Muslim woman sues Disney

[rlduvall]

I guess she went through with it. I remember Pete and the guys talking about this a while back.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...n-sues-disney-over-wearing-hijab-at-work?lite

 

[disneymom443]

I have to say I think she is in the wrong. Not for wanting to wear her scarf, on saying ok to the costume when she was hired. Disney tells all potental CM in the position they are going for the requirments for their costume. She she didn't like it them she shouldn't have accepted the job. Then two years later wants to wear her scarf. I understand to was her understanding her freedom of choice, but what religon you are has no place at work. Disney is working for the guest, many guest may have been uneasy with her choice of the scarf. Disney gave her choices and she rejected them. She left on her own, Disney it not to blame.

 

[Cherinva]

I feel that Disney went out of their way to try to accomodate her....and she refused.....enough said.

 

[StacyMarie]

I feel that Disney went out of their way to try to accomodate her....and she refused.....enough said.

Absolutely AGREE!

 

[SamSam]

When you are hired you know you will be in 'costume'. Nuff said.

 

[lizabu]

I think Disney is absolutely in the wrong. This is clear cut religious discrimination. By trying to accomodate her they wanted her to work in area where she is unseen. That is not trying to accomodate her anymore than if they hired people of a certain race and hid them in the back. Who would tolerate that? I hope she wins.

 

[Uncleromulus]

She wouldn't want me on that jury-----

 

[*NikkiBell*]

Hi All,

Just popping in to remind everyone that discussion of politics or religion, of any kind, is against DIS Posting Guidelines. For the time being, I am going to allow this thread to remain open as one with information related to a topic on a past show. However, if discussion begins to veer across the line, it will be closed.

 

[jcb]

I think Disney is absolutely in the wrong. This is clear cut religious discrimination. By trying to accomodate her they wanted her to work in area where she is unseen. That is not trying to accomodate her anymore than if they hired people of a certain race and hid them in the back. Who would tolerate that? I hope she wins.

Disney made other accommodation attempts. She turned them all down.
http://www.disunplugged.com/2010/09/08/the-clash-between-the-disney-look-and-religious-customs/

 

[DisneyKevin]

Folks,

This thread has the potential for veering off into territory that violates Dis Board policy.

Please make sure that we keep religion and politics out of this discussion.

Thanks,
Kevin

 

[lizabu]

Disney made other accommodation attempts. She turned them all down.
http://www.disunplugged.com/2010/09/08/the-clash-between-the-disney-look-and-religious-customs/

Thank you for sharing that link. I know enough Muslim people and about the Muslim religion to know that either the option of wearing a hat over a hijab or the alternative hat shown provided she can cover her neck as in the colored picture are perfectly acceptable. Now knowing what they offered her I change my opinion and think she's being unreasonable.

 

[AliceIn]

I think Disney is absolutely in the wrong. This is clear cut religious discrimination. By trying to accomodate her they wanted her to work in area where she is unseen. That is not trying to accomodate her anymore than if they hired people of a certain race and hid them in the back. Who would tolerate that? I hope she wins.

It's sort of a Catch-22 isn't it? What would happen if the woman playing Cinderella wanted to start wearing hijab? If Disney offered her the opportunity to be Tigger since the hijab wouldn't change the costume and she refused, would that be different? Does Disney have to alter the characters to accommodate religious beliefs? I think as long as they offered her a similar position for similar pay, she has no basis for a lawsuit.

 

[jcb]

Thank you for sharing that link. I know enough Muslim people and about the Muslim religion to know that either the option of wearing a hat over a hijab or the alternative hat shown provided she can cover her neck as in the colored picture are perfectly acceptable. Now knowing what they offered her I change my opinion and think she's being unreasonable.

 

[PAcpl]

Regardless of the issue, the CM expressed a concern and Disney tried to rectify the concern. When the CM was not happy Disney tried another avenue to make the CM happy. Nothing seemed to work and this CM decided to stop showing up to work.

There are people that are extremely near sited and as soon as they hear religion or politics they focus on one single event. Who cares what it has to do with. There was an issue and Disney did try to rectify it with no success.

As you can see by the article this has happened in the past and Disney did the appropriate thing to fix the situation. They DID NOT hide the CM behind any doors. They both came to an agreement and everything was worked out. It doesn't look like the cast member in today's case want's anything more then some attention and a quick pay day.

And if she started working for another company and then got fired because of what had happened at Disney, she has a better case against that company then against Disney......although im sure Disney has the deeper pockets.

 

[PAcpl]

It's sort of a Catch-22 isn't it? What would happen if the woman playing Cinderella wanted to start wearing hijab? If Disney offered her the opportunity to be Tigger since the hijab wouldn't change the costume and she refused, would that be different? Does Disney have to alter the characters to accommodate religious beliefs? I think as long as they offered her a similar position for similar pay, she has no basis for a lawsuit.

Absolutely perfect analogy. I don't think it is a catch-22 at all.

 

[jcb]

It's sort of a Catch-22 isn't it? What would happen if the woman playing Cinderella wanted to start wearing hijab? If Disney offered her the opportunity to be Tigger since the hijab wouldn't change the costume and she refused, would that be different? Does Disney have to alter the characters to accommodate religious beliefs? I think as long as they offered her a similar position for similar pay, she has no basis for a lawsuit.

I am pretty sure that Disney would not have to alter a character's costume as part of a religious accommodation. Even though the statute was passed 48 years ago, there still isn't a clear answer to this, however. Most of the precedent arises out of security (police or correctional officers) or safety situations.

This young lady was a hostess at a restaurant. The fascinating issue here is that Disney's core principle is the "look" which is based on the idea that every cast member is "on stage." Whether courts will agree with Disney remains to be seen. If she were Cinderella's friend, the legal issue would be quite different.

What makes me question the viability of her legal claim is that the EEOC chose not to represent her. That by itself isn't unusual as the EEOC decides not to represent the employee in the vast majority of discrimination/retaliation claims.

But in the years following September 11, 2001, the EEOC put a special emphasis on filing lawsuits alleging religious discrimination, especially when, as here, the claim is by a Muslim who is alleging a failure to accommodate religious beliefs. That she now claims there were some disgusting remarks made by her co-workers would seem to have provided the EEOC with even more reason to file suit against Disney. Then there is the fact that the EEOC would get a ton of publicity about filing suit against Disney. (Look at the publicity generated simply because the ACLU filed the lawsuit.)

So when I wrote the blog post, I pretty much expected the EEOC to file a lawsuit on behalf of this young lady. That they apparently decided not to do so makes me think that there is more to this than has surfaced in the recent publicity.

 

[vacationclub]

That is not trying to accomodate her anymore than if they hired people of a certain race and hid them in the back.

But they didn't do that. This is not based on how she looks, they clearly told her it's based on what she insists on wearing that conflicts with their costume....and the entire reason the job exists to begin with. Plus, she accepted the conditions of employment (something that they don't have to give her) when she worked for 2 years before deciding to push the issue.

It would be like her saying "I really want to work at Disney in costume as a character, I just don't want to wear their costume". And saying it after 2 years of doing it.

Or saying, "I want to be a truck driver, just don't want to drive a truck" after driving a truck for 2 years.

She will lose. It might even be tossed out.

 

[k5jm]

Jack, it appears that EEOC cleared her for litigation but, as you said, the EEOC did not file on her behalf.

After weeks of discussions with company officials, the lawsuit says, Boudlal received initial approval to wear a Disney-designed scarf, but she was told it would need corporate approval before she could wear it to work. Not wanting to wait to mark Ramadan, Boudlal wore her own hijab to work Aug. 15, 2010, when she says she was told she could either remove the scarf, cover it with a hat or work in a job out of public sight.

She refused and, after a few additional meetings with Disney, filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency awarded Boudlal a notice of right to sue earlier this month, opening the door for litigation.

 

[pfalcioni]

I don't see this as any different than the rest of Disney's rules regarding Cast Member's appearance. I'm sure someone here can tell us exactly what is required, but I believe there are regulations regarding hair styles, facial hair in men, and other things like chewing gum which, if ignored, are firing offenses.

It seems like Disney was much more accommodating with this situation than they would be with any regular "out of uniform" issue, due to the fact that religious beliefs were part of the mix.

From reading all the information provided, it seems this woman was not interested in continuing to work at Disney, and is most interested now in getting money from them by other means (lawsuit).

 

[ImTooExcitedToSleep]

Shameless plug:

The Disneyland Podcast team shares their opinions about this story on this week's show. Tune in Thursday.