Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Here is a 2006 lawsuit regarding having Sundays off. <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_7_51/ai_n26931421/?tag=untagged" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/arti...untagged</a> "After that meeting, Baker was scheduled to work on a Sunday. When Baker failed to appear for work that day, his employment was terminated. Baker filed a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination. The district court ruled for Home Depot, determining that it avoided liability for religious discrimination by offering to accommodate him to let him work Sunday afternoons or evenings. The 2nd Circuit disagreed, reversing that decision and remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings. The appeals court held that an employer "does not fulfill its obligation to reasonably accommodate a religious belief when it is confronted with two religious objections and offers an accommodation which completely ignores one." The offer to let Baker work on Sunday afternoons or evenings addressed his ability to attend church services, but ignored his basic objection to working on Sundays. The court found that, in essence, the accommodation could not be considered reasonable because it did not eliminate the conflict between the employment requirement and the religious practice." "Apathetic, or simply willing to abide by reasonable rules?" It depends on what you believe is reasonable. In this case, the employer was willing to let the employee work Sunday afternoons and it still wasn't enough. It sounds like courts are willing to go further than you think when determining what is reasonable. I don't think a court would agree that allowing her to work backstage is reasonable accommodation. But we'll see. It should be noted that many regulations like this only apply to companies with more than 50 employees.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Also, many people may simply be okay with wearing a cross under their shirt. Many Catholics I knew growing up did that anyway.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "And no, a hijab does not equate to a necklace bearing a cross or star of David. Those can be small, unobtrusive and given the rising tides of anti-Muslim sentiment which I find ludicrous, unoffensive and tucked under the costume top." If you find the rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment ludicrous, why are you willing to cater to that sentiment? That the majority of people find the hijab offensive is irrelevant to issues related to civil rights.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost My take...if an employer specifically lists the do's and don'ts required to accomplish the job that THEY are paying you to do, they have that right. This is what they are looking for. If you don't fit in then why are you taking the position? You have already seen that your objections do not fit the company policy. Do you think that, well if I demand it the company will change. That almost borders on stupid. No company was created for your convenience. It is there to fulfill a mission and you either fit into that goal or you don't. If you don't, your rights as a citizen are to go someplace else that more closely fits your needs, not the other way around. When a company makes that much effort to insure that religion does not become a focal point then they should be applauded. Why would anyone want to go to a place where you have to tip toe around someones beliefs. Believe what you want...that is your personal business. If you believe in it strongly enough then you will realize that it may be necessary for you to make some sacrifices to be able to continue that. It isn't up to the rest of the world to conform or sacrifice for YOUR beliefs.
Originally Posted By Ursula <That the majority of people find the hijab offensive is irrelevant to issues related to civil rights.> Again, I'm not offended by it at all (other than being female and finding it as a step backward for my gender, but that's another fight for another day.) I'd fight for her right to wear it while not at work for a company known for having such a strict dress code. And I am expected to work Sundays as needed, regardless of the time of day.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "No company was created for your convenience. It is there to fulfill a mission and you either fit into that goal or you don't. If you don't, your rights as a citizen are to go someplace else that more closely fits your needs, not the other way around." I think where it gets sticky is when businesses have to deal with a protected class. In this case that would be a religious person and her right to practice her beliefs by wearing the required adornment. Many of the Islamic faith believe that they must pray five times a day. I wonder if Disney (or any business for that matter) would lawfully have to accommodate special breaks for that as well.
Originally Posted By Roger55 There is another form of Islamic head covering called a burqa, worn by some Muslims females in some places such as Afganistan. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...n_01.jpg</a> How should a desire to wear a burqa be handled if it were to come up? I believe it is worn for religious reasons just like a hijab. Should all religious related attire be handled in the same manner by Disney? If they aren't all handled the same way, I would think Disney would have even more legal issues to deal with. What do you think? Should a desire to wear a burqa be handled any different from a hijab, and if so, under what reasoning or justification?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Good question. Again, not knowing the law in detail, I believe that a business should have the right to establish uniform guidelines that govern what employees can and cannot wear.
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Disney has very specific requirements for cast members. Right down to "1 ring per hand - exception wedding ring set will count as 1 ring, one watch, gold, silver, brown or black band, no necklaces, bracelets, or anklets, except medic alert." Like others have pointed out, even the color of the socks are determined, per the uniform. Disney will fight this, and they will win. Employers have the ability to set dress codes. Abercrombie is involved in a similar lawsuit, adn they are predicted to win. In this case, the CM signed an employee agreement to maintain the Disneyland image and to abide by the dress code. She applied for an exemption for religious reasons, and 2 weeks ago, Disney wardrobe fitted her for a custom made hijab to match her uniform. Instead of waiting, with the UNITE Here union, she opted to make headlines by wearing her Hijab to work and being turned away. She was offered a similar position at the same pay, until this was finalized. Instead, with the backing of UNITE Here, she has walked off the job. Disney is going to have standing in this case. Disney defends these cases, and UNITE Here has thrown her under a bus.
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Christian crosses, Stars of David, Ash from Ash Wed are not allowed either. Imagine a Hasidic Jew working Space Mountain, or a nun in Haunted Mansion, or a burqa in Pirates. Again, this woman has been thrown under the bus by the union, and is being used to try and further THEIR agenda. And it is backfiring.
Originally Posted By Roger55 I would think that Disney, the union and maybe even the courts would not want to get themselves in the positions where they are determining which forms of religious wear are allowable/appropriate and which forms are not. For instance, if there is a case where a CM wanted to wear a burqa, Disney did not allow it and the union at that time choses NOT to back the CM, the union then opens themselves up for a discrimination claim. If Disney realy does come through and creates a hijab for this CM, they now have set a precidence that any CM request for a customized costume to conform to their religious beliefs has to be granted or once again, discrimination can be claimed. Disney and the union are headed into very "dangerous waters" by opening up this "can of worms".* *100 bonus points for using two cliches in one sentance.
Originally Posted By leobloom >> Imagine a Hasidic Jew working Space Mountain, or a nun in Haunted Mansion, or a burqa in Pirates. << Oh, God! You're right! I can't imagine Hasidic Jews ever working at a space port for interplanetary travel. That's just TOO MUCH for my imagination to handle! Now the nun at the Haunted Mansion...that's kinda Gothic, so I guess that's okay.
Originally Posted By ecdc The very statement of "imagine a...!" only proves spokker's point. We have this white, Christian, middle-class sense of what is normal - of how people ought to look and behave. So we go, "Imagine a Jew on Space Mountain, or someone praying in Main Street! What craziness!" But we only say that because it's out of this mainstream white Protestant norm. What does it matter if she wears the hijab? Because it invades our sentimental sense of what Disneyland is all about? And then what is Disneyland a celebration of? Some kind of nostalgic sense of the 1950s, complete with Ward and June? This is different than rings, watches, or much else.
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Actually, it doesn't prove his point. Disney has a dress code. Before you even interview for a position, you are given a copy of the dress code. You go over it many times, with them pointing out everything, line by line. This is not just Disneyland or WDW, but Disney stores also. They ask if you can abide by the dress code. They are casting, as they do consider it a "Theme Park." THEMEING. From Disney's "Look Book": Jewelry • Rings, earrings and a classic business-style wristwatch are permitted. • Necklaces, bracelets and ankle bracelets are not permitted. A medical-alert necklace, bracelet or ankle bracelet is acceptable. • Earrings must be a simple, matched pair in gold, silver or a color that blends with the costume. One earring in each ear is permitted. Earrings may be clip-on or pierced, post, hoop or dangle and must be worn on the bottom of the earlobe. Earrings may not exceed the size of a quarter. • Only one ring on each hand is permitted, with the exception of a wedding set. A ring may be worn on any finger. California is an At Will state to work in. You don't have a right to work at Disney. Do I think she should be allowed to wear the Hijab? Sure. But she should wait and go through the channels, like any one else. She had a fitting for the Disney made head piece about 2 weeks ago. If what I was told was correct, the scarf was supposed to be fitted again this upcoming week. But this wasn't fast enough for the union. She was offered a comparable position, working as a cashier for room service, where she would be allowed to wear the scarf. She declined at the urging of the union. Honestly? I am more angry with the union. They are using this woman. They have told her "Hey, let's go before the press, we haven't negotiated in good faith for over 2.5 years, and we need something to put us back in the lights." I am pro union, but this union has gone to far in operating for their own good and NOT for the good of their members.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///BTW, it's funny that three avowed atheists are the ones defending this woman /// 'funny' as in ironic? At first glance perhaps...... but when one digs deeper then it's not so funny/ironic but fairly predictable since a great many anti-faithers bend left. And the left side tends to favor protection for Islam followers in the US.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Disney has a dress code<< Yes. A dress code designed to conform to majority standards and one that does not include room for minority cultural styles. Which is honestly fine - Disney is a company and they want to cultivate a certain image. They're allowed to do that. If their employees were wearing shirts with profanity, they'd drive customers away. No one is arguing that as a private company Disney can't set expectations for their employees. The issue is that there are also legal protections in place for employees, so that Disney can't discriminate based on race, ethnicity, or religion. They can't, for example, say that a Hispanic employee can't work on Main Street because for theming purposes there weren't a lot of Hispanics in early 20th century mid-Western towns. Not everything goes just because Disney is a private company.
Originally Posted By danyoung I'm late to this thread, but I have to side with Disney on this one. The young lady worked for the company for 2 years before wearing the hijab, and only lately has decided to wear it. And Disney immediately told her that she was dressed inappropriately, and to take it off or go home. They even offered her another job backstage, where the dress code would allow a hijab, but she didn't want the job. I don't think it has anything to do with religious repression. As a guest I don't want religious reminders from any CM - I just want them to be CMs, properly themed just like everything else in the Land. If this goes to court I'm really hoping that Disney (and good sense) wins the day.
Originally Posted By barboy2 I agree. Readily seen faith symbols have no place in Disneyland(as in the company) and its cast. As a guest I don't want to see Jesus crosses, 666 tattoos, Islam head gear or David stars on the cast or on any piece of Disney property.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And the left side tends to favor protection for Islam followers in the US*** Why only Islam. Seems to me left wingers tend to favor broad civil rights for ALL.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Why does everybody against this quote the Disney Look guidelines as if we don't already know them? This is a Disney message board and it'd be pretty safe to assume we all know this stuff. Hell, I worked there for a year when I was younger. But the fact of the matter is that Disney, like any large company, is not all-powerful. They must comply with laws that protect the civil rights of their employees. Whether or not Disney violated the civil rights of this woman will be decided by a judge if it ever gets to that point, but it is not an open and shut case. Disney, like any large company, is not all knowing. The statement that "legal has looked at this" is profoundly arrogant. Companies are sued all the time and they don't always win, even on matters they thought were open and shut. I know someone who represents very large corporations and this person says that it's amazing what companies think they can get away with sometimes. Companies also not do always listen to their lawyers. "Employers have the ability to set dress codes. Abercrombie is involved in a similar lawsuit, adn they are predicted to win." Companies are certainly allowed to set a "look" policy, but they aren't allowed to set a "white look" policy. Abercrombie has been dinged for this already, which resulted a consent decree that Abercrombie make efforts to hire more than just white people.
