Discrimination & Harassment

National Origin

Illegal national origin discrimination means treating a job applicant or employee unfavorably because that individual is from a particular country or because of the individual’s ethnicity and/or accent. Some examples of illegal national origin discrimination include discrimination because of:

  • marriage to, or association with, persons of a particular national origin;
  • membership in, or association with, ethnic groups;
  • attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples or mosques generally associated with a particular national origin; and
  • having a family name associated with a particular national origin.

The discriminator or harasser might be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee, such as a client or customer.

National origin discrimination can take many forms, including: refusing to hire individuals based on their nationality or because they have an accent; requiring non-Caucasian employees to provide additional identification or background documents authorizing them to work in the U.S.; discriminating against certain ethnic groups in terms of job assignments or compensation; and segregating or terminating certain employees based on alleged “customer preference” against certain ethnicities.

English-Only Policies

A rule requiring employees to speak only English at all times on the job may violate the law unless an employer shows it is necessary for conducting business. If an employer believes the English-only rule is critical for business purposes, it must inform employees when they must speak English and the consequences of violating the rule. Any negative employment decision based on breaking an English-only rule may be considered evidence of illegal national origin discrimination if the employer did not inform employees of the rule.

Retaliation

Federal and state laws prohibit employers from firing, demoting, harassing, or otherwise retaliating against an employee who complains about national origin discrimination. Complaining could mean, for instance, speaking to a superior, filing a complaint with Human Resources, filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, participating in a related legal proceeding, or any other type of conduct opposing discrimination. Even if the employee is wrong and the conduct is not illegal, the employee may be protected from retaliation if the complaint is based on a good-faith belief that discrimination occurred.

A retaliation claim is separate from a national origin discrimination claim. In other words, an employee need not prove that he or she was discriminated against in order to prove retaliation.

Individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination because of their race, heritage, ethnicity or national origin will find sensitive, skilled attorneys at Outten & Golden who are committed to advocating for victims of national origin discrimination. Please keep in mind that most employment laws have short time limits for filing claims and, as a result, it is best to seek legal advice as soon as you can.

Contact National Origin Discrimination Lawyers

If you believe you have been subjected to national origin discrimination or retaliation, please contact the firm through the ”Contact Us" form or by calling us in the New York, Chicago, San Francisco, or Washington, DC office (see bottom of page for phone numbers) to begin the Outten & Golden intake process.

Related Cases

Target Criminal Background Check Discrimination

Status:
Active
Updated:

On April 5, 2018, Outten & Golden LLP along with our co-counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., filed a disparate impact class action lawsuit Target Corp. in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The case, Times v. Target Corp., was brought by Plaintiffs...

Wells Fargo Lending Discrimination Lawsuit

Status:
Active
Updated:

Outten & Golden LLP and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) have filed a nationwide civil rights class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo on behalf of six individual plaintiffs with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status and an organizational plaintiff,...

News

Wells Fargo Denies DACA Recipients Auto Loans, Lawsuit Alleges

Jalopnik - Alanis King

A lawsuit seeking class-action status filed in San Francisco federal court alleges that Wells Fargo denies auto loans to non-U.S. citizens who would otherwise qualify, according to a new story from the San Francisco Chronicle. The lawsuit is specifically about people here under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which provides immigrants who came to the U.S. before age 16 with temporary deportation protection, an authorization to work, and the ability to apply for a social-security number. 

The Chronicle reports that the lawsuit alleges discrimination of DACA...

“Soñador” demanda a Wells Fargo por supuestamente discriminarlo en préstamo

Hoy Los Angeles - Efe

Un inmigrante mexicano, amparado por el programa de Acción Diferida (DACA), demandó a la entidad financiera Wells Fargo por supuestamente negarle un préstamo basándose en su estatus migratorio, informaron este jueves sus abogados.

En la demanda presentada en un tribunal de San Francisco, Eduardo Peña alega que el banco lo discriminó por su estatus migratorio cuando le negó un préstamo de automóvil en noviembre pasado, a pesar de contar con un buen reporte de crédito, empleo y estar amparado por el programa DACA desde 2012.

La abogada de Peña, Rachel Dempsey, explicó a Efe que “el programa...

Wells Fargo Denies Auto Loans To DACA Residents, Suit Says

Law360 - Dave Simpson

An Illinois man hit Wells Fargo Bank NA with a proposed discrimination class action in California federal court Tuesday, claiming the bank denies auto loan applications from U.S. residents who hold Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status simply based on their immigration status.

Eduardo Peña said the bank committed alienage discrimination against him and a large number of the 800,000 DACA-status individuals who are financially stable by categorically rejecting their car loan applications because they are not U.S. citizens, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Further, he claims...