Charitable immunity and the English-only workplace

The Wall Street Journal today has an op-ed criticizing Nancy Pelosi's attempt to spike a proposal to make employers immune from federal civil-rights lawsuits for requiring workers to speak English.

What prompted this proposed amendment?

The EEOC's lawsuit against the Salvation Army, which fired two clothes-sorters for failing to adhere its English-only policy.

Now some of you might wonder, aren't charities already supposed to be free from lawsuits under the doctrine of charitable immunity?

Short answer: Not this kind of lawsuit, and more generally, not as much as you think.

Charitable immunity is a state-law doctrine--it has no bearing on an organization's liability under federal law, including federal anti-discrimination law. 

Beyond that, charitable liability is not an absolute absolution from all liability.  Generally, charities in states that recognize charitable immunity protect charities from liability due to the negligence of their employees.  (The level of protection does vary; some states grant total immunity; others merely limit it.)   

Note that I said "charities in states that recognize charitable immunity."  Not all states do, and last I knew, New York was one of the exceptions. 

Sorry, kids.

Why would a state not choose to recognize charitable immunity?  Historically, attempts to limit or eliminate the doctrine have followed some egregious incident of perceived wrongdoing, such as medical malpractice or, more recently, the sex scandal in the Catholic Church. 

Although charitable immunity is not a federal law, Congress has extended limited protection to volunteers under the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997.  Click here for a brief overview of its main provisions.