Disney Discrimination Lawsuit

[caribbeanme]

Gizfish-- I guess that's why I mentioned yarmulkes. Since most Christian sects do not require religious attire, I used crosses as an imperfect example of what discrimination would consist of. I didn't mean to diminish the importance of the head scarf vs other symbols.

And while it's true that a rule that applies to everyone may also be discriminatory (like having everyone eat pork on Fridays), I wonder whether a rule that disallows all religious attire would also be discriminatory. In other words, if a company simply disallows all religious and cultural attire, would it still be liable under the law? While it would still hurt some people more than others--those who faithfully follow their religious and cultural traditions vs. those who are ok with not following them in certain circumstances-- it seems that the law tries to create a balance, and, at a certain point, it's up to the person to decide if they can work in an environment that never allows religious attire. It's only when a company starts picking and choosing-- some "acceptable" attire vs. other attire, some food on fridays vs. all food-- that they start opening themselves up to liability and have to start explaining their reasons.

 

[Broken8ball]

Gizfish, I think you argued the wrong issue.

Whats really at issue here is an employee's decision to violate a company policy and the consequences for that violation. She knew the policy when she was hired, she followed the policy for a time frame and then freely chose to violate the policy. She now feels that the repercussions from her decision are "unfair."

What she did was no different than a police officer deciding that one day, instead of wearing his uniform while riding in his squad car and stopping people, the officer would wear a clown suit and suing when pulled from patrol.

Her reasons for violating the policy are irrelevant. Disney as a corproation has the right to set whatever dress code they desire. People are free to work there under that dress code or to leave whenever the wish. She was not forced to work there and could have gone elsewhere if she no longer wished to follow the rules.

In my opinion the courts should never had allowed this case to be filed. There was a clear rule, she knew the rule, and she willingly broke the rule. The reason is unimportatnt Disney should have the right to summarily dismiss her for her actions.

 

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

Originally posted by Broken8ball
Gizfish, I think you argued the wrong issue.

Whats really at issue here is an employee's decision to violate a company policy and the consequences for that violation. She knew the policy when she was hired, she followed the policy for a time frame and then freely chose to violate the policy. She now feels that the repercussions from her decision are "unfair."

What she did was no different than a police officer deciding that one day, instead of wearing his uniform while riding in his squad car and stopping people, the officer would wear a clown suit and suing when pulled from patrol.

Her reasons for violating the policy are irrelevant. Disney as a corproation has the right to set whatever dress code they desire. People are free to work there under that dress code or to leave whenever the wish. She was not forced to work there and could have gone elsewhere if she no longer wished to follow the rules.

In my opinion the courts should never had allowed this case to be filed. There was a clear rule, she knew the rule, and she willingly broke the rule. The reason is unimportatnt Disney should have the right to summarily dismiss her for her actions.

*clap clap* I totally agree!

 

[shortbun]

I can think of no good reason that Disney should care that
this woman cover her head. It's not disgusting, sexy, disturbing,
unsafe, unhealthy or insinuating anything bad about Disney.
It doesn't keep her from doing her job, make her late or offend
in any way. If she has decided to honor God in this way, Disney
should allow her to do it. Instead, Eisner and his predecessors
have chosen this rigidity and it's dumb. I remember once being
at WDW in 106 degree temps and wondering why all the CM's
were required to wear ascots. I asked and they all cited Eisner's
wife liking the look. Stupid, just stupid. A CM wearing head cover
would absolutely not change my WDW experience one bit.
Very dumb and I hope Disney loses. This intolerance is in bad form.

 

[Mskanga]

When an employer sets policies in dress codes and you agree to work for them, you must follow the dress codes , as simple as that. Some people may not understand this , but working is a priviledge, not a right.

 

[Dan Murphy]

This almost sounds like a debate, and rare, I think, I get in a debate, so this is just my thought. JMO, I think Disney is correct. The CM's at Disney, have costumes/uniforms in most, if not all, positions of employment that deal with guest contact. A uniform is just that, a uniform......

Main Entry: 1uni·form
Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-"form
Etymology: Middle French uniforme, from Latin uniformis, from uni- + -formis -form
1 : consistent in conduct or opinion <uniform interpretation of laws>
2 : having always the same form, manner, or degree : not varying or variable
3 : of the same form with others : conforming to one rule or mode : CONSONANT
4 : presenting an unvaried appearance of surface, pattern, or color

If you add or subtract, you are out of uniform, out of uniform is a cause for dismissal. She was given the opportunity of working where a uniform was not required, she did not want it, her choice. Sometimes, the requirement of a uniform does in fact influence a person's income, higher or lower. I know, for example, if she wanted to work on the fire department with my son, while wearing the head thing, she would, I assume, be not allowed to wear it, in a fire fighting role, not safe. I assume maybe she could wear it if she wanted an office position in the department, differnet dress code. (Just my thinking out loud here for an example).

I know the wearing of a beard is required, I think, for the men certain sects of the Jewish faith. That's fine, but I do not think I have ever seen a bearded CM at WDW. I would think there are probably bearded CM's working in offices, not in contact with guests.

Al the above, JMO.

 

[Madi100]

Originally posted by shortbun
I can think of no good reason that Disney should care that
this woman cover her head. It's not disgusting, sexy, disturbing,
unsafe, unhealthy or insinuating anything bad about Disney.
It doesn't keep her from doing her job, make her late or offend
in any way. If she has decided to honor God in this way, Disney
should allow her to do it. Instead, Eisner and his predecessors
have chosen this rigidity and it's dumb. I remember once being
at WDW in 106 degree temps and wondering why all the CM's
were required to wear ascots. I asked and they all cited Eisner's
wife liking the look. Stupid, just stupid. A CM wearing head cover
would absolutely not change my WDW experience one bit.
Very dumb and I hope Disney loses. This intolerance is in bad form.

Can you imagine Julia Roberts wearing a head scarf in Pretty Woman? Or Cinderella? Or how about one of the cast members at Tower of Terror? These are all roles. Like another poster said, they are called cast members at WDW. They have costumes they wear. They don't include head scarves.

Personally, I think a person should be able to express their beliefs. However, when you are working for someone, you play by their rules. If your beliefs are so strong that you can't play by those rules, you get a different job.

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

Originally posted by Madi100
If your beliefs are so strong that you can't play by those rules, you get a different job.

That's it, in a nutshell. This is a noble thing you would do for your beliefs, give up the job and find another more tolerant one. The rules are there, she followed them for a while, it was OK. Did her religion change, and START requiring a headscarf? I don't think so. So why was it OK before, and not OK now? There is something underlying here that she is not talking about, and it ain't about religion....

What if she decided she wanted to wear a burqua to work???? There was an article in the paper a while back where a woman decided (after already having a regular DL) that she was required by her religion to wear the veils of her faith when she was having her driver's license photo taken! How absurd!! I don't know how it turned out, but I certainly hope that they upheld the requirements!

 

[Aurora63]

Originally posted by hrh_disney_queen
That's it, in a nutshell. This is a noble thing you would do for your beliefs, give up the job and find another more tolerant one. The rules are there, she followed them for a while, it was OK. Did her religion change, and START requiring a headscarf? I don't think so. So why was it OK before, and not OK now? There is something underlying here that she is not talking about, and it ain't about religion....

What if she decided she wanted to wear a burqua to work???? There was an article in the paper a while back where a woman decided (after already having a regular DL) that she was required by her religion to wear the veils of her faith when she was having her driver's license photo taken! How absurd!! I don't know how it turned out, but I certainly hope that they upheld the requirements!

I agree, the burqua thing was absurd. A DL photo is ID, and a veil in front of your face kinda hinders the ID part. Whatever happened with that one?

Anyway, I married into a Muslim family, and most of the women in my husbands family wear hijab, in the form of the head scarf and the long, Middle-Eastern style dress. Though loose fitting clothing is perfectly acceptable with the head scarf. Most of these ladies don't work outside the home, but if they did, they'd definetly be in hijab. It is more than a religious thing, it is also deeply rooted in their culture that women dress modestly, and this is their definition of modest. They would be completely uncomfortable in public without it. Obviously this woman is different, as she didn't wear it before.

Why she didn't wear it before and now she is? Maybe family pressure, since now she is a mom (though she may have been before, I don't know.) Maybe she started feeling a call back to her religious roots and wanted to be more observant? Who knows? I really feel Muslim women should be allowed to wear hijab wherever they want to, and not be hassled...for my in-laws, the 9/11 backlash was real. At first glance, this seems like more of it to me, though I agree, this lady could have ulterior motives. I don't know. Its making me annoyed just thinking about it right now, so I think I'll stop!

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

Originally posted by Aurora63

Anyway, I married into a Muslim family, and most of the women in my husbands family wear hijab, in the form of the head scarf and the long, Middle-Eastern style dress. Though loose fitting clothing is perfectly acceptable with the head scarf. Most of these ladies don't work outside the home, but if they did, they'd definetly be in hijab. It is more than a religious thing, it is also deeply rooted in their culture that women dress modestly, and this is their definition of modest. They would be completely uncomfortable in public without it. Obviously this woman is different, as she didn't wear it before.

Why she didn't wear it before and now she is? Maybe family pressure, since now she is a mom (though she may have been before, I don't know.) Maybe she started feeling a call back to her religious roots and wanted to be more observant? Who knows? I really feel Muslim women should be allowed to wear hijab wherever they want to, and not be hassled...for my in-laws, the 9/11 backlash was real. At first glance, this seems like more of it to me, though I agree, this lady could have ulterior motives. I don't know. Its making me annoyed just thinking about it right now, so I think I'll stop!

It does say in the article that while on her maternity leave, she had a deepening of her faith, so there may be some validity to her sudden wardrobe change. I respect her for that.. But......that is the point where I feel that she should step down from the uniformed job that she had and take another job that would allow her to wear her headscarf. She shouldn't expect her employer to change just because she has.

I feel for you and your family because of 9/11. It's sad, but true, people do look at religious attire with some apprehension. I remember the day after 9/11, at the small Muslim Masjid(is that right?) in our town, the police had to stand guard outside so they could attend their services. It was so sad. And ironically, they have to deal with religious contempt on a daily basis. The very large baptist church which shares a parking lot with the Masjid placed (before 9/11) a huge sign on the side of their building that directly faced the Masjid (and interestingly not on the side that faced a very, very busy highway) that says, "JESUS IS LORD". I thought that was kind of "in your face" religion.

Anyway, pardon my rant. I do feel that this is not about religion from Disney's standpoint, it is about uniformity....

 

[Aurora63]

Originally posted by hrh_disney_queen


Anyway, pardon my rant. I do feel that this is not about religion from Disney's standpoint, it is about uniformity....

I can understand it being about uniformity. Maybe Disney could have put her behind the scenes, in a job with similar pay. It looks like that's the core of it for her...she lost income. A little to late for that now, though!

 

[Mskanga]

Originally posted by Aurora63
Maybe Disney could have put her behind the scenes, in a job with similar pay. It looks like that's the core of it for her...she lost income. A little to late for that now, though!

And then you will have the rest of the people who are doing the same work for less money , sue disney for discrimination.
Where do we draw the line?
Employers usually don't change rules to accomodate employees, it's either you are happy with it , or you look for another job.

 

[Aurora63]

I didn't mean pay her more than someone else doing the same work...put her in a behind the scenes job where she would have been making the same money as her other job. Would that have been too difficult? Anyway, I'm done!

 

[MosMom]

We also don't know what was said behind the scenes. A person's attitude can completely define a situation. If she went in there with a demanding nasty attitude, I'm sure Disney would not go as far to accomidate her. Who knows what happened as far as Disney's decision to put her behind the scenes.

 

[ZachnElli]

Originally posted by Aurora63
I didn't mean pay her more than someone else doing the same work...put her in a behind the scenes job where she would have been making the same money as her other job. Would that have been too difficult? Anyway, I'm done!

Technically, they may have done just that. It said her job was a commission paid job. She may have been making the exact same percentage, but because overall sales were less, she made less. I think Disney did accomadate her, they moved her to another area that didn't require a uniform, she had to have an idea that it would pay less being offsite. I don't think she has a case. JMO.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by Madi100
Can you imagine Julia Roberts wearing a head scarf in Pretty Woman? Or Cinderella? Or how about one of the cast members at Tower of Terror? These are all roles. Like another poster said, they are called cast members at WDW. They have costumes they wear. They don't include head scarves.

Personally, I think a person should be able to express their beliefs. However, when you are working for someone, you play by their rules. If your beliefs are so strong that you can't play by those rules, you get a different job.

First, the woman in question is not appearing in a film. Second,
the head scarf does not prohibit her from doing her job. She was
a commisioned clerk in a store. That Disney calls them Cast Members is cute but not relevant here IMHO. Flexibility is healthy.
Disney could have chosen benevolence. When I go to WDW, I
enjoy meeting and seeing people from all walks of life; it's one
of the highlights for me. I'm from a large city and we have a huge
Muslim population with women dressing in all ways-total cover to
simply scarves. I find it offensive that Disney can not see it's way
clear to allow this woman her head cover. I've emailed them
to tell them as much and now I'm done with this thread. As
a regular visitor to their parks-it's more important that they know
my feelings than it is to continue to argue with you. My money
is spent with them.
bye!

 

[caribbeanme]

I would understand the argument about wearing a uniform except that the article clearly quotes a Disney spokesperson as saying that they do allow deviation from the uniform for religious reasons on a case by case basis. Once Disney allows that deviation, they acknowledge that they have some flexibility in the uniform for religious reasons. We have no idea what they have allowed before, but it does throw a wrench on the uniformity in uniform argument...Further, the article explicitly states that she was fired for not taking off her scarf--not personality problems, etc. It's different if she was trying to wear religious wear when none had ever been allowed before by Disney. Unfortunately, that is definitely not the situation we actually have here.

 

[katerkat]

Disney moved me to a different area with less guest interaction when I couldn't wear the entire uniform due to a broken toe. I wonder if I should have sued?

 

[gizfish]

While it is true that when one signs on to work at a company, they must play by the company's rules, there are laws against discriminatory practices in the work place. When someone is forced to make less money as a result of a company rule that doesn't permit them to follow a religious law, that is discriminatory. Why the person is deciding to follow that religious law, when they began to feel the need to follow it, and all that other stuff has nothing to do with whether the company's policy is discriminatory. The woman is not wearing a head scarf over a character's head. She was working as a clerk in one of the resorts. While the Muslim head scarf does not exactly go with the rest of the Caribbean Beach Resort uniform, it is not interfering with the woman safely performing her job function. The fact that Disney states they review cases of religious dress individually, recognizes the fact that Disney knows making a rule that can impact someone of a particular religion in a worse way than others of different religions can be discriminatory. True, having a job is not necessarily a right, but one who is qualified for a particular job and has a history of performing the job as expected but now is not allowed to perform that job due only to a religious belief, does have the right to sue to get that job back based on the company's policy discriminating against that person's religion.

 

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

Is she suing to get her job back? or just suing for money?