Measuring language rights along a spectrum.

• Author: Garza, Christian A.
• Position: Case Note

Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted sub nom. Alexander v. Sandoval, 68 U.S.L.W. 3749 (U.S. Sept. 26, 2000) (No. 99-1908).

With the growth of the American Latino and Asian populations during the past decade,(1) questions regarding the legality and societal desirability of English-only measures must soon be resolved at the highest levels of government.(2) Public officials will inevitably make determinations concerning the extent to which individuals possess the right to communicate in their language of best ability.(3) The politically charged discourse over language fights may change direction as a result of the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Sandoval v. Hagan.(4) In this case, the court struck down the State of Alabama's English-only driver's license examination because it violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision represents a tangible step forward in the protection of language minority groups. Using Sandoval as a point of departure, this Case Note argues that a more functional approach to language discrimination requires a judicial incorporation of the widely accepted notion of a language spectrum.

I

In 1990, the citizens of Alabama ratified an English-only referendum, thereby declaring English Alabama's official language.(5) One year later, the Alabama State Department of Transportation adopted a policy mandating that every part of the driver's license examination, most notably the written portion, be administered only in English.(6) In September 1997, Martha Sandoval was named a representative of a plaintiff class consisting of "all legal residents of the State of Alabama who are otherwise qualified to obtain a ... private vehicle driver's license but cannot do so because they are not sufficiently fluent in English."(7) After finding adverse economic impact, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama held that the English-only driver's license examination was invalid under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.(8)

On appeal, the State contended that as a matter of law, an English-only language policy could never have a disparate impact in violation of Title VI's protection against national-origin discrimination.(9) Disagreeing with this contention, Judge Marcus affirmed all of the lower court's findings of law. The court conceded that "existent case law is unclear" on whether language serves as a proxy for national origin for civil rights purposes.(10) To that end, the Eleventh Circuit argued that the issue of whether language serves as such a proxy was "tangential" because this case did not involve a showing of intentional discrimination.(11) Nevertheless, by affirming the finding of disparate impact on non-English speakers, the appellate court effectively legitimated the nexus between language and national origin.(12) In so doing, the Eleventh Circuit became one of only two federal circuit courts to nullify a state-sanctioned English-only provision, and the first court to do so using Title VI.(13)

Like most language discrimination claims,(14) the claimants' strategy in Sandoval was based on a disparate impact theory of discrimination. Plaintiffs have typically fallen short in their efforts to establish that English-only rules have a disparate impact on language minority groups. The two most influential cases regarding disparate impact, the Fifth Circuit's Garcia v. Gloor(15) and the Ninth Circuit's Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.,(16) both concluded that workplace language restrictions did not a have disparate impact on Spanish-speaking plaintiffs.(17) These claims were dismissed because both courts relied on the same premise: "[T]he language a person who is multi-lingual elects to speak at a particular time ... is a matter of choice."(18) Sandoval, standing for the proposition that English-only provisions have a disparate impact under national origin laws, stands apart from these decisions.

Although the direct outcome of Sandoval is unequivocally positive for a number of language minorities seeking driver's licenses in the State of Alabama, civil rights lawyers reading the opinion will inevitably realize that this case will not become a bedrock for the vindication of language rights. The court of appeals, faced with a factual scenario ripe for an extension of basic rights for all language minorities,(19) chose instead to retain much of the reasoning prevalent in the opinions of its sister circuits. While it did implicitly recognize the connection between language and national origin, which is a position significantly more consistent with linguistic studies than the findings of other courts have been,(20) the Sandoval court's passive acceptance of the Ninth and Fifth Circuits' decisions suggests that bilingual persons will continue to have uncertain claims for relief under the civil rights laws.

II

There is a profound connection between language and national origin, which judges have acknowledged to varying degrees.(21) Academics have also argued that the Spanish language is an intractable part of the Latino culture, representing one of the ties of Spanish-speaking persons to their ancestors' or their own place of origin.(22) This experience is not limited to Latinos; the connection is equally strong among other language minority groups.(23) Ultimately, the absence of strong protections for language minorities, given the abundance of evidence substantiating the connection between language and national origin,(24) is cause for concern.

In its decision, the...