NATIVE SPEAKERISM IN LANGUAGE TEACHING : I HAVE HUGE NEWS !!

After nearly two years of waiting for justice to be done further to discriminatory refusals to give me work as an English teacher, and after noticing that the regulatory bodies for vocational training simply do not care about this issue, I HAVE VERY GOOD NEWS !!

THE DEFENDER OF RIGHTS (Défenseur des Droits), AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTION, HAS MADE A DECISION REGARDING ONE MY CASES, STATING THAT HIRING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON ORIGIN AND NATIONALITY OCCURRED, BY WHICH THEY REQUEST THE RESPONDENT TO PAY ME FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE PREJUDICE CAUSED, AND THEY ARE READY TO GIVE ME THEIR FULL SUPPORT IF I GO TO COURT (SHOULD A SETTLEMENT FAIL TO BE REACHED BETWEEN ME AND THE LANGUAGE SCHOOL WITHIN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS). THEY ALSO REQUEST THE SCHOOL TO IMPLEMENT A NEW RECRUITMENT PROCESS WHICH ENSURES THAT THE MOTHER TONGUE OF CANDIDATES IS NO LONGER A CRITERION, AND THAT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUIREMENT WITH REGARDS TO LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY IS USED INSTEAD. FURTHERMORE, THEY ASK THAT ALL OF THE STAFF BE TRAINED ON HOW TO RECRUIT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.

You can read the whole decision document here :

https://juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr/doc_num.php?explnum_id=22099

According to its prerogatives, the Defender of Rights’ decisions are not binding.

However, judges follow their decisions in most cases.

It took more than a year for them to examine all the documents, ask for explanations, get documents signed off on etc…a very long process, but worthwhile in the end !

This decision is called a recommendation, In order to avoid any charges of slander and because I am not quite sure if I can reveal the name of this language school (I will need to check this point with my lawyer), I prefer to keep it secret for now.

Review of the facts :

In October 2022, I had applied on Indeed.com for an online English teacher position. The title of the job ad was : « Native Speaking English Language Online Teacher ». It stated that the candidate « must be a native speaker ». On the very day after I had applied, I saw on the website that my application had been rejected by the recruiter. Then, I decided to send an email directly to the recruiter, asking why my application had been turned down. The director of the language school replied to my email, stating that, as it was stipulated in the job advertisement, they were looking for a « native tongue English coach ».

Below is a very funny reply sent to the Defender of Rights by the language School, in a vain attempt to justify their refusal to recruit me :

« XXXXXXXX has been present in France for 32 years, which is remarkable. Through all this time, we have never faced such ridiculous accusations. Yes, they are ridiculous. I would be pleased to talk to you in person about this. However, we do not have much time to lose. Thank you in advance. »

So, what happens now ? The ball is firmly in that language school’s court and I cannot figure out what they will decide. Judging from all the unwillingness and bad faith they have showed so far, I am not even sure if they will take it seriously. I might have to go to court.

Below are very interesting paragraphs from the decision text, which clarify some points and definitely counter some of the usual arguments from people in favour of native speakerism.

The European Court Of Justice has ruled that the fact that an employer declares publicly that they will not hire people from a certain origin, in order to meet their clients’ requirements, amounts to direct discrimination in hiring, and that the will to take into account a client’s wish cannot be considered as a genuine and determining occupational requirement.

The court of cassation has consistently held that discrimination occurs once it is established that a discriminatory criterion was taken into acount, even if it is not the only criterion on which the decision to disqualify the candidate was made.

Therefore, the Defender of Rights considers that selling points, economic considerations, or client expectations, are no legitimate purposes to base the refusal to hire someone on their origins.

 

Although I do know that it is hard to keep hoping in the long run, THIS IS PROOF THAT EVERYONE SHOULD KEEP STANDING UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS !!

This decision is very uplifting and it makes me more enthusiastic about the future of NNESTs !

It bodes well for the decisions to come !

IT IS ONLY THE START !!

Vincent RICHARD