In 1973 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could not even find a claim to be considered when considering a plaintiff's request that government agencies should provide information in Spanish (Carmona v. Sheffield, 1971/1973). Yet only two years later, the Sixth Circuit found discriminatory effect in a case involving access to government employment (Frontera v. Sindell, 1975). Again the language was Spanish. Though the existence of a legal issue was recognized at this time, the court affirmed monolingualism as a viable national policy and refused to scrutinize the validity of civil service testing. English was the language of government. No privileges could be granted to other languages unless granted to all, and that would create an impossible financial burden for the government.

        Damian Frontera, who had received only a fourth grade education in Puerto Rico, moved to Cleveland in 1953 at the age of 28 and became a union carpenter on the basis of an oral test and inspection of his work. After obtaining temporary employment as a carpenter at Cleveland's Hopkins Airport, he applied for and, in May 1970 along with 126 other hopefuls, took the exam for a permanent appointment, one of the highest paid positions in the city's workforce. Only one such appointment was made.
        The pre-examination announcements, examination instructions, and the written section of the exam were all in English, a language which Frontera spoke poorly and which he could read at a basic level only with great difficulty. This lack of proficiency in English had not interfered with his work performance at the airport nor with his ability to communicate with his supervisor. Nevertheless the pending examination was a different matter, so Frontera requested to have the test administered to him in Spanish. His request was granted, and two days before the test the Civil Service Commission formally voted to have the test translated if possible. Because the employee who was assigned to do the translation was unable to do it in time, however, the test was administered in English.
        A minimum of 70 out of 100 points were required to pass. The plaintiff scored 36 out of 50 on the performance test, but testified in court that he had not understood that he could use some clamps which were on the work table. On the written section he achieved a score of 31.349 out of 50. It seems he had trouble understanding some words and phrases, such as "beading work", "factory or shop lumber", and "decay" resisting (in reference to cedar). Consequently Frontera failed the exam, ranking 103 out of 127 applicants. He continued in his job on temporary status until November 1970 when Cleveland's poor financial condition resulted in a massive layoff of workers and his job was eliminated as unnecessary.
        He filed suit under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1985 on his own behalf and on behalf of other Spanish speakers who might have taken the test if announcements and administration had been offered in Spanish. The district court recognized the discriminatory effect on the Spanish-speaking community, but felt that the city had shown a compelling state interest to administer the exam in English.
        The Sixth Circuit agreed. Two of the three judges went on to say that the city need only have shown a rational basis, rather than compelling state interest. There was no discrimination on account of nationality, and English was reaffirmed as the common, national language of the United States. After all, English is the language in which legislatures conduct their business, and in which the laws are printed. Some states, furthermore, had legally designated English as their official language, and English literacy is a condition for naturalization (8 U.S.C. 1423). Exceptions to this national policy, the court declared, do not create any right to government services in a particular language.
        A metropolitan city like Cleveland has numerous language groups represented in its population. If the city conducted examinations in Spanish, denial of the same privilege to any other language group would constitute "invidious discrimination."Nor could Cleveland which had severe financial problems at the time, "saddle its harried taxpayers" with the expenses necessary for "a department of languages with a staff of linguists to translate the tests and supervise them."
        The majority of the court was very reluctant to entertain any challenge to the validity of the testing process, because they were afraid that to do so would discourage objective civil service testing in favor of a more selective hiring process contaminated by political considerations. Written tests, though they may lack some validity, were considered the least susceptible to subjective judgment. Even a cut off which cannot be shown to predict job performance, the judges pointed out, may serve defensible goals. Applicants lacking in motivation or mental ability might thus be weeded out. As for Frontera, the examination did not test "general proficiency in the English language[, but rather technical terms which] ordinarily would be recognized and understood by a person knowledgeable in the carpentry trade."