The "Disney Look"

[WDWFigment]

Depends what your guidelines are. If the guidelines make it impossible for people to comply with on the basis of one of the things that enjoys protection from discrimination under employment law (race, color, religion, ______, or national origin under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disabilities under the ADA) AND there is no reason why that guideline is necessary to do the job well, I'm reasonably confident that it would be considered a violation of the law and very confident that I would consider such guideline to be wrong. For example, let's say you run a travel agency. You have every right to decide, for example, that your telephone representatives should stand instead of sit, and that should wear no hat while working. But if a person in a wheelchair wants the job, you ought to have to explain why standing is necessary to do the job, as opposed to just a personal preference on your part as the boss. Similarly, if a legitamate part of a person's religious belief is wearing a turban, you ought to have to show that the turban somehow interferes with taking telephone reservations.

My experience with these laws is minimal. My experience with life is much greater. Both tell me that it is possible to be uniform but still be discriminatory, and that making reasonable accomodations is the right thing to do.

In an area of interest for the instant case (related to the above poster's insights), the Supreme Court might have handed down an opinion today (though I've only read the syllabus) that lowers the bar for showings of facial discrimination to constitute "intentional" discrimination.

This would mean that an employer has a higher burden in showing that their practices that achieved a discriminatory result weren't purposeful. (The discriminatory effect must have been accomplished through an intentional act currently--this case would make a showing of intent lower, if I read it correctly).

 

[MichWolv]

I'll try this one more time, because maybe my posts are being skipped...

They already did accommodate him the first time he was hired!


Now I don't care whether he applied a second time and was denied, or whether he never applied at all a second time. The fact remains that Disney already showed (the first time around), that they would make accommodations for him- so his not being hired the second time around would NOT be because of religious discrimination, it would simply be other factors (ex- he never applied, wasn't still in the college band, there were more qualified applicants etc.)

Ok, I won't skip your post. But I think your logic is faulty. In year 1, acommodations were made. In year 2, they were not. That could be because the experience in year 1 convinced Disney that the guy wasn't a good employee, or because he was no longer qualified. You assert that this must be the case, because Disney made accomodations for his turban once, and obviously would be willing to do so again. But it could also be that Disney was no longer willing to make accomodations that it used to be willing to make. And if the lack of willingness to make accomodations was not based on anything to do with being able to perform the job, and resulted in persons of the Sikh religion being denied re-employment, they've still got a problem.

A friend of mine had a bad back. She needed a special chair to be able to do her office job without being in significant pain. When the company moved into its new office building, she was told that the company had signed an agreement to only use office furniture from a certain manufacturer, and that manufacturer didn't make the kind of chair she needed, and she therefore could no longer have one. The company was willing to make accomodations at first, and then was no longer willing. The fact that they made accomodations the first time didn't at all prove that they were willing to make them later.

Postscript -- she did indeed get her chair in the new building.

 

[Legacy]

I'm just headdesking over the argument that is equating religion to race. The extent to which you believe or practice a religion or faith is one based on personal convictions. If I refuse to work on Sundays because of my faith, but my job requires me to work on Sundays then I have a choice to make. I can either choose to work on Sundays, or I can not take the job. The question comes down to how far I am willing to compromise. It's a choice.

Race, on the other hand, is not a choice. A person cannot decide to be more African-American or less Caucasian. The race you are has no compromise. Discrimination against something that cannot be decided is justifiably wrong. Discrimination against a choice is justified.

 

[progroupie]

Are you implying that Disney might put crass considerations like making money above preserving show integrity???

Hah, sort of, but more or less that show integrity is only important when it's convienant and benefitting Disney. It would be a major inconvienance to insist upon using old fashioned cash registers and gas lamps however it isn't such an inconvienance to say that a man in a turban wouldn't match the theming.

 

[progroupie]

I'll try this one more time, because maybe my posts are being skipped...

They already did accommodate him the first time he was hired!


Now I don't care whether he applied a second time and was denied, or whether he never applied at all a second time. The fact remains that Disney already showed (the first time around), that they would make accommodations for him- so his not being hired the second time around would NOT be because of religious discrimination, it would simply be other factors (ex- he never applied, wasn't still in the college band, there were more qualified applicants etc.)

I'm not skipping your posts, I'm just saying that I'm more concerned about the bigger issue of whether or not turbans and similar religious headgear should be allowed, than this specific case.

Although the fact they made accommodations for him before doesn't mean they wouldn't change their mind later and not be willing to make the same accommodations a second time. You worked in entertainment as did I, you should know better than anyone that Disney will change what they're willing to accommodate on a whim. I've seen it happen over and over again with height ranges, body types, face character approvals.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I'm just headdesking over the argument that is equating religion to race. The extent to which you believe or practice a religion or faith is one based on personal convictions. If I refuse to work on Sundays because of my faith, but my job requires me to work on Sundays then I have a choice to make. I can either choose to work on Sundays, or I can not take the job. The question comes down to how far I am willing to compromise. It's a choice.

Race, on the other hand, is not a choice. A person cannot decide to be more African-American or less Caucasian. The race you are has no compromise. Discrimination against something that cannot be decided is justifiably wrong. Discrimination against a choice is justified.

This is really one of those situations where I think both sides are wrong, in a way.

You're right that an individual can initially choose to follow a religion or not. But once they do, they very often make that choice for life. It's an established part of who they are, and while saying it's a choice might technically be true, it's only in the same sense that being married is a choice.

To me, telling someone they need to violate religious tenets to preserve "show integrity" is just as shallow as if a company demanded employees violate their marriage vows for that same purpose. The fact that a person has made a choice to follow a certain faith doesn't (in my mind) mean a company is justified in expecting them to shrug off their religion without having a very good reason for that expectation.

In my mind, preserving "show" just doesn't rise to that level of importance, but obviously many people here feel differently.

On the other hand, I've seen a few people make the argument that part of being faithful is sacrifice, and I think there's something to that too. If adhering to your faith requires you to forego a job at Disney, I think that making that sacrifice could show how committed you are to your beliefs, so that's why I'm not entirely wild about the idea of going to court over this.

But court or no court, I think Disney is wrong here. My only waffling is over whether or not they're wrong enough that it's justified to go after them legally.

 

[MichWolv]

I'm just headdesking over the argument that is equating religion to race. The extent to which you believe or practice a religion or faith is one based on personal convictions. If I refuse to work on Sundays because of my faith, but my job requires me to work on Sundays then I have a choice to make. I can either choose to work on Sundays, or I can not take the job. The question comes down to how far I am willing to compromise. It's a choice.

Race, on the other hand, is not a choice. A person cannot decide to be more African-American or less Caucasian. The race you are has no compromise. Discrimination against something that cannot be decided is justifiably wrong. Discrimination against a choice is justified.

Both race and religion are protected under the Civil Rights Act, so it is clear that you cannot be fired (or excluded from being hired) simply because you ARE a certain religion. So the law has absolutely already decided that religion is not to be looked at as a choice, the way fingernail length, hair color, or wearning jewelry is a choice. You may consider religion to be a choice just like those other things, but the law does not.

The question is just how far a company needs to go to let you practice your religion. This is quite difficult. Most Islamic people I know pray 5 (I think) times a day, and consider it a requirement of their religion. Certainly they COULD choose to convert to christianity or to practice a less observant form of Islam, but I don't think that's how we should (and I don't think the law does) view this. Rather, this person is Islamic, and we should allow him/her to take breaks to pray at appropriate times so long as it would not interfere with his/her duties.

 

[InfernalPenguin]

Lemme see if I can find the court documents again... but as far as I remember they do state that he DID reapply, and he WAS told that he was excellent for the job. It also provides alot more information and the various testimonies offered (at least in writing).


EDIT: Here it is, http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0616_disney_wm.pdf

 

[kcw]

But it could also be that Disney was no longer willing to make accomodations that it used to be willing to make.

Although the fact they made accommodations for him before doesn't mean they wouldn't change their mind later and not be willing to make the same accommodations a second time. You worked in entertainment as did I, you should know better than anyone that Disney will change what they're willing to accommodate on a whim. I've seen it happen over and over again with height ranges, body types, face character approvals.

But what (I don't believe) MichWolv knows, and what you should know, is how willing Disney is to accommodate for people's religious, ethnic, cultural backgrounds. Disney is one of the most accepting places to work- they've got all kinds of groups that they've started to make sure that their CMs have "support" groups- there are groups for different races, religions (I think), and lifestyles (GLBT and the like). They value diversity very highly. In fact, when I first started as a CP, one of my interview questions was something along the lines of "you will be living with people with different religious beliefs, backgrounds, cultures, etc- how will you handle this?" They try very hard to make sure that they create a good environment for those who may be in some sort of a minority.

I've seen quite a few exceptions and accommodations made on Disney's part- whether it be things pertaining to the Disney Look- such as a beard or a tattoo, or accomodations that will allow someone in a wheelchair to work on stage. Many of you who do not work for the company don't see all of this though, and are so eager to claim that the company is unwilling to accomodate- when I know differently. Knowing all of this, the most logical explanation would be that there was an unknown factor that affected his lack of employment the second time around. Disney DOES try hard to accomodate people, and they DID already accomodate him- but instead of looking at it logically, people would rather jump on the PC bandwagon and claim religious discrimination. I'm not an extreme, die-hard Disney fanboy who feels Disney can do no wrong, but I have seen the lengths they've gone to to accomodate people- while many of you haven't.

I imagine we'll never know the ENTIRE story, but with what I do know, the most logical explanation IS NOT that Disney is biased and unwilling to accomodate.


and progroupie- entertainment is a whole different story. I'm sure everyone would agree that when it comes to characters, there HAS to be typecasting (whether face or fur). Yes they change things on a whim- but it is never because of race or religion. There was a big overhall about a year ago where about half (I think) of the friends of face characters were re-evaluated and either disapproved or put onto a sort of probation- and in all honesty, that was completely necessary. Anyone who works in entertainment knows that there are certain requirements and standards, and in order to keep character integrity, those standards need to continually be met. I've gotten disaproved from friends twice- both because of my body build. I'm not going to whine and cry about how they "discriminate against skinny people and girls" just because certain characters require a bigger body build. That's just the way it is.

Sorry, but comparing entertainment requirements and Disney's willingness to accomodate for religion is not at all comparing apples to apples

 

[fosse76]

I think that what we are all forgetting is that these decisions are made by people, and that no one individual is the same. We say Disney discriminated, but really, it is the actions of very few that cause situations like this. So when people argue that Disney strives for a diverse staff, that is probably true, but perhaps a particular manager doesn't like it. In this case, perhaps the person who reviewed his application decided that his or her own interpretation of Disney policy overruled any existing practices (and the law) and refused to hire him. We don't know. And that's why the courts must entertain even the most seemingly frivolous laws. Even Anna Nicole Smith's seemingly frivolous lawsuit had an extremely meritous question of law. People are too quick to judge.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

In fact, when I first started as a CP, one of my interview questions was something along the lines of "you will be living with people with different religious beliefs, backgrounds, cultures, etc- how will you handle this?"

This is definitely true. I remember my first day of CP training, my trainer (TJ from ToT for those who know him) said "You will meet a lot of gay people here" just as bluntly as that.

I remember thinking "no, reeeeealllly?" having already figured that one out. :lol:

 

[Legacy]

This is really one of those situations where I think both sides are wrong, in a way.

You're right that an individual can initially choose to follow a religion or not. But once they do, they very often make that choice for life. It's an established part of who they are, and while saying it's a choice might technically be true, it's only in the same sense that being married is a choice.

To me, telling someone they need to violate religious tenets to preserve "show integrity" is just as shallow as if a company demanded employees violate their marriage vows for that same purpose. The fact that a person has made a choice to follow a certain faith doesn't (in my mind) mean a company is justified in expecting them to shrug off their religion without having a very good reason for that expectation.

In my mind, preserving "show" just doesn't rise to that level of importance, but obviously many people here feel differently.

On the other hand, I've seen a few people make the argument that part of being faithful is sacrifice, and I think there's something to that too. If adhering to your faith requires you to forego a job at Disney, I think that making that sacrifice could show how committed you are to your beliefs, so that's why I'm not entirely wild about the idea of going to court over this.

But court or no court, I think Disney is wrong here. My only waffling is over whether or not they're wrong enough that it's justified to go after them legally.

The bolded statement is exactly where the choice comes in. The way I see it, is that if a business is unable (or yes, unwilling) to accomodate a tenant of a religion, then the practicer of said religion does not have to have that job. That's exactly why I haven't applied at Disney. I want to have a prominent say in what hours I work because I feel the time spent specifically associated with my faith is more important. If a business won't compromise, then you have to make a sacrifice (which is a part of faith anyway).

Both race and religion are protected under the Civil Rights Act, so it is clear that you cannot be fired (or excluded from being hired) simply because you ARE a certain religion. So the law has absolutely already decided that religion is not to be looked at as a choice, the way fingernail length, hair color, or wearning jewelry is a choice. You may consider religion to be a choice just like those other things, but the law does not.

The question is just how far a company needs to go to let you practice your religion. This is quite difficult. Most Islamic people I know pray 5 (I think) times a day, and consider it a requirement of their religion. Certainly they COULD choose to convert to christianity or to practice a less observant form of Islam, but I don't think that's how we should (and I don't think the law does) view this. Rather, this person is Islamic, and we should allow him/her to take breaks to pray at appropriate times so long as it would not interfere with his/her duties.

I'm not saying that anyone should change the extent to which they practice their faith in order to continue working at a certain job, I'm saying that they can. Furthermore, a person also has the freedom to not work with that organization. The extent to which a company is will to compromise in any situation is completely discretionary, which is where the problem lies. That said, the individual, regardless of the specifics, has a great deal of options outside of hiring a lawyer.

Frankly, I think neither side right in this situation. But I also feel that neither side is wrong. I'm withholding judgement until ALL the details are available.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Hot bothered, stupid large hat with dangly bits, garish clothing, crocs and a lanyard festooned in pins.

 

[MichWolv]

But what (I don't believe) MichWolv knows, and what you should know, is how willing Disney is to accommodate for people's religious, ethnic, cultural backgrounds. Disney is one of the most accepting places to work- they've got all kinds of groups that they've started to make sure that their CMs have "support" groups- there are groups for different races, religions (I think), and lifestyles (GLBT and the like). They value diversity very highly. In fact, when I first started as a CP, one of my interview questions was something along the lines of "you will be living with people with different religious beliefs, backgrounds, cultures, etc- how will you handle this?" They try very hard to make sure that they create a good environment for those who may be in some sort of a minority.

I've seen quite a few exceptions and accommodations made on Disney's part- whether it be things pertaining to the Disney Look- such as a beard or a tattoo, or accomodations that will allow someone in a wheelchair to work on stage. Many of you who do not work for the company don't see all of this though, and are so eager to claim that the company is unwilling to accomodate- when I know differently. Knowing all of this, the most logical explanation would be that there was an unknown factor that affected his lack of employment the second time around. Disney DOES try hard to accomodate people, and they DID already accomodate him- but instead of looking at it logically, people would rather jump on the PC bandwagon and claim religious discrimination. I'm not an extreme, die-hard Disney fanboy who feels Disney can do no wrong, but I have seen the lengths they've gone to to accomodate people- while many of you haven't.

I imagine we'll never know the ENTIRE story, but with what I do know, the most logical explanation IS NOT that Disney is biased and unwilling to accomodate.

Actually, I do know (for various reasons) how accomodating Disney is, and I'm generally of the view that they don't discriminate. But I have heard stories that certainly sound bad. I don't think "Disney is discriminatory" is the most likely explanation for what happened, but I don't discount the possibility merely because they usually are accomodating.

 

[microconn]

Religion belongs in one place, HOME!!!! It does not have a place at work, politics or public. You are entitled to your beliefs but keep them to yourself and stop claiming to be a 'victim'.

For all you that think that the dress is part of their beliefs so they should be able to do what they want, what's to stop someone from creating their own Religion where they believe clothes are not 'natural'. Should they be allowed to come to work in the nude no matter what?

 

[iheartdisney91]

does disney allow guys with long hair to work as an employee? as long as the pull it back??

 

[joanna71985]

does disney allow guys with long hair to work as an employee? as long as the pull it back??

No. Long hair is not allowed.

 

[fosse76]

Religion belongs in one place, HOME!!!! It does not have a place at work, politics or public. You are entitled to your beliefs but keep them to yourself and stop claiming to be a 'victim'.

For all you that think that the dress is part of their beliefs so they should be able to do what they want, what's to stop someone from creating their own Religion where they believe clothes are not 'natural'. Should they be allowed to come to work in the nude no matter what?

While I agree with your sentiment in the first paragraph, you logic is flawed in the second. Generally, to claim religious discrimination, the government must recognize the religion to actually exist, and to be practiced by a significant amount of people. Otherwise, as in your second paragraph, there would be chaos. But that is where the "reasonable accomodation" comes in to play. Is it reasonable to allow someone to work with facial hair? Yes. Is it reasonable to allow someone to work in the nude. By society's standards, no.

 

[basas]

Religion belongs in one place, HOME!!!! It does not have a place at work, politics or public. You are entitled to your beliefs but keep them to yourself and stop claiming to be a 'victim'.

For all you that think that the dress is part of their beliefs so they should be able to do what they want, what's to stop someone from creating their own Religion where they believe clothes are not 'natural'. Should they be allowed to come to work in the nude no matter what?

I don't think when the framers of the constitution came up with "freedom of religion" that they wanted everyone to practise their religions behind closed doors only and shut it out of their public lives completely. It's a shame that this seems to be the way (especially those who tend to lean in a certain direction of the political spectrum) so many interpret it these days.

 

[Maerj]

This whole thing is nothing more than a viral marketing campaign for Mike Myers latest movie, The Love Guru, opening Friday at a theater near you!