Content uploaded by Patricia G Martinez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia G Martinez on May 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1The Business Journal of Hispanic Research
2
Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2007
e predictors we examined are associ-
ated with education and work experience,
national origin, and rural versus urban
location. We assessed knowledge with
a true-false questionnaire containing
twenty-eight labor and employment law
questions that subject-matter experts
rated as critical knowledge. Subjects
were drawn from samples in Laredo
and San Antonio, Texas, and the Los
Angeles, California, metropolitan area.
We found support for our hypotheses
that individuals with English as a primary
language, employed in urban areas, and
with a business major in college would
have higher levels of employment law
knowledge than those with English as a
secondary language, employed in rural
areas, and with a non-business college
major. We also found support for our
hypothesis that years of work experience
would be positively related to employ-
ment law knowledge. We did not find a
significant difference in employment law
knowledge between U.S.-born individuals
and those born outside of the U.S. We
discuss the implications of these findings
within the contemporary context of
increasing workforce diversity.
e extent and coverage of employee
rights in the United States has changed
dramatically since the Industrial Revolu-
tion when workers’ rights movements led
to the development of labor unions and
the passage of comprehensive labor laws.
is movement accelerated in the 1960s
with the Civil Rights Movement and since
then, federal and state governments have
enacted additional labor legislation to
protect workers. Notwithstanding these
protections, many American workers do
not have a good understanding of their
rights and employment laws. Research
demonstrates that many individuals in
the United States are not knowledgeable
about employment laws that affect them
(e.g AFL-CIO, 2001; Estlund, 2002).
ese studies however, have generally
focused on measuring the phenomena of
level of knowledge, but not what predicts
level of knowledge.
Our goal in this paper is to examine
predictors of employment law knowledge,
specifically within the context of the diverse
U.S. Hispanic employee population.
A primary reason for this focus is that
several of the personal characteristics that
we hypothesize to be significantly related
to employment law knowledge may place
particular segments of the Hispanic popu-
lation at a disadvantage to acquiring this
type of knowledge. ree demographic
trends collectively paint a bleak picture
regarding the extent to which Hispanics
are likely disadvantaged in acquiring
employment law knowledge. First, there
is a continued low level of educational
attainment among the U.S. Hispanic
population (Fry & Hakimzadeh, 2006;
Hsieh & Kleiner, 2001). Second, there has
been limited growth in Hispanic profes-
sional occupational attainment (Hsieh &
Kleiner, 2001; Kochhar, 2006a). ird,
a significant percentage of immigrants
have limited English proficiency (Fry &
Hakimzadeh, 2006).
As a result, we examine whether
Hispanics not born in the United States
and for whom English is not their primary
language have lower levels of employment
law knowledge than do those born in
the United States who speak English as
their primary language. Additionally, we
examine whether levels of work experi-
ence and educational background are also
related to employment law and employee
rights knowledge. Finding support for
work experience and education as predic-
tors of employment law knowledge will
provide insights into two factors that
may potentially mitigate a number of
obstacles to acquiring employment law
knowledge.
A significant proportion of the Hispanic
population at risk for having inadequate
employment law knowledge can lead
to considerable negative consequences
for both individuals and organizations.
When individuals’ employment rights
are violated, they may suffer financial
consequences as a result of being denied
compensation owed by the employer, a loss
of job, the denial of hiring or promotion,
and possibly exposure to unsafe working
conditions. us employees may suffer
unfair treatment or be unwittingly
exploited.
One recent example of ethnic discrimina-
tion involves the City of Tempe, Arizona,
who issued a written apology to nine
Hispanic public works employees that
were subjected to decades of ethnic slurs,
discriminatory treatment and retaliation;
the employees won a $2.4 million federal
discrimination suit (Groff, 2006). Another
example involves a series of settlements
with California dairies that total more
than $1 million in recovered unpaid wages
to hundreds of dairy workers for viola-
tions including failure to: pay minimum
wage rates, pay overtime, provide required
rest and meal breaks, and provide legally
required work equipment (California
Rural Legal Aid, 2006).
Organizations may face significant
reputational and financial losses when
their decision-makers and supervisors,
whether deliberately or inadvertently,
create policies or practices that deny
employees their employment rights.
In two separate 2003 lawsuits, several
Hispanic, black and Asian plaintiffs sued
retailer Abercrombie & Fitch, charging
that when they applied for jobs, they were
steered not to sales positions out front,
but to low-visibility, back-of-the-store
Predictors of Employment
Law Knowledge Among
Diverse Hispanic Populations
Patricia G. Martínez
Loyola Marymount University
Dinorah Sepulveda Boykin
University of Texas at San Antonio
Mark L. Lengnick-Hall
University of Texas at San Antonio
We conducted a study of the explanatory value of demo-
graphic predictors for levels of employment law knowledge
within the context of the diverse U.S. Hispanic popula-
tion. Although research suggests that many individuals
in the United States do not have an accurate knowledge
of employment laws that affect their everyday work envi-
ronment, these studies generally fail to examine what
factors may account for individuals’ level of knowledge of
employment law.
EMPLOYMENT LAW KNOWLEDGE
3The Business Journal of Hispanic Research
4
Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2007
jobs, stocking and cleaning up. Further-
more, due to these allegations of racial
discrimination, Abercrombie & Fitch
found itself parodied on TV sitcoms such
as e Family Guy (Chevapravatdum-
rong & Povenmire, 2006) and MADtv
(Bearse & Leddy, 2004). Abercrombie
later reached a class-action settlement,
agreeing to pay $40 million to several
thousand minority and female plaintiffs
and to pursue benchmarks so that its
hiring and promotion of minorities and
women reflect its applicant pool (Green-
house, 2004). ese examples illustrate
the potential personal and financial
costs to individuals and employers of
employment law violations. As Zhu and
Kleiner (2000) note, managing offenses
and avoiding discrimination issues are
critical business concerns and workers
who cannot or do not wish to work
cooperatively hurt productivity, quality,
and profitability.
Finally, a major contribution of this paper
is our comparative approach, examining
within-group (i.e., within the Hispanic
population) differences in knowledge of
employment laws and employee rights.
Too often, researchers examine only
between group (e.g., between Hispanics
and whites) differences on important
variables of interest and ignore equally
important within-group differences. Our
study suggests that this perspective can
provide valuable insights.
Are Employees Knowledgeable About
Employment Law and Their Rights?
Research suggests that employees may
misjudge their legal rights and protec-
tion, in some cases overestimating and
in others underestimating their employ-
ment rights. e American Federation
of Labor – Congress of Industrial Orga-
nizations’ (AFL-CIO) report, “Workers’
Rights in America: What Workers ink
About eir Jobs and Employers” (2001),
reported that a large percentage of
employees overestimate their rights in
the workplace. For example, two-thirds
of the employees surveyed believed it
was illegal for employers to fire someone
without a cause if the individual performed
well. is belief is true in cases where
an employment contract exists or when
firing is discriminatory. However, most
employment terms are at-will and an
employer can fire an employee at any
time—with or without a cause (Muhl,
2001). Furthermore, three out of five
employees surveyed believed that employers
who did not provide paid sick leave were
breaking the law. Although the Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires
that employers provide up to 120 days of
family and medical leave, this federal law
does not require employers to provide
paid sick leave (U.S. Department of
Labor, 1996).
Additionally, some respondents also
overestimated their privacy rights at work,
believing that employer surveillance, such
as monitoring computer usage, internet
usage and videotaping employees, are
illegal. However, employers can generally
monitor their employees at work using
the networks and technology that they
own, including voicemail and electronic
mail (Bohlander & Snell, 2006; Privacy
Rights Clearninghouse, 2006). In a study
of employees’ employment knowledge,
Estlund (2002) also found that employees
commonly lack knowledge and are highly
optimistic about their legal rights, believing
that employment laws support their
notions of fairness and justice. Estlund
reports that in her study, 70% of those
surveyed believed it was illegal to fire
an employee in order to hire another
at a lower wage and she concludes that
employees perceive employers’ behavior
to be illegal when it violates their percep-
tions of fairness.
Employees may also underestimate their
workplace rights and protection. Within
the last fifteen years, the passage of several
employment laws such as the Americans
With Disability Act (ADA) of 1990 and
the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
of 1993, have notably increased employ-
ment rights and protection. Employers’
employment policies must meet these laws
minimum standards, yet employment
laws do not include consistent standards
for informing employees about these
rights. As a result, many employees learn
about their rights and protection under
these laws through informal means, if at
all, including work experiences such as
discussions with coworkers and inquiries
to their human resource departments. In
summary, research suggests that many
employees are not aware of and knowl-
edgeable about employment laws that
affect them.
Demographic Factors and
Employment Law Knowledge
Studies of employment law knowledge
(e.g. AFL-CIO, 2001; Estlund, 2002)
have generally focused on measuring the
phenomena of level of knowledge, the
how much, while devoting less attention
to variables that can answer the whys, or
in other words, the predictors of this
knowledge. For example, the AFL-CIO
study examined only education and
income, concluding that people with
higher salaries and education were less
likely to lack knowledge or to be misin-
formed of their rights. Of workers who
earned less than $20,000, 69% believed
firing without cause was illegal; however
53% of workers earning more than $40,000
had the same misconception (AFL-CIO,
2001). Additionally, 65% of those with
a high school education thought it was
illegal to not provide sick leave, while
53% of those with a college degree had
this misconception. Interestingly, these
studies have not explained why even better
educated people are so poorly informed
about these issues.
As a result, in this study, we examine
important demographic variables we
believe should be related to how much
knowledge people have regarding employ-
ment laws and employee rights. Specifically,
we examine national origin and primary
language, education, work experience, and
urban versus rural location as predictors
of employment law knowledge.
National Origin & Primary Language.
Individuals who immigrate to the United
States may not have the same level of
knowledge of labor laws and employee
rights as natural-born citizens who have
been exposed to these laws throughout
their careers. Although immigrants may
arrive to the U.S. with work experience,
if this experience occurred within the
employment law context of another
country whose laws provide different
types and amounts of protection, their
non-U.S. work experience will not be
related to knowledge of U.S. employment
and labor law. erefore, immigrants are
less likely to have a good knowledge of
employment laws and employee rights.
Furthermore, people for whom English
is not their primary language may be
unable to read and adequately compre-
hend documents, posters, and other
media that inform them of employment
laws and employee rights. Le and Kleiner
(2000) argue that similar to African
Americans, Hispanic and Asian ethnic
groups face racial discrimination in hiring
and obtaining promotions at work, but
immigrants, particularly recent arrivals,
face an additional disadvantage of the
language barrier. is barrier may be
related to a limited knowledge of U.S.
employment laws, such as Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, which protects them
from discrimination in employment.
Employers with significant Hispanic
employee populations are urged to publish
human resource materials, both in-house
employee communication materials as
well as vendor-produced materials, in
English and Spanish (Raphael & Todd,
2001).
Accordingly, organizations are increas-
ingly recognizing the potential impact of
employees’ English language limitations
on multiple aspects of employment, such
as their ability to understand written or
verbal communication related to organi-
zational policies, programs, or benefits.
For example, Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.,
owned by McDonald’s Corp., provides
onsite English as a Second Language (ESL)
classes, with an emphasis on restaurant
terminology for their employees (Berta,
2001). Additionally, Chipotle translated
their procedure manuals into Spanish.
us, employees’ country of origin as
well as English language limitations
may be related to their knowledge of
employment and labor law and lead us
to predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: Individuals born in the
United States will have more employ-
ment law knowledge than individuals
born outside the United States.
Hypothesis 2: Individuals whose primary
language is English will have greater
employment law knowledge than indi-
viduals whose primary language is not
English.
Education. People with higher levels of
education are likely to have higher levels
of knowledge regarding employment
laws and employee rights. is may be
because they have had coursework in
their education that exposed them to
such issues or simply because they are
more likely to read and stay informed.
Additionally, people with higher levels
of education are more likely to obtain
jobs such as managers and business
professionals.
Among managers and business profes-
sionals, the percentage of those with
some college education or a college
degree has risen substantially in the last
three decades, from 38% in 1973 to 52%
in 1998 (Carnevale, 2001). Professional-
level jobs, such as those that are qualified
as exempt from the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
are distinguished by knowledge that is
acquired through specialized training,
exercising discretion or judgment, and
doing work that is primarily intellectual
and non-routine (HR Focus, 2006; Walsh,
2006). In these types of jobs employees are
likely to learn about aspects of labor and
employment law that affect or are related
to their working conditions. Further-
more, in the year 2000, 24 percent of
supervisors in administrative support and
clerical occupations had a college degree
(Dohm & Wyatt, 2002). As a result, as
supervisory positions require higher levels
of education, these job incumbents are
more likely to learn about basic employ-
ment laws that affect their relationship
with subordinates.
People with higher levels of education
are also more likely to follow current
news events and learn about the passage
of major employment and labor laws.
A study by the Pew Research Center
(2002) found that college graduates and
those with family incomes in excess of
$50,000 are among the most likely to read
a newspaper and they are much more
likely than those with less education to
consistently follow national (63%) and
EMPLOYMENT LAW KNOWLEDGE
5The Business Journal of Hispanic Research
6
Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2007
international news (47%). An earlier Pew
Research Center study (2000) found
that 46% of college graduates reported
“regularly” listening to news on the radio,
contrasted with 29% for those who have
not finished high school.
Individuals can also acquire employ-
ment and labor law knowledge through
specific types of formal education. e
majority of college business majors are
exposed to employment law through
Management, Human Resources, or
Business Law courses. Current AACSB
International accreditation standards require
that 25 percent or more of undergraduate
program coursework be completed in tradi-
tional business subjects, which includes
Human Resource Management (AACSB
International, 2007). As a result of these
requirements, it is likely that compared
to non-college majors, individuals with
business majors will have more knowledge
of employment and labor laws. us we
predict the following:
Hypothesis 3: Level of education is posi-
tively related to level of employment law
knowledge.
Hypothesis 4: Individuals with a college
business major/degree will have more
employment law knowledge than indi-
viduals whose major/degree is non-
business related.
Work Experience. People with greater
work experience have likely had more
opportunities to observe and be involved
in situations that are related to employ-
ment regulations. ey are also more likely
to have worked for multiple employers
and had repeated exposure to employ-
ment law and employee rights informa-
tion (through EEO posters, employee
handbooks, training programs, etc.). is
combination of more opportunities to
observe and repeated exposure to employ-
ment law and employee rights information
leads us to predict the following:
Hypothesis 5: Years of work experience
is positively related to level of employ-
ment law knowledge.
Urban versus rural location. e final
demographic variable of interest in this
study is urban versus rural location. Our
interest in this geographic categorization
is related to the types of jobs and formal-
ization of human resource (HR) systems
in organizations that are in urban versus
rural locations. Organizations that are
larger and more differentiated are likely
to possess HR systems that are formalized
(Elvira & Graham, 2002; Gomez-Mejia
& Balkin, 1992) where HR practices and
policies are formally documented. We
would expect that in this type of larger
organization environment, employees
would possess greater levels of employ-
ment and labor law knowledge than in
smaller organizations where the HR
function is fairly informal and it is based
on minimal, if any, documentation with
few formalized policies and procedures.
Since organizations in urban areas are
likely to be larger than organizations in
rural areas, the latter are likely to have
less formalized HR functions. Addition-
ally, urban areas are more likely to have
associations of HR professionals and
more widespread dissemination of profes-
sional HR practices, such as ensuring
that employees are knowledgeable about
their rights and employment laws, than
are found in rural areas. As a result, we
predict that:
Hypothesis 6: Individuals that work in
urban areas will have more employment
law knowledge than individuals who
work in rural areas.
Methods
Sample and Procedures. In order to
assess the predictors of employment law
knowledge, we developed a survey instru-
ment that would measure this knowledge.
We relied upon two comprehensive
employment and labor law publications,
Repa (2002) and Joel (2001), which review
laws applicable to the pre-employment,
employment, and post-employment
stages, such as the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA) and Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act. ese laws and
regulations require employers to refrain
from certain actions while establishing
various employee rights.
First, we created a list of employee
rights and labor law facts based on
Repa (2002) and Joel (2001). Second,
we created statements that represented
the most important aspect of these laws,
for example: All employees are entitled
to overtime pay after working 40 hours
in a work week. is yielded a total of
50 statements. In order to develop a
manageable set of questions and assess
the content validity of basic information
that the average employee should know,
we consulted with four subject matter
experts (SMEs) in the areas of Human
Resource Management and Business
Law. e SMEs were asked to rate on a
scale of 1 to 7, with 1 = not essential, 4
= moderately essential and 7 = essential,
how essential they considered the infor-
mation in each statement to be for an
average employee.
e next step in the process was to
calculate from the SME ratings the mean
score for each statement. Those that
received a mean rating of 6.25 and above
were included in the final version of the
questionnaire. is procedure yielded 28
statements for the field questionnaire;
these items are listed in the Appendix.
e questionnaire instructed respon-
dents to indicate whether each statement
was false (F) or true (T). A raw score
equaling the number of correct answers
was then calculated for each completed
questionnaire.
Demographic variables. We included
survey items to measure education, years
of work experience, primary language,
national origin, and college major.
Sample
Our goal was to sample working adults
and undergraduate and master’s students
in both urban and rural areas in Texas
and in an urban California locale—areas
recognized as having high concentrations
of Hispanics. The questionnaire was
administered to working individuals in
South Texas and to daytime and evening
undergraduate and master’s students
in Organizational Behavior, Human
Resources Management, Physical Sciences,
undergraduate honors, and MBA core
courses in both states. Given the focus
of this study, we examine the responses
of Hispanics.
Students volunteered to complete
the survey during their class sessions
and they returned the survey directly to
the researcher during the session. e
sample of working individuals in South
Texas (Laredo) was obtained at a local
café, where one of the researchers invited
customers to participate in the survey
and if they agreed, they completed the
survey onsite and returned it directly to
the researcher. A second source of surveys
for working individuals in Laredo was
obtained through a modified snowball
sampling procedure, where one of the
researchers distributed surveys in person,
by mail, or by email to a group of her
contacts in this small city. ese contacts
completed surveys and also distributed
surveys to other individuals. is group
of contacts included a wide range of ages,
occupations, and levels of education.
e overall response rate for the surveys
distributed is 89%. Our sample of respon-
dents is as follows: 33 from a Texas urban
university (87% response rate), 33 from a
Texas rural university (100%), 30 working
individuals from a Texas rural area (94%)
and 38 from a California urban univer-
sity (87%).
e average years of work experience
was 5.99, s.d. of 4.96. e distribution
of respondents is as follows: 63 (47.7%)
lived in a rural location and 69 (52.3%)
live in an urban location and 53 (40.2%)
list a non-business college major, 79
(59.8%) list a business college major
and 4 (3%) did not report a major. For
highest education completed: 5 respon-
dents (3.8%) completed a high school
degree, 100 (75.8%) have completed some
college coursework, 6 (4.5%) completed a
college degree and 20 (15.2%) completed
graduate coursework.
In this sample 104 respondents (78.8%)
were born in the U.S. and 28 (21.2%) were
born outside of the U.S. Respondents
born outside of the U.S. reported the
following countries of origin: Mexico
(17), Colombia (2), Peru (1), Paraguay
(1), Guatemala (1), Costa Rica (1) and
Argentina (1). One respondent identi-
fied “Latin America” and three did not
identify a country of origin. English was
the primary language of 64 respondents
(49.6%) respondents and 65 respondents
(50.4%) identified a language other than
English as their primary language. Addi-
tionally, 3 respondents (2.3%) identified
both English and Spanish as primary
languages. Since we did not create a
category for dual primary languages,
we do not include these respondents in
analyses involving primary language.
TABLE 1a
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variables M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5
1. Raw score 21.20 3.36
2. U.S. national origin .78 .41 .14
3. Primary language - English .50 .50 .29** .32**
4. Business major .60 .49 .27** .02 -.04
5. Years of work experience 6.12 5.07 .24** .06 .29** -.16†
6. Urban location .53 .50 .35** .01 .15 .40** -.01
a N = 124. Variables 2, 3, 4, 6 were dummy coded (1=membership in category of interest) to allow group contrasts.
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01
EMPLOYMENT LAW KNOWLEDGE
7The Business Journal of Hispanic Research
8
Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2007
Results
e average score for number of questions
answered correctly on the questionnaire
was 21.1 (3.29 s.d.) out of 28. is means
that participants, on average, answered
approximately 75% of the questions correct,
consistent with other studies that have
found similar low levels of knowledge of
employment laws and employee rights.
Table 1 lists the bivariate correlations.
To test our hypotheses, we conducted
regression analyses and we individually
regressed the hypothesized predictors
on individuals’ employment law score.
Table 2 summarizes the results for all of
the regression equations. To test Hypoth-
esis 1, we dummy-coded the variable of
U.S. national origin as 1. is hypoth-
esis was not supported (β = .14, p < .10)
us, individuals born in the U.S. do
not have significantly higher raw scores
than those born outside of the U.S. To
test Hypothesis 2, we dummy-coded the
variable of English as a primary language
as 1. is hypothesis was supported (β
= .29, p < .01). Individuals with English
as a primary language have higher scores
than those with English as a secondary
language.
To test Hypothesis 3, education will
be positively related to score, we created
dummy variables to represent member-
ship in five different categories or levels
of education. Respondents identified
themselves within the category that
described their highest level of education
completed: primary education, high school
degree, some college course credit, college
degree, or graduate degree coursework.
Our analysis did not support Hypoth-
esis 3, as none of the dummy variables
were significant and the overall model
was not significant, F = (3, 126) 1.63, p
< .19. We examined the distribution of
responses and found that 100 respondents
(75.8%) are currently college students or
have completed some college credits and
none of the respondents have less than a
high school education. us our sample
has a restricted range of variance in level
of education.
To test Hypothesis 4, we created a
dummy-coded variable of business major,
coded as 1. Hypothesis 4 was supported
(β = .27, p < .01); business majors have
higher scores than non-business majors.
Hypothesis 5 was supported (β = .24, p
< .01), such that years of work experi-
ence is positively related to respondents’
score. Finally, to test Hypothesis 6, we
created a dummy-coded variable of urban
location, coded as 1. is hypothesis was
also supported (β = .35, p < .01), such that
individuals in urban areas have higher
scores than those in rural areas.
Four out of the six hypotheses were
supported, with our results suggesting
that individuals with English as a primary
language, who live in an urban location,
and with a business college major, have
greater employment law knowledge
than those with English as a secondary
language, who live in a rural location and
who have a non-business college major.
We also found that years of work experi-
ence is a predictor of knowledge.
Given the preliminary nature of this
study, we did not develop any a priori
hypotheses regarding the relative impor-
tance of these variables for predicting
levels of employment law knowledge.
However, we conducted a regression
analysis, simultaneously entering all of
the predictor variables, to examine their
relative contributions for predicting
respondents’ employment knowledge
scores. Our results suggest that the
significance of the relationships between
the predictors and score are as follows
(arranged in descending order): urban/
rural location (β = .23, p < .01), years
of work experience (β = .23, p < .01),
business degree (β = .22, p < .02), and
English as a primary language (β = .19,
p < .02). We did not find any significant
interactions among these variables. us,
comparing the statistical effects of the
predictor variables, urban location, years
of work experience, and business degree
are greater than the potential negative
statistical effects of not having English
as a primary language.
We further examined the differences
in average scores among the multiple
subgroups including primary language,
urban versus rural location and business
versus non-business degree. Though
some of these differences are not statis-
tically significant, they illustrate some
of the expected patterns. For example,
the group with the lowest average score,
19.0, was respondents that do not have
English as a primary language, live in rural
areas and do not have business college
degrees. Among respondents who did not
list English as a primary language, those
in an urban location, both business and
non-business majors alike have average
scores of 21.2. Among respondents with
English as a primary language, those living
in a rural location, with a non-business
major had the lowest average score, 20.6.
We would expect that the respondents
with the highest scores would be those
with English as a primary language,
in an urban area and with business
majors and our data illustrate this, as
this group’s average score is the highest
in the sample, 23.7. ough we did not
find any significant interactions, we did
find that individuals with English as a
primary language, but who live in rural
areas, with a non-business major (20.6)
have lower scores than those who do not
have English as a primary language but
live in urban locations (21.2). us while
these data are not conclusive, they offer
some insights as to where the “liability”
of English as a second language might
be mitigated by factors such as urban
location and business education.
Discussion
Our results support the hypotheses that
individuals who have more work expe-
rience, live in urban areas, and have
a business college major, have greater
levels of employment law knowledge.
Additionally, individuals whose primary
language is English have higher levels of
knowledge than those for whom English is
a secondary language. One of our primary
interests in conducting this study is to
explore the relationships between national
origin and primary language and level of
employment law knowledge. As noted
previously, we did not find that national
origin was significantly related to employ-
ment law knowledge; the average score
for U.S. born Hispanics was 20.3 and
for foreign-born Hispanics the average
score was 21.4 (p < .11). Yet we did find
a strong and significant relationship
between primary language and average
score. e average score for respondents
with English as a primary language was
22.1 and the average score for respon-
dents who did not identify English as
their primary language was 20.2.
On one hand, the results of this study
suggest that Hispanics who do not have
English as their primary language are less
likely to have a good understanding of
employment laws and employee rights
meant to provide them protection in
the workplace. According to a Pew
Hispanic Research Center Report, out
of 27.5 million Hispanics, 53.4% identify
themselves as speaking English only or
very well, and 46.6% speaking English
less than very well (Fry & Hakimzadeh,
2004). It is also notable that out of 15.1
million foreign-born Hispanics, 72.9%
identify themselves as speaking English
less than very well. Our data also suggest
that work experience, living in urban
areas, and having a business major in
college, are associated with higher levels
of employment law knowledge. us, a
substantial proportion of the Hispanic
population (i.e., those with limited English
proficiency, with less work experience,
living in rural areas, and without a college
education—especially with a business
major) may be at risk for exploitation or
unfair treatment by employers, simply
because they are not aware of the laws
that protect them and the rights that they
are guaranteed in the workplace.
On the other hand, Hispanics working
in urban areas and with more work expe-
rience are more likely to know the laws
that protect them and the rights that
they are guaranteed. And, since English
as a primary language was significantly
correlated with employment law test
scores, it suggests that employers (and
other relevant groups) can improve
knowledge by either increasing English
language skills (e.g., through employer
sponsored ESL classes), or providing
employment law information in both
English and Spanish. A better workplace
is the result of employers who treat their
employees fairly and employees who
understand their rights.
Limitations and Future Research
is study should be considered only
a preliminary investigation into an
important issue in the workplace. We
used convenience samples rather than
random sampling, which clearly limit the
generalizability of our results. However,
the samples were drawn from areas with
high concentrations of Hispanics, our
primary group of interest. According
to the 2000 U.S. Census, half of all
Hispanics live in California and Texas
(Guzman, 2001). Our samples also had
lower variance on some of our predictors
(e.g., the education variable), creating a
potential restriction of range problem that
resulted in lower power and as previously
noted, education was not supported as a
predictor of test scores. Related to this
restriction of range, only 3.8% of our
sample had a high school education and
79% of the sample consists of full-time
and part-time undergraduate students.
us, in this sample, we have a restricted
range of education and as a result, it is
less likely that we would find a signifi-
cant and positive correlation between
education and raw score.
TABLE 2a
Regression Analyses for Employment Law Knowledge Score
Variable βR2 F
Hypothesis 1: U.S. national origin .14 .02 2.69
Hypothesis 2: Primary language - English .29** .08 11.25**
Hypothesis 4: Business major .27** .07 9.92**
Hypothesis 5: Years of work experience .24** .06 7.60**
Hypothesis 6: Urban location .35** .12 18.23**
a N = 124. , * p < .05, ** p < .01
EMPLOYMENT LAW KNOWLEDGE
9The Business Journal of Hispanic Research
10
Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2007
According to the Pew Hispanic Research
Center study of Latino Labor (Kochhar,
2004b), the occupations in which Hispanics
are concentrated rank low in wages, educa-
tional requirements and other indicators
of socioeconomic status. Furthermore,
those indicators suggest a decrease in
the occupational status of Hispanics and
a growing gap with respect to Whites
during the 1990s. us future studies
should ensure to adequately sample a
wider range of educational levels.
Given that this is a preliminary study,
the next phase of our research agenda
includes expanding future studies to
directly measure additional variables that
are related to employment law knowledge.
Additionally, it is appropriate to consider
suppressor effects or potential interactions
among these variables. For example: do
years of work experience mitigate the
effect of having English as a secondary
language and being born outside of the
U.S.? We found that individuals working
in rural areas have less knowledge than
individuals working in urban areas, yet
we do not know whether this effect was
magnified for rural areas that are along
the U.S.-Mexico border. One reason to
predict this type of magnified effect is
the possibility that in border regions, the
proximity to Mexico and its particular
labor and employment laws, may affect
the level of knowledge among working
adults in these border regions. It is possible
that some residents may have worked in
Mexico a significant period of time. us
they may form incorrect perceptions of
U.S. employment laws based upon the
laws of their country of origin.
is idea brings us to another avenue for
future research: examining the relationship
between acculturation and employment
law knowledge. Acculturation entails a
social process where individuals’ cultural
patterns change after they have been in
repeated contact with individuals of
different cultural backgrounds. It consists
of multiple factors, such as language use,
media and ethnic relations (i.e. Sabogal,
Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-
Stable, 1987). In this study, national origin
is not significantly related to employment
law knowledge yet primary language
exhibits a significant and strong relation-
ship. In many cases, individuals may be
born outside of the U.S. and English
may be their second language, but if
they have lived in the U.S. a consider-
able number of years and have achieved
a significant level of acculturation, they
may have gained a substantial amount
of employment and labor knowledge.
It may be that acculturation is a better
predictor of employment law knowledge
than is primary language. us future
studies will likely benefit from measuring
acculturation.
Another direction for future research
is to examine cross-cultural differences
in employees’ justice perception when an
employer action violates their employment
rights. Powell (2005) asserts that justice
judgments involve individual percep-
tion, cultural context, social norms, and
power relationships. Additionally, Leung
& Stephan (2000) found that cultural
differences in justice perceptions and
processes are a common cause for mutual
feelings of injustice. Finally, Leung (2005)
proposes that the applied value of cross-
cultural justice research continues to
increase as the globalization of business
and migration often place employees of
different cultures under the same orga-
nizational roof. us, related to cross-
cultural differences in employees’ justice
perceptions is the extent to which these
justice perceptions also vary according to
employment law knowledge.
Given that expectations regarding
employment relationships are cultur-
ally-bound, employees form psycho-
logical contracts, the individual’s beliefs
about mutual obligations in the context
of the relationship between employee
and employer (Rousseau, 1995), within a
particular cultural context. As an example,
in their analysis of psychological contracts
within the Mexican context, Diaz-Saenz
& Witherspoon (2002) argue that specific
cultural issues that distinguish psychological
contracts from those commonly formed
in the U.S. include family, the recognition
of seniority, and a high degree of Federal
requirements surrounding severance pay
and fringe benefits.
us, given this cultural variation in
psychological contracts, another area
for future research is the relationship
between employment law knowledge
and psychological contracts. We would
expect that cultural elements as well as
employees’ knowledge would influence
the nature of their perceived psychological
contract. For example, when employees
born outside of the U.S. form psycho-
logical contracts based upon their native
cultural context, they may not expect the
types of employment rights and protec-
tion guaranteed in the United States. As
a result, employees may not perceive a
psychological contract breach when they
are not provided those rights. Alternately,
although they may expect these rights
in their native countries, if they are not
aware that they have the same rights in
the U.S., this will affect the nature of
their psychological contracts.
Finally, immigration status is likely
related to the incidence of reporting
employment law violations. Although
employees may be aware of their workplace
rights, their fear of employer retaliation
that results in deportation could likely
prevent employees from reporting these
violations. us an area for future research
is to examine how incidence of reporting
may vary according to immigration status
and employment law knowledge.
Practical Implications
Our results suggest that in the United
States, employees who a) speak English
as a second language, b) have less work
experience, c) live in rural areas, and
d) have a non-business college major
will have lower levels of knowledge of
employment laws and their employee
rights. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, the Hispanic population grew
by 9.8 percent between April 1, 2000 and
July 1, 2002, increasing from 35.3 to 38.8
million (2002). Additionally, the U.S.
Department of Labor estimates that the
Hispanic population will continue to
account for an increasing share of the
labor market by 2010, growing from
10.9 to 13.3 percent. Noe (2005) argues
that organizations must develop training
programs that help immigrants to acquire
the technical and customer service skills
required for today’s competitive context.
Our study suggests that when employers
sponsor English language skills training,
these skills may not only be essential for
the acquisition of technical and customer
service skills but also for acquiring employ-
ment law knowledge. erefore, English
language skills training may also have an
indirect effect on ensuring that employers
establish fair work environments.
Specifically in ethnic and area-of-origin
discrimination, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission reports that
national origin discrimination is one
of the fastest-growing types of charges
filed nationwide and that complaints
about English-only rules have increased
dramatically (Barran, 2006). Recently,
a university in the Atlanta area settled a
lawsuit that charged the university with
unfair treatment of three Hispanic house-
keepers who spoke limited English. e
lawsuit alleged that a Spanish-speaking
supervisor at Oglethorpe began to only
communicate with them in English and
reprimanded them if they spoke to him
in Spanish. One of the housekeepers
suffered retaliation for openly opposing
the “English-only rule” and the univer-
sity ultimately fired her (Varela, 2007).
As part of the settlement, the university
also agreed to hold a training session
one Equal Employment Opportunity
law for all supervisors and administra-
tive employees.
us, English language skills training
can benefit both employers and employees.
Employers benefit by having employees
who are able to communicate in a common
language, something especially important
in hazardous work environments, but
desirable in any work environment.
Employees benefit by becoming empowered
to know their rights and protections as
covered by employment laws. Together,
these two outcomes can yield workplaces
that are more productive and fairer.
Given the increasing demographic
diversity of the workforce across various
immigrant groups, these findings suggest
the potential importance of training
employees and supervisors, particularly
those with demographic characteristics
that are associated with lower levels of
knowledge. A study by the Pew Hispanic
Center and Kaiser Family Foundation
finds that about one in seven (14%)
Latinos report personally experiencing
employment-related discrimination,
including not being hired for a job or
not promoted because of their race or
ethnicity (2002). us, a combination of
English language skills and employment
law knowledge training may provide a
vaccination for some Hispanics against
workplace exploitation.
When employees are not properly
informed of nor trained on basic employ-
ment laws, they may be more likely to carry
out their job duties, and in some cases
their supervisory duties, in a manner that
may translate into the unfair and unlawful
treatment of their subordinates and into
legal liability for organizations. Organi-
zations may be well served by providing
all employees with basic employment
law training.
Finally, our findings may also be of
interest to state and federal policy makers
who sponsor or support programs and
legislation for English skills training. e
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration is testing
training strategies for individuals with
limited English proficiency, targeting
incumbent workers, new job entrants
or youth who lack the language, basic
skills, and occupational skills necessary
to succeed in the 21st century workplace
(Genn, 2005). Most recently in March
2007, “e Citizenship Promotion Act of
2007” was introduced in the U.S. Senate
and among other provisions, seeks to
create a National Citizenship Promotion
Program, which includes sponsoring
English classes for immigrants with limited
English proficiency (Mexican American
Legal Defense Fund, 2007; National
Council of La Raza, 2007).
Further research may continue to
support that a non-U.S. national origin is
not a “liability” for individuals acquiring
employment law knowledge and that
acquiring English as a primary language
is related to higher levels of knowledge.
us English language skills in many
ways may be related to a better educated
workforce. Such findings would provide
additional support for the individual, orga-
nizational and societal value of funding
these types of programs.
EMPLOYMENT LAW KNOWLEDGE
11 The Business Journal of Hispanic Research
12
Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2007
AACSB International – The Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business. 2007. Eligibility proce-
dures and accreditation standards for business accredita-
tion. Tampa, FL.
American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Orga-
nizations (AFL-CIO). (2001). Workers’ rights in America:
What workers think about their jobs and employers.
Barran, P. (2006, February 24). Commentary: Workplace
language rights are worth talking about. Daily Journal
of Commerce. p.1.
Bearse, A. & Leddy, B. (Directors). (2004). Abercrombie:
e New Hire [Television series episode]. In Q. Jones, D.
Salzman & D. Blasucci (Producers) MADtv. Burbank,
CA: Quincy Jones/David Salzman Entertainment.
Berta, D. (2001, December 3). A day in the life …Cecilia
Gowins. Nation’s Restaurant News, 35(49). p. 36.
Bohlander, S. & Snell, S. (2006). Managing Human Resources,
14th Edition. Belmont, CA: Southwestern.
California Rural Legal Aid. (2006, November 8). Response
of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. to the Report of
the Legal Services Commission Inspector General. Retrieved
April 1, 2007, from http://www.crla.org/Downloads/
Nov8CRLAresponse.pdf.
Carnevale, A. P. (2001). Help wanted… College required.
Educational Testing Service, Office of Public Leader-
ship: Analysis of current population survey (March
1994 & 1999). 1-44.
Chevapravatdumrong, C. (Writer), & Povenmire, D.
(Director). (2006) Sibling Rivalry [Television series
episode]. In S. McFarlane (Producer) e Family Guy.
Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox.
Diaz-Saenz, H. R. & Witherspoon, P. D. (2000). Psycho-
logical contracts in México. In D. M. Rousseau y R. Schalk
(Ed.) Psychological contracts in employment: Cross-national
perspectives. ousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 158-175.
Dohm, A. & Wyatt, I. (2002). College at work: Outlook
and earnings for college graduates, 2000-2010. United
States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistic,
Occupational Outlook Quarterly. 46(3), 2-15.
Elvira, M. & Graham, M. (2002). Not just a formality:
Pay system formalization and sex-related earning effects.
Organization Science, 13, 601-617.
Estlund, C. L. (2002). How wrong are employees about
their rights, and why does it matter? New York University
Law Review, 77(1), 6-35.
Fry, R. & Hakimzadeh, S. (2006, September 18). A statis-
tical portrait of Hispanics at Mid-Decade. Washington,
D.C.: e Pew Hispanic Research Center.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., D. B. Balkin. (1992). Compensation,
organization strategy, and firm performance. Cincinnati,
OH: Southwestern.
Guzman, B. (2001). e Hispanic population Census 2000
brief. (Publication No. C2KBR/01-3).Washington D.C:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau.
Greenhouse, S. (2004, November 17). Abercrombie & Fitch
Bias Case is Settled. New York Times, p. A16.
Groff, G. (2006, July 15). Prejudice suit ends with apology:
Tempe says sorry to Hispanic workers after case finalized.
Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. p. 1.
HR Focus. (2006). More FLSA Guidance From DOL
Opinion Letters. 83 (12), 6-7.
Hsieh, Y. & Kleiner, B. (2001). New developments
concerning discrimination against Hispanics. Equal
Opportunities International. 20 (5-7), 59-63.
Kochhar, R. (2004a). Latino labor report, First Quarter,
2004: Wage growth lags gains in employment. Washington
D.C.: Pew Hispanic Research Center.
Kochhar, R. (2004b). Latino labor report, 2004: More jobs
for new immigrants but at lower wages. Washington D.C.:
Pew Hispanic Research Center.
Kochhar, R. (2006, September 27), Latino labor report,
2006: Strong gains in employment. Washington D.C.:
Pew Hispanic Research Center.
Joel III, L.G. (2001). Every Employee’s Guide To e Law:
What You Need To Know About Your Rights In The
Workplace – And What To Do If ey Are Violated. (3rd
ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.
Landau, S. & Everitt, B. (2004). A handbook of statis-
tical analyses using SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman
& Hall/CRC.
Leung, K. (2005). Foreward. Journal of Cross-cultural
Psychology, 36, 6-8.
Leung, K., & Stephen, W. (2000). Conflict and injustice
in intercultural relations: Insights from the Arab-Israeli
and Sino-British disputes. In J. Duckitt & S. Renshon
(Eds.), Political psychology: Cultural and cross-cultural
perspectives. London: Macmillan, 128-145.
Le, P., & Kleiner, B. (2000). A review of current empirical
research concerning race discrimination at work. Equal
Opportunities International, 19(6) 98-100.
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. (2007, March 7).
Obama/Gutierrez Citizenship Promotion Act makes natu-
ralization a national priority. Retrieved April 1, 2007 from
http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=393.
National Council of La Raza. (2007, March 7). NCLR
applauds introduction of “Citizenship Promotion Act of
2007”. Retrieved April 1, 20007, from http://www.nclr.
org/content/news/detail/44631.
Muhl, C. (2001). e Employment-at-Will Doctrine: ree
Major Exceptions. Monthly Labor Review, 124. 3-11.
Noe, R. (2005). Employee training and development. (3rd
ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P. (2005).
Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive
Advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation (2002,
December). National survey of Latinos. Washington,
D.C.
e Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
(2000, June 11). Internet sapping broadcast news audience.
Washington, D.C.
e Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2002,
June 9.). Public’s news habits little changed by September
11—Americans lack background to follow international
news. Washington, D.C.
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. (2006, February). Employee
Monitoring: Is ere Privacy in the Workplace? Retrieved
April 2, 2007, from http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/
fs7-work.htm.
Powell, L. (2005). Exploring the multidimensional
nature of distributive justice perception: e challenge
for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-cultural
Psychology, 36, 9-13.
Raphael, X and Todd, X. (2001). Savvy companies build
bonds with Hispanic employees. Workforce Manage-
ment. September.
Repa, B. K. (2002). Your Rights In e Workplace. (6th
ed.). Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organiza-
tions: Understanding written and unwritten agreements,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sabogal, F. Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marín, B. &
Perez-Stable, E. (1987). Hispanic familiaism and accul-
turation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397-412.
United States Department of Labor. (1996) Fact Sheet
#28: e Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Retrieved
April 2, 2007, from http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compli-
ance/whd/whdfs28.htm.
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. (2003). Tomorrow’s jobs. Occupational
Outlook Handbook.
Varela, A. (2007, March 8). Oglethorpe pays
$52,000 to settle lawsuit, denies English-only rule.
e Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved on March 31,
2007, from https://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/
stories/2007/03/08/metoglethorpe0308a.html.
Walsh, D. (2006) How to comply with FLSA overtime
requirements. Contract Management, 4(6), 46-47.
Zhu, J. & Kleiner, B. (2000). e value of training in
chaning discriminatory behaviour at work. Equal Oppor-
tunities International, 19(6), 5-9.
1. Every employee is entitled to overtime pay.
2. Employers must pay health insurance costs for you
after you lose your job.
3. If you lose your health insurance because you lost your
job, employers must give you the option to continue
having health insurance.
4. Female and male employees can take time off from
work to care for their newborn children or a newly
adopted child(ren).
5. An employer can refuse to hire a woman because she is
pregnant even though she is the most qualified among
all applicants.
6. An employer can refuse to hire an individual because
he/she has a disability even though he/she is the most
qualified among all applicants.
7. Employers can legally deny you a job because of your
credit report.
8. You cannot be subjected to take a lie detector test in
any aspect of employment (hiring, firing, promotions,
etc).
9. You are entitled to work in a safe and healthy
environment.
10. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, and gender in employment is illegal.
11. It is illegal to ask the following question on an appli-
cation: “What is your religion?” because it may be a
source of discrimination.
12. Only sexual harassment against females is illegal.
13. It is illegal for your supervisor to fire you because you
refused to have sex with him/her.
14. Discrimination against older individuals, 40 years of
age and above, in employment is legal.
15. Most employers can fire you with or without a cause/
reason at any time.
16. If you are fired for misconduct, you are eligible to
receive unemployment compensation (insurance).
17. Everyone who loses a job is eligible to receive unem-
ployment compensation (insurance).
18. Workers compensation provides alternate income to
you if are injured or become sick as a result of your job
or an incident on the job.
19. Legal residents who immigrated to the United States
are entitled to all the rights and protections outlined in
labor laws.
20. Employers must make sure you have authorization to
work in the U.S., and you must provide employers with
work authorization documents (ex: state id and social
security card).
21. If you leave your job to perform military services for
a year, you must be given the same job you left or a
similar one when you return.
22. Employers cannot get revenge/retaliate against you, if
you file a complaint against the employer for violating
a labor law.
23. You must pass a drug test in order to get a job
anywhere.
24. An employer must pay for your health insurance if
you work full-time.
25. Your employer must offer you a health insurance
plan.
26. When you take sick leave, your employer must pay
you during this leave.
27. Employers must provide you with paid vacation
time.
28. Your employer can legally fire you if you report to a
government agency that he/she is doing something illegal
such as hiring illegal aliens or selling drugs through the
business.
References Appendix
EMPLOYMENT LAW KNOWLEDGE
