Middle America's Worldview

The Federal Government continues to battle against American business. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), just another multiple branch of the Federal Government, is suing a private American business for firing Hispanic and Asian employees. The employees were let go, due to their inability to speak any English. The EEOC is suing the American company on grounds, stating the English-language requirement is discrimination.   Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. is being sued by the EEOC, by accusation of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act prohibits discrimination based on “national origin”. This should also include the “linguistic characteristics of national origin group”. Common sense should dictate a difference in an individual unable to perform their work due to not understanding the language, and having a difference in linguistic characteristic. However, the Federal Government does not rule on common sense.

“That’s ludicrous and an overreaching of government,” Irene Garcia told CNSNews.com. “If you are a private company in the United States, you should be able to require your employees to speak English.”  Irene Garcia is a blog editor and Spanish media liaison for Judicial Watch.

John C. Hendrickson, Chicago Regional Attorney for EEOC, said the Green Bay-based company’s English requirement is “superficial”.

"Our experience at the EEOC has been that so-called 'English only' rules and requirements of English fluency are often employed to make what is really discrimination appear acceptable. But superficial appearances are not fooling anyone,” Hendrickson said in the release. “When speaking English fluently is not, in fact, required for the safe and effective performance of a job, nor for the successful operation of the employer’s business, requiring employees to be fluent in English usually constitutes employment discrimination on the basis of national origin — and thus violates federal law.”

Garcia counters Hendrickson, explaining the necessity of speaking English for Wisconsin Plastics, Inc. and those employees “were not able to speak English at any kind of level that would be considered proficient.” “In this case some English is necessary to communicate with supervisors and stuff like that, and the EEOC just went after this private company because some employees were being marked down for not having English skills. So that doesn’t really make sense,” she said. This is just another example of a continued effort from Obama Administration in their use of the Federal long arm to assault American businesses. Garcia cited numerous cases in which the EEOC has accused businesses of discriminating by requiring workers to speak English, running background and criminal checks, and enforcing company-wide restrictions on head coverings, including those worn by some Muslim women.

“We’ve seen some decisions that are kind of radical that we haven’t seen in the past, under Republican or Democrat administrations,” she said, claiming the EEOC under the Obama administration is “on a roll.” “We’re seeing a lot of these kinds of law suits using his civil rights law to sue on behalf of all these different causes that I believe violate the spirit of the law,” Garcia explained. “In terms of religious and language rights under the Civil Rights Act, that’s what the administration is using to offer and extend protects when really and truly there’s no place for them [in the law],” she said

While we continue to get assaulted with a flood of children illegal immigration from the south, the Federal Government continues to assault the American citizen business from within.  

No less than 11 attorney generals from the GOP state the Obama administration is breaking the law by repeatedly making changes to Obamacare without going through Congress. The use of President Obama’s executive action is an over-reach of his powers. The attorneys general criticizes Obama, using executive action allowing insurance companies to keep offering health plans, that have been canceled for not meeting Obamacare’s more strict standards

.

The issue

 “We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action,” the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.” This healthcare fix is “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law”, they say. The seven-page letter says the President is violating both his responsibility to execute laws faithfully and the separation of powers between the branches of government.

  The Group

 The 11 attorney generals signing the letter included the states Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter . Officials point to the 1985 Heckler vs Chaney case. The Supreme Court concluded some enforcement actions of laws might be subject to judicial review first. “We are deeply concerned that this Administration is consistently rewriting new rules and effectively inventing statutory provisions to operationalize a flawed law,” the attorneys general wrote. “And the irony, of course, is that the changes being put forth to fix the disastrous exchanges will ultimately destroy the market and increase health insurance premiums for customers who played by the rules.”

  Other issues

 HHS continues to “ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers’ private information” on exchanges,” they wrote, adding that they’re concerned about the administration’s decision to “not propose and implement rigorous privacy standards for outreach personnel.” “Each of us is charged with protecting our states’ consumers,” Morrisey said. “Once a person’s private information is breached, it is very hard to ensure it is secure again. We are troubled that the Administration has not even proposed implementing criminal background checks on people who have access to sensitive private information.”

Summary

 The letter was written December 26, 2013 to HHS Kathleen Sebelius to convey concerns of illegality. The seven page letter provides the concerns, citing specific laws and regulations being broken by the Obama Administration. The “fix” placed by the Obama Administration breaks the constitutional law, while also creating a new statutory obligation or new rule. In essence, Obama is attempting to create new laws, without Congress approval, while breaking existing laws already in place. The letter then proposes commonsense safeguards on “ways to ensure protection for information”.