If you faced discrimination, harassment, retaliation, unpaid wages, wrongful termination, leave denial, or a refused disability accommodation, you may have claims. Whether your facts support a case depends on the evidence, deadlines, and applicable law—we evaluate that in consultation.

How much does it cost?

Initial consultations are typically free. If we take the matter, fees are usually explained in a written agreement before you hire us. Many employment cases are handled on contingency (see below).

Do you work on contingency?

In many employment matters, yes—attorney fees may be collected only if there is a recovery, subject to a signed fee agreement. Costs and fee arrangements can vary by case type; we confirm the terms up front.

How long will my case take?

Some matters resolve in months; contested lawsuits can take a year or longer through discovery, mediation, arbitration, or trial. Timing depends on the claims, court or arbitrator calendars, and whether the other side fights. See how long employment lawsuits take .

Bring or upload what you have: a short timeline, pay stubs or time records, emails and texts, write-ups or reviews, medical or leave paperwork, and the names of witnesses or managers. See our documentation guide .

Yes—initial consultations are typically free and confidential. Contacting us does not create an attorney–client relationship until there is a signed written agreement.

What happens after I contact you?

Our intake team reviews what you send, follows up if we need more detail, and screens deadlines and claim types. If the matter may be a fit, we schedule a consultation to discuss options, risks, and next steps—or we let you know promptly if we cannot help.

Firm Home · Legal Resources · Legal Blog

Terminated for Speaking Spanish or Because You Cannot Speak English in California

October 26, 2026 · Discrimination

General education for California employees—not legal advice. Your facts and deadlines control. This is not a Workplace Rights Advocacy case result.

The short answer

California treats these as two related problems, and they are not the same claim. Both are analyzed as national origin discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). At-will employment does not make either firing lawful.

Speaking Spanish (or any language other than English) at work is protected unless the employer has a language restriction that meets two conditions: it is justified by business necessity, and the employer has told employees when the restriction applies and the consequences of violating it. An English-only rule is never lawful on breaks, lunch, or other non-work time. A customer’s preference, a coworker’s annoyance, or simple convenience is not business necessity.

Being fired because you cannot speak English, or do not speak it well enough for the employer’s liking, is unlawful unless the type and degree of English required is actually necessary to do that specific job. A blanket English rule for work that can be performed without that fluency can itself be national-origin discrimination.

Fired for speaking Spanish

Government Code § 12951 makes it an unlawful employment practice for a covered employer to adopt or enforce a policy that limits or prohibits the use of any language in any workplace unless both of these are true:

The language restriction is justified by a business necessity.
The employer has notified employees of the circumstances and the time when the restriction must be observed, and of the consequences for violating it.

The statute is not limited to Spanish. It covers any language restriction, including an English-only rule. A firing, write-up, suspension, or demotion for speaking Spanish can be unlawful when there is no valid restriction, when nobody explained the restriction, or when it is enforced against some workers and not others. The same analysis applies when a supervisor says “speak English or you’re fired” without a rule the statute allows.

Section 12951 uses FEHA’s definition of employer. For this kind of discrimination, that generally means a private employer that regularly employs five or more people, and it includes the State and local public employers. Harassment, discussed below, can reach smaller workplaces.

What “business necessity” means

Business necessity is a defined term. Under § 12951, it means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the restriction is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business, the restriction effectively fulfills that purpose, and there is no alternative that would accomplish the purpose equally well with a lesser discriminatory impact.

The Civil Rights Department’s regulation, 2 CCR § 11028, adds practical limits. The restriction must be narrowly tailored, and the employer must have effectively notified employees of when it applies and what happens if they violate it. The regulation states that it is not enough for the rule to promote business convenience or to reflect customer or coworker preference.

A safety briefing, a conversation with a customer who speaks only English, or a task that cannot be done safely in another language can be the kind of purpose the statute describes. A rule that everyone must speak English all day, with no tie to a specific task, usually is not. Whether a particular workplace meets the test depends on the job and the proof—not on the label in the handbook.

Older federal cases about bilingual employees and English-only rules do not set this test. A California policy still has to satisfy Government Code § 12951 and 2 CCR § 11028.

English-only rules on breaks and lunch

Section 11028 states that English-only rules are never lawful during non-work time, including breaks, lunch, and unpaid employer-sponsored events. Discipline for speaking Spanish in the break room, on an unpaid lunch, or at an after-hours event the employer did not pay for is not saved by a business-necessity argument. Work time and non-work time are different questions.

Fired because you cannot speak English

Section 11028(c) makes discrimination based on English proficiency unlawful unless the requirement is justified by business necessity. The level of proficiency has to be necessary to effectively fulfill the job duties. Relevant factors include the type of proficiency (spoken, written, listening, or reading), how much proficiency is required, and what the job actually consists of.

A dishwasher, farmworker, cleaner, or production employee fired only because they cannot speak English may have a claim when those duties do not require that fluency. A job that truly depends on spoken English—taking customer orders, giving safety directions, or supervising people who must receive those directions in English—can support a requirement if the employer can tie the type and degree of English to those duties. Preferring English speakers, without that tie to the work, is not the showing the regulation describes.

An employer may ask whether someone can speak, read, or write a language, including English, when the question is justified by business necessity. A language question that has nothing to do with the job is a different problem.

Accent is a separate issue

Speaking English with an accent is not the same as being unable to speak English. Discrimination based on accent is unlawful unless the employer proves the accent materially interferes with the ability to do the job. Mocking an accent, or firing someone whose accent does not get in the way of the work, can be national-origin discrimination even when the person is fluent.

Harassment, threats, and retaliation

A language rule is one claim. How people are treated is another. Slurs, mockery, or a hostile campaign about Spanish, accent, or national origin can be harassment. FEHA’s harassment rules can apply even when the workplace is smaller than the five-employee line that applies to many discrimination claims.

Punishment for opposing that conduct—complaining to a supervisor, to human resources, or to the Civil Rights Department—can be retaliation. Section 11028 also treats threatening to contact immigration authorities, or actually contacting them, because a person opposed national-origin discrimination or harassment, as retaliation. That includes threats aimed at a family member.

Immigration status does not erase these workplace protections. The California Supreme Court has held that FEHA applies regardless of immigration status, while recognizing that status can limit the remedies available in some cases. Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 407. That is a separate question from whether the firing was lawful.

What to keep

Any handbook page, posting, or message that states an English-only rule, and whether anyone explained when it applied.
The write-up, termination notice, or text that states the reason you were fired.
Whether the Spanish, or the order to stop speaking it, happened on a break, at lunch, or during the work itself.
A short description of the job you actually performed, not only the job title.
Coworkers who spoke Spanish, or who did not speak English, and were not disciplined.
Witnesses, texts, emails, and any complaint you made—and what happened after you complained.

Our documentation guide covers what is useful to gather before a consultation.

Deadlines

A FEHA complaint with the California Civil Rights Department is generally due within three years of the unlawful practice. A later lawsuit has its own deadline after a right-to-sue notice. Federal charges with the EEOC use different windows. Accrual dates, continuing violations, and public employment can change the clock. The statute-of-limitations guide and the post on filing with the CRD before you sue explain the tracks. This page is not a deadline calculation for any particular firing.

← All blog posts