ProEnglish backgrounders


Action Urge Congress to defend English Model official English statute Donate Current Legislation State Profiles Issues Official English Bilingual Education English on the Job Citizenship and Immigration Bilingual Ballots Puerto Rican Statehood Ending E.O. 13166, the "Multilingual Mandate" Contact us: 1601 N. Kent St. Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209 ph: (703) 816-8821		EEOC Abuses Its Power Overzealous prosecutors use deception in order to squelch English-on-the job policy The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against the owners of RD’s Drive-In Restaurant in Page, Arizona, Richard and Shauna Kidman, on September 27, 2002. The lawsuit was filed to force the Kidmans to rescind their legal English-on-the-job rule. On September 14, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen McNamee ruled in favor of an EEOC motion that if upheld on appeal, will require the Kidmans to settle the lawsuit on terms they negotiated but never agreed to. The Kidmans have appealed the decision. But the Judge’s order also exposed the deceptive and unethical conduct that has characterized the EEOC’s conduct in this case almost from the beginning. The Judge found that EEOC lawyers altered the terms of the settlement agreement without the Kidman’s consent to prior to finalizing the documents in order to win a more favorable outcome for the government. And EEOC lawyers deliberately withheld the final settlement documents in order to force the Kidman’s into signing the altered agreement at the last minute. In the order, Judge McNamee reprimanded the EEOC’s deliberate and repeated attempts to deceive or bully the Kidman’s into settling the case on unfavorable terms. His order said: “The EEOC, on more than one occasion, attempted to put terms into the agreement that clearly were not agreed to.” “It is clear from the documents and witnesses before the Court that certain terms were clearly negotiated out of the settlement agreement, only to be reinserted by the EEOC.” If counsel for the EEOC had not continually reinserted terms that were specifically negotiated out of the agreement, the parties would likely have concluded this matter in a manner favorable to both parties.” Judge McNamee added: “It is equally likely that the EEOC delayed sending the [settlement] documents as a strategic move to disadvantage [defendant’s attorney].” We believe the EEOC’s conduct in this case rises to the level of abuse. The Kidmans have endured years of bullying, media persecution, and finally deception at the hands of EEOC lawyers who care more about their ideological agenda than about truth, fairness, and respect for the rights of the employers they target. Unfortunately, the Kidmans’ case is characteristic of the EEOC’s conduct in similar cases involving an employer’s right to choose the language of their workplace. It is time for Congress to exercise its oversight responsibility and hold the EEOC accountable for its actions.