Language at work




Setting rules about language at work can lead to indirect race discrimination. However, the EHRC guidance recognises that there is often a good business case for a common language at work “to avoid misunderstandings, whether legal, financial or in relation to health and safety. It is also conducive to good working relations to avoid excluding workers from conversations that might concern them”. Imposing a language requirement outside working hours, for example, during social events, rest breaks, or casual conversations with colleagues, could well be discriminatory and would be hard to justify. “Blanket rules” may not be objectively justifiable, warns the EHRC. 





There is also a danger of harassment at work linked with language. In Dziedziak v Future Electronics Limited [2012] UKEAT/0270/11/ZT, the EAT ruled that a manager’s instruction to the claimant “not to speak in her own language” (Polish) was a detriment and direct race discrimination. These cases are always fact sensitive. For example, in Kelly v Covance Laboratories Limited [2015] UKEAT/0186/15/LA, the employer did not discriminate by insisting that a Russian lab worker spoke only English at work, due to genuine concerns that she might be an animal rights activist.




An employer who imposes a language rule at work must show that they considered other less discriminatory ways of achieving their desired aim, such as language training. Some multilingual workers may be willing to interpret for others, for example, in grievance meetings. Multilingual signage as well as training on policies such as equality, bullying and harassment, health and safety are also important.




Setting rules about the language standard needed for a role can indirectly discriminate against non-English speakers and the employer must be able to show that the requirement is necessary for the satisfactory performance of the role. For example, insisting on very good spoken English is more likely to be objectively justifiable for a customer-facing role than for a production line job that needs only basic spoken English.



In March 2017, the High Court rejected a challenge by private hire firm Uber that it was indirectly discriminatory for Transport for London to require all private hire vehicle drivers in London to hold a Level B1 English Certificate which tests “the ability to express oneself in a limited way in familiar situations and to deal in a general way with non-routine information”. The court ruled that the requirement was lawful and proportionate.



Insisting on excellent spoken English can discriminate against some disabled workers, such as some deaf people. Employers owe a duty to make reasonable adjustments, for example ensuring information is provided in accessible formats. 





There are special rules in Wales, where public bodies providing services to the public must make their services available in Welsh as well as in English. As a statutory exception to the EA 10, a wide range of public bodies can insist that job applicants can speak, read and write Welsh to the standard needed for the post (Welsh Language Act 1993).



Since November 2016, there is a statutory duty on public bodies to ensure that anyone in a “customer-facing” role, including as an agency worker, independent contractor or an apprentice, can speak “fluent English”. A role is “customer-facing” if a regular and intrinsic part of the role requires speaking to members of the public in English (or Welsh in Wales). “Fluent”, is defined as having a sufficient command of spoken English to effectively perform the role. There are no plans to introduce formal fluency testing. There is a statutory Code of Practice. The duty is found in the Immigration Act 2016.
 The TUC resisted this change, arguing that it was much better to support workplace English language classes. There are concerns that the new rules will contribute to harassment at work.