MSNBC article about Disneyland employee

[mylittlebuttercup]

Wow, didn't realize this would cause so much debate! I just thought it was cool how Disney goes to such lengths to ensure their theming, what with creating the custom headwear and all. I am a bit torn on whether or not I agree with her being able to wear one. I don't agree with the argument that it ruins the theming, because they can make one to match her costume. But I do think that sometimes it is necessary to limit uniforms--for instance if it's for security purposes (like if someone worked in a secure facility.) I do think that once they promised it to her, though, there would be a reasonable expectation of getting it to her quickly. I understand that it takes some time to design a headpiece, but two months seems excessive for just a head covering.

 

[WDWisTheBest]

Wow, didn't realize this would cause so much debate! I just thought it was cool how Disney goes to such lengths to ensure their theming, what with creating the custom headwear and all. I am a bit torn on whether or not I agree with her being able to wear one. I don't agree with the argument that it ruins the theming, because they can make one to match her costume. But I do think that sometimes it is necessary to limit uniforms--for instance if it's for security purposes (like if someone worked in a secure facility.) I do think that once they promised it to her, though, there would be a reasonable expectation of getting it to her quickly. I understand that it takes some time to design a headpiece, but two months seems excessive for just a head covering.

What about the point of view that Disney owes this cast member no expectation of changing a costume just to meet her individual desires?

What would happen if all other cast members who work at this location don't want to work with a cast member who gets special treatment just because she is from Morocco?

What if other cast members, or even one cast member who works at that location, feel that they are being slighted because this employee, Imane Boudlal, is getting special treatment? Should Disney be expected to change rules for all cast members just because one cast member wants special treatment?

 

[mytripsandraces]

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.

They offered her a position backstage, which would allow her to wear her scarf. That's more than reasonable accommodation, especially on short notice. I've been in a position where I've been asked to accommodate staff members' needs, so I've been in Disney's position and I didn't have the luxury of being able to transfer anyone to a different position. Given that her contract requires her to wear a particular costume, she can't expect to wear the hijab on stage at Disneyland, anymore than she'd be allowed to wear it on stage if she were playing Maria in "The Sound of Music."

 

[jcb]

What about the point of view that Disney owes this cast member no expectation of changing a costume just to meet her individual desires?

What would happen if all other cast members who work at this location don't want to work with a cast member who gets special treatment just because she is from Morocco?

What if other cast members, or even one cast member who works at that location, feel that they are being slighted because this employee, Imane Boudlal, is getting special treatment? Should Disney be expected to change rules for all cast members just because one cast member wants special treatment?

If it were simply her "individual desires" then Disney would have no obligation. But where an employee has a sincerely held religious belief, the employer has an obligation under federal law to accommodate that belief unless it would be an "undue hardship." This is how the EEOC describes it:

Title VII requires an employer, once on notice that a religious accommodation is needed, to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. Under Title VII, the undue hardship defense to providing religious accommodation requires a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses a “more than de minimis” cost or burden. Note that this is a lower standard for an employer to meet than undue hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which is defined in that statute as “significant difficulty or expense.”

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

The "undue hardship" standard isn't determined by the feelings of other employees but it does take into account their legitimate rights:

Although religious accommodations that infringe on co-workers’ ability to perform their duties or subject co-workers to a hostile work environment will generally constitute undue hardship, general disgruntlement, resentment, or jealousy of co-workers will not. Undue hardship requires more than proof that some co-workers complained; a showing of undue hardship based on co-worker interests generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of co-workers or cause disruption of work.

Here is what makes the issue very interesting (to me at least). The issue here is not a safety issue but conformity to costume requirements. The EEOC and courts don't always agree on what federal law requires:

Some courts have concluded that it would pose an undue hardship if an employer was required to accommodate a religious dress or grooming practice that conflicts with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers. While there may be circumstances in which allowing a particular exception to an employer’s dress and grooming policy would pose an undue hardship, an employer’s reliance on the broad rubric of “image” to deny a requested religious accommodation may amount to relying on customer religious bias (“customer preference”) in violation of Title VII. There may be limited situations in which the need for uniformity of appearance is so important that modifying the dress code would pose an undue hardship. However, even in these situations, a case-by-case determination is advisable.

The EEOC isn't the final word on this, the courts are but then few employers want to get sideways with the EEOC.

Disney is smart to say they are working on design a hijab that can be worn with her costume.

 

[WaltD4Me]

Jack, is the employer able to challenge the "sincerely held religious belief" part? If they for example, knew that the employee did not practice their religion and suspected the employee was just looking to cause trouble or for a quick settlement?

I'm not saying that this is what the hostess is doing here, I just wonder if an employee is under any burden to prove the sincerely held part.

 

[mytripsandraces]

Jack, is the employer able to challenge the "sincerely held religious belief" part? If they for example, knew that the employee did not practice their religion and suspected the employee was just looking to cause trouble or for a quick settlement?

I'm not saying that this is what the hostess is doing here, I just wonder if an employee is under any burden to prove the sincerely held part.

If I were a Disney attorney, I wouldn't even go there. I don't think the courts are going to appreciate a corporation attempting to determine an individual's level of religious sincerity. It doesn't really matter if she's just trying to cause trouble or get a quick settlement. If Disney isn't complying, they need to change their policies; however, I believe they'll be able to show compliance by their offer of backstage duties.

 

[jcb]

Lisa,

I generally agree with MyTripsandPlaces that it is rare and usually not smart to challenge whether the employee has a sincerely held religious belief. But to answer your question, it is possible. The EEOC says:

Although there is usually no reason to question whether the practice at issue is religious or sincerely held, if the employer has a bona fide doubt about the basis for the accommodation request, it is entitled to make a limited inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employee’s claim that the belief or practice at issue is religious and sincerely held, and gives rise to the need for the accommodation.

Factors that – either alone or in combination – might undermine an employee’s assertion that he sincerely holds the religious belief at issue include: whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief; whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons; whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons); and whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons.

However, none of these factors is dispositive. For example, although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs – or degree of adherence – may change over time, and therefore an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed religious practice may nevertheless be sincerely held. An employer also should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of his or her practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of his or her religion.

 

[mylittlebuttercup]

What about the point of view that Disney owes this cast member no expectation of changing a costume just to meet her individual desires?

What would happen if all other cast members who work at this location don't want to work with a cast member who gets special treatment just because she is from Morocco?

What if other cast members, or even one cast member who works at that location, feel that they are being slighted because this employee, Imane Boudlal, is getting special treatment? Should Disney be expected to change rules for all cast members just because one cast member wants special treatment?

You asked, "What about the point of view that Disney owes this cast member no expectation of changing a costume just to meet her individual desires?" I agree that to begin with she shouldn't necessarily expect the costume to be changed. However, I do think once Disney made the promise of matching headwear for it, that she should reasonably be able to expect it; after all, they promised it, and if they didn't want to, they didn't have to.

As far as the headwear being special treatment, I completely disagree. I don't see how anyone could be jealous over being allowed to wear religious headwear. Now, if she were being allowed extra paid break time for prayer or something, I could see how that would cause jealousy.

Like I said before, I'm not sure if I agree that she should be allowed to wear it or not. But I think once Disney decided to design her one that they should have made an effort to do it quickly.

 

[kaligal]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a specialist in this type of law. I don't know about the legalities of it all. But I do have opinions on right and wrong.

If Disney told her that she could wear it and they'd make one for her, they ought to make one for her and let her wear it.

If they'd told her, "No, you can't wear a scarf. If you want to wear a scarf, you can wash dishes or take reservations or something..." I'd be fine with that, too.

I don't know what actually happened, though.

 

[YellowMickeyPonchos]

This is, of course, getting a lot of press out here. Y'all are also overlooking a few other factors in this case.

One - The timing of this has all been within the last week. From the original OC Register stories, Disney responded and did the fitting sometime this week. Therefore, no garment has been produced yet. It is possible that there is some distortion of facts about when she made the request for the hijab and that it may not have been a full two months, even. This is the link to the original story that broke - the day she held a press conference with the Union and then took a protest with her to her job site. http://ocresort.ocregister.com/2010/08/18/muslim-employee-accuses-disney-of-discrimination/53409/

Two - The Hotel Workers Union (Unite Here Local 11) is the one fueling this fire. They are the only union at Disneyland that has been without a contract for 2 years. These are the people who put up the costumed protests outside the Disneyland Hotels. They are the ones that keep having her go to work and then leave when they try to have her take the backstage job. They are having her do press conferences with protests on property. They are the ones that "profit" from the bad publicity that Disney gets, so they are trying to engineer the bad press, since she works at the Grand Californian.


Three - She's a server at Storytellers. Those are good tips. A backstage role isn't going to complete with her onstage salary when you factor in the tips. In all honesty, it is her choice to walk off the job when they offer her the backstage role. She comes in to work wearing her hijab and when they give her the backstage assignment, she leaves, and is docked the pay. She's asking them to give her back salary for the days she has done this. She is the one that deserted her post, when she could have been making her salary.


Four - Most of the cases that have had this issue have settled against the employer because firing of the employee was involved. Disney made the mistake of firing an employee for the same issue is WDW in 2004 - you know they aren't going to make that mistake here.

The Orange County Register did a story on prior issues recently. http://ocresort.ocregister.com/2010/08/20/court-cases-have-gone-both-ways-on-religious-attire/53571/ One hijab case mentioned in the article was where a 17yr old girl simply applied for an Abercrombie and Fitch job wearing her hijab and was not hired, hearsay evidence implies that it was due to the employee dress code. That lawsuit is still pending, but A&F did have an instance where a Hollister employee was hired, wore a hijab to work for 5 months and then was fired after a District Manager did a store tour. That made them ripe foder for the second case.

Personally, I have to go with Disney on this one. What they do here affects everyone from here on out in the company. They need to take their time and do it right or else they will become continual foder like they have been and also like A&F.

 

[disneyholic family]

An update from the AP - disney gave her the new head covering and she refuses to wear it:

A woman who accused the Disney Co. of discrimination for refusing to let her wear a Muslim head scarf at work says she won't wear a specially designed hat instead.

Imane Boudlal, who's a restaurant hostess at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, says Disney's suggested hat-and-bonnet is embarrassing and makes a joke of her religion. (AP)

Considering that the contract she signed when she began working at disney 2.5 years ago specifically stated she would be in a costume if given an onstage role, she doesn't really have a leg to stand on here. She can wear the hat or work backstage, or quit without cause. No change in working conditions here. She's at fault, not Disney.

 

[daneenm]

Saw an interview with this woman yesterday, which really made me disappointed. She pretty much said "what accommodation have they given me?" When the interviewer mentioned that she was on leave with pay and that Disney was making a matching head covering, she said this was not accommodation.

Clearly this is someone who is either looking for a big payout or is the puppet of the union or some other organization trying to drive their personal point home. I really hate these kinds of tactics.

 

[YellowMickeyPonchos]

Here's today's OC Register story, containing a link to a photo of the costume addition they made for her.

http://ocresort.ocregister.com/2010/08/24/muslim-employee-is-taken-off-disneys-schedule/54087/

The hat/scarf:

http://ocresort.ocregister.com/2010/08/23/muslim-employee-rejects-disneys-hat-alternative/53795/

They stopped scheduling her after 4 days of her refusing to wear the hat/scarf they made for her and then refusing backstage positions.

 

[lugnut33]

Saw this today, it appears scarfs are a hot button issue:

San Francisco, CA) -- A suit has been filed on behalf of an 18-year-old Muslim woman who claims she was rejected while applying for a job because she was wearing a religious headscarf.
The incident allegedly occurred in 2008 at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in Milpitas, California.
The young woman claims that the manager asked her if she was Muslim, then scrawled "not Abercrombie look" on her paperwork.
Abercrombie & Fitch's dress code explicitly forbids head coverings.
The suit, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accuses Abercrombie & Fitch of discriminating on the basis of religion.
Representatives for the Ohio-based company did not comment on the suit.

 

[lugnut33]

Well, this is interesting also:

Disneyland Resort plans to give raises to 4,000 theme-park employees over the next five years under a contract that was recently approved.

The company and Workers United Local 50 reached an agreement on a five-year contract, the longest in the union’s history at the park. Those employees will receive between 3 and 3.5 percent raises over that time. It took the parties six days to negotiate the contract, which was ratified by the union, according to Disney.

Workers United union represents about 4,000 food and beverage employees who work in Disneyland and Disney California Adventure.

“We are pleased that an agreement was reached and ratified before the current contract expired,” said a joint statement from Disney and the union. “Our mutual dedication to the bargaining process allowed us to quickly and efficiently reach a deal for our nearly 4,000 food and beverage cast members who work in the two parks.”

Sandi Ecklund, the union president, could not be reached for further comment Thursday.

The Disneyland Resort has negotiated contracts with unions representing about 13,000 workers out of 15,500 workers, who fall under unions, according to Disney.

But Disney and the 2,100-member hotel workers’ union have been unable to reach an agreement for the past two and a half years. During that time, the union has staged walkouts, a one-day strike, a week-long fast and dozens of protests. Most recently, the union came out this week to support a Muslim employee, who is claiming religious discrimination because of Disney’s refusal to let her work in public wearing a head scarf