in a private school; rather, it is simply noting that an allegation that an English-only practice at a school is enough to prove that defendants acted intentionally under Title VI. The fact that the act was intentional, however, does not in and of itself prove a prima facie case. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs did not suffer adverse action, and thus cannot establish a prima facie case, because each, by his or her own admission, speaks English as a first language. Further, relying on several employment law cases, defendants argue that English-only policies in the workplace have repeatedly withstood constitutional challenge, even when the employees being forced to speak English are non-native speakers. See, e.g., Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160, 1170 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Because most of the cases dealing with
holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive holding that an englishonly policy which applied at all times to all employees regardless of occupation or activity may have created a hostile work environment recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context holding that a hospitals englishonly rule which prohibited cleaning staff from speaking spanish while working in the operating room did not create a hostile work environment