of the members of this class” of Mexiean-Americans); Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500, 528, 46 S.Ct. 619, 70 L.Ed. 1059 (1926) (invalidating ordinance requiring that accountant records of businesses be kept in English, Spanish, or local dialects of the Philippines, thereby excluding the use of Chinese); Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 298, 47 S.Ct. 406, 71 L.Ed. 646 (1927) (“the Constitution p 61 n. 1 (9th Cir.1980) (plaintiff class defined by district court as.“Spanish-Surnamed” or “Spanish Language” persons), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919, 101 S.Ct. 1364, 67 L.Ed.2d 345 (1981); United States v. Uvalde Consol. Indep. School Dist., 625 F.2d 547, 553 (5th Cir.1980) (“the fourteenth amendment clearly extends to protection of any group of persons invidiou upp. 919 (S.D.Tex.1979) (<HOLDING>); Hernandez v. Erlenbusch, 368 F.Supp. 752
holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that speakenglishonly rule violated title vii because defendant could not show business necessity and uniform enforcement holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case holding that  final responsibility for enforcement of title vii is vested with federal courts