Yeah, I don't know what happened when I posted, but my last response was a query about why this legislation was needed. You can do this on a company basis, as with other things, like dress codes, so why introduce a law?
The 'law' was introduced because some 200 such suits this year have been filed by the EEOC against small businesses when they have attempted to institute English mandatory policies in their work forces. It isn't that much different from a business changing their policy about much of anything. I have had a couple of jobs for some time in which the company policy changed to require specific certification for employees doing the work. As I didn't have the certification I was given a reasonable time to qualify for it and get it, which I did. Had I not, I would have fully expected to be terminated for not meeting the requirements of the job even though I had been doing that job for some time.
I don't see how institution of a dress code or mandatory English policy would be any different, especially if the employees were given a reasonable time to comply. (One source I read said the Salvation army gave those two employees two years to learn sufficient English; others say one year; but either way that does not seem unreasonable.)
The number of non-English speakers in our area has seemed to increase tenfold in the last decade or so, and where it was not much of a problem before, it has actually become a problem. I think before employers didn't have much of a problem with non-English speakers as just about everybody did speak adequate English, but lately it has become more of a problem.
The Salvation Army case is but one among the 200 businesses cited by Alexander and some other groups that are paying attention to this.
Note that the law does not require employers to institute mandatory English policies, but it does allow them the right to do so without retaliation from the EEOC or anybody else and without having to go through an intensive legal process to get it done.