A state's providing unemployment-benefit notices only in English is a reasonable approach that does not violate due process, equal protection, or the federal unemployment compensation statute.
Two Spanish-speaking residents of Santa Clara County, denied unemployment benefits by a California agency, sued on behalf of a class of Spanish-only speakers, alleging the agency failed to provide Spanish-speaking staff and Spanish-language notices. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and plaintiffs appealed. The question presented is whether providing only English-language notices of unemployment rights violates due process, equal protection, or the federal unemployment compensation statute. The court applies a reasonableness standard and concludes that English-only notice is a reasonable state approach that does not deny constitutional rights or federal statutory requirements. The judgment dismissing the action is affirmed.
At page 739 Due process rights in language and notice requirements17 citing casesfinding that due process does not require California to translate its notice of rights under the unemployment laws for non-English speakers
- Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez, & Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, & State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin v. Arizonans for Off. English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, & Arizonans for Off. English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, 69 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1995).published By doing so, we do not intend to unsettle the holding of our earlier decision; the question resolved in Guadalupe Organization is not before us, and we do not consider the part of the opinion we disapprove essential to the conclusion the G…
- Yniguez v. Arizonans for Off. English, 69 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1995).published Cf. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 369 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1872 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (noting that in some contexts proficiency in particular languages might be "treated as a surro gate for race”); but cf. Carmona v. Sheffield, 475…
- Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez Jaime P. Gutierrez, & Arizonans Against Constitutional Tampering, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, & State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin v. Arizonans for Off. English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, & Arizonans for Off. English Robert D. Parks, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. Maria-Kelley F. Yniguez v. State of Arizona Rose Mofford Robert Corbin, 42 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1995).published The majority, however, remained unpersuaded that these concerns outweighed the fundamental rights at issue 27 Cf. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 371 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1872-73 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (noting that in some contexts pro…
- Yniguez v. Arizonans for Off. English, 42 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1994).published Cf. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 371 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1872-73 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (noting that in some contexts proficiency in particular languages might be "treated as a surrogate for race”); but cf. Carmona v. Sheffield, 47…
- United States v. Lopez-Collazo, 105 F. Supp. 3d 497 (D. Md. 2015).published(finding that due process does not require California to translate its notice of rights under the unemployment laws for non-English speakers)
- Juan Ojeda-Calderon v. Eric Holder, Jr., 726 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2013).published(holding due process does not require California to translate its notice of rights under unemployment laws for non-English speakers)
- People v. Perez, 27 Misc. 3d 880 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010).publishedFrontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir. 1975); Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir. 1973).” The highway officer’s decision not to offer defendant an opportunity to perform coordination tests was based on the offi…
- KUSTURA v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 175 P.3d 1117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).published (no due process right to unemployment notices in Spanish)
- Alaskans for a Common Language, Inc. v. Kritz, 170 P.3d 183 (Alaska 2007).published See, e.g., Toure v. U.S., 24 F.3d 444, 446 (2d Cir.1994); Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 41-44 (2d Cir.1983); Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1220 (6th Cir.1975); Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir.1973); Jara v.…
- Natalia Nazarova v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 171 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 1999).published (finding that due process does not require California to translate its notice of rights under the unemployment laws for non-English speakers)
Show 5 more citing cases
- Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1983).published Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (6th Cir.1975); Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir.1973). 36 Plaintiffs' claim is that the Secretary's conduct, although neutral on its face, nevertheless discriminates against Hisp…
- Camacho v. Bowling, 562 F. Supp. 1012 (N.D. Ill. 1983).publishedCf. Wilkinson v. Abrams, 627 F.2d 650, 664 (3d Cir.1980); Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir.1973).
- Commonwealth v. Olivo, 337 N.E.2d 904 (Mass. 1975).publishedThis is not an officially multilingual country, and notification of official matters in the sole official language of both this nation and this Commonwealth is patently reasonable. 9 See Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d at 739.
- Calderon-Palomino v. Nichols, 36 P.3d 767 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).published(California’s decision to provide non-English-speaking unemployment benefit applicants with notices only in English reviewed for rational basis)
- Soberal-Perez v. Schweiker, 549 F. Supp. 1164 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).publishedSee, e.g., Frontera v. Sindell, 522 F.2d 1215, 1219 (6th Cir.1975); Carmona v. Sheffield, 475 F.2d 738, 739 (9th Cir.1973).
Other citing cases
- Cosby v. Ward, 625 F. Supp. 619 (N.D. Ill. 1985).published
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Nacional De Trabajadores & Its Agent, Arturo Grant, (Two Cases). Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Nacional De Trabajadores & Its Agent, Alcides Serrano, Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Nacional De Trabajadores & Its Agent, Obreros en Huelga De Catalytic, 540 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1976).published
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 540 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1976).published
v.
Gilbert L. Sheffield, Director of the California Department of Human Resources Development
Serafin CARMONA and Manuel Venegas, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Gilbert L. SHEFFIELD, Director of the California Department
of Human Resources Development, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 71-1575.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
April 2, 1973.
Edward Newman (argued), Stephen Manley, Grace M. Kubota, Joel G. Schwartz, Robert A. Baines, San Jose, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Richard L. Mayers, Atty. (argued), Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Ricardo A. Callejo, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curiae.
Before CHAMBERS and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,[*] District Judge.
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge.
Carmona and Venegas seek to represent a class of persons who speak, read and write only Spanish and who reside in Santa Clara County, California. They were denied unemployment benefits by the California Department of Human Resources Development. According to the complaint, "The denial of unemployment insurance benefits to plaintiffs, and the subsequent dismissal of plaintiff CARMONA's administrative appeal, were a direct result of the failure of the San Jose office of HRD to make available Spanish-speaking employees to determine the validity of their claims, and the further failure of the defendants to send all written notices in Spanish to applicants who have evidenced an ability to understand only the Spanish language." They sought declaratory and injunctive relief based on constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201. They also asserted a pendant claim of violation of a California statute, and they purported to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 503(a)(1) (The Social Security Act).
The district court granted the state of California's motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Carmona and Venegas have appealed.
The district court dismissed the action because of the burden plaintiffs' desired result would impose on administration of the California system of unemployment insurance compensation.
The due process claim is that even though notices of rights under the unemployment laws are adequate for those who speak English, the notices are no notice at all to plaintiffs. We cannot say, as a constitutional matter, that there is a relatively easy means of providing a more adequate form of notice, and we conclude that California's approach is a reasonable one. Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956).
Giving notice in English to these appellants is not a denial of equal protection. Even if we assume that this case involves some classification by the state, the choice of California to deal only in English has a reasonable basis. Cf. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).
The federal statutory claim is two-fold. First, appellants assert that the California system is not "reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 503(a)(1). The Secretary of Labor has certified that the California system is so reasonably calculated. California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java, 402 U.S. 121, 125, 91 S.Ct. 1347, 28 L.Ed.2d 666 (1971). We believe that the additional burdens imposed on California's finite resources and California's interest in having to deal in only one language with all its citizens support the conclusion of reasonableness.
The other portion of the federal statutory claim rests on the incorporation by the regulations issued under Sec. 503 of the requirements of the due process and equal protection clauses. We have already decided these claims against appellants.
We do not reach the pendant state claims.
The judgment is affirmed.
The Honorable William J. Jameson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation