Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=75253" target="_blank"><b>Latest: OCReg: Muslim employee accuses Disney of discrimination</b></a> <p>The <em>Orange County Register</em> reports a hostess at Disney's Grand Californian Hotel restaurant Storyteller's Cafe has not been unable to work in that role while wearing a Muslim head scarf. Disney says they have offered a behind-the-scenes assignment at the restaurant until her employer could figure out a solution.</p>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Hmmmm... something about this story seems fishy to me. She's been working for Disney for two years and suddenly has decided to start wearing a habib to work? Not saying that Disney isn't capable of being discriminatory, but I wonder, under the circumstances and workplace dress codes, what legal obligation does Disney have to allow her to wear her head wrap.
Originally Posted By TP2000 This sort of thing just makes me so.... ANGRY, regardless of which company the Muslim is trying to bully. I really hope Disneyland stands their ground on this and doesn't bend to Political Correctness. For decades Jews weren't allowed to wear Yarmulkes, Catholics weren't allowed to wear Rosaries, Lance Armstrong fans weren't allowed to wear Livestrong bracelets, etc., etc. This union is making fools of themselves, but we'll have to see how Disney responds to this one. I have no doubt that TDA has called in the corporate lawyers from Burbank on this one and they are circling the wagons right now. I will look forward to the eventual outcome on this one.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Since alternative work and pay were offered, I don't think the employee has much of a case. So this person is not being prohibited from making a living. >>May an employee wear religious garb or symbols to work? Employers must attempt to accommodate employees who, for religious reasons, must maintain a particular physical appearance or manner of dress in keeping with the tenets of their religion. Again, accommodation is required only if it can be made without undue hardship to the employer. When it comes to religious apparel, typically only safety concerns constitute undue hardship. << source: <a href="http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp" target="_blank">http://www.adl.org/religious_f...lace.asp</a> Disney has altered "The Disney Look" over the years however, especially in the last 10 years. It's a difficult, complex matter, that's for sure.
Originally Posted By TP2000 The Council on American-Islamic Relations was there this afternoon at a big demonstration they held in the hotel, and out on the sidewalk. This CAIR group is "representing her" and is paying her lawyer fees. And the Hotel Union is going along for the ride and adding "Si Se Puede!" chants to the whole thing on the front lawn of the Grand Californian. It's sickening. What is sad is that this poor girl is being used as a pawn. Not that she is blameless, but this is beyond just her wearing her scarve at the restaurant now.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 So she wanted to wear it... and they told her she could, but in certain areas, and instead she just decided not to go to work... I...what? Why is this a top story?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt And that's the fishy part. I'm kind of with TP on this... she's being used as a pawn by the local union.
Originally Posted By LuLu Don't on-stage CMs have to wear a costume / uniform? Seems like she knew what to wear when she signed on...
Originally Posted By joe80x86 I really hope Disney does stand their ground, this is absolutely ridiculous.
Originally Posted By MickeyMommy So sad that one of her first acts as an American citizen is to sue her employer. I bet she couldn't do that in her country of birth.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones What's wrong with a Muslim head scarf? Hell, the damn thing would probably fit in at Adventureland. Seriously, are you going to freak out if your server is wearing this? <a href="http://welovehijab.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/hijab-article.jpg" target="_blank">http://welovehijab.com/wp-cont...icle.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones I joke about Adventureland, of course. A headscarf would be appropriate at nearly every job at Disneyland, from Tomorrowland to New Orleans Square. It's really not that big of a deal.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "For decades Jews weren't allowed to wear Yarmulkes," They should have always been allowed to. Just because there was discrimination in the past doesn't mean we continue it because somehow Muslims have to pay their dues or something. "Catholics weren't allowed to wear Rosaries" There is some debate over whether or not you are even supposed to wear a rosary as a piece jewelry if you are Catholic. I grew up Catholic and wearing a rosary was not done. We were only required to pray with it. But again, if one chooses to wear it, who cares? That can easily be worn under the costume anyway. "Lance Armstrong fans weren't allowed to wear Livestrong bracelets, etc., etc." This isn't a religious thing so I don't see how it's relevant. Please explain to me how a head scarf would ruin your meticulously themed club sandwich at Storyteller's Cafe. Would you leave if you noticed that your waitress was wearing one? Would it make your overpriced meal feel less tasty?
Originally Posted By Mr F Disney is a stupid company who disciplines and fires people for wearing white socks. Obviously, this proves that Disney doesn't care about their employee's or their employee's personal beliefs or needs. The typical guest really doesn't care what the employee's wearing, as long as they have a name tag. You think the Muslim Cast member is greedy and wants money? Well Disney cares more about money then their workers.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "This isn't a religious thing so I don't see how it's relevant." That's kind of the point though. Yes, the big religions like Islam, Judiasm, and Christianity would be considered 'valid' with their various articles to be worn, but what about smaller, more modern ones? How about Scientology? What about those ones that outsiders call a cult, but insiders call a religion? Where do you draw the line? By simply saying that nothing is allowed, it treats everybody the same. Sadly, in today's world, if people are given wiggle room on rules, they will keep pushing it to the point that it's rediculous and irrelevant. What if it's against my religion to dress like a pirate, and I'm working on POTC? What if I don't want to wear the silly straw hat at small world, and claim religious religions? No, you can't make me work backstage, you just have to deal with it, and watch as the uniforms become increasingly less uniform. Personally, I have no problem with her wearing it. But it opens up a very slippery slope once one person is give accomodations. The way I see it, the only fair way is to say that nobody can wear religious articles on stage. There are other jobs available where workers can wear whatever they want, so it's not as though Disney is completely denying them because of it. The fact that she has worked there for two years and just now decided to wear it is also a little suspect. If it was truly that big a deal for religious purposes, would she not have been wearing it when she was initially hired?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If it was truly that big a deal for religious purposes, would she not have been wearing it when she was initially hired?" People change. I was raised Catholic but I am now an atheist. Your level of observance can also change. "That's kind of the point though." No, it's not. Religion is a protected class under Title VII. The courts have interpreted this to mean the traditional religions and atheism. Livestrong bracelets are not protected. "What if it's against my religion to dress like a pirate, and I'm working on POTC?" Go for it if you feel you have a case. Sincerity of belief will be tried under a judge. However, I believe such crazy scenarios have already been ruled out. Essentially, Disney will be required to prove that the head scarf restricts their ability to operate the business. I don't see how it, or a yarmulke, does. But hey, it will be decided by a judge if it comes to that.
