What is the Difference Between National Origin and Racial Discrimination?

Understanding the Difference Between National Origin vs. Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

Federal, state, and local laws create a robust framework of protections designed to ensure fair treatment in the workplace. Among the most fundamental of these are two examples; the prohibitions against discrimination based on one’s national origin, and their race. While these two categories often intersect and can be experienced together, they represent distinct legal concepts that offer multiple avenues for recourse. For New York-based employees, understanding these differences is an important step towards protecting one’s civil rights. This entry will explore the definitions of national origin discrimination and race discrimination, explain how they intersect, and answer the critical question: “How do I prove I was discriminated against?”

Defining Protections: National Origin

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, national origin discrimination involves treating an employee or applicant unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of their ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background—even if they are not. This protection is comprehensive, forbidding discrimination in any aspect of employment, from hiring and firing to pay and promotions.

Key examples of national origin discrimination include:

English-only requirements that aren’t genuinely necessary for workplace safety or operational efficiency should be carefully evaluated, as they may create unnecessary barriers for employees.

Employment decisions that unfavorably impact someone due to their foreign accent should be reconsidered, unless the accent significantly impedes their ability to perform essential job functions.

Any form of workplace harassment targeting an individual’s cultural background, ancestry, or language characteristics creates an unwelcoming environment and should be addressed promptly.

Defining Protections: Race

Race discrimination is defined as treating someone unfavorably because of their race or because of personal characteristics historically associated with race, such as hair texture, skin color, or facial features. A related concept is “color discrimination,” which refers to bias based specifically on skin complexion. The law prohibits this form of discrimination in all terms and conditions of employment, and a claim can be valid even if the victim and perpetrator are of the same race.

Unlawful race discrimination can be overt, such as the use of racial slurs, or more subtle. For example, a neutral employment policy can be illegal if it has a disparate negative impact on people of a particular race and is not job-related. A classic example is a strict “no-beard” policy, which may disproportionately screen out African American men who have a predisposition to a skin condition aggravated by shaving.

When Race, Ethnicity, and National Origin Intersect

In the real world, discrimination rarely fits into neat legal boxes. An individual’s experience of bias is often holistic, targeting an inseparable combination of their physical appearance, cultural background, and perceived ancestry. This is the concept of intersectionality.

The term “ethnicity” often serves as a bridge between race and national origin. Discrimination can be directed at ethnic groups who share a common ancestry, culture, language, or physical appearance. For instance, bias against a Sikh individual may be a complex mix of animus based on his religious attire (often conflated with race), his name (suggesting a particular national origin), and stereotypes about his presumed country of origin. Similarly, discrimination against Hispanic or Latin individuals can be racial (based on skin color) or based on national origin (related to their ancestry or use of the Spanish language). A legal strategy that pleads multiple, overlapping grounds is often the most effective way to capture the full scope of the harm.

The Role of an Employer’s Perception

An important and sometimes overlooked principle in employment law recognizes that discrimination cases focus on the employer’s perception and intent, rather than the employee’s actual identity. When an employer acts based on discriminatory assumptions, they can be held liable for discrimination even if their perception of the employee’s race or national origin turns out to be incorrect.

The law seeks to address the biased reasoning that underlies adverse employment actions. For example, if an employer terminates someone because they believe that person is from Mexico, this constitutes unlawful national origin discrimination—regardless of whether the employee is actually from Mexico or was born in the United States. The discriminatory intent is what renders the action illegal. This approach means that a plaintiff’s main objective involves demonstrating evidence of the employer’s biased mindset, rather than establishing their own identity. While some courts have traditionally required proof of an employee’s “actual” protected status, the EEOC and an increasing number of courts recognize that discrimination based on mistaken perceptions violates the law.

How Do I Prove I Was Discriminated Against?

For anyone considering suing for discrimination, understanding what constitutes proof is paramount. Most cases are built piece by piece through a careful compilation of direct and circumstantial evidence. A selection of evidence types are listed below:

Direct Evidence is explicit proof of a discriminatory motive, such as an email, text, or recorded statement from a manager linking an adverse action to your protected status. This is the strongest evidence but is also the rarest.

Circumstantial Evidence is more common and allows a judge or jury to infer a discriminatory motive. Key types include:

• Suspicious Timing is an adverse action occurs shortly after an employer learns of your national origin or after you complain about discrimination.
• Disparate Treatment shows that similarly situated employees outside your protected class were treated more favorably.
• Shifting or False Justifications allows the employer to give inconsistent reasons for the adverse action, suggesting the stated reason is a pretext for the real, discriminatory motive.
• Derogatory Remarks: Offensive comments or “jokes” about your race, accent, or ancestry can help establish a biased work environment.
• Statistical Evidence: Data showing a clear pattern of bias in hiring, promotions, or terminations.
• Departure from Company Policy: An employer fails to follow its own procedures when disciplining or terminating you.

The Legal Process in New York

In New York, an individual can file a discrimination complaint with a federal, state, or city agency, such as the EEOC, the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), or the NYC Commission on Human Rights. Unlike federal law, which requires filing with the EEOC first, New York law allows a claimant to file with the DHR or proceed directly to state court, offering a significant strategic advantage.

Once in litigation, courts often use a burden-shifting framework to analyze circumstantial evidence. First, the employee must present an initial (prima facie) case of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. Finally, the employee must prove that the employer’s reason is a pretext—a false excuse to hide the real, discriminatory motive.

Why New York Offers Stronger Civil Rights Protections

While federal law provides a crucial foundation, New York State and New York City have enacted laws that offer broader protections. Federal Title VII only applies to employers with 15 or more employees, but the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) both cover employers with four or more employees. This dramatically expands protection to workers at smaller businesses.

Furthermore, New York laws are often more expansive. The standard for proving a hostile work environment claim in New York City, for example, is more plaintiff-friendly than the federal “severe or pervasive” standard. These enhanced protections make New York a more favorable forum for employees seeking justice and highlight the importance of local legal expertise.

Your Path Forward

The distinction between national origin and race discrimination can be nuanced, and successfully pursuing a claim benefits from a thoughtful understanding of the law. An employer’s liability often depends not on an employee’s background, but on the employer’s own misconceptions or assumptions.

For those who believe their civil rights may have been violated, working through this complex system can feel overwhelming without proper support. Fortunately, New York’s robust civil rights laws offer meaningful protections, and with the right guidance from experienced employment attorneys, these laws can be powerful tools for justice. If you’re experiencing workplace discrimination, connecting with knowledgeable legal counsel is an important step that can help you understand your options, develop an effective approach, and ensure your rights are properly protected.

Call Us

We at Filippatos PLLC stand in proud solidarity with workers of all national backgrounds, no matter where you come from. We believe that all people deserve the right to exist freely, no matter who they love or how they express themselves. If you are experiencing discrimination at work due to your race or national origin, please give us a call at 888-9-JOBLAW for a free consultation. We will do our utmost to help secure you the justice you deserve.