Muslim woman sues Disney

[roomthreeseventeen]

To me, the ethnic slurs were what makes me think this woman has a claim, whether Disney was accommodating or not. I bet that's part of the reason EEOC cleared the lawsuit.

 

[Lolsmum]

Ethnic slurs? Totally not OK.
Having to fit the "look" while working at Disney? Totally OK.

My best friend had to remove her nose ring while serving Dole Whips at Disneyland. My little sister had to cover her tattoos when she worked at Disneyland a few years later. They require a particular look and that's not a surprise to anyone who works there. Despite her having accepted the job and worked there for some time with the original "look", Disney was willing to accomodate her within the look, she turned them down. I don't think she has a case on those facts.

 

[Stacy's a freak]

To me, the ethnic slurs were what makes me think this woman has a claim, whether Disney was accommodating or not. I bet that's part of the reason EEOC cleared the lawsuit.

I agree that the ethnic slurs are reproachable. But if Disney disciplined the "slur"ers (for lack of a better made-up word), then Disney might be able to avoid blame on that score. Let's say that I called my co-worker something offensive. If I did it once, was reprimanded, and it didn't happen again by me, my employer should be off the hook. Disney can't possibly stop something from happening before it happens. My employer, however, should be held accountable if they are aware of my wrongdoing and do nothing to stop it.

 

[jcb]

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

The statement you quoted tells me the reporter didn't really understand the process. No one who knows anything about this area of the law ever says a "right to sue" notice is "awarded."

First, except for this unique situation (and perhaps even here), it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the claim has merit. (And as I said, I suspect the issuance of a "right to sue notice" tends to show the lack of merit but I am speculating and could be dead wrong.)

Any employee who wants to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination "because of [an] individual's . . . religion") must first exhaust the employee's "administrative remedies" by filing a "charge" (complaint) or having a charge filed with the EEOC or (the equivalent state agency). The primary purpose of the EEOC proceeding is provide the parties with an opportunity to settle ("conciliate") the discrimination allegations. When the EEOC sends the charge to the employer it is sent with a letter proposing mediation.

If the claim doesn't settle, the EEOC can dismiss the charge (by finding no reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred) or it can find reasonable cause to believe discrimination has occurred. If it finds reasonable cause and the employer refuses to settle, the EEOC can then file suit against the employer, thought it doesn't always file suit if it finds reasonable cause.

Title VII requires an employee to give the EEOC 180 days to investigate the complaint and to work out a settlement. After that time has expired, the employee can request a "right to sue" letter. That is what the EEOC issued here. The only legal prerequisite for being "awarded" a right to sue notice is to let 180 days pass after filing the charge. (Though in some instances the EEOC will issue the right to sue notice before 180 days have passed.)

Regardless, once a lawsuit is filed, the whole case starts anew. I have seen a number of claims where the EEOC found reasonable cause and the court dismissed the lawsuit, and vice versa.

And Tom, I'm waiting with breathless anticipation for the Disneyland podcast team to shed some light on this murky subject. (OK, I'm teasing a little since you put in your shameless plug, but honestly, I look forward to hearing what you think about it.)

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

I agree that the ethnic slurs are reproachable. But if Disney disciplined the "slur"ers (for lack of a better made-up word), then Disney might be able to avoid blame on that score. Let's say that I called my co-worker something offensive. If I did it once, was reprimanded, and it didn't happen again by me, my employer should be off the hook. Disney can't possibly stop something from happening before it happens. My employer, however, should be held accountable if they are aware of my wrongdoing and do nothing to stop it.

This is from the court document (bolding mine). If it's true, Disney is certainly at fault.

From early on in her employment, Ms. Boudlal suffered from repeated ethnic and religious slurs from her co-workers, which she reported to management.
Among other things, she was called a “terrorist,” “camel,” and “Kunta Kinte,” the slave from the famous book Roots by Alex Haley. Ms. Boudlal’s co-workers also mocked her by stating, among other things, that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language and that she was trained to make bombs. Ms. Boudlal repeatedly reported the harassment to her managers, who admitted there was a problem, but who never took any action. On most occasions, Ms. Boudlal’s managers merely deflected the complaints by stating that it would take time to change things. Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop complaining.

 

[Stacy's a freak]

This is from the court document (bolding mine). If it's true, Disney is certainly at fault.

From early on in her employment, Ms. Boudlal suffered from repeated ethnic and religious slurs from her co-workers, which she reported to management.
Among other things, she was called a “terrorist,” “camel,” and “Kunta Kinte,” the slave from the famous book Roots by Alex Haley. Ms. Boudlal’s co-workers also mocked her by stating, among other things, that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language and that she was trained to make bombs. Ms. Boudlal repeatedly reported the harassment to her managers, who admitted there was a problem, but who never took any action. On most occasions, Ms. Boudlal’s managers merely deflected the complaints by stating that it would take time to change things. Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop complaining.

Awful! I agree that if this is true, heads will roll.

 

[jcb]

This is from the court document (bolding mine). If it's true, Disney is certainly at fault.

From early on in her employment, Ms. Boudlal suffered from repeated ethnic and religious slurs from her co-workers, which she reported to management.
Among other things, she was called a “terrorist,” “camel,” and “Kunta Kinte,” the slave from the famous book Roots by Alex Haley. Ms. Boudlal’s co-workers also mocked her by stating, among other things, that Arabs are terrorists, that she speaks the terrorist language and that she was trained to make bombs. Ms. Boudlal repeatedly reported the harassment to her managers, who admitted there was a problem, but who never took any action. On most occasions, Ms. Boudlal’s managers merely deflected the complaints by stating that it would take time to change things. Finally, one of the managers told her that she needed to stop complaining.

You know what bothers me about this is that I can't find these allegations in any of the publicity that was generated when she filed her charge. I looked at a lot of articles when the charge was filed (late summer 2010) and don't recall any mentioning "repeated ethnic and religious slurs." You would think that this, if it occurred, would have been blazened across the banner of the OC Register at the time. But perhaps I missed it.

I'm reminded of the "caution" suspects in the UK get when they are interviewed by police: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence."

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

You know what bothers me about this is that I can't find these allegations in any of the publicity that was generated when she filed her charge. I looked at a lot of articles when the charge was filed (late summer 2010) and don't recall any mentioning "repeated ethnic and religious slurs." You would think that this, if it occurred, would have been blazened across the banner of the OC Register at the time. But perhaps I missed it.

I don't remember that part either, but it's possible the press was only interested in the part about the woman's hijab. The suit filed by the ACLU of Southern California alleges that the cast member filed written complaints going back to 2008. I assume copies of those complaints are in her employee file.

 

[doconeill]

You know what bothers me about this is that I can't find these allegations in any of the publicity that was generated when she filed her charge. I looked at a lot of articles when the charge was filed (late summer 2010) and don't recall any mentioning "repeated ethnic and religious slurs." You would think that this, if it occurred, would have been blazened across the banner of the OC Register at the time. But perhaps I missed it.

I don't remember any such claims either, which made me think they are sensationalizing the case to get better negotiating position.

I'm reminded of the "caution" suspects in the UK get when they are interviewed by police: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence."

That's interesting, as it's opposite of how they are warned here in the U.S., according to their "Miranda rights", anything they say "can and will be used against you in a court of law."

 

[jcb]

Great rant by Nancy on the DL podcast.

 

[disneyholic family]

Great rant by Nancy on the DL podcast.

yes, great rant!!

 

[jcb]

This is what makes me sad about my profession. File a lawsuit, issue a press release.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

This is what makes me sad about my profession. File a lawsuit, issue a press release.

Most civil rights cases filed entail a press release. It's how you normally bring attention to a matter when the defendant isn't the Walt Disney corporation.

 

[jcb]

Most civil rights cases filed entail a press release. It's how you normally bring attention to a matter when the defendant isn't the Walt Disney corporation.

I know. I have been on the receiving end of several. That it is common doesn't make it tasteful.