Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Blogs & opinions
  4. “Speak English” rule may not be discrimination

“Speak English” rule may not be discrimination

5th February 2016 | employment

In Kelly v Covance Laboratories Ltd (UKEAT/0186/15), the EAT has ruled that an instruction to an employee not to speak Russian at work was neither direct race discrimination nor race harassment.

The judgment may appear surprising, given the ACAS guidance that such instructions are likely to be discriminatory, and the prior EAT ruling in Dziedziak v Future Electronics Ltd (UKEAT/0270/11) that a similar instruction was unlawful.

However, the key issues in Kelly centred on the work of the employer, which involved animal testing. Covance Laboratories had already been infiltrated by animal rights activists, and staff had been subject to attacks.

Kelly, a native Russian who was on a two-month probationary contract, had been observed conducting lengthy mobile conversations in the toilets in Russian. This triggered the suspicion that she might be an infiltrator passing information to opponents of the company. She was instructed to use English at work, but she objected on the basis that Ukrainian staff had not been similarly instructed. The company responded by issuing the same instruction to the Ukrainians.

Shortly afterwards the disciplinary procedure was invoked against Kelly on performance grounds. Prior to a disciplinary outcome, she resigned and complained of direct race discrimination and race harassment. Her claims failed.

The EAT upheld the ET’s decision.

This does not give rise to a general rule that employers can insist on employees speaking English at work. Such a rule will only apply where particular concerns, such as security, are an issue. Further, the issue was not Kelly’s ability to speak English, it was her insistence on speaking Russian for private purposes while at work.
 

 

Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited