Originally Posted By andyll >>Yes, she does. >><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._of_1964" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._of_1964</a> >>The relevant section is Title VII. From your link: "Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" She obviously isn't being discriminated because of her religion since Disney has been consistent in enforcing it's dress code in all cases. "An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit." She worked there for 2 1/2 years. "In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. " Disney has been consitent in requring themed dress codes for all employees and could make an easly case that themed dress codes are an intragral part of their business 'on stage' She on the other hand has to prove that wearing a hijab is required of her religion. Not very easy since she hasn't for 2 1/2 years. The courts have always ruled in favor of employers in the cases of the family leave act that it is ok for a company to offer a different job as long as it is not a demotion. Disney offering her several equivilent jobs off stage is easily a reasonable attempt at accomidation. She doesn't have a chance to win this.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Absolutely nothing when taken out of context like this. My point was and still is that the word "rights" is way overused." I never said that anybody had any right to yell fire in a crowded theater. When I say rights I mean rights that will be recognized in a court of law. I am not misusing the word rights or censorship or anything of the sort.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "She obviously isn't being discriminated because of her religion since Disney has been consistent in enforcing it's dress code in all cases." "Obviously?" There have been different cases with similar issues and different outcomes. It does not appear that you can simply say "no accommodation for anyone" and be done with it in every single case. "She worked there for 2 1/2 years." She only learned of the discrimination when she tried to wear the hijab to work. "Disney offering her several equivilent jobs off stage is easily a reasonable attempt at accomidation." The very nature of sending her backstage because she wears a hijab is insulting and may cause undue hardship to the employee when she is more than qualified to be a waitress and interact with customers. We have a case where Muslim woman = good waitress. But Muslim woman + headscarf = bad waitress. It doesn't make much sense. "She on the other hand has to prove that wearing a hijab is required of her religion. Not very easy since she hasn't for 2 1/2 years." You ignore the context. It was likely that she was not always aware of her rights. She became an American relatively recently. Just because you are not aware of your rights does not mean you don't have them.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Does this lady have a right to wear the scarf, I suppose an argument can be persuasively made? Does Disney have a right to run their business and subsequently their show the way they need to make it what was envisioned?" The answer to both questions is yes. When there is a conflict like this a good way to settle it is to bring the issue in front of a judge. I'm hopeful that this will happen, but it will probably be settled out of court.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x **"She worked there for 2 1/2 years." She only learned of the discrimination when she tried to wear the hijab to work.** Why did she try to wear it after working there for 2 1/2 years, knowing the dress code? That's the part I'm trying to understand, is the *WHY*... she knew the rules and guidelines. Why now?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But Muslim woman + headscarf = bad waitress. It doesn't make much sense." Spokker, we get it. However, your comment above is overly simplistic. You said yourself that these cases have historically had different outcomes, and perhaps the nature of the dress requirement has some bearing on those decisions. Surely Disney's well known theatrical dress codes will be taken into account if and when a court hears this case.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss IMO, Disney has done all they can to accommodate this woman. They gone as far as designing her a custom made costume so that she can fulfill her religion needs. That she has rejected it because it's not her personal hajib smacks of entitlement to me.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Why did she try to wear it after working there for 2 1/2 years, knowing the dress code? That's the part I'm trying to understand, is the *WHY*... she knew the rules and guidelines. Why now?" She knew the rules and the guidelines as they related to the dress code. She probably did not know the law or her rights. There is also a debate within non-white cultures about whether or not individuals should refrain from rocking the boat for fear or making things worse for the entire group. Perhaps that is also playing a factor here. Furthermore, if a dress code is designed in such a way that it is unlikely to be a problem for random Christians, Catholics and Mormons that apply, but more likely to be a problem for random Jews and Muslims that apply, is that not discriminatory? It was only recently that Disney even allowed cornrows, a hairstyle with roots among African Americans. Before that, it was probably more likely that a black applicant would have cornrows than a white applicant. Here's a case in which a white cop was disciplined for wearing cornrows while dozens of black officers did the same. <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/09/22/2009-09-22_boss_tells_white_cop_corn.html" target="_blank">http://www.nydailynews.com/new...orn.html</a> It only proves that these cases are, more than anything else, wacky. Fun to argue about, though.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Surely Disney's well known theatrical dress codes will be taken into account if and when a court hears this case." It will be difficult to make the case that Storytellers Cafe is theatrical in such a way that a plain white hijab would ruin the experience. The Jungle Cruise would be an example of a theatrical experience in which the skipper's costume is integral to the experience up to and including the hat. But even if the Jungle Cruise skipper was in a turban I wouldn't really care.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That's the part I'm trying to understand, is the *WHY*... she knew the rules and guidelines. Why now?<< I guess my question is does it really matter? Is it the issue of motive? Could she have converted? The notion of returning to the fold is very important in Christianity - isn't it also possible she rediscovered her faith?
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x But as someone who just came back into the fold myself, I'm not going to start wearing my NOTW or Jesus shirts or other garb to work, even if it is my right to do so, and doesn't even go against the dress code (only clothing that is *discriminatory* is not accepted). Seriously, as a white, Christian, American woman I tend to not rock the boat when it comes to my rights. I am thankful to have a job and am not going to push the limits to exercise my rights. She has been taken off Disney's schedule. They did what they could to accommodate her choices (and that's all it is, a choice), this has nothing to do with race or religion. It has to do with a set of rules that are not being followed, which Disney has every right to enforce. SHE chose to not accept their accommodations.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >>The very nature of sending her backstage because she wears a hijab is insulting...<< They're sending her backstage because she is not in onstage attire. They would do the same to a Tomorrowland Cast Member wearing a cowboy hat. Actually, scratch that, they would issue a written warning to the Cast Member with the cowboy hat, and probably terminate after the second offense. Clearly, she is getting some level of accommodation from Disney. Its apparent you think it's been insufficient, but like you've mentioned earlier, that will be for a judge to decide. After offering alternative work at same pay and benefits with the clearance to wear her hijab (this being rejected), after numerous costume adjustments specifically for this one Cast Member (all rejected), Disney has shown its interest at the negotiating table. I don't see how any judge would be blind to this. >>...and may cause undue hardship to the employee when she is more than qualified to be a waitress and interact with customers.<< She was offered the same pay and benefits. How is she brought hardship? As we all continue to debate this day by day, its seeming more and more that this Cast Member cares most about guests seeing her religious observance, rather than the specific act of observing. A silly sense of entitlement without support of any law I'm aware of.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>She probably did not know the law or her rights.<<< In my mind she still doesn't. The constitution guarantees that you will be allowed to worship in your own way. It does not require everyone else to adapt to it. The constitution requires that I be tolerant of that religion even if I do not agree with it. I am not required to agree with it. The constitution also entitles me to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in the case of the last one it doesn't necessarily guarantee that I will find it. It also protect my right to live my life however I want too without outside interference. It does not require that you change or give up your legal rights so that I can accomplish that goal. It only says that I have the right to pursue it. Finding it in a manner that works for everyone is not covered in the footnotes.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It will be difficult to make the case that Storytellers Cafe is theatrical in such a way that a plain white hijab would ruin the experience." That wouldn't be the whole argument. It's about consistency both in the guest experience at the Resort and in applying the corporate dress code for onstage workers around the globe. Suppose Disney permits her to wear the habib at the restaurant and she decides to apply for an onstage position in DCA in Carsland in two years. Then what?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It's about consistency both in the guest experience at the Resort and in applying the corporate dress code for onstage workers around the globe.<< I think that's going to have to be their argument. No way they can win by trying to suggest that the woman wearing a hijab is driving away business or causing guests to spend less. And even if it is, I somehow doubt Disney wants to basically say, "Some of our guests are racist and they're offended by Muslim garb, so we need to cater to them."
Originally Posted By ecdc I'll add on a personal level, I'm just fine with Disney telling this woman she can't wear a hijab. But that's not what the law says; or at the very least, there's enough of a question that a court could decide. I'm an atheist who thinks religion ought to be very private and really has no place in public due to the strife it inevitably brings. The very act of expressing beliefs often causes tension. As we've seen here. My defense of this woman comes because my study of the American religious past tells me that we have a long history in this country of not being very nice to minority religions. The majority typically get up in arms if their version of religion is not accepted everywhere, while at the same time putting down minorities for just "not fitting in." How often do we hear of the "war on Christmas" or lamentations about nativity scenes not allowed in public parks, etc? But then this woman comes along and is almost universally vilified by Disney fans for just not putting up with it. If the court decides she has no right to wear a hijab, I've got no beef with that. I'd just kindly remind people that one person's bold stand for religious freedom is another's frivolous lawsuit and refusal to take personal responsibility.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "My defense of this woman comes because my study of the American religious past tells me that we have a long history in this country of not being very nice to minority religions." I understand that, and as I minority I agree completely. However, I also believe that in our efforts to be politically correct our society has become overly sensitive, disregarding common sense in an effort to not appear insensitive to others. This particular case is the perfect example. I'd like to also note that lot of very good questions have been raised on both sides of the issue here and commend everyone for keeping the debate civil.
Originally Posted By moviela For Dr. Reinhardt, on my sets I do not permit loose, torn, soiled, or any article of clothing that would detract from the decorum required to acomplish the task. It is sometimes hard physical work involving dangerous machinery, flying objects, explosions and other mayhem the story tellers cook up. If I ask a man to go up a ladder, I don't want to hear "let me adjust my dress Sahib."
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Why only Islam./// The grunge left within the USA quickly defends minority faiths(not just Islam). ///Seems to me left wingers tend to favor broad civil rights for ALL./// That used to be the case with the flower and British invasion liberals(60's), the disco liberals(70's) and the big hair glam liberals(80's).......but the grunge liberals of the 90's changed the rules of liberalism by pushing their "political correctness" agenda at the expense of unpopular speech. Pure ACLUer's are an endangered species now.
