A federal agency, tasked with ferreting out employment discrimination, recently demonstrated that it has a poor understanding of the employment relationship, and little knowledge of what it is to be an American.
Earlier this month the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit alleging that a San Diego Albertson’s supermarket engaged in discriminatory practices for enforcing its “English only” rule on employees.
“Targeting a particular language for censorship is often synonymous with targeting a particular national origin, which is both illegal and highly destructive to workplace morale and productivity,” according to the EEOC.
Six years ago the EEOC won a lawsuit over Delano Regional Medical Center’s own “English only” rule, but it was based on how the California-based facility enforced it. It targeted only Filipino employees.
“Rather than enforcing the policy with all staff, the EEOC asserted that solely Filipino-American staff was disciplined for alleged infractions and constantly monitored for enforcement of the policy,” the agency said. “Non-Filipino staff who routinely spoke languages other than English — such as Spanish — on the job were not disciplined or harassed as a result.”
There’s no such allegation in the Albertson’s lawsuit, however. There’s nothing to suggest that the rule isn’t applied equally to all employees — no matter what their national origin or primary language.
Apart from the fact that Albertson’s would be a better judge of what standards are best for its overall productivity and employee morale, the EEOC apparently has a skewered understanding of the employer-employee relationship.
When we’re offered employment, we’re expected to conform our dress, speech, grooming, and behavior according to the standards set forth by the employer. In return we’re periodically given money and may receive other benefits.
That’s a part of the employment contract in a free society. But in recent years this concept has been lost on both bureaucrats and the public at large.
Last fall, Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett compared a remark that players should stand for the national anthem to slavery.
"You're a property so you don't have the ability to be a person first," Bennett said. "I think that in this generation, that sends the wrong message to young kids and young people all across the world that your employer doesn't see you as a human being, it sees you as a piece of property."
Sports commentator Clay Travis brought Bennett’s remarks into crystal-clear focus.
“Michael Bennett is making $15.45 million to play football this year & he just compared himself to 19th century slave Dred Scott,” Travis tweeted.
Bennett isn’t the NFL’s only multimillionaire who needed his hand held. Eight years earlier, Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson said playing for the league was like “modern-day slavery.”
He added, "there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too."
The EEOC’s lawsuit also demonstrates that the agency is fully onboard with today’s emphasis on diversity at the expense of joining the American “melting pot.”
The late President Theodore Roosevelt addressed this concept nearly a century ago, stating, “we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us...”
He emphasized that while nobody should be discriminated against because of his national origin, “this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American.”
Roosevelt concluded, “We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
The rush to celebrate diversity has resulted in the degradation of the American melting pot, the concept that our nation of people from diverse backgrounds is strengthened when combined to become a homogenous unit called Americans.
Taking diversity to its extremes, many European neighborhoods have become “no-go zones,” in which migrants from predominately Muslim countries refuse to accept the language, customs, and even the laws of their host.
Three years ago, European leaders criticized then-Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for even suggesting that such areas existed within their communities.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, an early proponent of the open border policy adopted throughout much of Europe, recently confirmed their existence, leaving German lawmakers “speechless.”
“It means for example that there cannot be any no-go areas, that there cannot be areas where no-one dares to go but there are such places,” she said. “One has to call them by name and do something about it.”
Jindal also warned of the possibility of American “no-go zones” during an interview with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins.
"If they want to come here and they want to set up their own culture and values that's not immigration, that's really invasion if you're honest about it," he said.
"If we're not careful, the same no-go zones you're seeing now in Europe will come to America," Jindal added.
And the policies of the EEOC would help usher that in.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He’s also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.