The "Disney Look"

[kcw]

Well, as for good/bad show, you clearly haven't seen their crappy broadway shows and their extremely lax safety standards on them

Really? That's funny, I've been in them. I'll try not to take offense. They do take quite a few precautions when it comes to safety, and they are always trying to present good show.


Not sure how it is ironic.

Because those to whom the standards actually apply are better judges of whether they are discrimanatory or not. I don't think that someone who doesn't work for the company can really have fair opinion on something like that, that doesn't apply to them.

However, it's amazing how everyone is quick to defend Disney.

I work for them, and they've never given me reason to distrust. Besides, it's a big corporation vs a random magazine article that has already proven to have some mistruths....I'll take the former

Apparently, he was hired for parade and atmospheric performances. He claims to have been removed from the atmospheric performances, and after complaining to HR, he was informed that he was never hired for atmospheric performances.

If he was hired as a toy soldier playing an instrument, then that was all he was hired to do. Those are strictly musicians and they don't do "atmospheric" performances. It's a completely separate deal. The writer of the article is either quite misinformed, or this guy is just making things up

Clearly, something happened with regards to this guy's employment. Assuming his allegations are true, then indeed Disney violated the law.

From what I can tell, it's clear that his contract ended, and he was upset when he wasn't rehired the following year. That isn't "something happening with his employment," that's life.

I based my arguments on the assumption that he isn't lying (or exxagerating), and other people, for argument's sake, did as well.

...and others base their arguments on the assumption that Disney isn't lying. You can't get upset at them for doing the same that you did- it goes both ways


In this case, we don't know what the real truth is. Is it possible he is merely exploiting a religious belief for personal gain? Possibly. Is it possible that Disney didn't like the way he looked and fired him? Possibly. Instead of jumping to conclusions that Disney has the right to hire and fire anyone they please based on appearance (which to a degree they don't), why not let the case play out.

If you had phrased things in this way from the get-go, people might not have gotten as fired up.

If we never hear about this case again, chances are Disney's legal team determined the case had merit and settled.

Why? If they determine the guy is just a nutjob, I doubt we'd hear about it either.


How they run it and how they are supposed to run it are never the same thing.

That's subject to opinion...

Clearly the extent at which the grooming policy is enforced varies based on who your manager is

You just stated that nobody knew all of the facts, so how can anything be clear? In my department, we don't really know our managers well, but I'm sure someone else in a different dept would probably be able to give a better opinion on this claim.

And for those that keep claiming that the "show" excuse wouldn't hold water- I'm not racist at all, and I'm very accepting of others' cultures, beliefs, religions, etc. However, if I walked into Frontierland, and saw a guy in a cowboy costume, with a full beard and turban, I'd stop and go "huh?" Sure, you might think that you don't really notice the CMs and how their appearance might distract from theming, but that's because they don't distract. That's how it was intended to be. By making sure they all look the same, and there are no "extremes" sticking out, it allows CMs to almost fade into the backdrop. Whether people like it or not, it is a show, and they most definitely can typecast.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

For CMs in front of customers as performers, Disney can reasonably argue that the discriminatory Disney Look is an integral part of the show. For cashiers and other non-performing CMs that are in front of customers, Disney's argument is weaker, but could still stand. For behind-the-scenes CMs, Disney would have no leg to stand on.

I agree with your analysis, and I think any smart lawyer would make those distinctions.

A charactor actor playing Winnie-the-Pooh is definitely part of a show. A HM ride operator pretending to be a sinister maid or butler is definitely a show performer.

A guy sweeping a broom in Tomorrowland? Meh, that's where I think it becomes more of a semantic device. What "role" does he have, a janitor who is maybe futuristic in some vague sense because he has a Tomorrowland outfit on? It's definitely not in the same boat as the previous examples, for my money, regardless of what the company says.

 

[kcw]

I agree with your analysis, and I think any smart lawyer would make those distinctions.

A charactor actor playing Winnie-the-Pooh is definitely part of a show. A HM ride operator pretending to be a sinister maid or butler is definitely a show performer.

A guy sweeping a broom in Tomorrowland? Meh, that's where I think it becomes more of a semantic device. What "role" does he have, a janitor who is maybe futuristic in some vague sense because he has a Tomorrowland outfit on? It's definitely not in the same boat as the previous examples, for my money, regardless of what the company says.

Maybe so, but can you imagine the can of worms that would open? When you try to draw a line differentiating roles and whether they are part of a "show" or not, that's opening up bigger problems. Shouldn't someone who is acting and portraying a role get paid more than someone who is "simply sweeping a broom"?? and then of course those who are janitors are going to feel discriminated against because attractions hosts are getting paid more- and then (because I'm from an area where construction workers/janitors/general "nobody wants those jobs" are filled by hispanics, or more commonly, illegal aliens) it will turn into racial discrimination.... and while that all sounds ridiculous, it isn't, because that's where our world is now. Chalk it all up to darn PC.... I believe when Walt first made these decisions, he intended on all CMs being treated as equally as possible. If Disney were to try and change that right now, it would be a nightmare.

 

[kcw]

sorry, double post

 

[flashinghelmet]

And for those that keep claiming that the "show" excuse wouldn't hold water- I'm not racist at all, and I'm very accepting of others' cultures, beliefs, religions, etc. However, if I walked into Frontierland, and saw a guy in a cowboy costume, with a full beard and turban, I'd stop and go "huh?" Sure, you might think that you don't really notice the CMs and how their appearance might distract from theming, but that's because they don't distract. That's how it was intended to be. By making sure they all look the same, and there are no "extremes" sticking out, it allows CMs to almost fade into the backdrop. Whether people like it or not, it is a show, and they most definitely can typecast.

And you wouldnt stop and say 'huh' if you saw a black man in the asia section of Animal Kingdom? How about a man in an electric wheelchair in frontierland? I would certainly say 'thats not quite wildwest is it'. The point is that Disney has made exceptions for other minority groups. Changing its policies constantly. This case aside, a man with a turban and beard, for religious reasons, should be accommodated, ON STAGE. I fail to see how Disney can actually prove that a turban ruins the magic. I personally think obese people ruin the magic, but hey hoe.

And for the record i did work for Disney, and can judge whether or not they are more discriminatory to internationals. All CPs have it bad, but internationals are really just one step further.

Oh and for the girl who basically implied that my country wouldnt supply me with as many opportunities, I think you'll find that my nation is far more liberal, free and democratic than the US. I am not anti-US in any stretch of the imagination. What i am anti, is people being ignorant of others, believing that people have less rights because of their religion or culture and of genuinely believing that their country is untouchable.

 

[firedog31]

I did not read everyones comments but if this has ben brought up sorry, If I read correct he was let go in 2006, why now is he doing this when its mid 2008. Must need the money, if it botherd him that much I think he would have done it as it happened. I could be wrong:shrug:

 

[The Mom]

i just don't see how a company could accomodate everyone that could claim religious protection. i'm from just south of pittsburgh, so i of course watch the steelers when they're on, but my hospital is a 7 day a week thing, so if i wanted every sunday off i could say the bible says im not supposed to work on sundays and i want to go to church? that's the problem when you start trying to accomodate people, there just seems to be problems. one set of rules should suffice for everyone.

My earlier post mentioned this. It would be a problem in a hospital setting, as it could compromise patient care (leaving a dept short staffed every Sunday, in this case) and put an undo burden on other workers (making co-workers cover more than their fair share of Sundays) So a hospital could deny someone employment under these conditions, OR try to find him/her a position where they wouldn't have to work on Sunday. Outpatient, maybe?

They are also able to implement dress/behavior codes in the name of patient safety and comfort. But over the years, they have had to revise them to accommodate changing styles and blatant sexism/racism.
When I started, nurses were supposed to wear a girdle for "modesty!!! Student nurses in some hospital based programs couldn't be married (I attended a wedding or two every weekend the June/July after graduation) and pregnant nurses were put on leave for 6 months or so, depending upon when they started "showing." Pregnant nursing students were not allowed to continue at all.

Fortunately, all of this was changing elsewhere, and within a few years of graduation, all of these rules, and others, were gradually changed.

Sometimes it takes someone challenging existing rules to make TPTB question the legitimacy of them. Otherwise, you would still see nurses walking around in starched white uniforms, white stockings, hair up in a bun (or cut short) with funny little caps on their heads. And cardiac patients would still be on strict bedrest for two weeks post MI. (I have personal knowledge of the study that changed that rule)

So I have no problem with employees challenging rules, as it makes companies take a closer look at their policies.

edited to add: Sometimes the rules should be changed, sometimes not. Sometimes, a company discovers that they were blocking a pool of excellent employees by their restrictions on dress, appearance, etc. But sometimes, eliminating what seemed like a unnecessary rule at the time leads to bigger problems in the future. Not all change is good in the long run, no matter how fair it seems at the time.

 

[Legacy]

When you take that into consideration, suggesting that a person who refuses to turn his back on his own religious traditions for the sake of some BS corporate traditions is in the wrong is very shallow way to think. Working for Disney could be very beneficial to his career aspirations, and he's being denied that right, a right that is given to millions of college kids, simply because he puts his faith in his religion above an inconsistent man made policy. It's not about "show" or "theming" because in the big picture that stuff doesn't really exist. It's fluff, it's there to keep employees in line and to sell t-shirts. Some could say that about a persons religion as well, but you'd be pretty lonely in that argument.

Alright... I was going to stay out of this, but the bolded section can't be ignored.

A job at Disney is not a "right." A job at McDonald's is not a "right." A job as a janitor is not a "right." A right is something that you are entitled to. Freedom to practice religion is a right. Freedom to say what want is a right. Freedom to not incriminate yourself in trial is a right.

Working is not a right.

Working is a priviledge that is granted because a person has shown themselves to capable and willing to perform all the duties associated with that job. Failure to do so can justifiably result in the loss of that priviledge to work at that job.

To say that Disney is a "right," is to say that every single American who applies HAS to be given that job at Disney. To say that it's a right to further a person's career by working at Disney is wrong. It's an opportunity; not a right.

Just wanted to clarify.

 

[The Mom]

I did not read everyones comments but if this has ben brought up sorry, If I read correct he was let go in 2006, why now is he doing this when its mid 2008. Must need the money, if it botherd him that much I think he would have done it as it happened. I could be wrong:shrug:

It takes a while to find a lawyer, get paperwork organized, etc. Which is why so many people file suit before all the information is available. If they wait, they may lose the "window of opportunity" to do so.

 

[wedway71]

I think it is alot more basic than Disney having to proove anything.I dont think they have to proove how Turbins take away magic or some jobs are less of a better role then the other.

They have a clear set of appearance guidelines in place.It is detailed and very specific.

I think the discusion is being taken down 2 different roads here.

The point is ,did Disney break any laws by not letting the guy wear his Turbin? That is what the case is based on.

It is not whether or not Disney SHOULD let him wear it and why or why not.

 

[DisneyJoe]

The point is ,did Disney break any laws by not letting the guy wear his Turbin? That is what the case is based on.

It is not whether or not Disney SHOULD let him wear it and why or why not.

Actually, it sounds like they DID let him wear it when he was a seasonal CM in the Christmas Parade as a Toy Soldier, since the hat covered the turban.

When he (allegedly) reapplied for the SAME job/position, they didn't hire him.

 

[MichWolv]

Ya mean like these?

Them's the ones. Saw a great University of Michigan one as well! Mine just has intricate embroidery though...kinda boring.

i just don't see how a company could accomodate everyone that could claim religious protection. i'm from just south of pittsburgh, so i of course watch the steelers when they're on, but my hospital is a 7 day a week thing, so if i wanted every sunday off i could say the bible says im not supposed to work on sundays and i want to go to church? that's the problem when you start trying to accomodate people, there just seems to be problems. one set of rules should suffice for everyone.

And now we get cynical. There are already protections under the law for religious beliefs. They are available to those who actually hold those beliefs, not to those who lie and claim to hold religious beliefs that they do not hold. So, you could just SAY your religious beliefs prevent you from working on Sunday when you really just want to watch football, but you would be committing fraud. We ought not decide what laws to make based on our fears of dishonest people using those laws inappropriately.

However, it is true that a company can't accomdodate everyone who has legitimate religious beliefs that interfere with the job. Like my college football example...an observant Jew wouldn't be qualfied for the job because of his/her unwillingness to work on Saturday. And I'm pretty sure that the law doesn't require an employer to accomodate those kind of accomodations.

But it does seem reasonable to me that a company that, let's say, normally doesn't allow it's employees to bring their own lunch, requiring instead that they eat from the company cafeteria, should make accomodations for a person who keeps Kosher, or is Halal (sorry if I didn't phrase that one right), allowing him/her to bring their lunch despite the general company policy.

The question here is whether Disney's desire to keep it's look it more like the coaching on Saturday situation, or more like the bringing your own Kosher food situation. Frankly, I tend to think it is more like the latter (unless he was playing a face character), but I can certainly understand the different views.

 

[hrcollectibles]

The article I read said he applied for a job in 2006 and was told hed didn't conform to the "Disney look"

Here is a quote from the article I read on TMZ
"In his suit, Sukhbir Channa says when he applied for a job at Disney World in 2006, he was told his turban, beard, and long hair didn't conform to the "Disney look." Here's the goofy part: just a few months before, in 2005, he says he marched as a toy soldier in a Disney parade with no problems-- but then his turban was hidden by a big toy soldier hat."

 

[imagineer boy]

I agree with your analysis, and I think any smart lawyer would make those distinctions.

A charactor actor playing Winnie-the-Pooh is definitely part of a show. A HM ride operator pretending to be a sinister maid or butler is definitely a show performer.

A guy sweeping a broom in Tomorrowland? Meh, that's where I think it becomes more of a semantic device. What "role" does he have, a janitor who is maybe futuristic in some vague sense because he has a Tomorrowland outfit on? It's definitely not in the same boat as the previous examples, for my money, regardless of what the company says.

You don't have to be a performer on stage to be considered part of the cast. Some stage shows consider the people working backstage on the lighting, props, ect. to be part of the cast even though they're called the "crew" they're still a part of the cast no matter what.

 

[fosse76]

I work for a company that mandates that uniforms are worn at all times and we had to sign a document when we were hired that states this. In addition to verbally telling us that uniforms are mandatory. I had a choice to take the job and wear a uniform or leave it. Yes, it's not due to religion, but it's along the same lines as to that you know what is expected before hand.

The law allows that. However, if you have a religious requirement, the company must make a reasonable accomodation. Now, if your religion forbids you from wearing a uniform, then the company must look for a non-uniformed position that is open and for which you are qualified. If none exists then they can fire you. But if it requires you to wear long hair, the employer must justify that it cannot accomodate you..."Company image" can be an excuse, but they must show how the Company's image would be damaged, if at all. If they fail to do so, they must make the accomodation. I don't know how many times I have to say it. There are very few exceptions to the anti-discrimination laws.

 

[InfernalPenguin]

My earlier post mentioned this. It would be a problem in a hospital setting, as it could compromise patient care (leaving a dept short staffed every Sunday, in this case) and put an undo burden on other workers (making co-workers cover more than their fair share of Sundays) So a hospital could deny someone employment under these conditions, OR try to find him/her a position where they wouldn't have to work on Sunday. Outpatient, maybe?

They are also able to implement dress/behavior codes in the name of patient safety and comfort. But over the years, they have had to revise them to accommodate changing styles and blatant sexism/racism.
When I started, nurses were supposed to wear a girdle for "modesty!!! Student nurses in some hospital based programs couldn't be married (I attended a wedding or two every weekend the June/July after graduation) and pregnant nurses were put on leave for 6 months or so, depending upon when they started "showing." Pregnant nursing students were not allowed to continue at all.

Fortunately, all of this was changing elsewhere, and within a few years of graduation, all of these rules, and others, were gradually changed.

Sometimes it takes someone challenging existing rules to make TPTB question the legitimacy of them. Otherwise, you would still see nurses walking around in starched white uniforms, white stockings, hair up in a bun (or cut short) with funny little caps on their heads. And cardiac patients would still be on strict bedrest for two weeks post MI. (I have personal knowledge of the study that changed that rule)

So I have no problem with employees challenging rules, as it makes companies take a closer look at their policies.

edited to add: Sometimes the rules should be changed, sometimes not. Sometimes, a company discovers that they were blocking a pool of excellent employees by their restrictions on dress, appearance, etc. But sometimes, eliminating what seemed like a unnecessary rule at the time leads to bigger problems in the future. Not all change is good in the long run, no matter how fair it seems at the time.

I didn't think about it that way, but those are very good points.

I'll admit this story sorta touches a nerve with me, since I'm well aquainted with the "Disney Look". Namely, I remember looking at the college program guidelines and realizing that to be eligible I'd have to destroy my mane of flowing, glistening lion hair and shave. Of course there's nothing religious in that (save for the demonic worship inherent in being a metalhead..... j/k), but still! I can't work for disney cuz I'm a long haired hippy ("Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost!"). Excuse me while I play my solo on this exquisite nano-violin.


But anyways, the problem here I think lies with the fact that this guy had been hired before.

Regardless of whether or not it'd be sort of harsh of disney to not hire someone based on the dress guidlines for their religion, I think it is within their right as a company to not do so. If anything I can sympathize. I've gone through my fair share of awkward castings with my independent production company. The paper says "female, early thirties", and you get all sorts of people trying to skirt through. Just thank god for the phrase "We'll let you know!"

However, as I said, the rub is that if he was hired before, he has a reasonable expectation that he'll be hired again. And by that I mean if they picked him. Which, as I understand it, they did, but THIS time they told him he had to change his appearance.


Fairness must be applied. If you're not gonna hire people wearing turbans, don't hire them AT ALL. Don't just pick someone because they'll be "covered up" with a costume, and then when they come back for another job tell them they need to change appearance.

I mean, following that logic, they should've let me go into the college program and put me to work as a Power Ranger or something (of course I know that's not how it works, but just follow along).

And even though I think there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with having someone work the, what's it called? The stage? The floor? In a turban and "clash" with the theming (especially if they put him to work in --durrrr-- ADVENTURELAND), I do understand Disney's methodology.

However, put him to work backstage! Make a hole! You can't tell me there's jobs left undone in those areas of the park.


I don't blame Disney itself though. This is probably just a misinterpretation of their policy.

I'm sure there's not a conference room with suits in it in which one day they all decided "Hey, NO TURBANS! Burr hurr hurr hurr hurr hurr *smoke cigar*".

The problem probably lay with the person who actually did the hiring, either the first time for actually having hired the guy, or the second time for not having hired him.


Oh, and I've read my fair share of insensitive remarks, but this thread....whoa. I've read a couple of good ones.

For those of you saying that the guy should've just taken the turban off and shaved: That's like asking Ted Nugent to do a PETA ad. Savvy? (btw, I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I think Nugent is a rock god and am an avid carnivore).

And sure... there are other jobs. But, to make a comparison, if I'm a handicapped person in a wheelchair, and the restaurant decides they don't want to accommodate me because they'd need to move some tables around, sure there are other restaurants... but you bet I'm gonna make a big deal about it.

I totally agree with Mom on this one (kinda weird saying that). And if the rules get revised and you see one or two people with turbans at Disney World then hey.... maybe we can start alleviating some of the xenophobia that's been so prevalent recently.


My guess, however, is that this isn't gonna happen, seeing as that'll probably just incite a bunch of people to write angry letters and boycott and whatnot (if Obama's 'terrorist fist bump' is any indicator. I don't mean to discuss politics. Just that one comment. Just imagine I said Ted Danson)

The guy'll get a decent settlement. Disney will continue being Disney. The world moves on.



Oh, and if I remember correctly.... there was a time when people with beards and long hair weren't even allowed INSIDE the parks as customers.

Revision indeed.

 

[fosse76]

If I remember my Business Law class correctly, the only businesses allowed to discriminate against a protected class are insurance companies and entertainment establishments. Insurance companies can charge more to a member of a protected class if they can show statistics that members of that class have more accidents/fires/etc. than others.

Entertainment establishments can discriminate in hiring to protect the theming of the establishment. I take this to mean that an Italian restaurant, for instance, can limit their hiring to only Italians or people of Italian descent to maintain authenticity. Discrimination is allowable, because it's a key part of the product itself.

So, the question is: Is maintaining the Disney Look important enough to the core Disney product to allow Disney to override the rights of members of a protected class? For CMs in front of customers as performers, Disney can reasonably argue that the discriminatory Disney Look is an integral part of the show. For cashiers and other non-performing CMs that are in front of customers, Disney's argument is weaker, but could still stand. For behind-the-scenes CMs, Disney would have no leg to stand on.

That's exactly it! However, in your Italian restaurant example, I believe they would only be limited to the host(ess), waitstaff and cooks. This is how movies and theater are able to specify race and gender when casting. As for Disney, you hit the nail on the head. But people here seem to think that Disney needs to make no effort to accomodate him, which is false. Disney MUST make a reasonable accomodation. Because it is a religious requirement, they must do everything in their power to accomodate him so long as it does not present an undue burden on the company. Allowing him to have a beard for religious reasons does not represent an undue burden. If he were a face character with a specific description, then yes, Disney would have every right to not hire him. In this case, for what iss in the press, they do not. But to merely call this guy frivolous is ridiculous. Personally, I do think too many people hide behind the nonsense that is religion, but in this case his claim is plausible, and that is why we have the court system: to determine which party is right.

 

[DisneyJoe]

That's exactly it! However, in your Italian restaurant example, I believe they would only be limited to the host(ess), waitstaff and cooks.

If this man is applying to be an onstage CM at Disney, he would be considered a host(ess), waitstaff or cook in your Italian restaurant example.

If he didn't mind working offstage, there would be no lawsuit.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

And you wouldnt stop and say 'huh' if you saw a black man in the asia section of Animal Kingdom? How about a man in an electric wheelchair in frontierland? I would certainly say 'thats not quite wildwest is it'. The point is that Disney has made exceptions for other minority groups. Changing its policies constantly. This case aside, a man with a turban and beard, for religious reasons, should be accommodated, ON STAGE. I fail to see how Disney can actually prove that a turban ruins the magic. I personally think obese people ruin the magic, but hey hoe.

And for the record i did work for Disney, and can judge whether or not they are more discriminatory to internationals. All CPs have it bad, but internationals are really just one step further.

Oh and for the girl who basically implied that my country wouldnt supply me with as many opportunities, I think you'll find that my nation is far more liberal, free and democratic than the US. I am not anti-US in any stretch of the imagination. What i am anti, is people being ignorant of others, believing that people have less rights because of their religion or culture and of genuinely believing that their country is untouchable.

I think your opinion is clear....and the opinions of other posters as well. As the variety of these opinions have been expressed, and positions taken, I don't see much value in restatement of those said opinions.

As I'm not in the International category, and have never been a CM, I have to defer to your opinion, and I have heard that from others as well, but I will say that I have heard mostly positive comments of their experience by various International CM's that I've talked with. Then there are ex CM friends of the boards that make the same statements about their employment experiences.

As for your last comment, I agree wholeheartedly! Do I think we in America have a lot of room for improvement? you bet! I'm glad you live in a place that you feel offers a much more enlightened environment! I can't say I have been in many places that are much better than here...and a whole lot of them that are much worse!

 

[jonnyc]

When you are working with the public, especially from all nationalities and countries, some would find it offensive after 9/11 and the Iraq war.

These things were caused by extremists, who obviously are not relgious because of the acts they carry out (and the relgion they claim to follow is Islam not Sikhism). It is ignorance like this which is a big problem with people not accepting others beliefs or relgion. I myself am against organised relgion, but i would never deny anyones right to believe in it and follow it.

. A muslim with a beard and turban would clash with the theming terribly. It would be bad show!

Again turbans are part of Sikism.

He got fired maybe because of 9/11 and people would be nervous of coming to WDW of just looking at him, which can maybe scare crowds away. And if anyone saw him while they are in WDW they might feel disturbed and they won't think WDW will be safe place to stay and go to another park in Orlando.

People who would be scared of a turban are idiots. Them leaving Disney would not be a bad thing.

I'm not ready to completely claim that Disney is right though. I think a lot of people need to see it a different way. I keep reading "he can choose not to work for Disney." I'm going to draw an analogy here. Many of us here are probably Christians right? Okay, so let's say that hypothetically, Christians had to have blue hair (ridiculous, I know. but stick with it for my point). Would all of us that chimed in "working for disney is a privilege, he should shave and take off his turban" have the same response in this situation? Maybe this guy always dreamed of working at Disney. Maybe he heard from people like us that it's a great place to work. Maybe some CP raves of working at Disney made him want to work there so badly, as badly as many of us do. Is it fair that it is not an option for him at all, solely because of something his religion requires him to do? How many of you here (many of who I know work or have worked or plan on working at Disney) wouldn't put up a fight in my hypothetical blue haired christian situation?

Spot on.

BUT if Disney hired him as a person with a turban and beard and employed him for a period of time wearing the turban and beard then perhaps there's more to the story. I don't think it's fair to let him work then just change their mind arbitrarily.

Exactly, everyone saying that they would side with Disney because they are told about the appearance standards before they are hired, well he did preform as a "cast member" with his beard and turban, it doesn't matter if it was covered or not. They hired him, with his beard and turban, and let him work for a significant time with it.

, so he didn't wear his cross and didn't put dye in his hair, he didn't go suing like a crazy man

It isn't a vital part of his relgion to wear a cross though. Plus to quote Bill Hicks, a cross is the last thing Jesus is going to want to see when he comes back :ROFLOL:.

Flashinghelmet i have not quoted you, but agree with you in majority of your posts in this thread that I can remeber (as this thread has become epic).

But after going through 14 pages of this thread, preparing my post...

:brick:

...if it is true that it was seasonal employment and he just didn't get hired when he re-applied, wasn't good enough and he is just kicking off, fair enough to Disney. Although some ignorance shown in this thread is alarming reminding me off the Kosher Chicken issue in The Apprentice (UK).

Lets hope the courts can find the real facts. They don't usually have Juries in Civil Cases in the UK, only for cases that involve matter of character. This question is for the Legal savvy people in the USA, will they have a jury for this issue?

If I remember my Business Law class correctly, the only businesses allowed to discriminate against a protected class are insurance companies and entertainment establishments. Insurance companies can charge more to a member of a protected class if they can show statistics that members of that class have more accidents/fires/etc. than others.

Entertainment establishments can discriminate in hiring to protect the theming of the establishment. I take this to mean that an Italian restaurant, for instance, can limit their hiring to only Italians or people of Italian descent to maintain authenticity. Discrimination is allowable, because it's a key part of the product itself.

So, the question is: Is maintaining the Disney Look important enough to the core Disney product to allow Disney to override the rights of members of a protected class? For CMs in front of customers as performers, Disney can reasonably argue that the discriminatory Disney Look is an integral part of the show. For cashiers and other non-performing CMs that are in front of customers, Disney's argument is weaker, but could still stand. For behind-the-scenes CMs, Disney would have no leg to stand on.

That you for this enlightenment, i am not very learned in reguards to US law.