 'phone in Russian (paragraph 10).
As a consequence of his concerns about this behaviour, on 5 March 2014 Mr Simpson instructed the Claimant not to speak in Russian at work. He considered it important that any conversations taking place in the workplace should be capable of being understood by English speaking managers. When the Claimant objected that two of her Ukrainian colleagues also spoke in Russian at work, he passed on similar instructions to their managers. He also raised various other performance and conduct issues with the Claimant, who responded by email shortly afterwards apparently accepting those points in a positive manner (paragraph 11).
Thereafter, however, problems continued. At her two-month probationary appraisal, the Claimant was told she would be moved into a formal capability process. At that point, the Claimant raised a grievance about Mr Simpson, which included, relevantly, complaints of race discrimination. The Respondent considered the grievance needed to be dealt with before the formal process continued, but had concerns this would delay dealing with the employment issues (particularly at a time where Mr Simpson and other senior managers would be away, potentially leaving the Claimant in the office unsupervised) and so suspended the Claimant. The grievance was investigated but rejected by letter of 25 April 2014 and the appeal was heard but dismissed on 9 May 2014. On 12 May 2014, the Claimant was invited to attend a formal capability process meeting on 16 May.
Meanwhile, the Claimant had contacted ACAS and, on 13 May, an ACAS officer contacted the Respondent, which made it question whether the Claimant's knowledge of ET procedures indicated she had brought proceedings before and so undertook a Google search of her name. This disclosed that, in October 2013, the Claimant had been convicted of benefit fraud at the Crown Court and given a suspended prison sentence. This was raised with the Claimant at the meeting on 16 May, when she was told there would be a disciplinary hearing on 21 May to look into the allegation that she had withheld information from the Respondent and had failed to disclose her criminal conviction. On 20 May 2014 the Claimant tendered her resignation. She subsequently brought the ET proceedings with which this appeal is concerned.
**The ET's Decision and Reasoning**
The ET's Reasons go through each of the allegations made by the Claimant. In broad terms, it was unable to see that she had established facts that could lead it to conclude that any of the matters complained of were to do with her national origin, race or sex. To the extent that the Claimant relied on the same matters as acts of unlawful harassment, it equally did not find these related to her national origins for the purpose of section 26 of the Equality Act ("EqA").
Specifically, the ET rejected the Claimant's complaint relating to the instruction that she not speak Russian in the workplace; there was no reason to believe that another employee, of a different national origin to the Claimant but seeking to speak a language other than English in the workplace, would have been treated any differently. The Claimant relied on the fact that her two Russian speaking Ukrainian colleagues had not been subjected to the same instruction, but the ET found that Mr Simpson had told their line managers to impose a similar prohibition on them, albeit that instruction had not been carried out. The ET observed:
"47. … it would be a very strange thing if Mr Simpson were to discriminate against a Russian national in relation to the use of that language and treat a Ukrainian national more favourably in that regard. …"
The ET considered the correct comparator was another employee speaking some language other than English in circumstances that gave Mr Simpson reasonable cause for concern. It was this that caused him to give the instruction to the Claimant. He would have given the same instruction in respect of any other employee where those concerns arose.
Considering this matter as an allegation of unlawful harassment, the ET allowed that the instruction was unwanted conduct, but it was not satisfied that it related to the Claimant's nationality. Whilst (as a Russian national) Russian was her mother tongue, the test was not one of causation but was a subjective test as to why a person had acted as they did; a matter to be determined in the context within which the comment was made. The ET concluded:
"56. Mr Simpson did not give that instruction because the Claimant was a Russian national but because of the suspicions that he had about her. That conduct did not, therefore, "relate to" the Claimant's national origins. …"
In any event, the ET was not satisfied that the instruction did have the effect (let alone the purpose) of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her. Specifically, whilst the Claimant did not generally hold back from making complaint, she had emailed shortly after this instruction displaying no concerns (paragraph 56).
**Submissions**
The Claimant's Case
On the direct discrimination claim the Claimant argued that the ET got it wrong in its acceptance of Mr Simpson's evidence as to instruction to the other employees to speak only English in the workplace. As had been noted at an earlier Preliminary Hearing, the Claimant relied on what she contended were possible inconsistencies in the Respondent's evidence on this question. Further, she relied on the fact that other employees were allowed to speak other languages in the workplace and not given the same instruction. Generally, she disagreed with the findings that her behaviour had been such as to reasonably give rise to concerns on the part of Mr Simpson, and she pointed to a passage (in one of the internal process documents) where he had referred to another employee's marriage into a Bosnian family, saying that showed he was racist (albeit she accepted the evidence in question could be read in a different way). She had cross-examined Mr Simpson on this point and made good her submission to the ET.
As for the Respondent's explanation, it would have been perverse to conclude she was an animal rights infiltrator, and there was no evidence to suggest that she spoke to anyone in Russian apart from two colleagues and one client. The Respondent was a multinational company; it was generally accepted that different languages were spoken in the workplace. More specifically, the Claimant relied on evidence that Mr Simpson objected to her speaking in her "native Russian" (relying on a reference in the internal meeting of 7 April to Mr Simpson using that expression). That necessarily linked the instruction to her national origins, relying on the approach of the EAT in the case of Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd UKEAT/0270/11. The ET had not referred to Dziedziak; its reasoning on the law was flawed. Simply linking the instruction to the Claimant's nationality was sufficient to amount to less favourable treatment. It was certainly an act of harassment related to her race.
The ET was also wrong to conclude (paragraph 56) that the instruction that she should not speak Russian in the workplace was not an act of harassment and that it did not have the relevant effect. The notes of her grievance appeal hearing (in evidence before the ET) demonstrated the Respondent understood she had been riled by the instruction. The ET was wrong to find she was not caused distress. There was also evidence from her mental health worker, to whom she was referred in May 2014 (when she was suspended), who spoke of her depression as being "clearly influenced by issues at work" and referred to her reporting "systematic, abusive and prejudicial behaviour over a long period of months". The ET erred in failing to have regard to that evidence when drawing its conclusion as to the effect of the behaviour relied on by the Claimant as an act of harassment.
The Respondent's Case
Mr Palmer confirmed that Dziedziak had been before the ET along with other cases relied on by the parties. That said, ultimately the reasoning in Dziedziak could not help the Claimant, given the ET's findings of fact (specifically those at paragraphs 10 and 11, read along with the findings at paragraph 3) and the ET's acceptance of the Respondent's non-discriminatory explanation for the instruction in this case. The ET's conclusion at paragraph 47 dealt with the instruction not to speak Russian, and that was the answer to the direct race discrimination complaint. The ET had correctly directed itself to the appropriate test in determining whether the instruction from Mr Simpson to the Claimant constituted less favourable treatment because of her race/national origin. It made coherent findings of fact, specifically that (1) the same instruction had been given by Mr Simpson to the Claimant's two named comparators (there was no difference of treatment, even if the respective line managers had then failed to pass the instruction on) and (2) the same instruction would have been given to some other employees speaking some language other than English in circumstances that gave Mr Simpson cause for concern. Thus the ET had reached a permissible conclusion on the case whether taken to be one of actual comparison, as put by the Claimant, or on the basis of a correctly constructed hypothetical comparator.
The reliance on Dziedziak was misplaced. In that case, the instruction had been that the Claimant was not to speak in her own language, and the ET in the present case had made no finding that the Claimant was instructed not to speak in her native language, only that she was not to speak Russian (which happened to be her native language). In any event, what had been found to be an intrinsic link in Dziedziak only went to shift the burden of proof; the EAT had allowed there might still be an explanation other than race (paragraph 48 of that Judgment). In the present case the ET had accepted there was such an explanation. It had concluded any difference in treatment was not because of race, and that was a permissible conclusion given its findings: (1) Mr Simpson considered it important that conversations in the workplace should be capable of being understood by English speaking managers (paragraph 11); (2) this was to be seen in the context of the Respondent's involvement in animal testing, which had made it the subject of attention from animal rights activists including violent assaults on employees (paragraph 3); and (3) given the unusual behaviour displayed by the Claimant as an employee embarking upon a new career, which had led Mr Simpson to wonder whether this was explicable by the fact that she was an animal rights infiltrator (paragraphs 10 to 11).
On harassment, the ET again gave a correct self-direction. Asking what the reason was for Mr Simpson's instruction, the ET concluded it was not because the Claimant was a Russian national but because of the suspicions he had about her (paragraph 56). Alternatively, the ET found no evidence that the instruction had the relevant purpose or effect. Although the mental health practitioner's evidence was not referred to in the reasoning, it was unclear where this went. It had been referred to during the hearing, but was dated some time after the relevant event and referred to various issues in the workplace, not specifically the language instruction. The ET had been entitled to place weight on other evidence, in particular the Claimant's email sent very soon after the instruction had been given, evidencing no relevant effect.
**The Relevant Legal Principles**
I start with the EqA 2010. Section 13 defines direct discrimination as follows:
"(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others."
Less favourable treatment imports a comparison; as to which section 23(1) provides:
"(1) On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section 13 … there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case."
By section 26 harassment is defined, relevantly, as follows:
"(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if -
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of -
(i) violating B's dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
…
(4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account -
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5) The relevant protected characteristics are -
…
race
…"
Guidance as to the approach to be adopted in harassment cases in the light of that definition was laid down in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724 EAT, which identified three elements: there must be (1) unwanted conduct, (2) which had the purpose or effect of either (a) violating the Claimant's dignity or (b) creating an adverse environment for her, and (3) that must be related to the relevant prohibited ground (here, race).
The specific issue with which this appeal is concerned relates to the instruction given to the Claimant not to speak Russian in the workplace, whether viewed as an act of direct race discrimination or as harassment. An instruction to only speak a particular language in the workplace might generally amount to a provision, criterion or practice of apparently neutral application, potentially giving rise to issues of indirect rather than direct race discrimination. Where, however, the instruction is linked to the employee's race or national origins, that may give rise to less favourable treatment because of something intrinsically linked with their nationality, thus giving rise to a potential case of direct race discrimination (see Dziedziak).
**Discussion and Conclusions**
In hearing the Claimant's submissions before me, it is apparent that she is genuinely aggrieved that the ET did not accept her case, preferring that of the Respondent. In particular - having challenged Mr Simpson's evidence in cross-examination and in her own evidence and submissions - she is unable to see why the ET accepted his explanation for his treatment of her, specifically for his instruction for her not to speak Russian in the workplace. It was also apparent, however, that the Claimant is simply unable to accept that parts of the evidence, on which she seeks to rely, might be read in a different way or might just not support her case.
The ET had all that evidence before it, and had the benefit of hearing witnesses giving evidence under cross-examination. This is not a perversity or no-evidence appeal; those grounds were dismissed on the paper sift by Lewis J, and it is not possible for me to go behind the ET's findings of fact made on the basis of all the evidence before it. Having heard from the Claimant, I am, however, satisfied that her points were made fully and clearly before the ET. Equally, I am satisfied that it was open to the ET to reject those points, as it did.
Turning to the specific points of law raised by the appeal, the ET did not reject the Claimant's complaints on the basis that an instruction that she should not speak Russian when at work could not give rise to a complaint of direct discrimination or harassment. It did not need to make express reference to Dziedziak, because it adopted an approach that was entirely consistent with that case. There were, however, two relevant differences between the present case and that of Dziedziak. First, the present case had raised a question of actual comparison (the two Russian speaking Ukrainian colleagues), which the ET rejected on the facts. It similarly rejected any other possibility of less favourable treatment on the basis of a hypothetical comparison. Second, in this case the ET was satisfied that the Respondent had made good a non-discriminatory explanation, which meant the Claimant's claims would fail.
Looking first at the direct discrimination case, the ET considered the actual comparators relied on by the Claimant but accepted Mr Simpson's evidence, finding as a fact that he had given the same instruction that the comparators should also not speak Russian in the workplace. The Claimant takes issue with that finding, but cannot say there was no evidence to support it; that, after all, was Mr Simpson's evidence. The best she can do is to point to what she says were inconsistencies in the evidence, but those were matters explored fully before the ET and were properly matters for it. Its conclusion is not undermined.
In any event, the ET considered the question of comparison in the light of the approach required by section 23 EqA. It correctly concluded that the relevant comparator, in like circumstances, would have to be another employee speaking a language other than English in circumstances that gave Mr Simpson reasonable cause for concern. It was not suggested that there was an actual comparator in those same circumstances. Assuming a hypothetical comparator, the ET, having weighed the evidence before it, concluded that any such employee, in like circumstances, would have been treated in the same way.
The Claimant seeks to avoid that conclusion by taking issue with the ET's finding that Mr Simpson reasonably had concerns about her behaviour, but that takes her into the territory of the grounds of appeal that Lewis J did not let proceed - the generalised arguments of perversity and bias. Having allowed the Claimant some leeway on these points, I am satisfied that no point is properly raised in this regard. Having reached the findings it did (specifically at paragraphs 3, 10 and 11), the ET was entitled to conclude that Mr Simpson had reasonable grounds for concern and that any comparator who had raised similar concerns - given the environment in which the Respondent operated - would have been treated in the same way.
Perhaps the best point that might be said to arise from the Claimant's submissions is that, following Dziedziak, the ET ought to have concluded that the reference to the Claimant not speaking her native Russian should have been taken to have shifted the burden of proof. Allowing that the ET did not actually find that Mr Simpson had used that expression, even if it had, the fatal point for the Claimant's argument is that the ET went on, in any event, to consider the Respondent's explanation for his treatment. It thereby effectively shifted the burden of proof to the Respondent, and was satisfied that had discharged it: the instruction was not related to the Claimant's race or national origins but to Mr Simpon's justified concerns about her conduct in the light of the very real risks in the Respondent's business.
That is also the answer to the Claimant's harassment claim. Allowing that a reference to someone's own or native language might mean that it is related to that person's race (extending the reasoning in Dziedziak), the ET here found the Respondent had provided an alternative explanation, which it accepted. Ultimately, it was not the Claimant's race or national origin that caused Mr Simpson to give the instruction but her behaviour, given the context in which the Respondent operated and the risks it faced.
Whilst not strictly necessary for me to consider the challenge to the alternative basis on which the ET rejected the harassment claim, I do so for completeness. The ET found, in the alternative, that the conduct in issue did not have the necessary effect of violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an adverse environment for her. Accepting that the ET did not expressly refer to the evidence from the Claimant's mental health practitioner, I cannot say that that renders this alternative conclusion unsafe. That evidence did not expressly refer to the language instruction. Furthermore, the reference to the mental health practitioner was made later when other events had taken place at work (the internal processes were by then underway), not at the time of the instruction. The ET relied on the Claimant's immediate reaction to the instruction, as evidenced by her email response to Mr Simpson; it was entitled to do so, and its conclusion in this respect must also stand.
For all these reasons, I dismiss the appeal.
Published: 21/12/2015 09:52