Suit: Disney Fired Woman Who Wore Hijab

[wannabeBelle]

hey there all, Great discussion on this case all!!!
I have to pretty much agree with everyone here. This case reminds me of something similar I had heard. A woman was suing the Florida dept of Motor Vehicles because she could not have a driver's license. She would not agree to take off her face veil for a picture, which would have resulted in a very stunning picture of her eyes!!! No one was asking her to remove the veil that covered her hair, she would have been accoodated by being in a secluded room with a woman taking the picture ( accounting for the modesty in the Muslim faith) Well living in NYC I have the privilege of working with some very multicultural individuals, one of whom is Muslim. I asked him and he had stated the veils are completely voluntary!!!! It does go to the modesty thing, but if a woman wants a passport in the Middle East she must take a picture unveiled!!! The picture is taken by a woman in a segregated area which the state had agreed to. In addition, in the Middle East women cant drive a car at all!!! Only men can. I think this woman actually won the case which is nonsense. If you want to take advantage of our freedoms, you have to play by our rules. As far as this woman goes, I Am glad she found a deeper faith. That is great. As far as wearing an unacceptable item of clothing, Disney was absolutely correct. At no time did they ever seek to have her change religions to maintain her job, and they even offered her another job where her religious dress ( as previously stated by several people including myself is totally optional) would not be a problem. She declined. Her choice and option. If we had done the reverse in a strict Muslim country, we would be arrested or worse!!! THAT is the freedom that America has. There is no impediment to her practicing her faith in a manner that she chooses, headdress and all. If she wants to work, she will either lay aside the veil for an onstage job, accept a backstage position, or find employment elsewhere. Good job on this one Disney!! Belle

 

[mwc1996]

If my relegion said that I wasn't allowed to wear clothes should I be allowed to work naked? I think not. Disney's "case by case" basis is the way that most employers handle their dress code by my experiance. If your dress interferes with your ability to do your job or others around you then it is not allowed. Where I believe Disney is safe is in teh fact that their employee's are Cast Members playing a role. They list customer area's as "On Stage". They view their theme parks as a Giant Play. If you can't "Play the part" of your Character then you need to find a new Character. Work in a back area where you aren't "on stage."

 

[MKBurn15]

Originally posted by DDuckFan130
Does this happen where you live or something? As far as I know, the only "hats" or whatever that kids can wear in school are those associated with their religion. In my years of public school, I always saw the Muslim girls in their hijabs or the Jewish boys in their...what are they called? Yamakas? (sp?). Excuse my ignorance I just never knew the correct term for them.

No, but I think I heard it on the news.

And the way you spelled um.. yarmulke is how it sounds I think.

 

[Tom]

Re: Since whenis Disney Private?

Originally posted by BnBLMLK
I would just like for you to clear one thing for me. please Since when is Disney Private.. The last I knew Disney Stock is Sold and traded. So that make Disney a Public Company.. Yes they have guidelines and rules. And they should be followed. And yes She was offered her a diffrent Job. But please explaine why Being Private is going to make such a big deal as every one who has posted they are Private.. I had thought once your Stock is sold to the Public you were nolonger a Private company. Sorry to be off the Subject.

The terms PUBLIC vs. PRIVATE refer to whether a company is affiliated with the government.

The PUBLIC sector is government (schools, police, etc)

The PRIVATE sector includes any and all companies owned by people, whether held by one or two owners, or thousands of stockholders - still a private organization.

 

[tim5055]

Originally posted by wannabeBelle
This case reminds me of something similar I had heard. A woman was suing the Florida dept of Motor Vehicles because she could not have a driver's license. She would not agree to take off her face veil for a picture, which would have resulted in a very stunning picture of her eyes!!!

I think this woman actually won the case which is nonsense.

Actually, the woman lost the case.

The State of Florida has Allowed A Muslim Woman to Have Her Drivers License Photo Taken with Her Face Covered from TruthOrFiction.com

Judge: Muslim woman must unveil for license photo from CourtTV

 

[Bill]

These people are really stupid if they think they can get way with this nonsense. Honestly. These guys really need to get some common sense. I'd like to see the drivers license photos that they have for the women in... oh wait! They're not even ALLOWED to drive there. :lol: :hammer: Idiots.

 

[wannabeBelle]

Tim you have just made my day!!!!! That is awesome I read the article that you gave the link to ( the second one) I would like to comment on the judge's ruling. I think she made a fair, well thought out and reasonable judgement. She in no way questioned the woman's religious beliefs ( rightly so as this is America) but argued for the greater security of this country and all her citizens!! Great work Justice Thorpe!!! Belle

 

[DDuckFan130]

Originally posted by WDW John
It's 'yarmulke'. Kind of a tough one to guess the spelling of.

:lol: :hammer: Thanks! I feel kind of dumb right about now, I'm usually an awesome speller. That's an interesting way to spell it and pronounce it but that's cool

 

[Laura]

I wonder if Disney offered her a job at Epcot's Morroco pavillion? It would seem like a perfect fit.

Don't you have to actually be FROM Morocco to work there?

 

[joel_maxwell]

in birmingham last week, a man was fired because he refused to remove a 10 commandments lapel pin from his jacket.

this situation doesnt surprise me.

i think both parties lose in this situation.................. it is to bad they couldnt compromise.

jm

 

[TheDisneyGirl02]

Originally posted by Laura22
Don't you have to actually be FROM Morocco to work there?

I don't think so...I might be wrong though. I know for sure if you work with the characters in a country, you don't have to be from that country. I worked with Aladdin, Jasmine, Genie and Jafer a few times, and I'm not from Morocco! (But I love the pavilion though!)

TheDisneyGirl02

 

[Calamar]

Originally posted by MKBurn15
I never understood the thing about facial hair...

Yes -- I'm strongly opposed to the widespread anti-beard sentiments among employers. I probably would have enrolled in the WDW College Program if I had been allowed to keep my beard. I can understand why Disney wouldn't want its cast members to grow a filthy five-foot beard or patchy stubble, but a 'respectable' well-groomed beard ought to be tolerated. Disney should consider facial hair on a case-by-case basis, just as they consider hairstyles. In my particular case, I frightened small children before I grew a beard, hence it would be advantageous for me to keep the facial hair while working at a family-oriented theme park.

 

[ArchiDanDisney]

Originally posted by Bill
These people are really stupid if they think they can get way with this nonsense. Honestly. These guys really need to get some common sense. I'd like to see the drivers license photos that they have for the women in... oh wait! They're not even ALLOWED to drive there. :lol: :hammer: Idiots.

Seriously that was just as ignorant as before...Please be careful what you say, you might be offending someone.

 

[joel_maxwell]

oh yeh, i read that part about disney offering her another job, when i say that i wish that they could have compromised, i mean a team, i wish that she could have worked with disney and everything could have come out ok.

oh well, if she was hurting for money that bad, i think she would have transfered. lol

jm

 

[CrackerJack]

OK, I read this thread and I wasn't going to post. But the whole thing just irritates me so ...

I am just sick of frivilous lawsuits in this country. It is way out of control. She knew there was a dress code and chose to disobey it. (Heck, I know Disney has a dress code and I don't even work for them). My job has a dress code (khaki's and a polo are the lowest a man can wear). I work at my computer 99.99% of the day and very rarely interact with customers. I would prefer to wear shorts and a t-shirt rather than meet the dress code. And I can do that. But if the company calls me on that, they would probably give me a warning to change my clothes or get fired. If I continued to ignore the policy, I would eventually be terminated. So I choose to abide by the policy, even though it makes little sense for the job I'm in.

Disney warned her. They offered her another job backstage where a costume isn't needed. She chose to quit. What else is Disney supposed to do? If they give in to her, then the window is open for any person to wear whatever they want. Next we'll be seeing Cinderella with a nose ring or Aladdin with a blue mohawk.

But her religion says she must wear this. If by following your religion you suffer consequences, then you must choose either your religion or the consequences. You don't get to have it all. I am a Christian. If my employer told me that I must lie to a customer, I would refuse to do it because it is against my beliefs. But if they fired me because I refused to comply with their requests, I would accept it and move on. But I would never expect anything from my employer.

My solution to these frivolous lawsuits. Make the person doing the suing (the woman in this case) pay ALL court costs (including lawyer fees) for both sides (prosecution and defense) if she loses the case. Then we will see how truly they believe in their lawsuit. And it would cause those who are being sued to be more likely to proceed rather than just pay the person off because it would cost too much to go to court. And since when is having a job a "right" anyway.

// end of rant

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Not taking sides here, but one thing that's seemingly being overlooked in the discussion is the EEOC's requirement for companies to accomodate religious beliefs unless it creates an undue burden (to paraphrase).

In other words, you can't just say "Disney's a private company and they can do what they want, end of story." Disney still has to follow the law...in this case, there are two questions that will likely have to be addressed:

1.) Is the wearing of the scarf a significant part of the woman's religion that Disney must make an effort to accomodate under the law?

2.) Would the wearing of the scarf create an undue burden?

Assuming Disney chooses to fight this, they would likely need to prove the undue burden...saying it would disrupt the "show" would probably not fly in court. Their best bet might be to say it would create an undue burden if they made an exception for her and not everyone else, but then the question comes back to the policy itself.

If not in this case, then at some point, Disney will likely have to defend this policy against the "undue burden" clause. Proving that disrupting the Disney "show" with a scarf constitutes an undue burden would make for a very interesting legal tussle.

 

[peter11435]

They do not need the undue burden defense. Disney made the effort to accommodate here religious beliefs by offering to move here to a backstage position.

 

[texanspivey]

Welcome to America, there are rules. If you do not follow them, then too bad so sad.

 

[prberk]

Originally posted by wdw100
First I would like to say that I don't mean to be rude, but....

“She said her faith grew during that time”, that’s convenient and now she’s suing. I’m sorry but I feel this is another pay up and I will go away thing.

You know, I think you have hit on something, but not necessarily the money. I think a lot of times, people who "grow in their faith" sometimes let their newfound (and even real) zeal blind them to the SACRIFICE that a truly deeper faith actually calls for.

I do not know this lady and her true feelings, nor am I a muslim; but I am a believer and I know that it is easy to get caught up in the symbolism and feel like everyone else should recognize your "rights" on their turf. But the deeper truth is that, usually, faith calls one to sacrifice.

In her case, the sacrifice may be that, in order to honor her deepening faith and desire to wear the scarf, she may need to "consider the cost," i.e., risk losing her job.

Demanding that someone let you do something on their turf is not sacrifice OR faith to me. Accepting that you might lose a valuable earthly treasure (like a job at Disney) to follow your convictions is.

 

[Erika]

Originally posted by prberk
You know, I think you have hit on something, but not necessarily the money. I think a lot of times, people who "grow in their faith" sometimes let their newfound (and even real) zeal blind them to the SACRIFICE that a truly deeper faith actually calls for.

I do not know this lady and her true feelings, nor am I a muslim; but I am a believer and I know that it is easy to get caught up in the symbolism and feel like everyone else should recognize your "rights" on their turf. But the deeper truth is that, usually, faith calls one to sacrifice.

In her case, the sacrifice may be that, in order to honor her deepening faith and desire to wear the scarf, she may need to "consider the cost," i.e., risk losing her job.

Demanding that someone let you do something on their turf is not sacrifice OR faith to me. Accepting that you might lose a valuable earthly treasure (like a job at Disney) to follow your convictions is.

Well put! I think you've hit the nail on the head.