Originally Posted By figment1986 <<WASHINGTON: The Sikh American Legal Defence and Education Fund (SALDEF), the oldest and largest Sikh-American civil rights and advocacy organization in the US has filed a class action suit against the Walt Disney World Company on behalf of Sukhbir Singh Channa. Channa, a Sikh-American, had applied for a job with Disney in September 2006 but was told that he could not be hired unless he removed his religiously-mandated turban. He was also told that he did not have "the Disney look". Witnesses have filed affidavits in his support. "There's no legal or other justification for a company to repudiate an employee in the manner that Disney has repudiated Channa," said SALDEF chairman Manjit Singh. "Disney makes millions of dollars each year on cartoon characters that wear turbans but cannot respect the right of an American to wear a turban for religious reasons," said Manjit Singh. An official press conference announcing the lawsuit against Disney is scheduled on June 16, Florida Miami.>> This is an interesting lawsuit, of course even thought this person is doing it, Disney requires EVERYONE to have the same Disney Look who works in the parks and resorts.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo This is an interesting one. I would have thought it would depend on the role. For security, tickets, car parking etc. Then a turban would be fine (or any role in Asia at DAK). But in the Magic Kingdom, I could see this not working.
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie I believe that Disney would have leniency in selecting candidates for on stage role type jobs that would fit a "look." But I'm sure there would be other jobs that he could have done. I'm sure as with most cases, there is more to this story.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost What would you expect from a place that wouldn't allow mustaches until recently, when the company founder had one just about all his adult life. I do, however, see that it could ruin the show and that to be a cast member and expected to act out a part, one would have to chose between religious headgear and their respective costume. In other words, you couldn't really play the part of a priest in a movie if you were to insist on wearing a religious turban. Your choice would be to either pass up the role or lose the head cover. Why would you logically expect the script would be rewritten to include a priest wearing a turban. You make the choices about how you relate to any situation. The company shouldn't have to alter it's plan to accommodate your beliefs. You have options and one of them is to remove it, the other is to look for something that would not require it's removal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Why would you logically expect the script would be rewritten to include a priest wearing a turban.<< I dunno, sounds like the start of a pretty interesting movie premise to me. ; )
Originally Posted By MPierce I would put my money on Disney. That is if they don't fold under the publicity first.
Originally Posted By Shiva Disney may be missing a niche marketing opportunity. Turbans with EARS!! I'd buy one ; )
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I am certainly no lawyer, but I do know that there are certain things that an employer can require of employees, and I believe adherence to a dress code is one of them. I know that the casting of face characters is protected under something called BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) whereby they may cast people who fit a role. For example, Disney may cast a white woman in the role of Snow White and someone of a different race cannot win a lawsuit claiming that they have been discriminated against because they were not cast in that role. I am not sure where the Disney Look falls under the law, but I'm going to put my money on Disney. There are religions that forbid cutting facial hair, yet in order to work at Disney, at least until the mustache change, you had to be clean shaven. I bet this is somehow protected.
Originally Posted By Disneymom443 Even as a Disney Store CM you have to follow strict rules. To me if you want to be a part to the picture you have to play the role given to you.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey ^^^^^Yep. When I was a Disney Store CM I was told I had to remove my red nail polish because it was too flashy and didn't fit with the Disney Look.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal But I guess the question is, if your religion required you to wear red nail polish could Disney require you to take it off? I mean, I sent more than one CM to First Aid (where they keep nail polish remover) to remove their nail polish that was too dark, but they had agreed to that guideline when they hired in. I am guessing that the disclosure of the Disney Look prior to hiring is how Disney is covered in this case. Would it be another thing if they hired someone with a current look and then changed the rules to make them change a previously accepted look? I don't think this lawsuit really has merit, but again I'm not a lawyer.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Having to "play a part" would certainly negate any objection. As I said before, if you cannot conform to the needed requirements then you are not qualified for the job. Simple really. It will not require anyone to change their beliefs just their goals. To carry it to an extreme to make a point. If your religion tells you that you cannot kill, you can always maintain that belief, no one says you should alter it, you just can't be an executioner. Likewise, a person of the Jewish religion is not likely to be able to function as a pork sausage taster at Jimmy Dean. A visually impaired person cannot fly a commercial airline and a crazy person cannot be President of the US (Oops, bad example...disregard) Sorry George, I wasn't thinking.
