MSNBC article about Disneyland employee

[mylittlebuttercup]

Saw this article on MSNBC and thought it was interesting...it's amazing the lengths Disney will go to in order to ensure everyone looks in character:

GILLIAN FLACCUS
The Associated Press

A Muslim woman who works as a hostess at a Disneyland restaurant alleged Wednesday the theme park would not allow her to appear in front of customers while wearing her head scarf.

Imane Boudlal, 26, appeared outside the resort's Grand Californian Hotel after filing a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

She said when she wore the hijab to work Sunday, her supervisors told her to remove it, work where customers couldn't see her, or go home.

Boudlal, who wore the scarf in observance of Ramadan, chose to go home but reported to work for the next two days and was told the same thing.

"Miss Boudlal has effectively understood that they're not interested in accommodating her request either in timing or good faith," said Ameena Qazi, an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations who is consulting with Boudlal.

Disneyland spokeswoman Suzi Brown said Disney has a policy not to discriminate. The resort offered Boudlal a chance to work with the head covering away from customers while Disneyland tries to find a compromise that would allow Boudlal to cover her head in a way that fits with her hostess uniform, Brown said.

"Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn't wear something like that, that's not part of the costume," Brown said. "We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those and to go home."

Boudlal, who is a native of Morocco, has worked at the Storyteller restaurant at the hotel for 2½ years but only realized she could wear her hijab to work after studying for her U.S. citizenship exam in June, Qazi said.

She asked her supervisors if she could wear the scarf and was told they would consult with the corporate office, Qazi said. Boudlal didn't hear anything for two months and was then told she could wear a head scarf, but it had to be designed by Disneyland's costume department to comply with the Disney look, Qazi said.

She was fitted for a Disney-supplied head scarf but was not given a date when the garment would be finished and was told she couldn't wear her own hijab in the interim.

Boudlal wore her own hijab to work for the first time Sunday.

"After these two months and this complicated process, she decided to come forward," Qazi said. "She really wanted to be able to wear it on Ramadan."

Boudlal has the support of her union, which has been in a bitter fight for months with Disneyland over an expired contract for hotel workers. Brown accused the union of distorting the facts in Boudlal's case to distract from the key issues in the contract fight.

Leigh Shelton, a spokeswoman for the union, said Boudlal's coming forward now had nothing to do with the negotiations.

"There's absolutely no correlation," said Shelton, who's with Unite Here Local 11.

 

[jcb]

These are always interesting questions. In 2008, WDW was accused of religious discrimination by a Sikh musician who was not hired. He claimed it was because of his beard, long hair and his turban. WDW said he didn't show. That lawsuit ended in October 2009 mostly likely due to a settlement but it is hard to tell.

It doesn't sound like the hotel was prohibiting wearing any hijab, however, just one that didn't conform to her hostess uniform. At that, they offered her another position if she wanted to wear it anyway.

The issues in these cases are usually about accommodating the religious views without adversely affecting an employer's legitimate interest (referred to as an "undue hardship"). If so, that the hotel would design a hijab that fit her uniform (and didn't violate any other tenant of her religion) is going to make it hard for her to show the hotel didn't try to accommodate her.

A couple of weeks ago, a federal court ruled in favor of a correctional facility in Delaware that outright prohibited the wearing of khimars on the ground that the policy was a important safety issue.

 

[WaltD4Me]

Why is it amazing? It seems that Disney was trying to accomodate this employee, it may have been taking too long to create the scarf, but it isn't like they out and out told her no. They also offered to let her work in another position. They did not insist she remove the scarf or go home. Disney is very clear on their "Look" standards at the time an employee is hired, this could not have come as a surprise to the hostess. I have to side with Disney on this one and I'd really like to know why she did not accept the back of house position as a temporary resolution?

 

[princessbride6205]

These are tricky issues. My initial feeling is usually to side with the freedom-of-religion side, but in this case, I can side more with Disney. A man's facial hair has to be approved (no beards of any kind, some mustaches allowed) for goodness sake, so it seems Disney has always been consistent with their costume/look policy.
The only issue I have is that Disney told this woman they were making a costume hijab. I know 2 mos is not a long time in getting designs approved by corporate, that whole process, but I'm sure this issue has come up before. I wonder if Disney actually has a plan for Muslim front-of-house CMs or if they are just saying they are working on it, when they intend to stick with the Disney look.

 

[mylittlebuttercup]

I said it was amazing because they were willing to design a custom scarf for her, just to make sure it didn't clash with her costume. Disney is all about the details! I just wish they wouldn't have taken so long! They could have found her a complimentary color or something in the meantime until they had designed the exact one they wanted.

Why is it amazing? It seems that Disney was trying to accomodate this employee, it may have been taking too long to create the scarf, but it isn't like they out and out told her no. They also offered to let her work in another position. They did not insist she remove the scarf or go home. Disney is very clear on their "Look" standards at the time an employee is hired, this could not have come as a surprise to the hostess. I have to side with Disney on this one and I'd really like to know why she did not accept the back of house position as a temporary resolution?

 

[ratherbeatdisney]

they go over ALL of then when they hire and train you. She knew she wouldn't be allowed to wear it on stage when she took the job, she is trying to stir the pot or get money from them or both.

 

[disneyholic family]

they go over ALL of then when they hire and train you. She knew she wouldn't be allowed to wear it on stage when she took the job, she is trying to stir the pot or get money from them or both.

either they told her up front or she didn't ask when she was first hired.

according to the article, only when she was studying for her citizenship exam did she realize she had the right to wear it..
but having the right to wear it doesn't mean that disney has to give her an onstage job wearing it...
the onstage jobs have costumes...i'm sure that when you sign an employment contract with disney, the contract specificially states that you will have to comply with the costume...

in other words, by offering to make a special costume just for her, disney is going beyond what the law requires them to do ....
they could easily meet their legal requirements by just offering her a backstage job....

as for the 2 months, disney is a corporate entity...no doubt adding a headscarf to a costume requires multiple approvals...

adding a headscarf to a costume is a major decision....not something minor at all...
perhaps they've even consulted with religious experts to determine just what is required in terms of religion and what will fit with the costume..

it's easy to understand it taking many months...
it's not just something some seamtress whips up out of matching material....

 

[jcb]

A point of clarification. I don't think the article said the costume department had made her wait two months from the fitting. The two months comes in before the fitting. The statement that addressing the timing after the fitting is:

She was fitted for a Disney-supplied head scarf but was not given a date when the garment would be finished and was told she couldn't wear her own hijab in the interim.

For all we know, she wore her own hijab the day after the fitting.

 

[corky441]

I've looked at the on-line version of the Disney work application

Even before you can proceed to filling it out, you have to read and agree to their "look".

All front of the house Cast Members are considered to be "performers" and in that respect, whatever they are wearing is a "Costume".
Even the length and color of your fingernails is mandated in Disney Cast Member policy, as is the type of wedding ring you can wear.

In this matter, I have to side with Disney.

 

[DiRTyBuNNy]

"'The first thing we do, let's kill the (greedy ambulance-chasing scumbag) lawyers'"

--DB

 

[hildarumpole]

She's worked at DL for 2 1/2 yrs. without any apparent complaints about not being allowed to wear a hijab. All of sudden, she's got a problem with the rules she agreed to when she accepted an on-stage position. Disney offered her reasonable accomodations, while respecting her right to religious expression. She chose not to be reasonable in return. Sounds like she's being used as a test case. I don't know if it's anything to do with the union problems at DL, but someone or some group appears to be using her situation for their own ends.

 

[lugnut33]

Honestly, would any of you been offended if she was wearing a nice head scarf while working at a restaurant? I'd be fine with it. The only problem is next you'd have somebody wanting to wear a burka, so I can understand how allowing her to wear a scarf would set precedence for others to wear whatever they feel is religious.

Disney should have got the scarf done in a "reasonable" amount of time (they told her they would design one) and it wouldn't have come to this.

 

[WaltD4Me]

Honestly, would any of you been offended if she was wearing a nice head scarf while working at a restaurant? I'd be fine with it. The only problem is next you'd have somebody wanting to wear a burka, so I can understand how allowing her to wear a scarf would set precedence for others to wear whatever they feel is religious.

Disney should have got the scarf done in a "reasonable" amount of time (they told her they would design one) and it wouldn't have come to this.

Would I have been offended? No I would not, but this is one of those "slippery slope" issues. Next thing you know, you've got a guy who says he's a Franciscan Monk who wants to wear his robes and be a Jungle Boat captain.

 

[gkrykewy]

Would I have been offended? No I would not, but this is one of those "slippery slope" issues. Next thing you know, you've got a guy who says he's a Franciscan Monk who wants to wear his robes and be a Jungle Boat captain.

That would be pretty awesome. I'd like to see some chanting Hari Krishnas as ride loaders.

 

[cathie1327]

I can understand her frustration in wanting to wear it, and if they are taking a long time to design an appropriate one, and a religous holiday was coming up, I can see her wanting to wear it even more. But I also think that Disney took that into consideration and that's why they gave her the option of working backstage, which I think was considerate of them. They wouldn't just give that option for any old reason, I'd think, and so the fact that they offered it to her shows what I think is a good cooperation.

I think I have to side with Disney on this one as well.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

I've looked at the on-line version of the Disney work application

Even before you can proceed to filling it out, you have to read and agree to their "look".

All front of the house Cast Members are considered to be "performers" and in that respect, whatever they are wearing is a "Costume".
Even the length and color of your fingernails is mandated in Disney Cast Member policy, as is the type of wedding ring you can wear.

In this matter, I have to side with Disney.

Exactly. I side with Disney 100%. She knew before she applied about the costuming rules and expectations. They mandate all including what nail polish, watch, etc. you can wear and, even though things have been slightly modified in the past few years, they keep their ground and have a right to.

Would I have been offended? No I would not, but this is one of those "slippery slope" issues. Next thing you know, you've got a guy who says he's a Franciscan Monk who wants to wear his robes and be a Jungle Boat captain.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

Disney's definitely in the wrong a little bit here, at least, constitutionally. They failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.

 

[WaltD4Me]

Disney's definitely in the wrong a little bit here, at least, constitutionally. They failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.

I can't imagine that this is the first time this ever come up for Disney, so I'm pretty confident they know where they stand "constitutionally." As for failing to provide reasonable accomodations in a timely manner, they did try to accomodate her by offering her a different position that was not on stage. Whether or not a decision was made and she received the scarf in a timely manner is subjective. Disney is a huge corporation that takes the "look" of it's on stage employee's very seriously. Something like changing an extremely well thought out costume is going to have to go through an approval process whether that change is motivated by Disney or the employee. Not to mention, I'm sure this employee's issue wasn't the only one being considered.

 

[Madi100]

I just don't understand this. In DH's business you are expected to have no facial hair. Your hair must be off the collar for guys, and only one ear piercing for girls. None for guys. I think that there might be something about visible tattoos, also. If you don't like the rules, don't apply. Just like I'm not going to "join" your religion if I don't agree with the beliefs. I would never enter a place of worship and tell them they needed to accommodate what I believed so I fit in better. I'd simply go someplace else.

And, I really honestly don't understand how people think that Disney discriminates. I'm pretty sure that if you went into the Main Street Emporium right now and put all of their cast members in a little circle, had them dance and played It's A Small World, you'd be able to convince some visitors that they were riding the attraction. Disney World is a very diverse place.

 

[jcb]

I'll try to clarify some things and misperceptions though I don't know anything about the claims other than what I've read online. I'm not taking sides though as I have said earlier I think Disneyland has the better of the argument but then we haven't heard the full story, either.

​Imane Boudlal works at the Grand Californian restaurant and is from Morocco (more on that later) but apparently has applied to be a U.S. citizen (and apparently part of being a U.S. citizen means filing a lawsuit - just kidding).

Actually, she has not, so I understand it, filed a "lawsuit" but has filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It costs nothing to file a charge with the EEOC. The vast majority of charges filed are dismissed or settled.

Filing a charge is simply the first step before an employee can file a lawsuit alleging a violation of the federal discrimination statute that prohibits discrimination because of religion. Its the same statute that prohibits sex and race discrimination.

The EEOC can bring a lawsuit (and it has been particularly sensitive to religious discrimination issues in recent years). The lawsuit I mentioned in a prior post, against the correctional facility, was brought by the EEOC. Lawsuits by the EEOC are relatively rare.

As the process goes, Disney gets a chance to respond to her charge at some point. None of this is any more public than the parties make it. Odds are Disney's response will get little to no publicity as employers don't generally like to publicize their litigation. The EEOC may try to settle the claims and after 180 days (or less in some cases), the young lady can file a lawsuit.

I'm sure you all find that scintillating information.

There is no constitutional issue here. Disney is not the government, even in California. The first amendment restricts US governments (federal and state) from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion but it doesn't apply to private employers.

Federal and state statutes do (and I know nothing about California law on this topic), which is why the young lady (photo here) filed a charge with the EEOC.

The fact that she knew when hired that Disney's personal appearance guidelines prohibited the wearing of "headwear" unless it was "issued by Costuming as part of the costume" isn't a rock solid defense either. Suppose a 7 year employee joins the "Living Church of God" which prohibits him from working (so I'm told) from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. (These are facts from a recent decision.) The employer must still try to accommodate the employee's religious beliefs.

The fact that the young lady worked in the job for a for two and a half years before she tried to wear the hijab to work might go to the sincerity of her religious beliefs though most of the time few employers make that an issue.

As to what will happen, that is interesting but hard to say. The courts and the EEOC can't seem to agree on what it means to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. Disney's appearance guidelines provide for accommodation and it offered to move her to another position and, so the Disney spokesperson said in the MSNBC story, is working on making a hijab that matches her costume. She seems to dispute this last point. In any event, employers are far better off in these type of claims when they try to accommodate the employee.

What I'm curious about stems from her being from Morocco. Do the females that work at Morocco in EPCOT wear hijabs? I just don't recall one way or the other.