What happens when an employer decides business will improve if employees take on names that are more “American-sounding”?

This case, reported on MSNBC.com, involves the owner of a hotel in Taos, NM, who ordered a group of Hispanic employees to change their names to sound more Anglo. For example, someone whose name was “Martin” (Mar-TEEN) might switch to “Mark.”

The reason: When some workers answered the phones and said their names, customers didn’t understand and got uncomfortable. The owner suspected that some even hung up rather than struggle with the less-familiar name.

Some employees refused and got fired.

The owner’s reasoning was straightforward: The more simple and familiar the employee’s name, the more likely it was that the customer would stay on the phone and book a room. In other words, it was about business, not changing names. Further, the owner said he had used the same tactic at a hotel in Oklahoma, where almost all of his employees were African American. In that instance, he told “five or six” employees to use different names at work. An example:  “Latasha” became “Tasha.”

Both sides
No one has filed a formal suit against the owner yet, but there’s ample argument for both sides. The employees say they have a right to their names. The owner says he doesn’t care about people’s names; he just wants more business.

Some completed court cases involving discrimination suits don’t necessarily serve to predict the winner here if this case ever goes to trial. Generally, employers aren’t allowed to “adopt the biases of customers.” That is, for instance, an employer cannot refuse to hire Hispanics because some customers express a preference for Anglo employees.

Can an employer order an employee to use a different name at work if the employer honestly believes the change will increase revenues? To be determined.