Suit: Disney Fired Woman Who Wore Hijab

brisem

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by 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.

Actually, the "undue burden" is the interpretation that she'd like the court to come out with.

Disney has already showed a "willingness" to accommedate her--first they transferred her and then offered her a backstage position.
 

joefox97

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

The Disney Look is the way it is for a reason -- people are more approachable when they are as plain-looking as possible. While the Disney company does enjoy celebrating Diversity (Respect Appreciate and Value Everyone or RAVE as we call it). If you allow beards or other facial hair (with the exception of moustaches which I will talk about shortly), you alienate somebody -- whether it's a nicely trimmed goattee or beard or a hideous-looking tangle of curls, you alienate some group of people who don't like that. My dad hated when I had a goattee, and as such, hated all goattees. Was he being too sensitive? Yes. Would he still be alienated and not feel like approaching that person? Yup. That's why Disney does it.

They make an exception for moustaches because of Walt. It may not sound like a good reason, and I question it too -- but Walt had a very grandfatherly-type look and was very approachable. I guess they chose to keep that rule in deference to Walt (the rule was changed in 2000, so your guess is as good as mine -- Laughing Place has an article about the change here: http://www.laughingplace.com/News-ID101034.asp ).

The same goes for no earrings. I have three ear piercings. Dad hated them. Still does. Wouldn't approach me if I was the guy running the ride or selling the merchandise (except for the fact I'm his kid). Too picky? Probably, but that's his choice. Too many rings on the hands, necklaces with big symbols, too much makeup, visible tattoos, etc., etc., etc. -- they all fall in the same category. Disney wants to appeal to the bigget possible audience -- both to reach more people (marketing and money-thinking) and for keeping the Guests satisfied and coming back (Cherished Friends-thinking).

The Walt Disney World mission is: Walt Disney World resort will always be dedicated to making dreams come true. In this magical world, fantasy is real and reality is fantastic. A wonderful sense of community awaits where all are greeted as welcome Guests and become cherished friends. For all who work and play here, Walt Disney World Resort will be a source of joy and inspiration.

THAT's the message that needs to be conveyed by every face and every person in Walt Disney World. It's hard to do that if the face or person offends you and you don't feel like you can approach them. That's the Magic of Disney. And that's why I go back every year.

Joe
 

ClemsonTigger

Naturally Grumpy
Just Bull

Originally posted by 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.

As has been said before, the hijab is optional, eqivalent to someone wearing a large cross around their neck or a kippot on your head.

Just look back on the woman (also in Florida) last year that refused to take her headress off for a drivers license photo. Religion had so much to do with that (along with the multiple arrests and convictions. Truly sad how religion is used to hide behind in these childish grandstanding ploys. (For once the courts made a common sense decision, and required her to remove it for the photo)
 

JBSLJames

New Member
See, there is the problem. My job requires that I wear a garter belt and stockings. I have refused up until this point, even though I felt quite free when I first tried them on, but the 'company' is now pushing all of its employees to follow this dress code. I guess it wouldn't be too bad if the top was more than just pasties. . .













:hurl:








Sounds like a bunch of @#$*@ TO ME.
 

barnum42

New Member
Originally posted by JBSLJames
See, there is the problem. My job requires that I wear a garter belt and stockings. I have refused up until this point, even though I felt quite free when I first tried them on, but the 'company' is now pushing all of its employees to follow this dress code. I guess it wouldn't be too bad if the top was more than just pasties. . .
"Pasties". I think we have another difference in the English language between the two sides of The Pond. Here a pasty is a variation of pie that is usually a semi-circle in shape wit the rounded edge crimped. It originated in Cornwall, so the traditional pasty is called a Cornish Pasty.

Still, I guess your uniform could have you wearing a couple of hot pies!
 

dodgr98

Active Member
In the Parks
No
I found an interesting article in the New York Post written by Amir Taheri on 08/15/03., titled "This Is Not Islam." In it Mr. Taheri, a muslim, states that the headgear or "hijab" is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran. It was invented in the early 1970's by an Iranian mullah, Mussa Sadr, who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite community. In an interview in 1975, Sadr said that the headgear was inspired by the headgear worn by Lebanese Catholic Nuns.
It was this Sadr guy's idea that by wearing the headgear, shiite women would be clearly marked out and spared sexual harassment and rape by yasser arafats PLO gunmen. In Iran, the headgear made it's first appearance in 1977 as a symbol of islamist-marxist opposition to the Shah.
This is pretty funny, in 1981 the Iranaian "president" Bani Sadr said that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane." To protect the people these islamofascists made wearing this headgear mandatory for all females over the age of 6 ( I guess 6 is key because the prophet mohammed had a wife who was six when he married her, must have been the hair). Anyone not wearing the headgear was subject to punishment by 100 lashes of the cane and six months imprisonment.
 

CrackerJack

Member
Originally posted by dodgr98
scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane

Officer, I was only shaving her head because the rays from her hair were driving me crazy !!! IT'S THE HAIR RAYS !!!! :zipit:
 

dodgr98

Active Member
In the Parks
No
By the 1980's this headgear never seen in islam before the 1970's had become standard gear for millions of women all over the world. "It is as sybolic of islam as the mao uniform was of Chinese civilization", Taheri continued.
Hope this sheds some light.
 

JBSLJames

New Member
Originally posted by dodgr98
I guess 6 is key because the prophet mohammed had a wife who was six when he married her, must have been the hair).

You mean, The MOHAMMED, had a wife who was six years old????????????

Boy, that says a lot for the leader of a whole religion. What's the matter Mo, the local prostitutes turned you down?


I think it would be much easier to get behind a religion that specified watching sports from dawn to dusk while mixing in a fair share of fried foods and malt beverages - wait a New York Second - there is a religion like that, it's called ESPN.
 

Tom

Beta Return
Originally posted by JBSLJames
See, there is the problem. My job requires that I wear a garter belt and stockings. I have refused up until this point, even though I felt quite free when I first tried them on, but the 'company' is now pushing all of its employees to follow this dress code. I guess it wouldn't be too bad if the top was more than just pasties. . .

The next time I see an Aerospace Engineer wearing a garter belt and stockings, I'm going to kick him in the area that he's obviously lacking the proper equipment :lol:

Nice example though, James - but quite disturbing!
 

maxime29

Premium Member
Original Poster
Is there any new stories about the lawsuit and if anything has happened yet? It seems like 90% of the posters agree with the reasoning of her being relieved of her job.
 

JBSLJames

New Member
Originally posted by tigsmom
Turnovers...

Personally, if I saw Judd in those little sequined stickers I'd run the other way. :eek: *shudders*

No actually Barnum is right. They are two pies which actually work out pretty well. This way I always remember to pack my lunch.
 

WDW John

Member
Originally posted by dodgr98
This is pretty funny, in 1981 the Iranaian "president" Bani Sadr said that "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane."

I think that might be true, but the wording is a little wrong. What Sadr was referring to, I'm pretty sure, was hair SPRAY. I mean, did you ever smell that stuff?!? Every time I walk into the bathroom while my wife is "doing her hair" I start gagging and THEN I go insane asking her to please, please stop the torture. Seriously, I get a nasty headache. Should I (or the Iranians) be subjected to that day in and day out? I don't think so...
 

Erika

Moderator
Originally posted by JBSLJames
You mean, The MOHAMMED, had a wife who was six years old????????????

Boy, that says a lot for the leader of a whole religion. What's the matter Mo, the local prostitutes turned you down?


Not to get tooooooo picky (right :lol: ) but I'm not sure he is considered a founder. They think of him as a prophet at the end of a long line of important people, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. I only say this because there are an awful lot of shady characters in the Bible but they each play an important role nonetheless. :wave:

As far as the hijab goes- none of my close Muslim friends has ever worn it. And, the mother of my sponsored boy in Pakistan does not wear one, though she is Muslim as well. I knew it was optional but I had never heard of its origin until now! Thanks, dodgr! VERY interesting indeed!
 

no2apprentice

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by WDW John
Every time I walk into the bathroom while my wife is "doing her hair" I start gagging and THEN I go insane asking her to please, please stop the torture.
I have a somewhat similar situation, but a little different. When my wife is "doing her hair" and I walk in, I don't begin gagging, I begin googling.

She does her hair immediately after she gets out of the shower (wink, wink - nudge, nudge).

I wouldn't consider it torture, though.:D
 

Erika

Moderator
Originally posted by no2apprentice
I have a somewhat similar situation, but a little different. When my wife is "doing her hair" and I walk in, I don't begin gagging, I begin googling.

She does her hair immediately after she gets out of the shower (wink, wink - nudge, nudge).

I wouldn't consider it torture, though.:D

You dog :lol:
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom