Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I prefer it when all religion is kept out of public schools and jobs. Just like at my office we can't hang religious stuff on the walls or on our desks. And I expect my kid's school to keep religion out of the reticulum. I understand her situation is different but why should it be any different than someone I work with that can't hang up their crosses or anything else?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Do Orthodox Jewish men get to wear a yarmulke on-stage" Yes, if a judge says yes. "and/or maintain beards and curly sideburns because that's what their religion requires of them" Yes, if a judge says yes. " What about someone of Maori descent - should they be allowed to work on-stage with a face-covering tattoo just because it's part of their religious beliefs?" Yes, if a judge says yes, though anything that covers the face would probably have a real impact on face-to-face customer service, so this issue is less clear. "This isn't about Muslims - it's about any deviation from standard costuming guidelines for any religious purpose." If those costuming guidelines discriminate against anyone covered under Title VII, then a business can be compelled to change it. "As far as I can tell, Disney is applying their costuming rules fairly and equally to all - this isn't a "Muslim" issue." A business cannot just say, "No accommodation for anyone for any reason." and leave it at that. They cannot deny someone a reasonable request for religious accommodation. If there is confusion, a court would be happy to clarify. "I dont think green mohawks or multiple facial peircings are allowed." Irrelevant comparison that doesn't make any sense. Unless the person who wants to wear green mohawks and facial piercings can withstand a test of the sincerity of their beliefs, they will lose. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Originally Posted By TP2000 I'm struck by the fact this young woman claims to want instant respect for herself and her culture, and yet she has absolutely no respect for Disneyland's own culture and long-standing mission. I'd be interested to see a Presbyterian girl hired as a stewardess for Emirates Airlines refuse to wear the assigned veil and head covering with her uniform because it has religious overtones and goes against her own beliefs. <a href="http://www.mynetbizz.com/pages/airlines/emirates-airlines/emirates-airline-cabin-crew.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.mynetbizz.com/pages...crew.jpg</a> Could a Presbyterian girl sue to not wear a veil mandated by her Muslim employer? And God help that girl if she wandered away from the herd in Dubai after she was known as the Emirates stewardess who refused to cover up per Muslim tradition.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Corporate culture is not a protected class. Because another country's government is intolerant, it does not mean that we should be.
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 Its not that we're intolerant, one can argue that she breaks the magic of area which at the resturant maybe not, but if she worked inside the parks yes it would break the magic. My argument is that she knew going into it what the rules are, they told her at the begining you cannot wear your head covering - she is fine with it UNTIL the Ground Zero Mosque issue comes up then DISNEY becomes INTOLERANT! I don't think so, this is a lady looking to get press for herself. Disney TRIED to offer her three different jobs, and created a unquie costume for her which SHE TURNED DOWN! She is being intolerant of Disney not the other way around.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x I saw somewhere that she was taken off the schedule officially?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Read what the EEOC's guidelines for religious discrimination in the workplace: <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types...gion.cfm</a> >>Federal and state discrimination laws require employers to provide special accommodations to employees who request them based on their religious beliefs. Employers must make efforts to provide accommodations for all employees unless that accommodation would result in an undue hardship to their business. To avoid potential religious discrimination suits, talk to your employees and try your best to make exceptions to policies that would enable them to continue working without hurting your business.<< Does offering her alternative headdresses that coordinate with the costume fulfill this requirement?
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 I think it does, as does offering her multiple positions as well. Disney is not in the wrong here, she is.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I have stayed clear of this entire story ... but I'll say this much.... Political Correctness aside .... Disney is all about "show". Their show. Not individual's own show. Whatever that may be. There's a dress code/onstage 'costuming' .. if you want to call it that. I expect Disney to have all it's employees follow the correct theme intended for whatever ride, land, restaraunt, shop they work. Disneyland is not the place to exploit's one's own individual "cultural diversity". There are many jobs/places of work where people can do that. Not a "onstage" job at Disney, though. If you are a behind-the-scenes worker .. like a TDA office person .. that's different.
Originally Posted By TP2000 But Emirates flies all over the world, and has daily flights to at least a half dozen US cities. They have a big crew base here in LA, and one in San Francisco as well. They are growing their US business by leaps and bounds. The mythical Presbyterian girl who works as a stewardess for them for two years could live in an apartment in Redondo Beach and be based out of LAX. Could she not file a complaint with the EEOC and/or sue to not wear the hat and Muslim veil that is part of her uniform? Conversely, what if the Steward in that picture I linked to was Jewish and decided after two years of flying with Emirates that he demanded to wear his Yarmulke with his uniform on every flight. Emirates says no and he files an EEOC complaint and sues. Why not?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo The more I hear about this story, the more I think the girl is in the right and Disney is wrong. The compromise that the OC Register article offers is clearly lame and in no way an acceptable substitute. "I think it does, as does offering her multiple positions as well. Disney is not in the wrong here, she is." I don't think this is correct. I think offering her a position out of sight will violate the law. And even if it doesn't, it's still pretty cowardly and any-American. I was initially on Disney's side here, but I'm starting to side with her. Disney seemed to be trying to find an acceptable compromise, but it's taking way too long. And there's no reason why she couldn't wear her own while waiting. And the hat is almost insulting it its retardedness. My prediction is that Disney finds a way to accommodate her before the suit comes to trial. Because they'd lose if it did. I've read somewhere that she realized that she had this religious freedom while studying for her citizenship. And that this is what caused her to pursue this. If true, good for her. This religious freedom is one of the great things about this country. If it's just some sort of opportunism, meh, her motives are wrong, but her position is probably right. And yes, I'm an atheist (maybe "hard agnostic" is more accurate).
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Another CM had requested a hijab, and has accepted the Disney version. This employee is not in the same location as the one refusing the Disney version.
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 I think Disney is done trying to accomdate her as it was reported that she has been officially removed from the schedule. By law they have done everything they could, maybe they could have done more but not by much, I think making a whole new costume comes pretty close to as much as possible (granted its not the best since it was rushed)
Originally Posted By TP2000 Removing this Cast Member from the schedules also prevents the media circus her union was fueling by staging the silly stunts of her reporting to Storytellers each day for her scheduled shift wearing her scarve. She refuses to take it off each day, and Disney sends her home. But instead of going home, she marches out the front doors of the hotel and out to yet another press conference on the front lawn. Or worse, another union protest with chants of Si Se Puede! as tourists shuffle by trying to get the kids to the coffee shop. Without a scheduled shift to show up for, now she's just sort of sitting at home for a few months waiting for something to happen with her court case.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Point being on the above, Disney isn't stupid. It was a smart move on their part to remove her from the schedules if she's refusing to work. It removes fuel for the union to work with by removing her scheduled shifts. Smart move on Disney's part.
