The "Disney Look"

[fosse76]

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.

They do have to prove it, and here's why. Non-discrimination hiring practices based on religion (and other protected classes) is a requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This applies to any company with more than 15 employees. As has been mentioned by me and a few others, there are circumstances in which discrimination is completely legal. However, if it is challenged, the company must prove that its discriminatory practices are necessary. Otherwise, companies would have a blank check to fire anyone they wanted based on discrimination with little justification.

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.

Agreed, but it I think it an important argument. SHOULD Disney be required to let him wear his turban? If Disney hides behind the "show" aspect of its business in discrimination, and doesn't justify its necessity, what is to stop another company from doing the same thing when that company isn't as justified? Is a man in a turban selling ice cream on Main Street really going to take a person out of the atmosphere? If so he or she should really examine his or her own prejudices.

 

[fosse76]

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?

It can go before a jury because in our Constitution everyone has the right to a jury trial. However, the judge can make a finding of fact and dismiss the lawsuit (or let it proceed). In cases like these, the question to the jury would be "does a reasonable person believe discrimination occurred?" If they find in favor of the plaintiff, the judge can actually set aside the verdict if he believes there was a miscarriage of justice (like the facts presented just didn't add up to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff).

 

[jonnyc]

It can go before a jury because in our Constitution everyone has the right to a jury trial. However, the judge can make a finding of fact and dismiss the lawsuit (or let it proceed). In cases like these, the question to the jury would be "does a reasonable person believe discrimination occurred?" If they find in favor of the plaintiff, the judge can actually set aside the verdict if he believes there was a miscarriage of justice (like the facts presented just didn't add up to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff).

Cheers

 

[kcw]

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.

Then yes, you would have a valid opinion on that matter, while others who have been complaining about their policies, don't. However, an opinion is exactly that. I started as a CP, and never felt I had it bad- obviously I felt I was treated well enough that I stayed with the company. And to take it one step further, I had an international roommate from Brazil. She never felt discriminated against, she ended up extending her program somehow, and then a few months later, did another program at Disneyland. So while some might feel discriminated against, others, who are in the same situation do not. I imagine that there might be another member of this man's religion, who would simply see that these are DIsney's policies, and since he chooses to stay true to his religion, this is one of those things in life he'll have to give up. And then he'll move on with life, and find another job that probably pays better anyways!

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.

dear heavens.... we've got people complaining and saying that Disney needs to accommodate for him, but now people complain that Disney DID accommodate for him!!! By putting him in a costume that covered him, Disney was accommodating for him and his religious beliefs. Isn't that what people are complaining about Disney "not being willing to do" I can guarantee that his being hired in the first place (with him not meeting their standards) was not simply an oversight by the person who hired him. THEY WERE MAKING ACCOMMODATIONS. So come the next year he doesn't get hired. 1) Even if he met the Disney Look standards 100%, and was thoroughly qualified to get the job, he should not have a "reasonable expectation" to get hired. Why? Welcome to the real world, jobs don't get handed to you simply because you've had them before. 2) From what people have posted, it seems (though I don't know for sure), that he's not even in the college band anymore. If that's the case, then :brick: 3) Disney already accommodated him once, I think that proves that they are willing to do it. Maybe that role simply wasn't open again, maybe he wasn't still in the university bands that they try to hire from, maybe they cut back the number of performers they were looking to hire that year.

For him to not consider those possibilities, and instead be so eager to claim religious discrimination, means that.....


The guy'll get a decent settlement.

.....this is all he wanted from the beginning

if the world is this PC -happy (not to mention sue-happy) now, I can't imagine what my kids will deal with

 

[basas]

Hey this is the land of opportunity and free...if you do not like the rules of employment you have the opportunity to work elsewhere. Disney should have the freedom to set the rules of appearance on things that can be changed....it is not a physical problem such a skin color, gender or disabilty ...it is a choice. to have a beard or not. You are free to walk and live with your beliefs and wear a beard, turban, bald or what ever you like. If it was any other religion or race it would not be allowed to have the big beard..... I have been to both US dis parks several times and have met people working there from virtualy everywhere in the world....they hire everybody. comply,find a new job that fits your beliefs (there are lots) or live elsewhere...the freedom to choose is yours.

Well said.

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.

Well, I'm glad you've come to "enlighten" us.

 

[OneLuckyMom]

Agreed, but it I think it an important argument. SHOULD Disney be required to let him wear his turban? If Disney hides behind the "show" aspect of its business in discrimination, and doesn't justify its necessity, what is to stop another company from doing the same thing when that company isn't as justified? Is a man in a turban selling ice cream on Main Street really going to take a person out of the atmosphere? If so he or she should really examine his or her own prejudices.

Amen.

In my town, the equivalent of "Main Street" has folks of all races and religions walking down it. I'd be more than happy to see the same at Disney - it would make it feel more like the perfect town to me, not less!

And a person in a band wearing a turban is no more distracting from the "atmosphere" as the Jasmine we met last year - with her Long Island accent and other, shall we say, rough mannerisms Geez, even my daughter commented on how downright AWFUL that person was at being that character. If Disney didn't care about authenticity on that, I don't see how they can justify not allowing a turban in a band!

 

[Legacy]

I'm just curious about the aspect that he was "hired" as a member of a university band.

I know how often Disney will "outsource" entertainment (the Candlelight Choir is a perfect example) by using schools. Though there is a guidelines to the look of these groups, it is not as strictly enforced as for CMs. Could it be that, because he was hired for a specific role while he was specifically in college, the less-strict enforcement was because of this? If it was, and he reapplied for a position, not as a member of the school, but strictly as a CM, then that is another variable that must be considered.

 

[imagineer boy]

They do have to prove it, and here's why. Non-discrimination hiring practices based on religion (and other protected classes) is a requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This applies to any company with more than 15 employees. As has been mentioned by me and a few others, there are circumstances in which discrimination is completely legal. However, if it is challenged, the company must prove that its discriminatory practices are necessary. Otherwise, companies would have a blank check to fire anyone they wanted based on discrimination with little justification.

For the last time: Disney is not discriminating against his religion in any way, shape, or form. Just the fact that he's wearing a turban on his head!

Amen.

In my town, the equivalent of "Main Street" has folks of all races and religions walking down it. I'd be more than happy to see the same at Disney - it would make it feel more like the perfect town to me, not less!

Main Street is an early 1900s town. People wearing turbans have no place in that location and time period.

 

[Lomma]

For the last time: Disney is not discriminating against his religion in any way, shape, or form. Just the fact that he's wearing a turban on his head!
Main Street is an early 1900s town. People wearing turbans have no place in that location and time period.

Imagineer Boy, we saw eye to eye so recently on another topic of grave importance (Indiana Jones Adventure) that I am loath to mention I disagree with you but I have to tell you--I disagree with you. What if a woman was wearing a small gold crucifix and she was asked to take it off because "These midwestern towns were settled by Protestants and the waves of Catholic immigrants had yet to arrive. Therefore a crucifix is out-of-place. Take it off and wear a plain cross."

You'd be mortified and rightly so. Disney is known as a very progressive company. They were one of the first big companies to extend spousal benefits to gay men and women. Transgendered folks can work in the parks. I went to Disneyland and there was a transgendered person working in City Hall (A man in complete female drag). I don't see why they would allow this but be difficult about a person's turban.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Main Street is an early 1900s town. People wearing turbans have no place in that location and time period.

Not even one or two?

That's another reason I find Disney's stance on this a mite too rigid. Surely out of all the "main streets" in all the American towns at the turn of the last century, there was a turban or two to be found. If they're going to establish such a "big" concept (for lack of more profundity) as the theme behind an area, why turn around and take such a small approach to pulling out the particulars of said theme? Disney's all about "imagination," right? Well, why not show some more imagination in bringing Main Street to life than basically saying everybody who lived in 1900 looked, talked and acted the same? :shrug:

 

[imagineer boy]

Imagineer Boy, we saw eye to eye so recently on another topic of grave importance (Indiana Jones Adventure) that I am loath to mention I disagree with you but I have to tell you--I disagree with you. What if a woman was wearing a small gold crucifix and she was asked to take it off because "These midwestern towns were settled by Protestants and the waves of Catholic immigrants had yet to arrive. Therefore a crucifix is out-of-place. Take it off and wear a plain cross."

There's a big difference between wearing a crucifix and wearing a turban. You can hide your cross under your shirt while its almost impossible to hide a turban. Besides, a crucifix's origin would be hardly noticed since its a miniscule detail compared to a man wearing a turban which looks just down right outlandish on main street. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

 

[OneLuckyMom]

Main Street is an early 1900s town. People wearing turbans have no place in that location and time period.

But an endless sea of Crocs, T-Shirts, trading pins, light up toys and assorted other goodies for sale is in keeping with the location/time period? Please. Those MORE than kill the atmosphere of a 1900s town. That ship has sailed - a turban here and there isn't going to kill the atmosphere anymore than all of the junk for sale in stores and on push carts down the middle of Main Street does.

Segregation and racism were rampant in the 1900s. If you are so worried about having a "true" 1900s feeling to the place, then shouldn't those aspects be reflected on Main Street then? NO, of course they shouldn't because that is an aspect of our history that (most of us) are not proud of (and we tend to shove it under the rug). So why is it ok to say that just because someone wears a turban they suddenly don't fit the atmosphere? Main Street is an IDEALIZED 1900s town. No where near reality - completely fictional. So a turban can be just as much part of that atmosphere as the other idealizations are.

 

[kcw]

But an endless sea of Crocs, is in keeping with the location/time period?

Hey if Disney ever decided to put a ban on crocs, I'd support them 100% :lol: man, maybe those things are comfy, but I'll never try them on to see!!

 

[ClemsonTigger]

But an endless sea of Crocs, T-Shirts, trading pins, light up toys and assorted other goodies for sale is in keeping with the location/time period? Please. Those MORE than kill the atmosphere of a 1900s town. That ship has sailed - a turban here and there isn't going to kill the atmosphere anymore than all of the junk for sale in stores and on push carts down the middle of Main Street does.

Segregation and racism were rampant in the 1900s. If you are so worried about having a "true" 1900s feeling to the place, then shouldn't those aspects be reflected on Main Street then? NO, of course they shouldn't because that is an aspect of our history that (most of us) are not proud of (and we tend to shove it under the rug). So why is it ok to say that just because someone wears a turban they suddenly don't fit the atmosphere? Main Street is an IDEALIZED 1900s town. No where near reality - completely fictional. So a turban can be just as much part of that atmosphere as the other idealizations are.

So lets just go ahead and let servers with tongue piercings, some nice barbed wire tats, ear holes, a mohawk or two (purple or green)....I'll feel like I'm in Six Flags.

Segregation and racism as part of the atmosphere.....give me a break.

Lets get back to the facts. There is a dress code, there are requirement for various positions, be they height, weight, physical ability or communication skills. You are told this before being hired, you sign confirmation of understanding. Live with it or work somewhere else. As was said earlier, work is a privledge, not an inalienable right.

 

[Legacy]

Imagineer Boy, we saw eye to eye so recently on another topic of grave importance (Indiana Jones Adventure) that I am loath to mention I disagree with you but I have to tell you--I disagree with you. What if a woman was wearing a small gold crucifix and she was asked to take it off because "These midwestern towns were settled by Protestants and the waves of Catholic immigrants had yet to arrive. Therefore a crucifix is out-of-place. Take it off and wear a plain cross."

You'd be mortified and rightly so. Disney is known as a very progressive company. They were one of the first big companies to extend spousal benefits to gay men and women. Transgendered folks can work in the parks. I went to Disneyland and there was a transgendered person working in City Hall (A man in complete female drag). I don't see why they would allow this but be difficult about a person's turban.

Firstly, a crucifix (that being a cross or Jesus on a cross) is a symbol of both Catholicism and Protestants. Both are based on the Christian faith. So, to say a cross would be removed because the wearer is Catholic and not Protestant is a little outlandish; an ineffective hyperbole.

Secondly, a person's faith is a choice. How they practice, and to what extent they practice it, is a choice. Arguably (I say this only because people have individual stances on this matter), the sexual orientation of a person is not. Thirdly, a transexual is someone who has had their gender changed (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transexual) This means that the "man" you saw no longer had a , so was authorized to wear female clothing. I may be wrong, but I have yet to hear of a corporation (other than some clubs, services, etc.), that issues a uniform or costume that is for the opposite gender.

Biology is different than religion. Don't think you can associate the two.

 

[imagineer boy]

But an endless sea of Crocs, T-Shirts, trading pins, light up toys and assorted other goodies for sale is in keeping with the location/time period? Please. Those MORE than kill the atmosphere of a 1900s town. That ship has sailed - a turban here and there isn't going to kill the atmosphere anymore than all of the junk for sale in stores and on push carts down the middle of Main Street does.

Guests are NOT part of the cast, therefor it doesn't apply to them.

 

[PlutoInOrlando]

Having worked on Main Street before - it's not any type of segregation or discriminating...

Cast members are part of a "show" - how they dress is totally part of that show. "Looking the part" is totally told to you upfront, WAAAAAY before you even set foot in any area that is "on stage".
With that said, the Magic Kingdom is set to a bit higher standard IMHO, for dressing, simply because of the "Lands".
Totally my opinion here - but I just can't see someone wearing a turban seating me to ride The Haunted Mansion or SplashMountain.

I don't think it would have been even a second thought had he possibly been placed in one of the other parks - especially at DHS or the AK.

I mean...(as it's been mentioned before about job requirements) - at my current job now, we have a dress code of Suit and Tie, and no religious jewlery of any sort able to show. Nor do we allow any visable tatoo's. It's told to any prospective employee that is interviewed - let alone hired (of which they sometimes don't make it past the interview process because of the way they are dressed in the interview). My company services people of all faiths, religions, etc, therefore, we never really know of what faith, if any, they are of. Sooooo, for someone to wear a visible cross, could very well be offensive to the next customer through our door.

It's a dress code and if you don't like it, you don't have to work for that company, religious or not, it's the way it is.
But **shrugg** that's just me...

I think it's totally Disney's right to tell you what you can and can not wear regardless of religion, background, etc etc, should you be hired by them.

 

[InfernalPenguin]

KCW, I think I phrased that wrong so lemme try that again: he was hired once, regardless of turban.

When he comes BACK, I'm ASSUMING here (I'm not sure, I'd need to read up on the specifics better) that they either hired him WITH THE CONDITION of changing his appearance, as in "We'll hire you if..." OR he was informed he wasn't hired BECAUSE of the turban. If I were to pick, I'd say the former is most likely seeing as I've never been not hired for something and have someone call me to tell me why.

Now, that being the case (again, if it indeed WAS the case), what I meant to say by "reasonable expectation" is that he has the right, if hired, or possibly hired, to assume that he doesn't have to change a thing about himself. Not a right to the job. Hell, I WISH it worked that way.

That's a bit better, I'm sorry for the confusion.

This is all also assuming that he wasn't applying for, say, "Peter Pan", or some other job that would OBVIOUSLY need that sort of change just by it's nature. I don't really know how those job applications with the parks work.

I think it's sort of simple to say that Disney "accomodated" for him with the soldier costume. Something tells me that wasn't the case. He probably just got the job and it didn't clash. Of course, if someone WAS pulling strings to get him in there, then bravo for them. Then you sort of have a situation where it's worth looking into if he was INFORMED of the precarious nature of his hiring. Did the person actually tell him "Hey, well, usually we wouldn't hire you because you don't meet our dress guidelines, BUT WE DO HAVE AN OPENING somewhere where it doesn't matter". Then that "reasonable expectation" goes out the door as he was previously warned of Disney's dress code.

But the fact that this happened the second time around is sort of like Disney holding out the carrot on the stick. That's where I think the problem lies, as I said.


All in all, the point I think I'm trying to make is that this shouldn't be seen as black & white as some people are making it. There's several issues worth looking into.


Maybe the guy's just looking for money. But hey, maybe he does really have a concern that he was discriminated against. He's hurt, or angry. Regardless of whether or not it's in your nature to distrust every single one of these lawsuits you see, the possibility exists that this is an honest issue. Either way, a trial is surely waranted. That's what the legal system is there for.

And I side with Mom's statement on this one: It's not a bad thing that these issues are being raised. It's all about checks and balances, and it's always good to revise how things are currently working.

Much like any machine out there, you'd be hard pressed to look into it's inner workings until you heard one of the gears screeeeeeeeeeeech.


I hardly edit: THINK, I mean think, this will mean people with tattoos and long hair will be loading you onto Splash Mountain.... but hey if it does WOOHOOO, SIGN ME UP

 

[kcw]

^^^^ Ya that does make a little more sense, thanks for clarifying. It's definitely an issue where, since facts are unknown, all we can do is toss around ideas.

I still think that Disney did accommodate him, but not in the way you said. It's not that they put him in the role they did because of his appearance, it's that, since he was being hired for that role, and because of his religious beliefs, they let him get by without adhering to the dress standards. Under normal circumstances, everyone must adhere to the Disney Look, regardless of whether a costume covers it. By allowing him to keep his turban and beard though, they made an exception for him, because of his religion.

So again, I'll reiterate my point- everyone is complaining and saying that under the law, Disney must accommodate his religious beliefs..... BUT THEY ALREADY DID!!! Therefore, if they did not rehire him a second time, I'd have to say there were other circumstances, and it was not religious discrimination.

 

[TigerLily_CM]

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.

So using this case...he was qualified to be a university band member in a holiday themed parade...that is the job he was hired for and his contract would have been very specific. Since there are no other positions that he is qualified for he was rightly fired (actually...he WASN'T fired...he was just not called when they filled spots for the next parade...you know...the job he didn't even apply for)