I too was impressed that they are making one that conforms to the costumes, but I disagree that telling her to work in the back or go home is a reasonable accomodation. If it were a christian who was told not to wear a cross under the costume, everyone would be up in arms. Discrimination is discrimination. Disney should have simply allowed he to wear the head scarf. Under the law, a business MUST make a reasonable accomodation. While her headscarf would probably clash with the costume, the fact that they were making one for her should have been enough for them to allow her to wear her own personal one. And if Disney does decide to be less motivated, she add a retaliatory claim as well.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disneyland hostess files complaint over Muslim head scarf
- Thread starter Wilt Dasney
- Start date
- Status
I too was impressed that they are making one that conforms to the costumes, but I disagree that telling her to work in the back or go home is a reasonable accomodation. If it were a christian who was told not to wear a cross under the costume, everyone would be up in arms. Discrimination is discrimination. Disney should have simply allowed he to wear the head scarf. Under the law, a business MUST make a reasonable accomodation. While her headscarf would probably clash with the costume, the fact that they were making one for her should have been enough for them to allow her to wear her own personal one. And if Disney does decide to be less motivated, she add a retaliatory claim as well.
I totally agree. People seem to forget, though, that the law comes first. I think the issue in this case is that they really only gave her two options: 1) work in the back (which is, I assume, the equivalent to a demotion) or 2) go home (and not get paid). Neither is a reasonable accomodation. Disney designing a head scarf for her IS a more than reasonable accomodation. But as I said in my comment above, they should have just let her wear her personal one until the "themed" one is ready.
IDreamOfDisney said:
Tough. As I said above, the law comes first. Just because Disney wants perfect themeing doesn't mean they can violate the law. The question really is did Disney make a reasonable accomodation until the costume was finished? In my opinion, they didn't (again, that assumes that being re-positioned to the back is the equivalent of being demoted).
No argument from me.
I've argued fairly strenuously here that accommodating situations like this would be in Disney's best interest, whether they're required to or not. (I'm not going to get into what the law requires, because it's just not my area of expertise.)
I think Disney comes out with a mixed record here. The fact that they offered to design a hijab is a point in their favor, while the offer to stick her backstage just looks clumsy and insensitive. (I can see where her comment about being "human" seems insulting to backstage CM's, but I think there's a difference between someone whose job duties incidentally require them to be out of public view most of the time, and someone who's being explicitly shunted out of sight because they're deemed "unpresentable"...especially over something so minor as a scarf.)
Basically, the takeaway I have from this is Disney is just unprepared for these situations. Their own solutions seem to be coming together on the fly, without a lot of forethought. As this is at least the second time in six years that a case like this has broken into the mainstream media, it would seem to behoove them to seriously think about the issues involved and come up with a consistent, pre-thought out solution.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
This is always going to be a touchy subject. Freedom of religion or race is always going to be controversial. The governing body (in this case, Disney) is always going to look bad.
It seems that the issue here has been two fold.
1. The employee going against the requests of her superiors. I recognize that her religious practices play into account here, but in essence she is going against the requests of her superiors.
2. Why is it the responsibility of a company to accomodate every religious request? Muslim is obviously a well documented religion, but this does lend itself to the argument, "where do you draw the line?"
3. Disney has offered to provide a head covering that fits in thematically with her costume. This seems to be the most appropriate compromise, but the fact that it has taken too long to produce tells me that this really isn't that big of an issue to Disney and the lawsuit potentially brings it to the forefront. Disney costuming is capable of adapting to many different things. I'm not at home right now, but I read something last night in a book about The Making of the Animal Kingdom, and how costuming is able to properly dress many different people, and accomodate special requests. I can't imagine this is the first time a Muslim employee has worked at Disney in an on stage area (in fact there is another case that was referenced previously). I would think that these types of coverings should be a relatively simple request. Am I wrong here? Are there religious practices that need to be observed during the manufacturing process?
It seems that the issue here has been two fold.
1. The employee going against the requests of her superiors. I recognize that her religious practices play into account here, but in essence she is going against the requests of her superiors.
2. Why is it the responsibility of a company to accomodate every religious request? Muslim is obviously a well documented religion, but this does lend itself to the argument, "where do you draw the line?"
3. Disney has offered to provide a head covering that fits in thematically with her costume. This seems to be the most appropriate compromise, but the fact that it has taken too long to produce tells me that this really isn't that big of an issue to Disney and the lawsuit potentially brings it to the forefront. Disney costuming is capable of adapting to many different things. I'm not at home right now, but I read something last night in a book about The Making of the Animal Kingdom, and how costuming is able to properly dress many different people, and accomodate special requests. I can't imagine this is the first time a Muslim employee has worked at Disney in an on stage area (in fact there is another case that was referenced previously). I would think that these types of coverings should be a relatively simple request. Am I wrong here? Are there religious practices that need to be observed during the manufacturing process?
DisneyPan
Active Member
Yes in fact, each cast member is part of a show called "The Magic Kingdom", called "The Disneyland Hotel", called "THe Haunted Mansion". They each have a role just like Cinderella or Peter Pan regardless of their union. They even share their own terminology: on stage, back stage, costumes, cast members... the list goes on.
That's why millions of people visit the parks. Why do we watch movies???? To be transported to another world and escape reality. Hmmm, let's go back to core Disney Traditions. In fact, maybe Disney should extend their philosophy class "Traditions" so people entering the job can decide if they're on board before they start working - not 2 years later.
And NO, Disney should not make religious garb to go along with each religion, so the CM can choose their preference at Wardrobe. Please... this whole situation has gotten out of control. No tolerance! If you don't believe in the Disney Values get another job. Go work at Jack in the Box if you wanna wear your religious attire. Maybe your dreams will come true there...
I think I'm off my soap box now...
That's why millions of people visit the parks. Why do we watch movies???? To be transported to another world and escape reality. Hmmm, let's go back to core Disney Traditions. In fact, maybe Disney should extend their philosophy class "Traditions" so people entering the job can decide if they're on board before they start working - not 2 years later.
And NO, Disney should not make religious garb to go along with each religion, so the CM can choose their preference at Wardrobe. Please... this whole situation has gotten out of control. No tolerance! If you don't believe in the Disney Values get another job. Go work at Jack in the Box if you wanna wear your religious attire. Maybe your dreams will come true there...
I think I'm off my soap box now...
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Whether or not people buy into Disney's culture of employees being "Cast Members" and wearing "costumes" instead of uniforms, what this boils down to is an employers right to manage their image via uniforms.
Here we have a Muslim person who two years into her job at Disneyland decides she needs to wear a head scarve to work.
An opposite analogy could be made by someone working for a company that mandates head scarves for all female employees. Take Emirates Airlines for example. They've got a famous stewardess corps made up of young ladies from around the world, from all cultures. And their uniform includes a covered head and veil at all times, regardless of religion.
Would a Presbyterian girl working as a stewardess for two years have the right to tell Emirates that their uniform is offensive to her and that she demands to not wear the hat and veil? The Steward on the flight gets to wear a western coat and tie, but the Stewardesses must wear a hat and veil at all times.
Could this Presbyterian stewardess sue in federal court so that she can serve Coffee, Tea, or Me without wearing the Muslim-inspired hat and veil? And would Emirates have any right to ask their employees to only wear the approved uniform and participate in their corporate culture?
Here we have a Muslim person who two years into her job at Disneyland decides she needs to wear a head scarve to work.
An opposite analogy could be made by someone working for a company that mandates head scarves for all female employees. Take Emirates Airlines for example. They've got a famous stewardess corps made up of young ladies from around the world, from all cultures. And their uniform includes a covered head and veil at all times, regardless of religion.
Would a Presbyterian girl working as a stewardess for two years have the right to tell Emirates that their uniform is offensive to her and that she demands to not wear the hat and veil? The Steward on the flight gets to wear a western coat and tie, but the Stewardesses must wear a hat and veil at all times.
Could this Presbyterian stewardess sue in federal court so that she can serve Coffee, Tea, or Me without wearing the Muslim-inspired hat and veil? And would Emirates have any right to ask their employees to only wear the approved uniform and participate in their corporate culture?
As far as that goes, I don't think we disagree. My stance throughout has been based on what I think would be in Disney's best interest, not what they do or don't have a right to do.
My question essentially is, whether or not it's obligatory for Disney to bend on this issue, does it help them to refuse to? I don't think it does...and I think their own willingness to design a scarf for the employee indicates that someone inside the company shares my view to an extent.
sweetpee_1993
Well-Known Member
The problem with that is, where does it end?
The Islamic "supporters" that were behind Imane during her press conference today on the front lawn of the Grand Californian Hotel weren't just wearing head scarves. Several of them were wearing the full-length black Muslim Burkas with only a portion of their face showing.
If Disney allows this girl to wear her head scarve with her issued Costume, why can't another woman Cast Member wear a Burka while working on Main Street USA? Are you okay with discriminating against some Muslim garb, but not others?
What about your Tour Guide wearing a Turban? Jewish Yarmulkes worn instead of the conductors cap on the Disneyland Railroad? Rosary beads and Ash Wednesday forehead markings on the hostess selling you mouse ears? A big rainbow AIDS awareness brooche on your waiter at the Blue Bayou? Long, matted dreadlocks with woven Rastafarian beads on the Tom Sawyer Island raft driver? Nazi swastikas tattooed on the neck of your Disney bus driver? Why do only Muslims get to write their own ticket on how they look?
At what point is the concept of a "dress code" and "costume" too much of a burden to bear? If this girl can wear her Muslim headscarve, why can't anyone else do anything their personal beliefs dictate regardless of Disney company policy?
Where does it end exactly? I can guarantee you that if Disney caves on this one, it doesn't end with this one Muslim hostess at this one restaurant.
Exactly. If Disney accommodates this girl they set the precedent and it's open season on self-expression with costuming.
I'm of the same thinking that if a position requires me to dress uncomfortably then I would do everything I could to not work in that position. I've had to wear uniforms before. It wasn't fun. If I didn't like it I had one other choice: find another job. This girl needs to have a chat with my mother who only had to tell me once: If you don't like your job, go get another one. End of story. It's that simple.
Disagree. I don't think Disney is showing lack of creativity or bad politics in their unwillingness to allow this girl (or anyone else) to dictate their own wardrobe changes/additions based on their personal beliefs be it religious or otherwise. They have a policy. Cast Members are aware of the policy going into the job that they sought from the company. If the CM doesn't like the policy then they can move to a position that fits their beliefs or find another job. If they make a costume modification for her they'll be opening the flood gates and setting a precedent that will plague them.
Wearing a cross underneath a costume doesn't change it's appearance. When I wore uniforms I did things that didn't disturb the appearance (pinned a special pin inside a pocket, wore brightly colored mismatched socks tucked out of sight inside my boots). The fact that Disney doesn't want this girl dictating her own costume modification because she believes something isn't discrimination. It's adhering to their policy which happens to be a policy she didn't have a problem with for 2 years previously. If the girl wants to wear a scarf on her head that bad & wants to be on stage doing it she will have to find a way to make it happen and still be within the costume requirements she is required to stay within. Maybe she can wear a scarf tucked creatively under a good quality wig. :shrug: As far as the legality of it, law is written so creatively that it's all open to interpretation. Sorta like religion. :animwink:
mickeyandkrunch
Member
Does anyone know what was the outcome of the 2004 lawsuit?
IMO Disney is NOT at fault. The costume was design before her and show to her prior to her employment in that position. If a person changes there beliefs then they can change the role that they play.
:shrug:
IMO Disney is NOT at fault. The costume was design before her and show to her prior to her employment in that position. If a person changes there beliefs then they can change the role that they play.
:shrug:
They already offered to make a costume modification for her, so I think that ship has sailed to some degree. :shrug:
IMO, the story isn't about Disney holding firm to their costuming policies (because they didn't); it's about how nimbly and skillfully they can accommodate situations like this in the future.
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
The part that gets me is this:
So she is discriminating against all people who work backstage by saying that they aren't even human and have no feelings.
"They said, these are your options: either work in the back or go home," Boudlal said. "I don't' want to be in the back. I'm a human being, I have feelings. Don't put me in the back."
So she is discriminating against all people who work backstage by saying that they aren't even human and have no feelings.
Disneybird
Member
I sort of got that same impression. Like she is too good to join the people in the back.
I actually asked a VP of Human Resources who has been involved in a good number of EEOC claims (6 in California). Her take is that if Disney sets forth their employee requirements at the onset of their hiring, then her coming back two years later and claiming religious discrimination is pretty "weak" indeed.
I found this:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/24683857/detail.html
Orlando's Disney World has faced similar allegations. Former employee Aicha Baha left her part-time job as a bellhop at Disney's Caribbean Beach Resort in 2002 because the company would not allow her to wear a hijab on stage. She also quit her job with an independent company that sold jewelry on Disney property, which adhered to the same dress code. Both Disney and the jewelry company offered Baha other opportunities, but she declined. "Anywhere you go, they say they don't discriminate. There's no discrimination against religion, but, actually, this is discrimination. If they're saying that, then why do they not want me to work there?" Baha said. Baha and Walk Disney World later reached an out-of-court settlement.
(I've never been to Walk Disney World. I'm guessing they don't have trams or monorails there.) :lookaroun
A lawyer's blog I found also said a Sikh employee sued WDW in 2008 over the right to wear a turban. I couldn't find any resolution to that case.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
At first I thought this girl was a pawn for the union bosses using this as a bargaining chip (And that's the REAL STORY here, for those of us who have been following the 2+ years of this union's epic and public failure to reach a contract with Disney).
But then I watched that video on the ocregister website where Imane describes in her own words what this is about. And then I realized Imane is just as delusional and whiny as her union. And her slap in the face to anyone who works back in the kitchen or in a back of house role put it over the top.
This girl is a brat, plain and simple. I don't care what religion she is or what country she's from, she's just a brat.
It almost humanizes her, to know that even in Morocco they can raise bratty little girls who are elitist snobs with a huge sense of false entitlement. That is a concept apparently not exclusive to upper-middle class American suburbs, but it also can happen with working class girls in Morocco.
Spike-in-Berlin
Well-Known Member
The only place in the World where I would accept such sights would be the Marocco pavilion. Nothing else. I don't want to see muslims with a clearly out-of-theming outfit as CMs anywhere else in the World. Period.
cdunbar
Active Member
See I'm not sure she isn't. I mean what would be a better bargining chip for the union to get what they want than to send some girl, who I'm sure is either in college, grad school something and is looking for a handsome check to help her out, in with a religious complaint against the company allowing the media to once again bring the union debates out into the public eye. I'm sure hey're thinking the publicity of this whole union thing has died down and we still haven't gotten what we want so let's send it back "on stage" if you will and see if we can get what we want. But that's just my opinion.
Plus and tell me if I'm wrong here but don't you get infracations if you don't follow dress code? And wouldn't she have to sign something saying that she agrees to wear this costume when she is on stage? :shrug:
Well not only Muslims but any religion, Disney is selling this product and it's called a magical escape from reality. We go there to get away from the wars, politics, jobs, family difficulties and we expect to see these perky, happy people as the sales people and if those sales people are alined with the things we're trying to escape than the sales people are failing, and the product isn't being sold.:shrug:
mp2bill
Well-Known Member
Yeah...it seems like WDW is being very accomodating and she's just being difficult. Hopefully nothing comes of this.
- Status