MG 413
September 28, 2015
Chapter 6

Case 1 1. I think that it is self-evident that denying someone that right to speak in the native tongue denies them the right to cultural expression. First, private employers are not bound by the First Amendment, so the concepts of freedom of expression simply don't apply to them. They can openly hinder speech of any kind except speech specifically denouncing the employer's acts of discrimination which can be a violation of retaliation laws. Even government employers are not bound fully by the First Amendment if that speech calls into question their ability to the job or if, by virtue of complaints about misuse of the ability to speak another language, you create subclasses within a workplace that purposefully create barriers to open communication, something that is a legitimate requirement for the function of business.

2. Usually, Employers are typically permitted to implement and enforce company policy as long as it does not have the effect or is motivated by an intent to discriminate against employees on the basis of their race, national origin, or other protected status. Therefore, employers would normally have the discretion to prohibit the display of flags for example, as long as all flags were prohibited. Likewise, they may limit the type of clothing that employee’s wear through a dress code, which may have the effect of restricting ethnic expression, but would not normally be a violation of law as long as it is applied consistently for all employees.
Wearing culturally specific styles may on the other end enhance one's chances of being stereotyped. But in being true to one's religious or ethnic identity by wearing certain hairstyles, clothing, and jewelry, many people both deliberately and involuntarily also serve as educators. For me, it is one of the many ways to attempt to build bridges between people,