Human rights commission to mull complaint on ‘English-only’ policy at RUH Starbucks

A King's Bench judge has ordered the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to reconsider the complaint of a woman who says an 'English-only' policy at RUH.

A King’s Bench judge has ordered the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to hear the complaint of a Saskatoon woman about an alleged “English-only” policy at Royal University Hospital (RUH).

According to the Feb. 23 judgment, Vanessa Casila was unreasonably denied the opportunity for a hearing at the commission.

Justice R. Shawn Smith ruled the commission failed to consider the central allegation of Casila’s complaint — that the Starbucks at RUH, run by the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) applied a blanket “English-only” policy to its employees that she says is discriminatory against her as a Filipina customer.

• Download the CTV News app to get breaking Sask. news alerts sent to your device

Smith says the facts of the case are largely undisputed. Casila was a customer at the RUH Starbucks, where a number of employees are also Tagalog-speaking Filipinos. On the day in question, she tried to make her coffee order in Tagalog to an employee who spoke her language.

“To her dissatisfaction, the employee at the kiosk informed Ms. Casila that the transaction was required to take place in English, and doing otherwise would result in that employee receiving a formal reprimand from the manager,” Smith writes.

“Needless to say, Ms. Casila, contrary to her preference, did not place her order in Tagalog.”

She decided to lodge a complaint with the human rights commission, saying the SHA’s language policy “results in discrimination based on race or perceived race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and nationality.”

“As she set out in her complaint, Ms. Casila was born and raised in the Philippines, and her first language is Tagalog. Speaking her first language, she explained, is intimately tied to her Filipina identity. It is how she expresses and preserves her minority culture here in Canada. A number of employees at the RUH Starbucks are also Tagalog-speaking Filipinos.”

The human rights commission summarily dismissed her complaint that she suffered discrimination based on prohibited grounds, although she was invited to submit more information to support her complaint.

The policy itself, according to Smith, was never provided to the court.

Casila believed it stemmed from the complaint of an English customer and provided a 2022 email sent to SHA that “amid some uncouth and intolerant commentary, asked that SHA enforce a strict English-only policy for its employees.”

“Ms. Casila also argued that Filipinos were disproportionately affected by the policy due to the high number of Tagalog-speaking Filipino employees at the RUH Starbucks.”

Casila also shared a copy of a letter from SHA that appeared to be written to an employee of the RUH Starbucks, stating “employees must always speak only in English at the kiosk so as to not exclude coworkers and customers.”

In an email to CTV News, the SHA confirmed there was a language policy at its workplaces. Although it did not specifically require English, in effect, it requires it in most cases.

“The SHA Workplace Expectations Policy states that team members must communicate in a way that is understood by everyone involved to foster clear and respectful communications, team-based collaboration and to support high-quality patient care,” the health authority said.

“The policy states that English is the primary language for workplace communication; however, the SHA does not have a policy that states employees are only allowed to speak English at work. The SHA also does not prohibit employees from speaking other languages with one another so long as the communication is understood by everyone involved.”

In its rejection of Casila’s complaint, the human rights commission argued that language is a vital conveyor of culture, but that’s not all it is.

Pointing to a 1992 B.C. human rights council decision, the Saskatchewan commission said language has a dual aspect.

“In a work environment, language may simply be a means of communicating to accomplish a task. In that context the important aspect of language is not the expression of culture, but simply a means to communicate. Language is in this context a skill.”

For Justice Smith, this got to the heart of the question: Was language in this Starbucks order conveying culture — a protected ground — or simply a means to order her grande iced brown sugar oat shaken espresso?

(For the curious: one might make that order in Taglish — an informal combination of English and Tagalog — saying something like, ‘Pabili pong iced brown sugar oat shaken espresso, grande, pakisuyo!’ Or, ‘I’d like to buy an iced brown sugar oat shaken espresso, grande please!’)

From what he saw, the judge felt like the human rights commission didn’t sufficiently defend its position.

“Respectfully, the Commission’s reasons, on their own, do not contain any of the necessary legal analysis as to why and how these authorities apply in these circumstances,” Smith writes.

Smith quashed the commission’s dismissal and asked it to reconsider Casila’s complaint.