A Stitch in Haste

A Supercuts franchiser is being sued for allegedly banning Spanish in his establishment:

Stylists say the notice was put up in 2003, directed at employees as Supercuts managers allegedly barred them from speaking Spanish anywhere at work — including in the break room or other places outside the earshot of customers.

Supercuts says there is no such ban.
...
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which joined in the lawsuit, argues that such a ban is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Even assuming every single allegation by the plaintiffs is true (Supercuts denies the assertions), how exactly is an English-only requirement by a private employer on his private property "discrimination based on national origin"? Language is not national origin. Language is language; national origin is national origin. End of discussion.

The "NINA" signs (i.e., No Irish Need Apply) of legend would have been discrimination based on national origin (had they actually existed). Not hiring any Mexican-Americans, or Cuban-Americans, or Nicaraguan-Americans in the first place would be discrimination based on national origin.

But how can there possibly be discrimination by an employer that is actually hiring members of the suspect class? If this is "discrimination," then the word no longer has any viable meaning.

Who knew that the "streets paved with gold" meant those that lead to a courthouse?

POST SCRIPT: Can lawsuits for discrimination based on "Ebonics" be far behind?