There is no substitute for effective communication. In Fong v. School Board of Palm Beach County, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit again proved this lesson by upholding a school board’s decision to terminate one of its teachers in part because of her thick accent when speaking English.
Ms. Jianxin Fong worked as a math teacher at Boynton Beach High School. Two years after her hiring, in 2008-09, the Palm Beach County School Board (the “Board”) hired Keith Oswald, a new principal for the school, to help improve the school’s “D” rating over the previous six years.
By all accounts, Ms. Fong was herself highly skilled at math; she proved, however, not to be skilled at teaching math. Mr. Oswald and other school administrators who observed her in the classroom noticed that her students were not engaged with the material. (Based on the record, one can hardly blame the students; Ms. Fong relied largely on giving PowerPoint presentations and showing videos in a darkened classroom.)
In addition, Ms. Fong, whom the court noted is “of Chinese descent,” speaks English with an accent. Indeed, Mr. Oswald informed Ms. Fong during his first classroom visit that, “You have a very strong accent. Your students don’t understand you. I don’t even understand you. You should record your speech to listen to it.” When Ms. Fong asked if he could understand her English better at a meeting later in the school year, Mr. Oswald left the room rather than answering. In any event, Mr. Oswald informed Ms. Fong and five other teachers that her contract would not be renewed at the end of the 2008-09 school year.
Ms. Fong then sued the Board, claiming that she was discriminated against because of her Chinese national origin. The Board explained that Ms. Fong simply “wasn’t a fit” for the high school based on “classroom management issues, her resistance to feedback and change and not [being] willing to learn.” The district court granted summary judgment in the Board’s favor.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. After acknowledging that “[d]iscrimination based on an employee’s accent can be national origin discrimination,” the court explained that “an employee’s accent or difficulty with spoken English can be a legitimate basis for adverse employment action where effective communication skills are reasonably related to job performance.” (Emphasis added). Regardless of the fact that Ms. Fong taught math rather than English, the court found that “Principal Oswald had a legitimate interest in ensuring that [Ms.] Fong’s students were able to understand her in the classroom.” Although the Board’s explanation was hardly specific, the court found that school administrators’ firsthand observations of Ms. Fong’s classroom management issues were enough to constitute legitimate business judgment in the Board’s termination decision.
This case is a welcome reminder of the distinction between criticizing employees’ accents to be hostile to or humiliate the employee (which may well be discriminatory) and accent-related criticism that centers on the employee’s work performance (which is not). Regardless of an employee’s national origin, the ability to communicate effectively is an essential function of many jobs, including academics, reception, and sales positions, just to name a few.