Fragante v. Honolulu - 888 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1989)

Rule:

An adverse employment decision may be predicated upon an individual's accent when, but only when, it interferes materially with job performance. There is nothing improper about an employer making such an honest assessment of the oral communications skills of a candidate for a job when such skills are reasonably related to job performance. EEOC Compliance Manual, CCH, para. 4035 at 3877-78 (1986).

Facts:

Manuel Fragante applied for a clerk's job with the City and County of Honolulu (Defendants). Although he placed high enough on a civil service eligible list to be chosen for the position, he was not selected because of a perceived deficiency in origin, in violation of Title VII of the relevant oral communication skills caused by his "heavy Filipino accent." Fragante brought suit, alleging that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin in violation of the Civil Rights Act. At the conclusion of a trial, the district court found that the oral ability to communicate effectively and clearly was a legitimate occupational qualification for the job in question. This finding was based on the court's understanding that an important aspect of defendant's business—for which a clerk would be responsible—involved the providing of services and assistance to the general public. The court also found that defendant's failure to hire Fragante was explained by his deficiencies in the area of oral communication, not because of his national origin. Finding no proof of a discriminatory intent or motive by the defendant, the court dismissed Fragante's complaint, and he appealed. 

Issue:

Was Fragante’s inability to communicate effectively a valid ground for finding him not qualified for the job?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the dismissal of Fragante’s complaint because defendants' failure to hire him was explained by his deficiencies in the area of oral communication and was not caused by his national origin. The court found that Fragante’s inability to communicate effectively was a valid ground for finding him not qualified and that there was no pretext of invidious discrimination.