Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Actually, there was more than one option provided, and she turned them down," Yes. But we haven't seen those options. We sure can't tell how reasonable they were. They may all have been ridiculous. Or not. "@Yookeroo--You do understand that she signed a contract that stated the rules of the wardrobe, right?" You do understand that religious freedoms are protected by the constitution, right? "Then why do you even WANT Disney to come up with other options for her." Because the law says they have to. Because it's the decent thing to do (assuming she's sincere here). "THIS IS HER DECISION! She knew she wasn't aloud to wear this when she signed up, so why is it any different now?" Her her views of her religion changed? Her understanding of her rights has changed?
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x >>Well where else would you send an employee that refuses to obey Disney's dress code? << The unemployment line.
Originally Posted By spacejockey California is an "at will state". She has to comply to company dress code or she will be fired. The law will protect Disney's decision to fire her. This has nothing to do with religion. All the servers wear a "UNIFORM" just like at any other restaurant. She should of thought about that before she applied for the position. Especially after working there for over 2 years. Either this is an obvious set up to sue Disney or she's just plain stupid. Disney also did the smart thing and offered her another position "Backstage", she has no case in court.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x I thought about this thread when I went to Sea World on Saturday, and saw a young lady wearing a head scarf with her Sea World uniform.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Because the law says they have to. Because it's the decent thing to do (assuming she's sincere here).<< Bingo. For all the mouth-foaming over how "ridiculous" this is that someone actually wants to follow their religious beliefs, their beef is with the law, not this woman. The law, part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, states that companies must make "reasonable accommodations" for an employees' religious beliefs unless it would cause "undue harm" to the company. Disney will have a tough time proving that this will cause "undue harm." There's just no way they can show that revenue or customers would disappear because of this - unless they want to publicly call their customers xenophobic for fearing a hijab. I wonder how many people positively apoplectic about this are the same people that join Facebook groups like "Keep the Christ in Christmas!" and "Win the War on Christmas!" They whine about people turning away from religion, but it turns out they only want it if it's their religion. And like I said in the other thread, I'm an atheist who'd like to see religion disappear publicly altogether. Practice it privately at home or in church. I have no problem with that. But that's not what the law says. And I support the law since it's designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what's on display here.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 Well I meant after she refused to work in the back and they dont want to fire her, then they should put her in the park...but i think they're gonna fire her completely so its no big deal to me anymore...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They made reasonable accommodations and she refused.<< Giving her a silly hat no one else was wearing is not a reasonable accommodation. Ditto telling her she could work in the back. Or, at the very least, there's enough of a question for a court to decide.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x ecdc, it was never confirmed that hat was the option Disney gave her, or even if she was wearing it correctly. Reasonable accomodations also include giving her a position backstage with the same pay and benefits, where she could wear her own head scarf, not just giving her one she COULD wear on-stage.
Originally Posted By ecdc She obviously did not find that solution to be "reasonable." A court may agree, they may disagree. Part of what I find troubling about all this is the cynicism and judgment surrounding her motives. She's a shill for the union, or she's trying to take Disney to the cleaners, etc. Most people tend to mean well; most people aren't looking for a free ride or are out to get anyone. But we've convinced ourselves that people who think or behave differently than we would somehow have devious motives or questionable reasons for their behavior. Is it really that hard to believe this woman wants to wear a hijab out of deep religious devotion, that she believes it's her right to do so, and that Disney is in the wrong, so she's taken action to stand for her rights? Disagree all you like, but I find the insistence of ulterior motives to be odd.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I wonder how many people positively apoplectic about this are the same people that join Facebook groups like "Keep the Christ in Christmas!" and "Win the War on Christmas!" They whine about people turning away from religion, but it turns out they only want it if it's their religion." Well I'm certainly not one of those people.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Giving her a silly hat no one else was wearing is not a reasonable accommodation." Aren't most Disneyland Resort costumes "silly" looking? I mean seriously. Besides, that's hardly an excuse for not wearing it. A condition of whether you accept a uniform or not does not depends on whether or not you think it's fashionably acceptable.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance Nor I. Imagine how much better the world would be if people weren't constantly pinning their Gods against one another in a steel cage death match.
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x While I have no doubt that she had real intentions, I believe that the Union is using her as a pawn. So maybe she decided that she wanted to start wearing it, but knows she can't wear it to work, and she's accepted that. Someone from the Union sees her at Walmart with the head scarf on, and gets an idea. They let her know about all these laws and stuff that could allow her to wear it to work. I'm sure she's very intelligent, but I do believe she is being used by the Union, not that she's doing this intentionally. Shame on the Union for that if it's true. But, I suppose we won't know the real and true story, only what we're being told, until it all comes out in court.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "They let her know about all these laws and stuff that could allow her to wear it to work." How awful.
Originally Posted By MickeyMommy I wonder how many people had to google "apoplectic" to find out what it meant? (I did) Now THAT's a word that doesn't pop up on LP too often! Who said this site is only for goofing off? I am learning here!
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Yoko, first, I have seen the most recent option provided for her, it was very tasteful and would cover the hair, ears, neck, etc for modesty. It is very tasteful (compared to the first option.) Second, the constitution protects our religious freedom from interference from the government, not that we can do what ever we please and then say "Religious freedom." To Hb - Storytellers is themed, set in the 1920s. Based on prior court rulings, Disney will win this. Abercrombie has made caselaw on this specific item. The did not hire someone who refused to adhere to the "Look Policy" of theirs. The young woman wore the hijab to the interview and said she would require wearing it to work, she was not hired, she sued, Abercrombie won due to their longstanding policy. Disney will win this, as they have other similar ones.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones These cases have gone both ways as this blog posts explains. <a href="http://www.dapsmagic.com/disneynews/disneynewsarticle.php?id=12087" target="_blank">http://www.dapsmagic.com/disne...id=12087</a> It is more likely that this case will end up resolved like this. "In 2004, a former Disney World employee filed a lawsuit, saying she was fired for wearing a hijab on the job in Florida. Disney also offered the woman a behind-the-scenes job. The woman and Disney settled the case out of the court. The terms were confidential, said Frank Allen, the woman’s attorney." We'll never fully know the true outcome.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"Giving her a silly hat no one else was wearing is not a reasonable accommodation."<< Well, I'm still of the opinion that the photo, provided by the union, needs to be verified before I'll believe that was what actually Disney came up with. It doesn't pass the smell test. Like I've been saying, that hat is out of sync with Storytellers and the rest of the Grand Californian as far as I know. It makes no sense that disney would actually consider what we saw in the photo as an option. My suspicion, and it's only that, is that the union gave her that hat for the photo in an effort to make Disney seem unreasonable and offensive. I continue to hope that both sides in this will reach what I think is the only reasonable solution -- a hijab made with a complimentary material.
