English-Only Policies--Disparate Action/Treatment?

A recent article by the National Public Employment Reporter, entitled "English-only policy may violate civil rights of Hispanic employees," reports on the recent finding by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the case of Maldonado v. City of Altus, No. 04-6062. The link to the full article can be found here (It's a Lexis-Nexis article, so if you are off campus you'll have to sign in).

Summary:

In 2002, the street commissioner of Altus, OK, received a complaint that street department employees were speaking exclusively in Spanish. As a result, other employees could not understand their (the Spanish-speaking workers)communication via the city radio. Soon after, the city voted for an official policy stating that:

all work-related and business communications [by city employees] during the work
day shall be conducted in the English language" with certain exceptions. The
policy was intended to insure effective communication between employees and to
promote safe work practices.

A group of Hispanic employees then sued, arguing that the English-only policy discriminated against on the basis of their race and national origin. Furthermore, they raised claims for denial of equal protection and free speech. A federal district Court dismissed all of their claims.

Recently, However, a 10th Circuit majority reversed the dismissal. They decided that "a reasonable jury infer hostility towards Hispanic workers as a result of the English-only rule." Furthermore, the city created a hostile work environment for Hispanic employees.The court majority rejected the Hispanic employees' First Amendment claim. Accordingly, the court majority remanded the case for further proceedings on the employees' disparate impact and disparate treatment claims as well as their intentional discrimination and equal protection claims.

Questions:

1. In your opinion, which court was right? The District Court or the Appeals Court? Did Disparate Impact and discrimination really occur?
2. Does the fact that non-Spanish-speaking workers couldn't understand what their Hispanic peers were saying over the radio not constitute enough reason for work necessity?
3. Should the fact that the Spanish-speaking workers who filed the suit were bilingual, able to speak and understand English, matter?
4. If someone is to work in America and seek protection under our laws, should they be required to know and speak English, our country's primary and official dialect?
5. Do you think that if the facts were reversed, and it was an English-speaking Caucasian working in a primarily Spanish-speaking environment (i.e. a Mexican restaurant), the court would have ruled the same?

My Personal Opinion:

Personally, I do not really agree with the Appeals Court. I think the fact that the workers were blingual (which is noted in other related articles, not the one I gave you) matters. It caused no extra burden on them to speak Enlgish or understand it. On the other hand, their non-Spanish speaking coworkers could not understand what was being said on the radio.

Furthermore, just to play devil's advocate, could we not say that as English-speaking citizens we are showing our national pride by speaking the language of our Four Fathers? Is it not somewhat reasonable to expect U.S. citizens to know English, our primary language?

Lastly, I think that if I were to complain about working in an evironment that spoke only a foreign language, the courts would not rule in favor of me.