ROANOKE TIMES

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, April 17, 1990                   TAG: 9004170265
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: From the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium


ACCENT RULED GROUNDS TO REJECT JOB APPLICANT

A job applicant who speaks English with a thick foreign accent may be denied employment without violating federal anti-discrimination laws, according to a ruling that the Supreme Court let stand Monday.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids job discrimination based on an individual's "national origin," as well as on race, sex or religion. But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the act is not violated if an employer refuses to hire someone whose accent "interferes materially" with his ability to perform a job.

The court did not try to specify how strong an accent must be before an employer is justified in refusing to hire a job applicant. The court stressed, however, that such a refusal is allowed only if an essential part of the job involves speaking to the public.

"There is nothing improper about an employer making an honest assessment of the oral communication skills of a candidate for a job when such skills are reasonably related to job performance," wrote Judge Stephen S. Trott for the federal appeals court, based in San Francisco.

Lawyers for Manuel Fragante, a 66-year Filipino-American, condemned the Supreme Court for refusing to hear an appeal of the ruling.

"I think this sets a dangerous precedent," said William D. Hoshijo, a Honolulu attorney. "This leaves the standard very unclear. It is up to the subjective judgment of the employer."

The case arose when Fragante, a retired Philippine military officer with a college degree and a law school education, sought a clerical job in the Department of Motor Vehicles in Honolulu.

The job Fragante was seeking required answering questions and fielding complaints over the counter and on the telephone.

In another case Monday, a 17-year-old male facing a possible death sentence in Alabama lost his final court battle to avoid extradition when the court refused to hear his appeal.

The young man, identified only by the initials O.M., is charged with arson and murder in the 1988 death of Tamal Jackson, a 1-year-old who was killed when a firebomb exploded in a Gadsden, Ala., housing project.

O.M. was arrested by Washington, D.C., authorities in 1988, and has been fighting extradition ever since. His lawyers argued unsuccessfully in Washington courts that his extradition would violate the district government's ban on capital punishment. Moreover, they contended that O.M., who is black, could not get a fair trial in Etowah County, Ala.

Also on Monday, the court, taking up the case of workers who claim they were fired so their companies could avoid paying pensions, agreed to decide whether the employees have the right to sue for damages in state court or must file their claims under a much more restrictive federal law.



 by CNB