Maldonado v. City of Altus, OK.

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
January 11, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT

DANNY V. MALDONADO; RUBEN
D. RIOS; DANNY ALCORTA;
HENRY O’FLORIAN MARTINEZ;
TOMMY R. SANCHEZ; LLOYD
LOPEZ; CARLOS RAMIREZ;
ADRIAN B. ALONZO; LINDA
MUTCHLER; FRANK
MALDONADO; FREDDIE PEREZ,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. No. 04-6062
CITY OF ALTUS, OKLAHOMA, a
municipal corporation; MICHAEL
NETTLES, Administrator, in his
individual and official capacities;
HOLMES WILLIS, Street
Commissioner, in his individual and
official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees,

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF OKLAHOMA
FOUNDATION; EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

Amici-Curie.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. NO. 03-CV-336-R)
Mark E. Hammons (Tamara L. Gowens, with him on the brief) of Hammons &
Associates, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs - Appellants.

Margaret McMorrow-Love, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (David W. Kirk of Lytle,
Soule & Curlee, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with her on the brief), for
Defendants - Appellees, City of Altus, Oklahoma, and Michael Nettles.

Ambre Camille Gooch (David W. Lee with her on the brief), of Comingdeer, Lee
& Gooch, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant - Appellee, Holmes Willis.

Tina L. Izadi, American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Anne Noel Occhialinio (Eric S. Dreiband, General
Counsel; Vincent J. Blackwood, Acting Associate General Counsel; Carolyn L.
Wheeler, Assistant General Counsel, with her on the brief), Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

Before SEYMOUR and HARTZ, Circuit Judges, and BRACK, District Judge. *

HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus, Oklahoma (City). They

appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing all their claims

against the City, the City Administrator, and the Street Commissioner

(collectively referred to as Defendants). All claims arise out of the City’s

English-only policy for its employees. Asserting claims of both disparate-impact

*
The Honorable Robert C. Brack, United States District Judge for the
District of New Mexico, sitting by designation.

-2-
and disparate-treatment, Plaintiffs contend that the English-only policy

discriminates against them on the basis of race and national origin in violation of

Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d–2000e.

They also claim intentional discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

42 U.S.C. § 1981. Finally, Plaintiffs bring claims under the Civil Rights Act of

1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the policy deprives them of equal protection

and freedom of speech. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation each filed

amicus briefs in support of Plaintiffs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We reverse and remand with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims against the City

alleging disparate impact and disparate treatment under Title VII; intentional

discrimination under § 1981; and violation of equal protection under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. We affirm summary judgment for Defendants on all other claims.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs’ claims stem from the City’s promulgation of an English-only

policy. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic, the only significant

national-origin minority group affected by the policy. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic

and bilingual, each speaking fluent English and Spanish.

-3-
 In the spring of 2002 the City’s Street Commissioner, Defendant Holmes

Willis, received a complaint that because Street Department employees were

speaking Spanish, other employees could not understand what was being said on

the City radio. Willis informed the City’s Human Resources Director, Candy

Richardson, of the complaint, and she advised Willis that he could direct his

employees to speak only English when using the radio for City business.

Plaintiffs claim that Willis instead told the Street Department employees

that they could not speak Spanish at work at all and informed them that the City

would soon implement an official English-only policy. On June 18, 2002,

Plaintiff Tommy Sanchez wrote a letter to Ms. Richardson and the City

Administrator, Defendant Michael Nettles, expressing concerns about the new

Street Department English-only policy and the proposed citywide policy. Sanchez

was particularly concerned that his subordinates, Plaintiffs Ruben Rios and Lloyd

Lopez, had been told of a policy that he knew nothing about. Citing the City’s

Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, the letter informed Nettles that

employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative

policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures

in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that

the reason Hispanics speak Spanish “is because [of] . . . insecurities,” Ex. H, R.

Vol. II at 521, and that Willis had suggested that he (Sanchez) “would feel

-4-
uncomfortable if another race would speak their native language in front of

[him],” id. The letter requested that “the City of Altus understand that we

Hispanics are proud of our heritage and do not feel that our ability to

communicate in a bilingual manner is a hindrance or an embarrassment. There

has never been a time that because I spoke Spanish to another Spanish speaking

individual, I was unable to perform our job duties and requirements.” Id. at 523.

At the end of the letter Rios and Lopez signed a paragraph stating that “[t]he

purpose of this correspondence is to serve as a discrimination complaint in

accordance with the City of Altus Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual

Section 102, in which we are requesting that an investigation be conducted into

these charges and that a report be issue[d] within two weeks.” Id. Another

employee (Leticia Sanchez) also complained orally to Richardson about Willis’s

instructing employees not to speak Spanish in any circumstances during work

hours.

In July 2002 the City promulgated the following official policy signed by

Nettles:

To insure effective communications among and between employees
and various departments of the City, to prevent misunderstandings
and to promote and enhance safe work practices, all work related and
business communications during the work day shall be conducted in
the English language with the exception of those circumstances
where it is necessary or prudent to communicate with a citizen,
business owner, organization or criminal suspect in his or her native
language due to the person or entity’s limited English language

-5-
 skills. The use of the English language during work hours and while
engaged in City business includes face to face communication of
work orders and directions as well as communications utilizing
telephones, mobile telephones, cellular telephones, radios, computer
or e-mail transmissions and all written forms of communications. If
an employee or applicant for employment believes that he or she
cannot understand communications due to limited English language
skills, the employee is to discuss the situation with the department
head and the Human Resources Director to determine what
accommodation is required and feasible. This policy does not apply
to strictly private communications between co-workers while they are
on approved lunch hours or breaks or before or after work hours
while the employees are still on City property if City property is not
being used for the communication. Further, this policy does not
apply to strictly private communication between an employee and a
family member so long as the communications are limited in time and
are not disruptive to the work environment. Employees are
encouraged to be sensitive to the feelings of their fellow employees,
including a possible feeling of exclusion if a co-worker cannot
understand what is being said in his or her presence when a language
other than English is being utilized.

Pls.’ Ex. L., R. Vol. II at 560-61 (emphasis added).

Defendants state three primary reasons for adopting the policy:

1) workers and supervisors could not understand what was being said
over the City’s radios . . . ; 2) non-Spanish speaking employees, both
before and after the adoption of the Policy, informed management
that they felt uncomfortable when their co-workers were speaking in
front of them in a language they could not understand because they
did not know if their co-workers were speaking about them; and 3)
there were safety concerns with a non-common language being used
around heavy equipment.

City/Nettles Br. at 42. Although the district court observed “that there was no

written record of any communication problems, morale problems or safety

problems resulting from the use of languages other than English prior to

-6-
implementation of the policy,” Dist. Ct. Order at 6, R. Vol. III at 875, it noted

that Willis had testified that at least one employee complained about the use of

Spanish by his co-workers before implementation of the policy and other non-

Spanish speaking employees subsequently made similar complaints. Those city

officials who were deposed could recount no incidents of safety problems caused

by the use of a language other than English, but the district court found that some

Plaintiffs were aware “that employee safety was one reason for the adoption of

the policy.” Id. at 7. The court also stated that “it does not seem necessary that

the City await an accident before acting.” Id. at 18 n.20.

Defendants offered evidence that the restrictions in the written policy were

actually relaxed to allow workers to speak Spanish during work hours and on City

property if everyone present understood Spanish. But Plaintiffs offered evidence

that employees were told that the restrictions went beyond the written policy and

prohibited all use of Spanish if a non-Spanish speaker was present, even during

breaks, lunch hours, and private telephone conversations. Plaintiff Lloyd Lopez

stated in his deposition that “we were told that the only time we could speak

Spanish is when two of us are in a break room by ourselves, and if anybody other

than Hispanic comes in, we are to change our language.” R. Vol. II at 631. In

addition he said, “We no longer can speak about anything in general in Spanish

around anybody. Even if we were on the phone talking to our wives and we were

-7-
having a private conversation with them and somebody happened to walk by, we

were to change our language because it would offend whoever was walking by.”

Id. Lopez understood, however, that the policy permitted him to speak Spanish if

he was alone in a truck with another Spanish-speaking co-worker. Plaintiff

Ruben Rios testified in his deposition that he similarly understood the policy to

exclude the use of Spanish during breaks and the lunch hour if non-Hispanic co-

workers were present. When asked specifically whether he understood that the

policy allowed Spanish to be spoken between co-workers during lunch or other

breaks, he stated that “[a]s long as there was another Hispanic person, we could

speak in Spanish but away from other individuals, non-Hispanic people.” R. Vol.

III at 805-06. And Plaintiff Tommy Sanchez testified that he was told that he

could not speak Spanish at all, but added that Richardson explained to him that

“[t]hat’s not the way [the City] meant it.” R. Vol. I at 127. The City has not

disciplined anyone for violating the English-only policy.

Plaintiffs allege that the policy created a hostile environment for Hispanic

employees, causing them “fear and uncertainty in their employment,” R. Vol. II at

456-57, and subjecting them to racial and ethnic taunting. They contend “that the

English-only rule created a hostile environment because it pervasively–every hour

of every work day–burdened, threatened and demeaned the [Plaintiffs] because of

their Hispanic origin.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 47. Plaintiffs each stated in their

-8-
affidavits:

The English-only policy affects my work environment every day. It
reminds me every day that I am second-class and subject to rules for
my employment that the Anglo employees are not subject to. I feel
that this rule is hanging over my head and can be used against me at
any point when the City wants to have something to write me [up]
for.

R. Vol. II at 668-75, 677.

Evidence of ethnic taunting included Plaintiffs’ affidavits stating that they

had “personally been teased and made the subject of jokes directly because of the

English-only policy[,]” and that they were “aware of other Hispanic co-workers

being teased and made the subject of jokes because of the English-only policy.”

Id. Plaintiff Tommy Sanchez testified in his deposition that each time he went to

the City of Altus he was reminded of the restrictions on his speech by non-

Hispanic employees. He stated that these other employees of the City of Altus

“would pull up and laugh, start saying stuff in Spanish to us and said, ‘They

didn’t tell us we couldn’t stop. They just told you.’” Id. at 660. Sanchez also

testified that an Altus police officer taunted him about not being allowed to speak

Spanish by saying, “‘Don’t let me hear you talk Spanish.’” Id. He further

testified that “some of the guys from the street department would . . . poke fun out

of it [the policy]” id., and that when he went to other departments “they would

bring it up constantly,” id. As evidence that such taunting was not unexpected by

management, Lloyd Lopez recounted in his deposition that Street Commissioner

-9-
Willis told Ruben Rios and him that he was informing them of the English-only

policy in private because Willis had concerns about “the other guys making fun of

[them].” R. Vol. II at 627. Plaintiffs also provided evidence that Mayor

Gramling was “quoted in a newspaper article as referring to the Spanish language

as ‘garbage,’” id. at 621, although the Mayor claims that he used the word garble

and was misquoted.

B. EEOC Proceedings

Each Plaintiff filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, complaining

that the English-only policy constituted national-origin discrimination. Plaintiffs

Danny Maldonado and Tommy Sanchez also alleged retaliation in their charges,

and Danny Maldonado and Freddie Perez claimed that they had been subjected to

“harassment and intimidation resulting in a hostile work environment.” R. Vol. II

at 365, 367.

After an investigation the EEOC determined that the City “ha[d] committed

a per se violation of [Title VII] with respect to the establishment of its overly

broad and discriminatory English-only policy.” R. Vol. II at 563, 567, 569, 572,

575. The EEOC attempted to resolve the dispute informally, but these efforts

were unsuccessful. Each Plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter and this litigation

commenced. Defendants do not claim that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust

administrative remedies.

-10-
 C. Court Proceedings

In district court Plaintiffs brought (1) disparate-treatment, disparate-impact,

and retaliation claims under Title VII, raising a hostile-work-environment theory

as part of their disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims; (2) disparate-

treatment and disparate-impact claims under Title VI; (3) equal-protection and

First Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) intentional

discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims.

II. DISCUSSION

“We review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment,

and we apply the same legal standard [to be] employed by the district court

[under] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).” O’Shea v. Yellow Tech. Servs.,

Inc., 185 F.3d 1093, 1096 (10th Cir. 1999). “If . . . review of ‘the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any,’ reveals ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact[,] . . .

the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.’” McCowan

v. All Star Maint., Inc., 273 F.3d 917, 921 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c)). “In reviewing such dispositions, this court repeatedly has emphasized

that we must draw all inferences in favor of the party opposing summary

judgment[,] [and] [i]n this respect, we must view the evidence in context, not

-11-
simply in its segmented parts. ” O’Shea, 185 F.3d at 1096 (internal citations

omitted).

A. Title VI

Plaintiffs claim that as a recipient of federal funding, the City has violated

Title VI by adopting the English-only policy. Title VI is a general prohibition

against discrimination by federally funded programs. 1 When the discrimination

relates to employment, Title VI could substantially duplicate Title VII. But

42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3 significantly limits the application of Title VI in the

employment context. It states: “Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be

construed to authorize action under this subchapter by any department or agency

with respect to any employment practice of any employer, employment agency, or

labor organization except where a primary objective of the Federal financial

assistance is to provide employment.” We have held that these limitations apply

“to the implied private rights of action which have been read into the statute.”

Reynolds v. Sch. Dist. No.1, Denver, Colo., 69 F.3d 1523, 1531 n.8 (10th Cir.

1995). Thus, “covered entities can only be sued for employment discrimination

1
Title VI states:
“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

-12-
[under Title VI] where a primary objective of the Federal financial assistance to

that program or activity is to provide employment.” Id. at 1531 (internal

quotation marks and brackets omitted).

Accordingly, for Plaintiffs to “sustain [their] Title VI claim[, they] must

show that Defendants received federal funds for a primary objective of providing

for employment.” Id. Although Street Commissioner Willis alerted Plaintiffs to

the Reynolds requirement in his summary-judgment brief and the City’s summary-

judgment brief also noted that the amended Complaint had not alleged a proper

Title VI predicate, Plaintiffs never alleged, let alone provided evidence, that any

federal funds received by the City have had a primary objective of providing

employment. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged or demonstrated that any of their

salaries have been paid, in whole or in part, with federal funds. Although on

appeal Defendants rely on different arguments with respect to the Title VI claims,

“we have discretion to affirm on any ground adequately supported by the

record[,]” Elkins v. Comfort, 392 F.3d 1159, 1162 (10th Cir. 2004), so long as the

parties have had a fair opportunity to address that ground. We therefore affirm

the dismissal of all Plaintiffs’ Title VI claims for failure to plead or prove that the

federal funding received by the City had a primary objective of providing

pertinent employment.

B. Disparate-Impact Claims

-13-
 Plaintiffs remaining disparate-impact claims arise under Title VII. Title

VII defines unlawful employment practices as follows:

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for
employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect
his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). One might say that Plaintiffs have not been subjected to

an unlawful employment practice because they are treated identically to non-

Hispanics. They claim no discrimination with respect to their pay or benefits,

their hours of work, or their job duties. And every employee, not just Hispanics,

must abide by the English-only policy. But the Supreme Court has “repeatedly

made clear that although Title VII mentions specific employment decisions with

immediate consequences, the scope of the prohibition is not limited to economic

or tangible discrimination, and that it covers more than terms and conditions in

the narrow contractual sense.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.

101, 115-16 (2002) (internal brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted).

-14-
The conditions of work encompass the workplace atmosphere as well as the more

tangible elements of the job. Title VII does not tolerate, for example, a racist or

sexist work environment “that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working

environment[.]” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (internal

quotation marks omitted). In their disparate-impact claim Plaintiffs allege that

the City’s English-only policy has created such an environment for Hispanic

workers. Discrimination against Hispanics can be characterized as being based on

either race or national origin. See Alonzo v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 25

F. Supp.2d 455, 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

To prevail on these claims, Plaintiffs need not show that the policy was

created with discriminatory intent. In the leading case on the subject, Griggs v.

Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 (1971), the Supreme Court held that Title VII

“proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form,

but discriminatory in operation.” These kinds of claims, known as disparate-

impact claims, “involve employment practices that are facially neutral in their

treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than

another and cannot be justified by business necessity.” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v.

United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335-36 n.15 (1977). Thus, “[a] disparate-impact

claim . . . does not require a showing of discriminatory intent.” Bullington v.

-15-
United Air Lines, Inc., 186 F.3d 1301, 1312 (10th Cir. 1999), overruled on other

grounds by Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117 n.11

(2002). To be sure, claims based on a hostile work environment commonly are

disparate-treatment claims, which do require proof of discriminatory intent.

Indeed, Plaintiffs here bring such a disparate-treatment claim as well as this

discriminatory-impact claim. But there is no reason to prohibit discriminatory-

impact claims predicated on a hostile work environment. See generally L.

Camille Hébert, The Disparate Impact of Sexual Harassment: Does Motive

Matter?, 53 U. Kan. L. Rev. 341 (2005). (It is worth noting, however, that

compensatory and punitive damages are not available under a disparate-impact

claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(i).)

The allocation of the burdens of proof in disparate-impact cases is set forth

in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k), enacted in 1991 after the Supreme Court’s opinion in

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), imposed a heavier

burden on plaintiffs. Under the statute a plaintiff first must “demonstrate[] that a

respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact

on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

2(k)(1)(A)(i). “This prima facie case, in many respects, is more rigorous than in a

disparate treatment case because a plaintiff must not merely show circumstances

raising an inference of discriminatory impact but must demonstrate the

-16-
discriminatory impact at issue.” Bullington, 186 F.3d at 1312. If the plaintiff

establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to

“demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in

question and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

2(k)(1)(A)(I).

1. Prima-facie case

The district court, relying principally on Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998

F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1993), concluded that Plaintiffs had “not shown that requiring

them to use the English language in the workplace imposed significant, adverse

effects on the terms, conditions or privileges of their employment, so as to create

a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination under Title VII.” Dist. Ct.

Order at 15. Even under Spun Steak, however, English-only policies are not

always permissible; each case turns on its facts. 998 F.2d at 1489. Here,

Plaintiffs have produced evidence that the English-only policy created a hostile

atmosphere for Hispanics in their workplace. As previously set forth, all the

Plaintiffs stated that they had experienced ethnic taunting as a result of the policy

and that the policy made them feel like second-class citizens. Tommy Sanchez

testified to instances of taunting by an Altus Police officer, Street Department

employees, and other non-Hispanic employees of the City. As evidence that such

harassment would be an expected consequence of the policy, Lloyd Lopez

-17-
testified that Street Commissioner Willis told him that he was notifying him of

the policy in private because of concern that other employees would tease

Hispanic employees about the policy if they learned of it.

Some of this evidence, as the district court pointed out, has diluted

persuasive power because of the absence of specifics—who made what comment

when and where. In a typical hostile-work-environment case, we might conclude

that the evidence of co-worker taunting did not reach the threshold necessary for a

Title VII claim.

There are, however, other considerations with respect to a policy that

allegedly creates a hostile work environment. The policy itself, and not just the

effect of the policy in evoking hostility by co-workers, may create or contribute to

the hostility of the work environment. A policy requiring each employee to wear

a badge noting his or her religion, for example, might well engender extreme

discomfort in a reasonable employee who belongs to a minority religion, even if

no co-worker utters a word on the matter. Here, the very fact that the City would

forbid Hispanics from using their preferred language could reasonably be

construed as an expression of hostility to Hispanics. At least that could be a

reasonable inference if there was no apparent legitimate purpose for the

restrictions. It would be unreasonable to take offense at a requirement that all

pilots flying into an airport speak English in communications with the tower or

-18-
between planes; but hostility would be a reasonable inference to draw from a

requirement that an employee calling home during a work break speak only in

English. The less the apparent justification for mandating English, the more

reasonable it is to infer hostility toward employees whose ethnic group or

nationality favors another language. For example, Plaintiffs presented evidence

that the English-only policy extended beyond its written terms to include lunch

hours, breaks, and even private telephone conversations, if non-Spanish-speaking

co-workers were nearby. Absent a legitimate reason for such a restriction, the

inference of hostility may be reasonable.

Our task in this appeal is not to determine whether Plaintiffs have

established that they were subjected to a hostile work environment. Rather, in

reviewing the grant of summary judgment to Defendants, we are to decide only

whether a rational juror could find on this record that the impact of the English-

only policy on Hispanic workers was “sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter

the conditions of [their] employment and create an abusive working

environment.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 21.

It is in this context that we consider the EEOC guideline on English-only

workplace rules, 29 C.F.R. § 1606.7. Under the relevant provisions of the

guideline: (1) an English-only rule that applies at all times is considered “a

burdensome term and condition of employment,” § 1606.7(a), presumptively

-19-
constituting a Title VII violation; and (2) an English-only rule that applies only at

certain times does not violate Title VII if the employer can justify the rule by

showing business necessity, § 1606.7(b). The EEOC rationales for the guideline

are: (1) English-only policies “may ‘create an atmosphere of inferiority,

isolation, and intimidation’ that could make a ‘discriminatory working

environment,’” EEOC Br. at 13 (quoting § 1606.7(a)); (2) “English-only rules

adversely impact employees with limited or no English skills . . . by denying them

a privilege enjoyed by native English speakers: the opportunity to speak at

work,” id. at 14; (3) “English-only rules create barriers to employment for

employees with limited or no English skills,” id.; (4) “English-only rules prevent

bilingual employees whose first language is not English from speaking in their

most effective language,” id. at 15; and (5) “the risk of discipline and termination

for violating English-only rules falls disproportionately on bilingual employees as

well as persons with limited English skills,” id. at 16.

EEOC guidelines, “while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their

authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which

courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.” Meritor Sav. Bank, F.S.B.

v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Spun

Steak the Ninth Circuit rejected the English-only guideline outright because, in its

view, nothing in the plain text or the legislative history of Title VII supported the

-20-
guideline’s presumption of a disparate impact. See 998 F.2d at 1489-90. But we

need not resolve the validity of that presumption. For our purposes, it is enough

that the EEOC, based on its expertise and experience, has consistently concluded

that an English-only policy, at least when no business need for the policy is

shown, is likely in itself to “create an atmosphere of inferiority, isolation, and

intimidation” that constitutes a “discriminatory working environment.”

§ 1606.7(a). (We recognize that several of the EEOC’s other grounds for its

guideline do not apply here. For example, there is no evidence that the policy

prevented any of the Plaintiffs from speaking at work, because all are bilingual.)

We believe that these conclusions are entitled to respect, not as interpretations of

the governing law, but as an indication of what a reasonable, informed person

may think about the impact of an English-only work rule on minority employees,

even if we might not draw the same inference. Assuming the reasonableness of

the EEOC on the matter, we cannot say that on the record before us it would be

unreasonable for a juror to agree that the City’s English-only policy created a

hostile work environment for its Hispanic employees. We are not suggesting that

the guideline is evidence admissible at trial or should be incorporated in a jury

instruction. What we are saying is only that a juror presented with the evidence

presently on the record in this case would not be unreasonable in finding that a

hostile work environment existed.

-21-
 2. Business Necessity

As an alternative ground for granting summary judgment on the disparate-

impact claim, the district court held that Defendants “offered sufficient proof of

business justification.” Dist. Ct. Order at 17. It found “that city officials had

received complaints that some employees could not understand what was being

said on the City’s radio frequency because other employees were speaking

Spanish . . . [and] that city officials received complaints from non-Spanish

speaking employees who felt uncomfortable when their co-workers spoke Spanish

in front of them.” R. Vol. III at 886-87. Based on these justifications, it

concluded that “Defendants have met any burden they may have to demonstrate

that the City’s English-only policy was supported by an adequate business

justification.” Id. at 887.

We disagree. One of Congress’s stated purposes in passing the 1991

amendments to the Civil Rights Act was “to codify the concepts of ‘business

necessity’ and ‘job related’ enunciated by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke

Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and in the other Supreme Court decisions prior

to Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).” Civil Rights Act of

1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, Sec. 3, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991). In Griggs the Supreme

Court held that “Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that

any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in

-22-
question.” 401 U.S. at 432. The Court stressed that “[t]he touchstone is business

necessity. If an employment practice which operates to [discriminate against a

protected minority] cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice

is prohibited.” Id. at 431.

Defendants’ evidence of business necessity in this case is scant. As

observed by the district court, “[T]here was no written record of any

communication problems, morale problems or safety problems resulting from the

use of languages other than English prior to implementation of the policy.” Dist.

Ct. Order at 6. And there was little undocumented evidence. Defendants cited

only one example of an employee’s complaining about the use of Spanish prior to

implementation of the policy. Mr. Willis admitted that he had no knowledge of

City business being disrupted or delayed because Spanish was used on the radio.

In addition, “city officials who were deposed could give no specific examples of

safety problems resulting from the use of languages other than English. . . .” Id.

at 7. Moreover, Plaintiffs produced evidence that the policy encompassed lunch

hours, breaks, and private phone conversations; and Defendants conceded that

there would be no business reason for such a restriction.

On this record we are not able to affirm summary judgment based on a

business necessity for the English-only policy. A reasonable person could find

-23-
from this evidence that Defendants had failed to establish a business necessity for

the English-only rule.

C. Disparate-Treatment

1. Discrimination

Plaintiffs allege that the City engaged in intentional discrimination in

violation of several statutes: Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2

As previously noted, Title VII bars discrimination in employment on the basis of

race or national origin. Section 1981 provides equal rights to make and enforce

contracts and to the benefits of laws for the security of persons and property. 3

Section 1983 prohibits those acting under color of state law from depriving others

2
In Burns v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 330 F.3d 1275, 1288 n.10 (10th Cir.
2003), we recognized a circuit split over whether the 1991 amendments to § 1981
overruled Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 733 (1989), which held
that “the express cause of action for damages created by § 1983 constitutes the
exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in § 1981 by state
governmental units.” Burns did not resolve the issue for this circuit, nor will we.
Because we affirm qualified immunity for the individual defendants on the § 1981
and § 1983 claims and because the City did not raise this argument, we do not
address this issue.
3
Section 1981 states:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
the same right in every State . . . to make and enforce contracts, to
sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all
laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is
enjoyed by white citizens. . . .”

-24-
of their federal rights; 4 the right invoked by Plaintiffs is the right to equal

protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The same analytical framework is applicable to all Plaintiffs’ theories of

intentional discrimination. “[I]n [disparate-treatment] discrimination suits, the

elements of a plaintiff’s case are the same . . . whether that case is brought under

§§ 1981 or 1983 or Title VII.” Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1162

(10th Cir. 1991). To prevail under a disparate-treatment theory, “a plaintiff must

show, through either direct or indirect evidence, that the discrimination

complained of was intentional.” EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220

F.3d 1184, 1191 (10th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiffs contend that they were intentionally discriminated against by the

creation of a hostile work environment. We have already held that there is

sufficient evidence to support a finding of a hostile work environment. The issue

4
Section 1983 provides in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to
the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress. . . .

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 .

-25-
remaining, therefore, is whether those who established the English-only policy did

so with the intent to create a hostile work environment.

To begin with, the disparate impact of the English-only rule (creation of a

hostile work environment) is in itself evidence of intent. As the Supreme Court

stated in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 335 n.15, in a

disparate-treatment case, “Proof of discriminatory motive . . . can in some

situations be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment.” See

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976) (“[A]n invidious discriminatory

purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the

fact, if it is true, that the law bears more heavily on one race than another.”).

Here, Plaintiffs can rely on more than just that inference. First, there is

evidence that management realized that the English-only policy would likely lead

to taunting of Hispanic employees: Street Commissioner Willis allegedly told two

Hispanic employees about the policy in private because of concern that non-

Hispanic employees would tease them if they learned of it. Also, a jury could

find that there were no substantial work-related reasons for the policy

(particularly if it believed Plaintiffs’ evidence that the policy extended to

nonwork periods), suggesting that the true reason was illegitimate. Further, the

policy was adopted without prior consultation with Hispanic employees, or even

prior disclosure to a consultant to the City who was conducting an investigation

-26-
of alleged anti-Hispanic discrimination during the period when the English-only

policy was under consideration. Finally, there is evidence that during a news

interview the Mayor referred to the Spanish language as “garbage.” R. Vol. II at

621.

In our view, the record contains sufficient evidence of intent to create a

hostile environment that the summary judgment on those claims must be set aside.

2. Retaliation

Plaintiffs also claim that they were retaliated against for engaging in

conduct protected under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (To the extent that

Plaintiffs raise their retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations

of equal protection, we have long held that such “a theory of liability for

retaliatory conduct [does not] come within § 1983.” Long v. Laramie County

Cmty. Coll. Dist., 840 F.2d 743, 752 (10th Cir. 1988); see also Watkins v.

Bowden, 105 F.3d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir. 1997) (stating that “[a] pure or generic

retaliation claim . . . simply does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause,” and

listing cases).)

We begin by noting that only Plaintiffs Danny Maldonado and Tommy

Sanchez alleged retaliation claims in their EEOC charges. With respect to the

retaliation claims raised by all other Plaintiffs under Title VII, the courts “lack

jurisdiction to review Title VII claims that are not part of a timely-filed EEOC

-27-
charge.” Annett v. Univ. of Kan., 371 F.3d 1233, 1238 (10th Cir. 2004). We

affirm the dismissal of those Title VII claims.

We have said that the elements of a retaliation claim under § 1981 are

identical to those required under Title VII. Roberts v. Roadway Express, Inc.,

149 F.3d 1098, 1103 n.1 (10th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs must show that “(1) [they]

engaged in protected opposition to discrimination; (2) [they were] subject[ed] to

adverse employment action; and (3) . . . there exists a causal connection between

the protected activity and the adverse action.” Id. at 1103.

Plaintiffs claim that their protected conduct was the June 18 letter, written

by Sanchez and also signed by Ruben Rios and Lloyd Lopez. We assume that

sending the letter was protected conduct for Plaintiffs Sanchez, Rios, and Lopez.

But it is too great a stretch to infer that adoption of the English-only policy was

retaliation for the letter. After all, the policy had already been imposed in the

Street Department, where Sanchez, Rios, and Lopez worked—that is why Sanchez

wrote the letter. And the citywide policy was no more stringent than the Street

Department policy; if anything, it was more lenient.

Because of the lack of evidence of a causal connection, we agree with the

district court that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the

retaliation claims.

D. Section 1983 First Amendment Claims

-28-
 Plaintiffs devote the final four pages of their opening brief to a claim that

the City’s English-only policy violates their First Amendment rights. It is settled

that a government entity “cannot condition public employment on a basis that

infringes the employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of

expression.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 (1983); see also Pickering v.

Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968); Wilson v. City of Littleton, 732 F.2d 765,

767 (10th Cir. 1984); cf. Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 75 (1990)

(“[P]romotions, transfers, and recalls after layoffs based on political affiliation or

support are an impermissible infringement on the First Amendment rights of

public employees.”). “At the same time it cannot be gainsaid that the State has

interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ

significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech

of the citizenry in general.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568. These conflicting values

require us “to arrive at a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a

citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the

[government entity], as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public

services it performs through its employees.” Id.

To determine whether a public employer has infringed the First Amendment

free-speech rights of an employee, we apply a four-part test:

First, the court must decide whether the speech at issue touches on a
matter of public concern. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146; Melton [v. City

-29-
 of Oklahoma City], 879 F.2d [706,] 713 [(10th Cir. 1989)]. If it
does, the court must balance the interest of the employee in making
the statement against the employer's interest ‘in promoting the
efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.’
Pickering . . . , 391 U.S. [at] 568, . . . . Third, if the preceding
prerequisites are met, the speech is protected, and plaintiff must
show her expression was a motivating factor in the detrimental
employment decision. Mount Healthy City School Dist. v. Doyle, 429
U.S. 274, 287 (1977). Finally, if the plaintiff sustains this burden,
the employer can still prevail if it shows by a preponderance of the
evidence that it would have made the same decision regardless of the
protected speech.

Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491, 494-95 (10th Cir. 1990). (We shall refer to

this test as the Pickering-Mount Healthy test.) “In deciding how to classify

particular speech, courts focus on the motive of the speaker and attempt to

determine whether the speech was calculated to redress personal grievances or

whether it had a broader public purpose.” Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 812

(10th Cir. 1996). “Whether an employee’s speech addresses a matter of public

concern must be determined by the content, form, and context of a given

statement, as revealed by the whole record.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48. “An

employee’s speech must not merely relate generally to a subject matter that is of

public interest, but must sufficiently inform the issue as to be helpful to the public

in evaluating the conduct of government.” Moore v. City of Wynnewood, 57 F.3d

924, 932 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Ordinarily, for an

employee’s work-related speech to be on a matter of public concern, the speech

-30-
must be uttered with an eye to action, to improve the public welfare, not just to

remedy a personal grievance.

Although Plaintiffs contend that their claim should be analyzed, at least as

an alternative, under the First Amendment doctrines governing prior restraints,

see O’Connor v. City & County of Denver, 894 F.2d 1210, 1220 (10th Cir. 1990),

or symbolic speech, see United States v. O’Brien, 381 U.S. 367 (1967) (burning

draft cards), the proper analysis of prior restraints and symbolic speech in a

public-employment context is to be found in the Pickering line of cases, see

Wilson v. City of Littleton, 732 F.2d 765, 767 (10th Cir. 1984) (“In public

employee cases, whether they involve actual or symbolic speech, the proper

analysis is that established in Pickering [and its progeny].”); see also United

States v. Nat’l Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 466-67 & n.11 (1995)

(partially invalidating statute prohibiting federal employees from accepting

honoraria for speeches or articles; applies Pickering). Application of the

Pickering doctrine may be affected, however, by whether the employer has

applied a prior restraint, see id. at 467 n.11 (noting heavy burden on government

to show reason for restriction, given broad ban on speech “before it is uttered”),

or whether the employer’s action is directed at speech or only at conduct that on a

particular occasion has an expressive component.

-31-
 Perhaps the City’s English-only rule suffers from First Amendment

shortcomings. But on the evidence and contentions presented by Plaintiffs, their

challenge fails on the first and, probably, the third prongs of the Pickering-Mount

Healthy test. They have not shown that their speech precluded by the English-

only rule includes communications on matters of public concern. Nor have they

produced evidence that the English-only rule was intended to limit

communications on matters of public concern.

Under Pickering our first task is to determine what speech is at issue. That

speech is the speech Plaintiffs are prevented from uttering because of the English-

only rule—in other words, what Plaintiffs would utter if the English-only rule

were set aside. As far as the record before us indicates, what they would say in

Spanish if the rule were abolished is the sort of thing they had been saying before

imposition of the rule, essentially mundane, quotidian conversation.

Rather than point to any specific statements, or types of statements, as

communicating matters of public concern, Plaintiffs contend that the mere act of

speaking in Spanish constitutes speech on a matter of public concern. They

equate language choice with the expression of ethnic pride and argue that

“‘[P]laintiffs’ interest in communicating ethnic pride . . . is not necessarily a

matter only of private concern,’” Aplt. Br. at 57 (quoting Latino Officers Ass’n v.

City of New York, 196 F.3d 458, 466 (2d Cir. 1999)), and that “one’s choice of a

-32-
native tongue is considered ‘symbolic speech’ or ‘pure speech.’” Id. But nothing

in the record indicates that Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish was in any way intended as,

say, an expression of opposition to discrimination by the City. Indeed, there is no

affidavit, or even an allegation in a complaint, that any Plaintiff’s purpose in

choosing to speak Spanish was to communicate anything to a supervisor, the

public, or any policy maker. The letter to Mr. Nettles from Mr. Sanchez, for

example, states that Hispanics are proud of their heritage and that they express

that heritage by speaking Spanish to one another; yet it does not suggest that by

speaking Spanish they are intending to communicate a message to outsiders (or

even to their interlocutors) about a matter of public concern.

Plaintiffs’ attorney has asserted that speaking Spanish is the equivalent of

wearing a tee shirt on which is written “Proud to Be Hispanic.” No evidence,

however, supports an assertion that such a public statement was the intent of any

Plaintiff. The First Amendment protection of Free Speech is concerned with

communication not internal feelings. There is a fundamental distinction between

taking pride in an act (an internal feeling) and expressing pride about performing

the act (a communication). That one takes pride in performing an act does not

mean that performing the act is in itself intended to communicate that one takes

pride. We may assume that a football player takes pride in scoring a touchdown;

but not until he performs a victory dance in the end zone can we say that he is

-33-
expressing pride in his prowess. Likewise, an immigrant may be very proud that

she can speak the language of her new country, but one would be surprised to

learn that when she conducts a transaction at a department store in English, she is

communicating pride in America or even pride in being able to speak English; the

natural assumption is that the customer simply wants to buy a product and the

purpose of carrying on a conversation in English is to accomplish that end.

Plaintiffs failed to place on the record in this case evidence that their daily

conversations in Spanish were meant to convey more than the substance of the

words they uttered. Nor did they produce evidence that their use of Spanish

would be understood as a comment on race relations. The context of speech

includes the likelihood of the communication’s being understood by the audience.

If the listener does not understand the message, the communication can hardly

inform the debate. See Moore, 57 F.3d at 932.

Here, we do not question that Plaintiffs take pride in both their Hispanic

heritage and their use of the Spanish language, nor do we question the importance

of that pride. What we do question, because there is no supporting evidence, is

that by speaking Spanish at work they were intending to communicate that pride,

much less “to inform [an] issue [so] as to be helpful . . . in evaluating the conduct

of government.” Id. The dissent suggests that the Plaintiffs’ conversations in

Spanish must be viewed in the context of “an on-going and evolving discussion

-34-
on race relations.” Diss. at 10. That context might be relevant if there were any

indication that the Spanish-language conversations began only as part of that

discussion. One might then infer that Plaintiffs were trying to make a point by

conversing in Spanish. But nothing in the record suggests that this was the case.

The race-relations controversy is irrelevant in determining the meaning of the

decision to converse in Spanish if it had no impact on the decision. One hearing

the conversation would have no reason to draw an inference that speaking in

Spanish now conveyed some new meaning.

Accordingly, we need not address the focus of the dissent—whether ethnic

pride or ethnic discrimination is a matter of public concern. Even if it is,

Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish is not protected, because their everyday use of Spanish

was not intended, as far as the record shows, to communicate ethnic pride or

opposition to discrimination. In all the cases cited by the dissent there was no

question regarding what the employees were communicating. For example, in

Altman v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, 251 F.3d 1199 (8th Cir. 2001), it

was undisputed that reading the Bible during a training session on “Gays and

Lesbians in the Workplace” was intended as a protest against the program.

In particular, Latino Officers is readily distinguishable. The conduct in that

case undoubtedly intended to communicate a message, and do so in a very public

forum. The Latino Officers Association sought to march in parades wearing their

-35-
police uniforms behind their organizational banner. Moreover, the district court

found that “the message that plaintiffs seek to convey is not merely that they are

proud to be Latino and police officers . . . , but that they are willing to criticize

the NYPD publicly for alleged discrimination.” Latino Officers, 196 F.3d at 465

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Nor can Plaintiffs find support in Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English,

69 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc), vacated as moot, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). That

opinion struck Article XXVII of the Arizona Constitution, which made English

the official language of Arizona and prohibited the use of any other language in

the performance of government business. Most notably, the prohibitions extended

to interactions with members of the public who could not speak or understand

English. The Ninth Circuit found the language limitation to be a matter of public

concern because of the public’s interest in receiving governmental services and

information. Id. at 939-42. In contrast to Article XXVII, the English-only policy

at issue here includes an exception “where it is necessary or prudent to

communicate with a citizen, business owner, organization or criminal suspect in

his or her native language due to the person or entity’s limited English language

skills.” Pls.’ Ex. L, R. Vol. II at 560. Even if we were to follow Yniguez, it says

nothing about a requirement that bilingual public employees, such as Plaintiffs,

speak English to one another.

-36-
 Other First Amendment cases relied upon by Plaintiffs are likewise readily

distinguishable as not involving public employees. See Kikumura v. Turner, 28

F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 1994) (summary denial of materials in Japanese language to a

Japanese prisoner); Thongvanh v. Thalacker, 17 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 1994) (ban on

Laotian prisoner’s receipt of non-English correspondence).

If the record contained evidence that Plaintiffs had used or intended to use

the Spanish language to emphasize a point or otherwise communicate a message

on a matter of public concern, this would be a different case. In that event, we

would need to determine to what extent, if any, the City’s English-only policy

would need to be set aside to avoid First Amendment violations, just as the

Supreme Court ruled invalid part of the statute restricting federal employees in

National Treasury, 513 U.S. at 477-79. See id. at 485-89 (O’Connor, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing for a more limited

invalidation); id. at 501-02 (Rehnquist, CJ., dissenting) (same). On this record,

however, Plaintiffs are not entitled to any partial invalidation of the policy on

First Amendment grounds, nor would it be wise to attempt to delimit in detail the

policy’s proper boundaries.

Moreover, we question whether Plaintiffs’ challenge could pass the third

prong of the Pickering-Mount Healthy test, under which the “plaintiff must show

her expression was a motivating factor in the detrimental employment decision.”

-37-
Schalk, 906 F.2d at 494-95. How to translate this prong to the context of an ex

ante prohibition, as opposed to imposition of an ex post sanction, is not obvious.

But an employer should not necessarily be subjected to greater constraints by

codifying its rules rather than resorting to ad hoc responses. As expressed by

Justice O’Connor:

In setting out the employees’ interests in this case, the Court draws a
meaningful distinction between the ex ante prohibition of certain
kinds of speech and the ex post punishment of discrete, unforeseeable
disturbances. There is some force to the Court’s observation,
because ex ante rules, in contrast to ex post punishments, carry risks
of overinclusiveness and underinclusiveness. Nevertheless, reliance
on the ex ante/ex post distinction is not a substitute for the case-by-
case application of Pickering. There are many circumstances in
which the Government as employer is likely to prefer the codification
of its policies as workplace rules (which, incidentally, provide notice
to employees) to the ad hoc, on-the-job reactions that have been
standard fare in many of our employment cases. In most such
circumstances, the Government will be acting well within its bounds.
I see little constitutional difference, for example, between a rule
prohibiting employees from being rude to customers, and the
upbraiding or sanctioning of an employee post hoc for isolated acts
of impudence. To draw the line based on a distinction between ex
ante rules and ex post punishments, in my view, overgeneralizes and
threatens undue interference with the government’s mission as
employer.

Nat’l Treasury, 513 U.S. at 481 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).

The First Amendment is not violated when a public employer disciplines an

employee for speaking Spanish at work if the employer had no motive to quash

expression on a matter of public concern. It would seem to follow, therefore, that

-38-
an English-only rule does not violate the First Amendment if those imposing the

rule lacked the intent to preclude communications on matters of public concern.

Here, there appears to be no First Amendment violation because not only is there

no evidence of any intent by City officials to quash such communications, but

there is not even any evidence that they realized the English-only rule would do

so. Indeed, given that Plaintiffs’ most vigorous argument is that speaking

Spanish is the equivalent of wearing a “Proud to Be Hispanic” tee shirt, it is

ironic that the challenged work rule would not prohibit wearing such a shirt.

Rather than voiding a rule because of an unintended and unexpected impact on

communications on matters of public concern, we should at least await a specific

challenge to the rule based on such an impact and determine whether the public

employer would recognize exceptions. (We have no “data” on when the City

would impose a sanction for violating the English-only rule other than that no one

has been disciplined.)

In arguing against consideration in this case of the third prong of the

Pickering-Mount Healthy test, the dissent cites several cases involving ex ante

prohibitions on expression in which the reviewing courts considered only the first

two prongs of the test. But we find them distinguishable. In National Treasury,

513 U.S. 454, the Supreme Court considered a ban on receiving payment for

public speaking or publishing articles. In Milwaukee Police Association v. Jones,

-39-
192 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 1999), police officers were barred from speaking about

complaints against police department employees, and in Harman v. City of New

York, 140 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1998), employees of social service agencies needed to

obtain permission before talking to the media about the agency. Weaver v. United

States Information Agency, 87 F.3d 1429 (D.C. Cir. 1996), upheld a requirement

that speeches and writings relating to foreign policy had to be precleared. Unlike

the case before us, in each of these cases there could have been no question that

the ex ante prohibition would apply to expression on matters of public concern.

See Nat’l Treasury, 513 U.S. at 480 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and

dissenting in part) (“In contrast to some of our prior decisions, this case presents

no threshold question whether the speech is of public, or merely private,

concern.”) The issue before us was not considered, and we do not believe that

these cases constitute contrary authority.

Indeed, when this court recently considered an ex ante prohibition, we

invoked the four-prong test. In Belcher v. City of McAlester, 324 F.3d 1203, 1205

(10th Cir. 2003), a city firefighter was reprimanded for violating a city policy

prohibiting employees from privately contacting city council members and a fire

department rule prohibiting contacting the council about city matters without

prior authorization. We began our First Amendment analysis by quoting the

Pickering-Mount Healthy test as set forth in Schalk, 906 F.2d at 494-95. See id.

-40-
at 1207. We explained that National Treasury did not control the analysis

because the city’s prohibition was “a far more narrowly tailored restriction on

speech than the statute at issue in [National Treasury].” Id. at 1206 n.3. The

English-only ban in this case could be similarly characterized.

Finally, we are aware that at the end of the section of their opening brief

entitled “A First Amendment Violation Was Shown,” Plaintiffs insert an

argument that the English-only policy violated due process by depriving them of

their constitutionally protected liberty interest in speaking a language of their

choice. But we need not address this contention. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint

contains no reference to either a liberty interest or the Due Process Clause.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment did not address the

possibility of an argument based on such a theory. Although Plaintiffs’ responses

to the summary-judgment motions included a due-process argument, they did not

amend their complaint. As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue

that was not adequately raised below. Walker v. Mather, 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th

Cir. 1992).

E. Individual Defendants

1. Qualified Immunity

Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the

individual defendants, City Administrator Nettles and Street Commissioner

-41-
Willis. “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are

granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages

insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Wilson v.

Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614 (1999) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,

818 (1982)). Qualified immunity is available under both § 1983, id. at 609, and

§ 1981, see Foley v. Univ. of Houston Sys., 355 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2003);

Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1249-51 (10th Cir. 1992).

“We review the legal issues surrounding the grant of qualified immunity de

novo, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to [Plaintiffs] as the non-

moving party.” DeSpain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965, 971 (10th Cir. 2001).

Applying the same standards as the district court, we must determine
whether the plaintiff has satisfied a heavy two-part burden. The
plaintiff must first establish that the defendant’s actions violated a
constitutional or statutory right. If the plaintiff establishes a
violation of a constitutional or statutory right, he must then
demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time
of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.

. . . If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either part of the two-part
inquiry, the court must grant the defendant qualified immunity. . . .
In short, although we will review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, the record must clearly
demonstrate the plaintiff has satisfied his heavy two-part burden;
otherwise, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Gross v. Pirtle, 245 F.3d 1151, 1155-56 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

-42-
 We have already held that Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to

sustain claims that they were denied statutory rights under § 1981 and

constitutional equal protection. Accordingly, we must address whether the rights

at issue had been clearly established by 2002, when the English-only policy was

adopted. Assessing whether a right has been clearly established

depends substantially upon the level of generality at which the
relevant ‘legal rule’ is to be identified. For example, the right to due
process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause,
and thus there is a sense in which any action that violates that Clause
(no matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a
violation) violates a clearly established right. Much the same could
be said of any other constitutional or statutory violation. But if the
test of ‘clearly established law’ were to be applied at this level of
generality, it would bear no relationship to the ‘objective legal
reasonableness’ that is the touchstone of Harlow.

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). Accordingly,

[Supreme Court] cases establish that the right the official is alleged
to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more
particularized, and hence more relevant sense: The contours of the
right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Id. at 640. It is not required that “the very action in question has previously been

held unlawful; but . . . in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be

apparent.” Id. (internal citation omitted). We agree with the district court that

the particularized right asserted by Plaintiffs is the right “to speak [a foreign

language] in the workplace.” Dist. Ct. Order at 30.

-43-
 “Ordinarily, in order for the law to be clearly established, there must be a

Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or the clearly established

weight of authority from other courts must have found the law to be as the

plaintiff maintains.” Medina v. City & County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1498

(10th Cir. 1992); see also Wilson, 526 U.S. at 617. Plaintiffs have not called to

our attention, nor have we found, any cases from either the Supreme Court or this

circuit establishing the right to speak a foreign language in the workplace.

Further, published authority from other circuit courts suggests that English-only

rules as applied to bilingual speakers are generally not discriminatory. See Spun

Steak, 998 F.2d at 1490; Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264, 266 (5th Cir. 1980).

Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the individual

defendants on Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The individual

defendants are likewise entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Ramirez v. Dep’t of Corr., 222 F.3d 1238, 1244 (10th Cir.

2000) (applying qualified immunity analysis to § 1981 claims).

2. Liability under Title VII

Finally, we note that although we have found sufficient grounds for

Plaintiffs to proceed under their Title VII claims, the individual defendants may

not be held liable under that statute. See Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 901

-44-
(10th Cir. 1996) (“[P]ersonal capacity suits against individual supervisors are

inappropriate under Title VII”).

III. CONCLUSION

We REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City

on Plaintiffs’ claims of (1) disparate-impact and disparate-treatment under

Title VII; (2) intentional discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and (3) denial of

equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and we REMAND for further

proceedings on those claims. In all other respects the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

-45-
No. 04-6062, Maldonado v. The City of Altus, Oklahoma
SEYMOUR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

This is an unusual case, involving as it does an across-the-board ex ante

ban on a public employee’s right to speak in his native language while at work.

While I join fully in the well reasoned opinion insofar as it reverses the district

court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on Plaintiffs’ discrimination and

equal protection claims, I am unable to endorse the majority’s decision to affirm

the district court with respect to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. Because I

believe that the majority’s application of the four-part Mt. Healthy test for

retaliation is incorrect, and Plaintiffs’ proposed speech involves a matter of public

concern, I would reverse the district court’s decision to the contrary and remand

for further proceedings.

As the Supreme Court established in Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S.

563 (1968), a governmental entity

may impose restraints on the job-related speech of public employees
that would be plainly unconstitutional if applied to the public at
large. When a court is required to determine the validity of such a
restraint, it must arrive at a balance between the interests of the
[employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public
concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting
the efficiency of the public services it performs through its
employees.

United States v. Nat’l Treasury Employee’s Union, 513 U.S. 454, 465-66 (1995)

(citations and quotations omitted). Unlike Pickering, National Treasury was not a

case involving a First Amendment retaliation claim in which a government
employer allegedly took adverse employment action against its employee for a

specific speech incident. Rather, it was a prior restraint case in which the

plaintiffs were employees of the executive branch of the federal government

challenging on First Amendment grounds a 1989 act of Congress prohibiting them

from receiving compensation for appearing, speaking or publishing articles

outside of work on subjects unrelated to their employment. Id. at 457-460. In

that context, the Court did not consider the motivation of the government, i.e.,

whether by enacting the ban on compensation it intended to curtail protected

speech. Instead, the Court focused only on whether the speech at issue touched

on a matter of public concern, and whether on balance the government employer’s

stated goals in prohibiting federal employees from receiving compensation for

their speech activities outweighed the plaintiffs’ and future employees’ interests

in speaking as citizens on matters of public concern. Id. at 468.

As in National Treasury, Plaintiffs contend the government, here the City

of Altus, has imposed a prior restraint on speech. They claim the City’s ex ante

rule against speaking Spanish violates their First Amendment rights by chilling

their speech before it occurs, not by punishing it after it has already taken place.

The majority is wrong, therefore, to state as it does that in this case we apply a

four-part test “[t]o determine whether a public employer has infringed the First

-2-
Amendment free-speech rights of an employee.” Maj. op. at 29. 1 That test was

established by the Supreme Court in Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v.

Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), a retaliation case. There, the Court first reiterated

that

whether speech of a government employee is constitutionally
protected expression necessarily entails striking a balance between
the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon
matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an
employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it
performs through its employees.

Id. at 284 (emphasis added, citations and quotations omitted). It is clear,

therefore, that speech of a public employee is constitutionally protected if it meets

1
This Circuit as well as our sister circuits have applied the four-part test
cited by the majority only to First Amendment retaliation claims. See, e.g.,
Belcher v. City of McAlester, 324 F.3d 1203, 1205 (10th Cir. 2003); Hulen v.
Yates, 322 F.3d 1229, 1237 (10th Cir. 2003); Clinger v. N.M. Highlands Univ. Bd.
of Regents, 215 F.3d 1162, 1165 (10th Cir. 2000); Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d
803, 811 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Evans-Marshall v. Bd. of Educ., 428 F.3d 223,
228-29 (6th Cir. 2005); Gill v. Pidlypchak, 389 F.3d 379, 380-82 (2d Cir. 2004);
Cygan v. Wis. Dep’t of Corr., 388 F.3d 1092, 1098 (7th Cir. 2004); Metzger v.
DaRosa, 367 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 2004); Branton v. City of Dallas, 272 F.3d
730, 739 (5th Cir. 2001); McVey v. Stacy, 157 F.3d 271, 277-78 (4th Cir. 1998);
O’Donnell v. Barry, 148 F.3d 1126, 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Johnson v. Clifton, 74
F.3d 1087, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996).
The majority states that in Belcher the court declined to apply the National
Treasury test. Maj. op. at 39. In Belcher, however, the plaintiff challenged the
reprimand received for engaging in allegedly protected speech. He did not
challenge the city’s ex ante rule prohibiting city employees from contacting city
council members privately. The claim in Belcher, is fundamentally different from
Plaintiff’s claim in this case. The plaintiff in Belcher challenged an adverse
employment action, whereas the Plaintiffs in this case challenge an ex ante
prohibition. These are two different claims requiring two different tests.

-3-
the first two prongs of the Pickering test. It is only when the employee seeks to

undo or receive damages for an adverse employment action that he must establish

not only “that his conduct was constitutionally protected, [but also] that this

conduct was a ‘substantial factor’ or to put it in other words, that it was a

‘motivating factor’ in the” government employer’s adverse action against him. Id.

at 287 (emphasis added). The latter requirement is the third prong of the four-

part test which the Court developed in Mt. Healthy to analyze retaliation claims

where a plaintiff has suffered an adverse employment action and seeks to show

that the action came as a result of engaging in protected speech.

This case presents no such claim. Plaintiffs in the present case do not

claim that they have been reprimanded, see Belcher v. City of McAlester, 324 F.3d

1203, 1205 (10th Cir. 2003), terminated, see Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491,

493 (10th Cir. 1990), suspended, see Gardetto v. Mason, 100 F.3d 803, 810 (10th

Cir. 1996), or anything else. Instead they claim that the English-only rule

constitutes prior restraint on speech. Therefore, we should apply the two-part test

set forth in United States v. Nat’l Treasury Employee’s Union, 513 U.S. at 465-

66, namely, (1) whether Plaintiffs’ decision to speak Spanish touches on a matter

of public concern, and (2) whether the City’s interest in regulating Plaintiffs’ use

-4-
of Spanish outweighed the Plaintiffs’ interest in speaking Spanish. 2 See

Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. Jones, 192 F.3d 742, 749-50 (7th Cir. 1999) (applying

hybrid Pickering/National Treasury test to government employees’ First

Amendment challenge to ex ante regulations without requiring plaintiff to

establish motivation of the government); Harman v. City of New York, 140 F.3d

111, 117-18 (2d Cir. 1998) (same); Weaver v. United States Info. Agency, 87 F.3d

1429, 1439-40 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (same).

I also part company with the majority in determining whether Plaintiffs’

speech touched on a matter of public concern. The majority states that Plaintiffs

have not pointed to any specific statements or types of statements they consider to

be of public concern. I disagree with this characterization of the record. While it

is true that Plaintiffs’ complaint does not specifically allege that their banned

speech is of public concern, both Plaintiffs and the City fully addressed the public

concern issue in their summary judgment briefs. Moreover, in its opinion, the

2
The majority states that National Treasury is inapposite because in that
case there was no question that the employees’ speech constituted a matter of
public concern. Maj. op. at 38-39. It is true that the Court agreed in National
Treasury that the employees’ speech involved matters of public concern. But the
question of whether speech touches on a matter of public concern is not
determinative as to whether the case is properly characterized as an ex ante prior
restraint case requiring application of only the two-part test, or as a post hoc
retaliation case requiring application of the four-part Pickering-Mt. Healthy test.
The four-part test is only applicable if Plaintiffs allege an adverse employment
action or a detrimental employment decision. Plaintiffs in National Treasury, like
the Plaintiffs in this case, made no such allegations.

-5-
district court recognized that Plaintiffs had characterized the “content” of their

speech as ethnic pride. Aplt. App., vol. III at 897. Having so recognized, the

court then held that “Plaintiffs have not shown that their pride in their Hispanic

heritage . . . is a matter of concern to the general public so as to merit First

Amendment protection.” Id. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the alleged

“content” of Plaintiffs’ speech, namely, their choice to converse in Spanish rather

than English, is pride in their cultural and ethnic identity and heritage. Plaintiffs

have thus indicated that their desire to speak Spanish is, itself, a matter of public

concern.

In arguing that their choice of language is itself a statement of public

concern, Plaintiffs find support in Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991),

an opinion addressing a criminal defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s

explanation for striking two Hispanics from a pool of prospective jurors. In

Hernandez, the prosecutor’s stated reason for striking the jurors was that they

were bilingual and the prosecutor was not certain they would accept a translator’s

statement of the witnesses’ testimony. Id. at 356. In holding that the prosecutor’s

explanation was race-neutral, the Court recognized the power of language (as well

as a person’s decision to speak a particular language as opposed to another) to

convey special meaning as well as to engender conflict and disclose bigotry. The

Court wrote:

-6-
 Language permits an individual to express both a personal
identity and membership in a community, and those who share a
common language may interact in ways more intimate than those
without this bond. Bilinguals, in a sense, inhabit two communities,
and serve to bring them closer.
....
Just as a shared language can serve to foster community,
language differences can be a source of division. Language elicits a
response from others, ranging from admiration and respect, to
distance and alienation, to ridicule and scorn. Reactions of the latter
type all too often result from or initiate racial hostility.

Id. at 370-71 (plurality opinion). The Ninth Circuit expressed a similar

understanding of the important connection between language and ethnic identity

in Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1993), when it said, “[i]t

cannot be gainsaid that an individual’s primary language can be an important link

to his ethnic culture and identity.” Id. at 1487.

While these two opinions did not address First Amendment issues, they

provide support for the proposition that a person’s choice of language can convey

a message – and a powerful one at that. They also support the proposition that

language choice and ethnic or cultural identity can be inextricably intertwined

both in the mind of the speaker and in the minds of those who hear him. As the

Court recognized in Hernandez, that linkage between language and ethnic identity

can elicit not only a sense of familiarity or solidarity, but discomfort or even

hostility, from a speaker’s audience.

-7-
 Plaintiffs cite Latino Officers Ass’n, New York City, Inc. v. City of New

York, 196 F.3d 458, 466 (2d Cir. 1999), for the proposition that a group’s

“interest in communicating ethnic pride,” whether through choice of language or

by marching in a parade as the plaintiffs in Latino Officers Ass’n did, may be a

matter of public concern. Whether a statement or other form of speech by a

public employee communicating ethnic pride is a matter of public concern

requires us to assess “the content, form, and context” of the given statement or

form of speech, “as revealed by the whole record.” Connick v. Meyers, 461 U.S.

138, 147-48 (1983). In determining whether speech “touches on a matter of

public concern,” a court should ascertain “whether it can be fairly considered as

relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.”

Hardeman v. City of Albuquerque, 377 F.3d 1106, 1113 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting

Burns v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 330 F.3d 1275, 1286 (10th Cir. 2003)).

With these instructions in mind, I turn to the facts alleged by Plaintiffs in

the present case. The district court found and the majority agrees that Plaintiffs

identify the message of their proposed speech to be pride in their ethnic heritage.

Plaintiffs analogize their use of Spanish to wearing tee-shirts to work proclaiming

“proud to be Hispanic!” Aplt. Br. at 57. The district court held that Plaintiffs

failed to show statements of ethnic pride akin to the wearing of a tee-shirt are

matters of public concern requiring protection under the First Amendment. But

-8-
Connick and its progeny instruct us that the form speech takes (here, choice of

language) and the context in which it is spoken are just as important as content.

Moreover, Connick instructs that context is revealed by the record as a whole.

Plaintiffs’ strongest characterization of their speech can be found in a letter

written by Tommy Sanchez and co-signed by Rueben Rios and Lloyd Lopez.

Aplt. App., vol. II at 521-23. The letter is addressed to defendant city

administrator, Michael Nettles, and copied to the City’s mayor and attorney.

Writing on June 18, 2002, Mr. Sanchez informed Mr. Nettles that his

subordinates, Mr. Rios and Mr. Lopez, were recently instructed by their

supervisor, defendant Holmes Willis, that they were no longer permitted to speak

Spanish while they are at work. Mr. Sanchez noted he had been previously

unaware of any English-only rule for City employees and, therefore, decided to

question Mr. Willis about it directly. This conversation, wrote Mr. Sanchez, first

alerted him to the apparent intention of the City to adopt this new English-only

policy and apply it citywide. When he asked Mr. Willis why such a policy was

necessary, Mr. Willis told him Mr. Nettles believed that the use of Spanish by

certain city employees “needed to stop” because “it was making others feel

uncomfortable.” Id. at 521. Mr. Willis informed him that “the only reason that

we (Hispanics) speak Spanish to each other is because it reflects our insecurities.”

Id. Mr. Sanchez then wrote: “In my many years with the City of Altus, I have

-9-
never seen a policy be issued to restrict hispanics [sic] from expressing our

heritage by speaking our native language to each other, as this new policy now

imposes.” Id. at 522 (emphasis added). Finally, Mr. Sanchez ended: “I prayfully

[sic] request that the City of Altus understand that we Hispanics are proud of our

heritage and do not feel that our ability to communicate in a bilingual manner is a

hindrance.” Id. at 523. Significantly, Mr. Sanchez made clear that the purpose of

the letter was to formally file a discrimination complaint against the city on the

behalf of Mr. Rios and Mr. Lopez, objecting to the proposed English-only policy.

Less than one month after Mr. Sanchez wrote the letter, the City summarily

adopted the English-only requirement.

Before litigation challenging the legality of the City’s English-only policy

ever commenced, therefore, in a plea for understanding and reconciliation, Mr.

Sanchez himself characterized the content of the prohibited speech as an

expression of community identity and ethnic heritage, of solidarity and pride, in

the face of contravening forces. In other words, an apter analogy may be wearing

a tee-shirt proclaiming “proud to be a Yankees fan” to a rally for the Boston Red

Sox, because that analogy describes the context as well as the content of the

speech.

With respect to context, the record contains evidence of months of tension

between Hispanic and non-Hispanic City employees. Prior to the adoption of the

-10-
English-only policy, several Hispanic employees had filed complaints of

discrimination and retaliation. The City, in response, had hired an outside human

resources consultant to investigate the complaints and the severity of the situation

and report back to the City Council. The record thus establishes that numerous

individuals, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic, were involved in an on-going and

evolving discussion on race relations, and that all levels of City government were

involved, including the mayor, the City administrator, the City’s director of

human resources, and many City department heads and supervisors. The record

further indicates the general public was aware of and interested in the English-

only policy and its effects. Contained within the record are several news articles

on the City’s English-only policy, for which public employees on both sides of the

debate were interviewed. In one such article, the mayor was quoted as referring

to the Spanish language as “garbage.” That he later claimed in his deposition to

have been misquoted is irrelevant to the question of whether his misquote further

inflamed public debate over the English-only policy and its perceived intent.

Moreover, the mayor’s testimony that he eventually apologized to the City council

for the misquote underscores the seriousness and the pervasiveness of the whole

issue, namely, the apparently degenerating relations between Hispanics and non-

Hispanics in the City of Altus. At a certain point then, this dispute evolved from

a situation involving City employees to a wider discussion of discrimination, race

-11-
relations, and the power of expressions of ethnic identity to elicit strong emotions

on either side.

In sum, this is not a case about a single employee wearing a tee-shirt

proclaiming “proud to be Hispanic!” or “proud to be Irish!” or “proud to be

Vietnamese!” This is a case about a large group of employees (twenty-nine

Hispanic City employees) desiring to wear such tee-shirts when an even larger

number of their fellow employees are wearing (or perceived to be wearing) tee-

shirts proclaiming “annoyed by Hispanics!” or “sick and tired of the Irish!” or

“threatened by Vietnamese!” The record suggests this was a situation in which

the right to speak one’s chosen language became an expression of pride and

resistance and identity. In a City where a sizable number of citizens identifies

strongly with one side or the other, it is nonsensical to conclude as the majority

does that Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish would not be “uttered with an eye to action, to

improve the public welfare,” but was instead meant only “to remedy a personal

grievance.” Maj. op. at 30. Indeed, it is unclear to me why the fact that twenty-

nine City employees share the same race-related grievance does not foreclose any

characterization of this complaint as mere “personal concern.”

In addition to the specific facts alleged in this case strongly suggesting the

existence of a broad City-wide discussion of ethnicity, identity, and

discrimination, numerous courts have found that otherwise “personal” statements

-12-
of ethnic, racial or religious identity or expressions of sexual orientation

constitute speech touching on matters of public concern. In Altman v. Minn.

Dep’t of Corr., 251 F.3d 1199 (8th Cir. 2001), the court held that for the purposes

of their First Amendment claim, Department of Corrections employees were

speaking on matters of public concern when they silently read their Bibles during

a mandatory training program entitled “Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace.”

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the employees did not engage in

speech on a matter of public concern because their speech was “concerned only

with internal policies or practices which are of relevance only to the employees of

that institution.” Id. at 1202 (citations omitted). While agreeing with the

defendants that the issue, namely, the appropriateness of the training program and

its mandatory nature, was “inherently ‘internal,’” the court went on to state that

“the way in which the Department [of Corrections] . . . deal[s] with issues of gays

and lesbians in the workplace affects the performance of [the Department’s]

public duties and is a matter of political and social concern to the general public.”

Id. The court pointed to the role played by the defendants in changing what

otherwise may have been merely an internal matter into a matter of public concern

by making the training program mandatory. In doing so, the court was persuaded

the defendants “created a context in which employees speaking out in opposition

-13-
to their public employer’s handling of this social issue should be considered

speech on a matter of public interest and concern.” Id.

In my judgment, there are no meaningful grounds upon which to distinguish

the facts in Altman from those in the present case. Like the public employees’

speech in Altman, namely, their reading of the Bible during a mandatory

employment program, Plaintiffs’ speech, namely, their conversing in Spanish as

opposed to English, conveys their strong identification with a particular viewpoint

and position and their opposition to the City’s contrary policy. Like the way the

Department of Corrections handles the issue of gays and lesbians in the

workplace, the way in which the diverse City of Altus deals with the issue of

cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity in the workplace “is a matter of political

and social concern to the general public.” Id. And just as the Department of

Corrections in Altman, by making its program mandatory, created a context in

which its employees’ Bible reading became speech on a matter of public concern

rather than simply an internal grievance, the City, by virtue of adopting a

mandatory English-only policy in the midst of complaints about discriminatory

practices against Hispanics, rendered Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish at the workplace

speech that touches on a matter of public concern.

In another analogous case, the court held that the employees’ speech

touched on a matter of public concern because it occurred in the midst of the

-14-
nation’s “long, continuing debate over the desirability of community racial

integration in this country.” Locurto v. Giuliani, 269 F. Supp. 2d 368, 386

(S.D.N.Y. 2003). In Locurto, plaintiffs who were terminated from their jobs as

New York City police officers and firemen argued that their appearance in a

Labor Day parade on a float entitled “Black to the Future,” wearing black-face

and engaging in various racially offensive pantomimes, was speech on a matter of

public concern to the extent that it was a commentary on their community’s

increasing racial integration. Id. at 385. While noting that the plaintiffs’ speech

was distasteful and engendered considerable conflict, the court was clear that

whether a speaker speaks on the side of the angels or the devils does not matter

for the purpose of determining whether the speech touches on a matter of public

concern. Id. at 386. Rather, the court said the determination must turn on how

broad the context is in which the speech occurred, and how many people, beyond

the plaintiffs themselves, are involved in or may be impacted by the broader

discussion. Id. at 387-88. Similarly, in assessing the context surrounding

Plaintiffs’ speech in the present case, we must consider the evidence of an on-

going, wide-ranging debate over diversity, involving dozens of individuals and

City policy makers.

Three additional public employee First Amendment opinions are

instructive. Tucker v. Cal. Dep’t of Educ., 97 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 1996), and

-15-
Nichol v. Arin Intermediate Unit 28, 268 F. Supp. 2d 536 (W.D. Pa. 2003), both

address claims by public employees that their government employers violated

their First Amendment rights by enacting policies prohibiting certain forms of

overtly religious expression. In both cases, the courts held that speech touching

on deeply-felt religious identity constituted speech regarding a matter of public

concern. Tucker, 97 F.3d at 1210 (challenging ban on religious speech and

decorations in the workplace); Nichol, 268 F. Supp. 2d at 557-60 (challenging ban

on religious jewelry or ornamentation in the workplace). Similarly, both courts

noted that while the plaintiffs’ religious identities and viewpoints were inherently

personal, the fact that their identities and viewpoints were shared by a significant

number of fellow citizens, both locally and nationally, rendered their expression

of their identities and viewpoints, especially in the face of controversy and

suppression, matters of public concern.

Another analogous case, Weaver v. NEBO Sch. Dist., 29 F. Supp. 2d 1279

(D. Utah 1998), dealt with a school district’s order prohibiting the teacher

plaintiff from identifying herself as a lesbian and discussing her homosexuality

outside of the classroom. In rejecting the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff

could not demonstrate her sexual orientation was a matter of public concern, the

court noted that “[c]ertain issues may be considered ‘inherently of public

concern.’” Id. at 1284 (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 148 n.8). In support of

-16-
including sexual orientation in the list of matters to be considered “inherently of

public concern,” the court noted that “[s]everal legal authorities have suggested

that one’s identity as a homosexual–even though it is in essence a private

matter–is inherently a matter of public concern because it necessarily and

ineluctably involves that person in the ongoing public debate regarding the rights

of homosexuals.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, as in

Altman, the court in Weaver pointed to the defendants’ role in making the

plaintiff’s speech a matter of public concern. Id. The plaintiff’s sexual

orientation in Weaver was a topic of conjecture, rumor and indignation long

before she ever spoke publically about being a lesbian, and the court noted that

numerous government officials were involved in deciding what, if anything,

should be done about the plaintiff’s desire to identify herself as homosexual.

Thus, “defendants’ actions converted this issue to a matter of public concern.”

Id.

Just as the Tucker plaintiff’s religious cubicle decorations and the Nichol

plaintiff’s gold cross constituted speech proclaiming their identities as Christians

and their pride in that identity, Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish in the present case

proclaims their identities as Hispanics and their pride in that identity. And just as

the courts in Tucker, Nichol and Weaver found that the plaintiffs’ controversial

identities “necessarily and ineluctably” involved them in the ongoing public

-17-
debates regarding the separation of church and state, religious rights, and the

rights of homosexuals, Plaintiffs’ identities as Hispanic (made “controversial” by

the allegedly racially-charged atmosphere in the City of Altus) involved them in

the ongoing public debate over diversity in America and linguistic integration.

Moreover, just as the courts in Tucker, Nichol and Weaver held that debate over

those plaintiffs’ identities rendered their speech a matter of public concern, the

ongoing public debate over Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish to convey pride in their

identities makes their expressions of that identity a matter of public concern.

Significantly, the majority itself, me included, recognizes that a reasonable

person could read the City’s English-only policy as creating or contributing to a

racially discriminatory hostile work environment. Maj. op. at 18. Thus, we say,

“[t]he very fact that the City would forbid Hispanics from using their preferred

language could reasonably be construed as an expression of hostility [by the City]

to Hispanics.” Id. at 18-19. Whether the City of Altus has created a racially

hostile work environment is clearly a matter of public concern.

Nor do the opinions cited by the majority dictate a different outcome. The

majority relies on this court’s opinion in Moore v. City of Wynnewood for the

proposition that “[a]n employee’s speech must not merely relate generally to a

subject matter that is of public interest, but must ‘sufficiently inform the issue as

to be helpful to the public in evaluating the conduct of the government.’” 57 F.3d

-18-
924, 932 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Wilson v. City of Littleton, Colo., 732 F.2d

765, 768 (10th Cir. 1984)). The record shows that Plaintiffs’ speech was actually

the focal point of ongoing local concern. Mr. Sanchez copied his letter

complaining of the English-only policy to the mayor and the City attorney. The

mayor was quoted as referring to the Spanish language as “garbage.” In other

words, the debate itself over the right of City employees to speak Spanish at work

was made public and reflected the City’s conflicted attitude toward linguistic and

ethnic diversity in general. The City’s prohibition of Spanish in the workplace

and Plaintiffs’ resistance to that prohibition more than sufficiently informs the

issue of race relations in the City of Altus “as to be helpful to the public in

evaluating the conduct of [the City] government.” Id.

The majority’s reliance on language in this court’s opinion in Gardetto v.

Mason, 100 F.3d 803, does not dictate a different outcome. We held there that

“[i]n deciding how to classify particular speech, courts focus

on the motive of the speaker and attempt to determine whether the speech was

calculated to redress personal grievances or whether it ha[s] a broader public

purpose.” Id. at 812. In making this judgment, we emphasized that “we must

evaluate whether Gardetto spoke out based on the same motivation that would

move the public to speak out.” Id. Focusing on the motive of Plaintiffs in the

present case, the record shows that their desire to speak Spanish while at work

-19-
points to a desire to show pride in their heritage and cultural identity in the face

of contravening forces and even hostility. It is, as Mr. Sanchez asserts in his

letter, an effort to show they are not embarrassed by their ability to speak Spanish

and their membership in a minority class. In light of these declared motives, it is

hard to see how their speech is calculated merely to redress personal grievances.

While Plaintiffs are clearly aggrieved on a deeply personal level, that fact does

not militate a conclusion that their speech does not also have a far broader public

purpose, that is, to take a stand on a divisive issue in this society. 3

3
The issue, moreover, appears to grow increasingly divisive every year.
Prior to 1981, only two states had laws declaring English their official language,
but by 1996, twenty-two states and forty municipalities had enacted English
language legislation. Brian L. Porto, Annotation, “English-Only” Requirement
for Conduct of Public Affairs, 94 A.L.R. 5th 537, § 2 (2004). As of 2003, twenty-
three states had enacted some form of English language legislation, and since
2000, courts in Alaska, Utah, Oklahoma and Iowa have addressed their validity.
See Kenya Hart, Defending Against A “Death by English”: English-Only,
Spanish-Only, and a Gringa’s Suggestions for Community Support of Language
Rights, 14 B ERKELEY L A R AZA L.J. 177, 178-79, 187 (2003). In an opinion
decided in 2002, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled that an initiative petition
proposing a state-wide English-only statute was constitutionally flawed because
the proposed law ran afoul of the state constitution’s free speech provisions. In
re Initiative Petition No. 366, 46 P.3d 123, 125-28 (Okla. 2002). In announcing
its decision, the court noted the intensity of the state-wide debate sparked by the
initiative. Id. at 125. Moreover, powerful public policy groups on both sides of
the debate continue to marshal substantial resources to support or defeat English-
only legislation at the national, state and municipal levels. See Hart, supra, at
178-79; see also Michael Albert Thomas Pagni, The Constitutionality of English-
Only Provisions in the Public Employee Speech Arena: An Examination of
Yniguez v. Arizonians for Official English, 24 H ASTINGS C ONST . L.Q. 247, 248-
49 (1996); Margaret Robertson, Abridging the Freedom of Non-English Speech:
(continued...)

-20-
 Finally, the majority states that, in its estimation, the record indicates “if

[the City’s English-only] rule were abolished” Plaintiffs’ speech would consist of

the same “sort of thing they had been saying before imposition of the rule,

essentially mundane quotidian conversation.” Maj. op. at 31. That very well may

be true. Whether Plaintiffs discussed what they plan to eat for lunch or the

upcoming City elections, my analysis of the content of their speech for purposes

of the First Amendment would remain the same because the content of ethnic

pride in the context of this case does not originate in the words spoken, but in the

language used to speak them.

The majority also asserts that, even if Plaintiffs’ choice of language was

intended to convey ethic pride, the record does not contain evidence showing that

any of the Plaintiffs attempted to communicate this message to the public or to

any policymaker. In so doing, the majority recognizes that “[i]f the record

contained evidence that Plaintiffs had used or intended to use the Spanish

language to emphasize a point or otherwise communicate a message on a matter

of public concern, this would be a different case.” Maj. op. at 36.

I disagree with the majority’s characterization of the record. Mr. Sanchez’s

letter to the city administrator asserted that by the very act of speaking Spanish to

3
(...continued)
English-Only Legislation and the Free Speech Rights of Government Employees,
2001 BYU L. R EV . 1641, 1641-42.

-21-
one another, Hispanic City employees are “expressing [their] heritage.” Aplt.

App., vol. II at 521-23. Characterizing the record in the light most favorable to

Plaintiffs, as we must on summary judgment, see Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S.

541, 552 (1999); Otteson v. United States, 622 F.2d 516, 519 (10th Cir. 1980),

this declaration undercuts the majority’s curious distinction between “taking pride

in an act and expressing pride about performing the act.” Maj. op. at 32

(emphasis in original). In his letter, Mr. Sanchez points out that he and other

Hispanics are proud of their heritage and that their use of Spanish is a means of

expressing that pride. In other words, the “victory dance in the end zone,”

namely, the public expression of pride, is the Plaintiffs’ decision to speak Spanish

while on the job, openly, and, perhaps in light of alleged discrimination, even

defiantly. If Plaintiffs were merely taking pride in their ability to speak Spanish

and their Hispanic heritage, they would be content to speak Spanish solely in their

own homes. Their public use of Spanish while at work, on the other hand,

conveys more than a private and merely personal pride. Rather, it is the

expression of that pride. 4

4
By way of illustrating its argument, the majority presents the example of
an immigrant speaking English to an English-speaking store clerk, stating that the
store clerk
one would be surprised to learn that when [the immigrant] conducts a
transaction at a department store in English, she is communicating
pride in America or even pride in her ability to speak English;
(continued...)

-22-
 Moreover, the majority is incorrect insofar as it suggests Plaintiffs were

required to convey their message to a policymaker or to the public. See maj. op.

at 32-33. The Supreme Court has held that speech need not be communicated to a

policymaker or addressed to the public in general to be classified as speech on a

matter of public concern for purposes of the Pickering test. In Rankin v.

McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 386 (1987), the Court held that a public employee’s

off-hand private remark to a co-worker was protected by the First Amendment

because the remark, namely, criticism of presidential policies and a hope that the

4
(...continued)
[instead] the natural assumption is that the customer simply wants to
buy a product and the purpose of carrying on a conversation in
English is to accomplish that end.
Maj. op. at 33. The problem with this illustration is it devalues the speaker’s
motives, rendering an evaluation of the speech completely dependant on the
listener’s ability or willingness to interpret it. Even if Plaintiffs’ English-
speaking co-workers did not interpret Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish as an expression
of their ethnic pride, a court must look to the motive of the speaker, not the
reaction of the listener, in determining whether speech was on a matter of public
concern. Gardetto, 100 F.3d at 814 (“The controversial character of a statement
is irrelevant to the question of whether it deals with a matter of public concern, . .
. because the focus is on the motive of the speaker.” (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted)). Just as a co-worker of the plaintiff in Nichol v. Arin
Intermediate Unit 28, 268 F. Supp. 2d 536 (W.D. Pa. 2003), could see Ms.
Nichol’s gold cross necklace as merely a piece of personal adornment, an English-
speaking City employee potentially could view Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish as
nothing more than a means to accomplish an end – the use of language to convey
a request, a question, or a command. The pertinent inquiry here as in Nichol,
however, is not whether Plaintiffs actually succeeded in expressing pride in their
identity, but whether pride in their identity was the motive for their expression
and whether pride in their identity is a matter for public concern.

-23-
president might be assassinated, considered in the broader context of national

debate, “plainly dealt with a matter of public concern.” The fact that the

employee’s private statement was never intended to be public did not affect the

Court’s determination that it nonetheless touched on a matter of public concern.

Instead, the Court considered the larger context in which the speech took place –

an atmosphere of wide-spread news coverage of an assassination attempt and

speculation as to the popularity of the president’s policies – in determining its

nature for First Amendment purposes. In addition, in Givhan v. W. Line Consol.

Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 415-16 (1979), the Court held that although a teacher

complained privately to the school principal about the school district’s efforts to

desegregate, her speech nevertheless constituted a matter of public concern. See

also Gardetto, 100 F.3d at 815 (“We note that private communications on matters

of public interest are entitled to First Amendment protection; an employee need

not remonstrate publicly to bring his comments under the aegis of the First

Amendment. Private communications are often the most effective way to bring

about policy changes and the least disruptive to the delivery of government

services.” (internal citations omitted)). Here, Mr. Sanchez complained to the city

administrator in a letter that was copied to the mayor. Surely these officials

constitute policymakers for defendant City.

-24-
 Thus, contrary to the majority’s apparent reliance on the absence of

evidence in the record showing that Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish was intended to

communicate ethnic pride to the public, the Supreme Court has held that the

private-nature of speech is not a determinative factor as to whether the speech

touches on a matter of public concern. Rather, inquiries into the public versus

private-nature of speech go to the context of the speech, not its content. The

content of speech may touch on a matter of public concern even if the speech took

place in a private context, as long as the content of the speech (in the present

case, ethnic pride) “implicate[s] the political or social concerns of the

community.” Gardetto, 100 F.3d at 815. Conversely, speech that occurs in public

can touch on matters solely of private concern. If, under Rankin, an off-hand

(and even offensive) remark made in passing to one’s co-worker can be

considered speech touching on a matter of public concern, it is unclear to me why

Plaintiffs’ use of Spanish while on the job, every day, in numerous settings and on

countless subjects, also does not deserve First Amendment protection as long as it

touches on a matter of public concern, namely, ethnic pride and solidarity in a

community with a sizeable minority of fellow Hispanics and in a nation currently

debating the merits of bilingual workplaces.

In conclusion, it is important to remember what this case is not about. This

is not a case involving the sole complaint of one employee in a City with no

-25-
history of racial tensions. This not a case involving one employee’s complaint

against one or two of his supervisors. This is a case involving more than two

dozen employees in a diverse workforce in a City with a recent history of racial

and national origin discrimination complaints. This is a case in which the City,

fully cognizant of that history, nonetheless adopted a broadly-sweeping policy

that its director of human resources admitted in her deposition testimony could

offend Hispanic employees and further inflame racial tensions. Aplt. App., vol. II

at 547-49. This is a case in which we have upheld, for summary judgment

purposes, Plaintiffs’ race and national origin discrimination claims against the

City for restricting the very speech Plaintiffs want to use. In light of these facts,

it seems incorrect to characterize Plaintiffs’ expression of pride in their ethnic

identity as reflecting merely “personal” or “internal” grievances. It is also

difficult to see how that expression of pride does not add to the public debate on

diversity or “sufficiently inform” the public that there are two equally vocal and

passionate sides to that debate. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the majority’s

statement that Plaintiffs’ proposed speech in Spanish would not be “uttered with

an eye to action” or intended to “improve the public welfare.” Maj. op. at 30. To

the contrary, Plaintiffs’ have expressed a desire to speak Spanish in order to

sustain their community’s history of linguistic and ethnic diversity and to preserve

that history in the everyday details of their lives. The City’s ban on Spanish from

-26-
the work place creates a public space where Spanish speakers arguably do not feel

welcome. In such a context, it is not hard to imagine the power of a simple

“buenos dias” to convey resistance to that effort and hope for the future.

Thus, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s view that such speech in

this case does not touch on a matter of public concern. I would remand this issue

to the district court for further consideration in light of National Treasury.

-27-