National Origin Discrimination in California: Your Rights

Employees should not have to face unfair treatment at work because of where they or their ancestors come from, the language they speak, or their accent. Yet national origin discrimination can appear in hiring decisions, promotions, job assignments, workplace comments, and termination decisions. Some employers may also impose language restrictions that are broader than the law allows.

If you believe your employer has treated you unfairly because of your national origin, a California workplace discrimination lawyer can help you understand your rights under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). California law protects workers against discrimination based on national origin and ancestry, including certain conduct involving language and accent. Understanding these protections can help you recognize unlawful treatment and determine what steps to take.

What national origin and ancestry cover

California Government Code § 12940(a) prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees and applicants because of protected characteristics, including national origin and ancestry. These protections apply to employment decisions such as hiring, firing, compensation, promotion, training, and other terms and conditions of employment.

National origin protection is broader than the country listed on a passport. California’s employment regulations recognize characteristics associated with a national origin group, including actual or perceived birthplace, geographic origin, ethnicity, language, accent, and cultural characteristics. Protection can also extend to an employee’s association with people from a particular national origin group or a name that an employer associates with that group.

For example, an employer may violate the law by rejecting a qualified applicant because the applicant’s surname sounds foreign, denying an employee a promotion because of their ancestry, or treating a worker differently because of their perceived national background. The employee does not necessarily have to be from the group the employer assumes they belong to. Discrimination based on a mistaken perception can also raise legal concerns.

These protections do not prevent employers from applying legitimate, job-related standards. Employers may evaluate qualifications, experience, and skills, but those criteria cannot be used as a pretext for national origin discrimination. The circumstances and evidence determine whether a decision was lawful.

Accent and language discrimination

An accent does not automatically indicate that an employee cannot perform a job effectively. Under California and federal employment discrimination principles, an employer may consider communication ability when it is genuinely relevant to the position, but it cannot use an employee’s accent as a blanket reason for unfavorable treatment.

For example, an employer may have legitimate grounds to assess spoken communication skills for a position requiring frequent, detailed communication with customers. However, rejecting an applicant for a warehouse position because of an accent may be difficult to justify if the role requires little spoken communication and the applicant meets the actual job requirements. The question is whether the accent materially interferes with necessary job performance, not whether the employer or a customer simply prefers a different accent.

Language requirements should likewise relate to the duties being performed. A position involving technical writing in English may reasonably require strong written English skills. That does not mean every employee must demonstrate the same level of English proficiency regardless of their responsibilities. Requirements that exceed genuine job needs may raise concerns, especially when they disproportionately disadvantage employees from particular national origin groups.

An employer also cannot automatically justify discrimination by pointing to customer preferences. If customers object to an employee because of their accent or perceived ancestry, the employer should not simply remove that employee to satisfy a discriminatory preference.

English-only rules: when they are allowed

California Government Code § 12951 restricts workplace policies that limit or prohibit the use of languages other than English. An employer may adopt such a restriction only when it is justified by business necessity and employees are informed of the circumstances and times when the restriction applies, along with the consequences of violating it.

Business necessity requires more than a general preference for English. The restriction must serve an overriding legitimate purpose, be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business, and effectively achieve that purpose. The law also considers whether an alternative practice could achieve the same objective with less discriminatory impact. California Code of Regulations, title 2, § 11028, provides additional requirements, including that the restriction be narrowly tailored.

A limited rule requiring employees to use a common language during a safety-critical emergency may be justified. A rule requiring English during specific customer interactions may also be defensible when necessary for communication with customers who speak only English. By contrast, a blanket rule prohibiting employees from speaking another language during breaks or casual conversations may be difficult to justify without a valid business necessity.

Employers must also apply language policies consistently and without discrimination. A company that prohibits Spanish while permitting employees to speak other non-English languages may raise concerns about unequal treatment. Even a policy that serves a legitimate purpose can become unlawful if it is enforced more harshly against employees of a particular national origin.

Employees who are disciplined under an English-only rule should request the written policy and identify when and how it was enforced. The wording, business justification, scope, and actual enforcement may all matter when assessing whether the restriction complies with California law.

Comments, slurs and unequal assignments

National origin discrimination can also involve hostile remarks, ethnic slurs, mocking an accent, stereotypes about a particular country, or repeated comments about an employee’s culture. A supervisor might suggest that an employee is less trustworthy because of their ancestry or ridicule how they pronounce certain words. Such behavior may contribute to unlawful harassment, depending on its severity, frequency, and circumstances.

FEHA prohibits harassment based on national origin and ancestry. A hostile work environment may arise when unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic is sufficiently severe or pervasive under the applicable legal standard. Not every offensive comment automatically meets that threshold, but employees should not dismiss repeated discriminatory behavior simply because it is presented as humor or workplace banter.

Unequal assignments and opportunities can also be relevant. An employer may consistently assign customer-facing work to employees from one national origin group while keeping others in less visible roles, deny training opportunities to workers with certain accents, or apply stricter discipline to employees associated with a particular ancestry. A pattern of decisions may provide important context when the employer offers a different explanation for its actions.

Retaliation is a separate concern. Government Code § 12940(h) generally prohibits covered employers from retaliating against employees for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA or participating in a protected complaint process. If an employee reports national origin discrimination and then experiences punishment, demotion, or termination because of that report, the later action may raise an additional legal issue.

Proving and reporting the bias

Evidence can help establish whether workplace treatment was connected to national origin or ancestry. Preserve emails, text messages, written warnings, performance reviews, job descriptions, promotion records, and relevant company policies. If a supervisor makes a discriminatory remark, write down the date, the words used as accurately as possible, the location, and the names of anyone who witnessed it.

Look for patterns in how decisions are made. For example, compare the employer’s stated reason for denying a promotion with your qualifications and performance history. If similarly qualified employees from other national origin groups received different treatment, that comparison may be relevant. You should use only records you are authorized to access and avoid taking confidential company information unlawfully.

You may report the conduct through an internal process, such as human resources, but an internal complaint does not necessarily preserve your right to file an administrative claim. If you raise concerns internally, keep a copy of your complaint and any response, along with records of changes in treatment afterward.

For a broader overview of California workplace protections, review our California employment law resource. An attorney can help identify which facts are legally relevant, assess whether the conduct may amount to discrimination or harassment, and determine whether additional claims should be considered.

Filing with the CRD

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) is the state agency responsible for handling employment discrimination complaints under FEHA. A person who believes they experienced national origin discrimination generally must file an administrative complaint within three years of the alleged unlawful practice, subject to the rules and exceptions that may apply to the particular case.

The process typically involves submitting information about the employer, the events, the dates, and the conduct believed to be discriminatory. The CRD may assess the complaint and explain the available procedures, which can include investigation or other resolution steps. In some circumstances, a person may request a right-to-sue notice and pursue a civil lawsuit, but the timing and consequences of that choice should be understood before proceeding.

Federal law may also provide protections through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The filing deadlines and procedures can differ depending on the law and the circumstances. Do not assume that an internal grievance, ongoing negotiations, or an employer investigation automatically pauses the time limit for an administrative complaint or lawsuit.

To learn more about the state and federal administrative process, visit our California CRD and EEOC claims page. Preparing a clear timeline and organizing relevant documents before filing can help you describe the conduct accurately and identify the records that may support your complaint.

About Attorney Milan Chatterjee

Milan Chatterjee is an attorney licensed in California and Nevada and the founder of Best Employment Attorney, the dedicated employment law practice of Milan Legal. He represents employees and employers in disputes involving harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, wage claims, employment contracts, severance agreements, and related employment matters.

Milan earned his Juris Doctor from UCLA School of Law and studied at NYU School of Law as a visiting student. Before founding his practice, he served as Associate Compliance Counsel at Las Vegas Sands Corporation, advising on employment compliance, workplace investigations, corporate governance, workforce restructuring, and risk management.

Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about California employment law and is not legal advice. Whether workplace conduct constitutes national origin discrimination depends on the facts, applicable law, and filing requirements. Consult a qualified attorney about your specific circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

National origin discrimination in California can involve more than an explicit refusal to hire someone because of where they come from. Accent bias, ancestry-based comments, unequal assignments, discriminatory language requirements, and retaliation after a complaint may all warrant review under FEHA. English-only policies are not automatically unlawful, but they must meet California’s business-necessity and notice requirements.

If you believe national origin or ancestry has affected your treatment at work, preserve relevant evidence and consider obtaining legal advice before important deadlines pass. Understanding your rights can help you evaluate whether to pursue an internal complaint, file with the CRD, or explore other available legal options.